U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–578 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

MICROVAST AND MORE: OVERSIGHT OF 

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S ENERGY SPENDING SPREE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2023 

Serial No. 118–52 

( 

Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 

energycommerce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

Chair 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas 

JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice 

Chair 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., TEXAS

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

RUSS FULCHER, Idaho 

AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas 

DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee 

MARIANNETTE MILLER–MEEKS, Iowa 

KAT CAMMACK, Florida 

JAY OBERNOLTE, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware 

DARREN SOTO, Florida 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

KIM SCHRIER, Washington 

LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NATE HODSON, Staff Director 

SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director 

TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona, Vice Chair 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota 

KAT CAMMACK, Florida 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

(ex officio) 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

Ranking Member 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Washington, opening statement ..................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

WITNESS

David Howell, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Manufacturing and Energy 

Supply Chains, Department of Energy .............................................................. 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

(1) 

MICROVAST AND MORE: OVERSIGHT OF 

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S ENERGY SPENDING 

SPREE 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m. in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. H. Morgan Griffith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Griffith, Guthrie, Duncan, 

Palmer, Armstrong, Rodgers (ex officio), Castor (subcommittee 

ranking member), DeGette, Schakowsky, Tonko, Ruiz, and Pallone 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Sean Brebbia, Chief Counsel; Lauren Eriksen, 

Clerk; Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel; Peter Kielty, General 

Counsel; Emily King, Member Services Director; Austin Flack, Minority Junior Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, Minority 

Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Liz Johns, Minority 

GAO Detailee; Constance O’Connor, Minority Senior Counsel; 

Christina Parisi, Minority Professional Staff Member; Harry Samuels, Minority Oversight Counsel; and Caroline Wood, Minority Research Analyst. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will now come to order. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. All right, back to where I was. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Welcome to today’s hearing on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Today, for the first 

time, this committee welcomes the head of the Department of Energy’s new Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, or 

MESC. 

In February of 2022, as part of the Department’s newest reorganization plan, three new program offices, including MESC, were 

created. MESC was set up with the goal of strengthening energy 

supply chains and increasing the domestic manufacturing base. 

This is intended to support what the DOE characterizes as a clean 

and equitable energy transition. MESC is currently administering 
2 

about a dozen programs funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Almost all of MESC’s programs have been created recently. 

In short, a brand-new office will give out billions in funding for 

numerous new programs over the course of just a couple of years. 

Now, I don’t care what party you are in, this scenario, no matter 

what the department or the administration, deserves increased 

oversight. 

Not long after its creation, MESC came to the attention of thenRepublican Leader Rodgers and myself after it announced $2.8 billion in financial awards to 20 companies under its Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grants Program in October of last year. As 

a part of these announcements, Microvast Incorporated was selected to receive a $200 million grant for a battery manufacturing 

plant in Tennessee. 

Shortly after the announcement, Microvast’s association with the 

Chinese Communist Party became apparent. Microvast produced 

its battery components in China, the bulk of its revenue was generated in China, and according to Microvast’s own SEC filings, the 

government—referring to the People’s Republic of China—‘‘exerts 

substantial influence over the manner in which we must conduct 

our business activities, and may intervene at any time with no notice.’’ 

After learning of Microvast’s concerning ties to China, then-Republican Leader Rodgers and I sent a letter to Secretary of Energy 

Jennifer Granholm on December 14 of last year requesting a briefing to include specific information about the Microvast award. The 

Department has yet to answer our specific questions, provide any 

documents or sufficient information about the vetting processes behind the battery manufacturing recycling grant awards. 

In response we asked, with two weeks’ notice, that the appropriate official from the DOE testify before this subcommittee on 

May 23. Unfortunately, the Department refused to attend, citing 

inadequate time to prepare. However, strangely enough, the night 

before the hearing the Department announced it was canceling its 

tentative award to Microvast. It is unclear whether these events 

are related. 

To date, the Department has still not shared with Congress the 

reason for this decision or any details of additional due diligence 

the Department may or may not have conducted. We had an informative discussion with witnesses who did join us on May 23 to 

talk about general challenges facing our energy sector supply 

chains. The witnesses talked at length about threats posed by foreign rivals to our energy security, including government programs. 

The main point is we don’t want Chinese companies getting 

American taxpayer money to create more Chinese jobs and Chinese 

technology, even if some of those jobs might end up being in the 

United States. 

My colleagues and I have lots of questions on—have lots of questions only the Department of Energy can answer. 

MESC’s goal is to boost domestic industry and secure energy supplies. However, the Microvast misstep has increased our doubt as 

to whether this mission is being successfully completed out. 
3 

While I commend the Office for canceling the Microvast award, 

it shouldn’t take a news story and multiple congressional letters for 

MESC not to award grants to problematic companies. The main 

cloud of haze here concerns due diligence and vetting processes at 

the DOE. We are aware of at least one other selectee besides 

Microvast that is also no longer moving forward with the awards 

process. The detailed reason for the Amprius grant cancellation is 

unknown. 

While we were disappointed in the Department’s refusal to originally participate in our hearing last month, I am glad to finally 

have them here today. As such, we welcome Dr. David Howell, 

Principal Director—Deputy Director of MESC. Mr. Howell has previously served as MESC’s Acting Director as well as Director of the 

Vehicle Technologies Office for the DOE. 

Today we hope to learn more about this new office. This committee also hopes to gain some insight on how it is prioritizing its 

awards and how seriously it takes its domestic manufacturing 

charter. 

I thank Principal Deputy Director Howell for joining us today, 

and I look forward to our discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And with that, I yield back. I now recognize the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes for 

her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing. 

Welcome, Dr. Howell. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

We continue to hear good news about opportunities that are 

emerging across the country thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act and, of course, the 

CHIPS and Science Act. These laws are already having an incredible impact creating good-paying jobs, lowering energy costs for our 

neighbors, and bringing manufacturing back to the United States. 

These investments are smart. They are accelerating the use of 

American-made clean energy that is cheaper and more sustainable, 

and shifting away from supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party. And we are freeing ourselves from big oil companies and utilities that keep fuel prices 

high and put profits over people. Through our targeted investments, we are building a clean energy economy that benefits everyone. 

Today we have an opportunity to learn more about implementation of parts of the IRA and the infrastructure law at the U.S. Department of Energy. The Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, or MESC, is a new office tasked with managing some 

of the crucial investments that Democrats made last Congress. 

MESC oversees initiatives to boost critical minerals, to process 

minerals in the U.S. rather than China, to manufacture batteries 

in America, and recycle those batteries here. 

Meanwhile, local workforce development initiatives, apprenticeships are also underway so workers can learn updated skills and 

trades because we have got to make sure that American workers 

are ready to take advantage of career opportunities created by 

these investments. That is why Democrats included so many Buy 

American and Build American policies in the IRA and the infrastructure law. 

And good news: It is working. The IRA and the infrastructure 

law have already attracted over $240 billion in new investments 

across 31 States, like new battery plants, electric vehicle manufacturing plants, 142,000 jobs created so far. And these are good-paying jobs that often do not require a college degree. We are strengthening communities at the same time. 

So it is a little ironic that most of these investments and jobs are 

happening in areas represented by Republicans who oppose the 

IRA and the infrastructure law. But that is OK. We are all in this 

together, and I trust that over the next decade businesses and companies will invest more to support new manufacturing in the U.S. 

and modernize our infrastructure. That will give our neighbors 

back home more stability and security. 

It is important to recognize that offshoring manufacturing jobs 

and supply chains did not happen overnight, and bringing them 

back will not happen overnight either. For decades, the Chinese 
11 

Communist Party poured resources into their manufacturers to 

build an early lead in the global clean energy supply chain. America did not make the same investments, which resulted in missed 

opportunities. 

But we are making up for that now with smart, long-term investments in critical mineral production and processing and advanced 

manufacturing. These investments and American ingenuity will not 

only allow us to catch up to the CCP but will make us the world 

leader in clean and renewable energy—new electric cars and trucks 

and industrial manufacturing to lower climate pollution that is 

wreaking havoc and—wreaking havoc back home in our communities and costing our neighbors a lot. 

Thankfully, DOE is no stranger to managing and mitigating investment risk. MESC uses a rigorous and efficient vetting process 

to comprehensively analyze project-specific risks and tailor measures to mitigate those risks. MESC continues to conduct the proper 

due diligence to protect taxpayer funds, and it is working how it 

should. 

Unfortunately, I don’t think my Republican colleagues agree, and 

I am concerned that they have already given up on supporting 

American workers and competing in the global clean energy supply 

chain. Just last month, Republicans held a hearing where they simultaneously expressed satisfaction about Microvast’s rejected application and skepticism that the United States could never compete with companies that are beholden to the Chinese Communist 

Party. 

Well, it is disappointing, after years of complaining about our 

country’s reliance on the CCP, that Republicans are betting against 

investments in the future and against American workers and manufacturers. Instead of trying to find ways to undermine important 

Federal programs or holding our economy hostage through a manufactured crisis, let’s turn the page and work together to help our 

neighbors back home and the American people. Together we can do 

the constructive oversight that helps Federal initiatives succeed. 

Unless we invest in our future, we will continue to fall behind 

and miss yet another opportunity to be a leader in clean energy 

supply chains. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the 

Chair of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for her 5- 

minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We should all be 

proud that America is the leader, the leader in clean, renewable 

energy. We have done more to lift people out of poverty, we have 

done more to reduce carbon emissions than any other country in 

the world. And we have done it through American innovation and 

technology. It is not China. China continues to build two coal-fired 

plants every week. That is not the future that I want in the United 

States of America. 

We should all be able to agree that our country must have a stable, secure supply chain, though. It is a matter of national security. 

We have seen the consequences of overreliance on supply chains 

from adversaries. It is playing out in Europe, where Putin has 

weaponized Russia’s control over the continent’s natural gas supply. That is our future if we continue to cede our energy and supply 

chain security to China. That is not the future I want, ladies and 

gentlemen. 

Unfortunately, President Biden’s rush-to-green agenda puts 

China more firmly in control of our energy supply. This weakens 

American energy and national security, and wastes American taxpayer dollars which should be going to supporting more American 

jobs and innovation. 

Beginning in March of this year, we requested that Federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, provide monthly accounting of the funds they received under these major spending bills last 

Congress, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. To date we have received one response from 

Department of Energy, and it was incomplete. That is unacceptable. We are the oversight committee, and we are the elected representatives of the people. 

Furthermore, on March 29th of this year, this subcommittee convened a hearing with three inspectors general to discuss the risks 

associated with the Biden administration’s massive spending spree. 

According to the Energy Department’s inspector general, the Department of Energy received $128 billion in authorizations and appropriations, and an estimated loan authority of more than 350 billion. And this is—the IG also testified that, under the IIJA, the 

IRA, $83.6 billion will be going into 71 new programs at the Department. Yes, ladies and gentleman, you heard that right: 71 new 

programs. 

To understand how massive this spending plan is, it is helpful 

to point out that Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2022 budget 

was 44.3 billion. 

What I found most concerning is that the inspector general 

warned that new programs pushing money through untested processes and newly implemented internal controls are especially vulnerable. 
15 

According to the Department’s estimates—Energy Department’s 

estimates—the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, 

which has only existed since February 22, will administer a $12 

billion portfolio of projects under the IIJA and the IRA. I have serious concerns about a brand-new office having the procedures and 

the staff in place to distribute such a gigantic sum in a responsible 

way, and these concerns have only intensified in recent months. 

Under one of the programs, the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grants Program, the Department announced it had selected 

Microvast to receive $200 million. We now know Microvast performs the bulk of its battery production in China. According to the 

company’s own SEC filings, and I quote, ‘‘The PRC Government exerts substantial influence over the manner in which we must conduct our business activities, and may intervene at any time and 

with no notice.’’ 

It is deeply troubling that a grant for hundreds of millions of 

American, hard-earned taxpayer dollars was approved for a company like Microvast. So that is why, last December, Chair Griffith 

and I wrote to the Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, and requested more information on this grant as well as the procedures 

and the processes that led to the selection of Microvast. 

While it is true that the Department recently decided not to 

move forward with the Microvast grant, it remains unclear how the 

grant was approved in the first place. Time and again, we have requested information and testimony on how this has happened. And 

then time and again, the Department has failed to be accountable 

and transparent. This lack of transparency undermines the public’s 

trust and raises doubts as to whether or not we are safeguarding 

taxpayer dollars. 

Americans deserve to know what the Department is doing to 

screen applicants, scrutinize their foreign ties, and keep funding 

that is supposedly supporting domestic industry from enriching our 

global adversaries. We must have transparency, and we must be 

assured that these taxpayer dollars are not being funneled to the 

Chinese, and we are going to continue our work to demand transparency and accountability on this. 

Since day one my colleagues and I have led to celebrate American innovation and energy dominance, and we are continuing that 

efforts today. This is just another step in that goal. 

Mr. Howell, I appreciate you being with us here today. I look forward to hearing more about the new program office. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mrs. RODGERS. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his 5- 

minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last Congress, President Biden and congressional Democrats delivered with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. These two laws include major investments that are 

helping us grow our economy, create millions of clean energy jobs, 

lower energy prices for Americans, bolster domestic manufacturing, 

and help us lead the global transition to a clean energy economy. 

This aggressive action is necessary now. Extreme weather events 

are becoming more and more frequent with the worsening climate 

crisis. These events are costing our Nation hundreds of billions of 

dollars every year. They are destroying whole communities, tragically taking lives, homes, and livelihoods. And that is why the investments made by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law are so important. These laws match the magnitude of the challenge we face, and represent the largest investments ever made in America’s future. 

Americans across the country are already beginning to take steps 

towards using cleaner vehicles and energy sources, but we need to 

dramatically boost our domestic supply chains and manufacturing 

capacity in order to meet growing demand. For decades we have become increasingly dependent on other nations, including China, for 

both raw materials and the component parts that go into solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and other energy resources. 

However, thanks to these two new laws, targeted programs at the 

Department of Energy and other Federal agencies are fostering resilient supply chains and revitalizing domestic manufacturing. 

Companies have committed hundreds of billions of dollars to 

clean energy investments and have created more than 142,000 new 

clean energy jobs. And more commitments are constantly being 

made. Earlier this month General Motors announced the second 

phase of a $1 billion partnership aimed at rapidly increasing America’s battery manufacturing. All of this is going to help us catch up 

to China, which has spent decades investing to dominate the global 

clean energy supply chain. 

As Federal agencies continue implementing key programs, we 

are on track to build on these initial achievements. We can fight 

the worsening climate crisis and deliver economic prosperity for everyone by betting on American ingenuity and work ethic. And that 

is why I am pleased we are hearing from DOE’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains today about how their important 

work creates jobs and speeds up the clean energy transition. 

I also look forward to hearing about DOE’s robust process for 

vetting grant applicants and ensuring effective oversight of awardees for the full duration of projects. These investments are going 

to make a big difference. 
21 

It is interesting, because for years committee Republicans have 

voiced concerns that we are too reliant on overseas supply chains 

and manufacturers controlled by China, but they have, frankly, opposed every Democratic effort to bring those jobs and supply chains 

back to the United States. When we had a hearing on this topic 

last month, it really sounded like some committee Republicans had 

given up on trying to challenge China’s dominance. 

But we can’t afford to quit. And instead of working with us to 

find bipartisan solutions to big problems, Republicans have spent 

their time opposing real solutions and then attempting to undermine them at every turn. 

Before the last hearing, they questioned a potential DOE award 

to a company called Microvast. Then, when DOE conducted due 

diligence and decided not to move forward with an award to 

Microvast, Republicans continued to complain about DOE’s work. 

At the end of the day, Republicans seem to have little interest in 

transitioning to a clean energy economy. Instead they want to prop 

up big oil companies. 

So I am ready to come together and do the constructive oversight 

that will help DOE succeed, but I am not willing to let my Republican colleagues throw in the towel because they would rather put 

polluters over people. 

So let’s work together to realize the full potential of these laws, 

so that Federal investments can deliver lower energy prices, a 

clean future for our children, clean energy jobs across the country, 

and a domestic manufacturing base that will be the envy of the 

world. I think it is very possible if we work together on a bipartisan basis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 
22 
23 
24 

Mr. PALLONE. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. That concludes Member opening statements. 

The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members’ written opening statements will be made 

a part of the record, but please make sure you provide those to the 

clerk promptly, so that they can be added to the record. 

We do want to thank our witness for being here today and taking 

the time to testify before the subcommittee. 

You will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from Members. 

Our witness today is David Howell, Principal Deputy Director of 

the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains at the Department of Energy. 

We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to hearing from you about what you are working on. 

As you are aware, this—the committee is holding an oversight 

hearing, and when doing so we have the practice of taking the testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under 

oath today? 

Mr. HOWELL. No, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. The gentleman does not. 

Seeing no objection, we will proceed. 

The Chair also would advise you that you are entitled to be advised by counsel, pursuant to House rules. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? 

Mr. HOWELL. No, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Again, he has not requested counsel. 

So if you would, please rise and raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Seeing the witness answered in the affirmative, 

you are now sworn in and under oath, and subject to the penalties 

set forth in title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code. 

With that, we now recognize Mr. David Howell for 5 minutes to 

give an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HOWELL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANUFACTURING AND ENERGY SUPPLY 

CHAINS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member 

Castor, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for this opportunity to provide an update on the Department 

of Energy’s efforts to safeguard taxpayer dollars in the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, also known as the IIRA and the IRA. 

The IIJA and the IRA are truly historic investments in renewing 

American infrastructure and supporting American energy security 

for decades to come. We at the Department are working hard to 

swiftly implement these laws so that we can get these resources 

out to communities in your districts and in every corner of the 

country as quickly as possible. 

We also acknowledge and respect that when Congress appropriated these resources, you entrusted DOE with investments using 

taxpayer dollars. We take this responsibility incredibly serious, and 
25 

every day our team of experts and professionals are working tirelessly to ensure that taxpayer dollars provided to us by Congress 

are being spent effectively, efficiently, and responsibly. 

Through the implementation of IIJA and IRA, the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, MESC, is striving to install 

critical supply chain manufacturing capacity, reduce industrialbased carbon emissions, increase clean energy jobs, and provide 

world-class energy industrial sector analysis. This is to all—this is 

to ensure that all America is positioned to lead the world in manufacturing the energy technologies of the future. 

MESC was established in February of 2022 as a new office reporting to the Under Secretary of Infrastructure. MESC aims to 

support scale-up and deployment of the Nation’s manufacturing capacity through programs that are focused on establishing critical 

domestic supply chains and increasing circularity while leveraging 

private-sector investment. 

MESC also works to bolster small and medium enterprises and 

communities in energy transition. MESC catalyzes the development of an energy sector industrial base through investments that 

establish and secure domestic clean energy supply chains and manufacturing, and by engaging with private-sector companies, other 

Federal agencies, and key stakeholders to collect, analyze, respond 

to, and share data about energy supply chains to inform future decision making and investment. With funds and authorities provided 

by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, 

and the Defense Production Act, MESC supports $20 billion in programs that further these goals. 

In addition, MESC is partnering on behalf of DOE with the U.S. 

Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service to support the qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit Program, also 

known as 48C. We are in the competition phase for a range of programs now, but we have completed selections under the Battery 

Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing and Recycling 

funding opportunity. This program represents a tremendous opportunity to reduce our supply chain vulnerability in a critical energy 

sector. 

For the battery supply chain currently, virtually all lithium, 

graphite, battery-grade nickel, electrolyte salt, electrode binder, 

and iron phosphate cathode materials are produced abroad, and 

China controls the supply chain for many of these inputs. The portfolio of selected projects under the funding opportunity will support 

developing enough battery-grade lithium to supply approximately 2 

million EVs annually. 

In addition, our selectee Solvay will build a major battery binder 

facility in Augusta, Georgia. Our selectee Ascend Elements will 

build a facility in Kentucky to produce high-nickel cathode material 

from recycled black mass. Our selectee Talon Metals will develop 

a facility in North Dakota that will produce enough battery-grade 

nickel to supply 400,000 EVs. Our selectees Silent and Group 14 

plan to develop commercial-scale domestic silicon anode materials 

production facilities in Washington State. These facilities will supply anode materials for over 600,000 electric vehicle batteries annually. 
26 

In closing, as the Department continues our implementation of 

the IIJA and the IRA, we will remain steadfast in our commitment 

to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and continue taking 

the proactive steps necessary to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in 

our programs while we work to bring about a clean and secure energy future that is made in America. 

On behalf of the Department, I appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in this topic and the opportunity to provide testimony before 

you today. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howell follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. I thank you for your testimony, and we will now move into the question-and-answer portion 

of the hearing, and I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

So as I mentioned in my opening statement, we sent a letter in 

December—Cathy, Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and I— 

then in her ranking position—and I sent the letter to Secretary 

Granholm requesting a briefing including specific information on 

the Department’s efforts to scrutinize Microvast. 

On February 1 we got a letter back saying that you all were carrying out the review process for the project, and the Department 

‘‘would be pleased to provide more information on the status of 

Microvast and other selectees under the battery materials funding 

opportunity announcement when the due diligence phase has been 

completed.’’ 

Now, at least as far as Microvast was concerned, that due diligence phase was completed on May 22. So the question is, when 

are we going to get the answers to the questions we asked in December basically dealing with, you know, what is the process, what 

are you doing, and how do you vet these various companies that 

are coming in? 

And you can appreciate, I hope, the concern that when you see 

a company that says in its SEC filing that they are an arm of the 

Chinese Communist Party, that something wasn’t going right then. 

Later it became right. So I would like to hear that process, if you 

would tell us, the process for the vetting of these companies to 

make sure that they are going to actually be making things in 

America for Americans by Americans and with American technology being used here, or at least us having the capability of getting that technology. 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you for your question, Congressman Griffith. Can you hear me? Is this on? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I can hear you. Go. 

Mr. HOWELL. Oh, good. So the vetting process in terms of the 

BIL awards that you mentioned—in particular, Microvast—as you 

know, the selections were made through a competitive solicitation 

that went through the summer. And part of that vetting process 

started with that solicitation process, where we identified companies that were compelling in terms of selecting them for the negotiation of award. 

Once selections are made, that is when detailed negotiations are 

started. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And in fairness, most of us did not understand that, because it appeared from the press statements that 

these people were awardees. But you are telling me that is when 

the vetting actually—the in-depth vetting began. 

Mr. HOWELL. The in-depth vetting began the day after those announcements. There was also in-depth vetting in terms of the technical capacity and capabilities of the companies before that to actually make those selections. But those were selections for negotiation of award. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And what were the reasons, then, for denying the 

Microvast? 
37 

Mr. HOWELL. OK. So thank you for your concerns about 

Microvast, the company selected for the negotiation of an award 

under the funding opportunity. 

So Microvast is a majority U.S.-owned company traded under 

Nasdaq, and headquartered in Stafford, Texas, with additional locations in Tennessee, Florida, and Colorado. 

With DOE funding, the company’s matching financial investment—with the company’s matching financial investment, 

Microvast proposed to build a polyaramid separator material production plant in Clarksville, Tennessee. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK, I got all that. 

Mr. HOWELL. OK. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But how do you square that with their statement 

to the Securities and Exchange Commission—— 

Mr. HOWELL. So part of the—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If they are majority U.S.-owned, how can the Chinese Communist Party, through its government, the Chinese Government, say—why would they say that they could be stopped or 

changed course because of what the government said in China? 

Mr. HOWELL. So simply because Microvast’s major production operations are in China. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Mr. HOWELL. Ninety percent of their production operations are 

in China. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. And you vetted—— 

Mr. HOWELL. Our—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Next question, because—and I apologize, we only 

get 5 minutes. So my next question would then be—and so all of 

the other companies that you vetted do not have that problem. 

Mr. HOWELL. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So all the rest of these companies are—if we go 

in and pick out any one of the ones you named or some others, we 

are going to find that they don’t have these ties to the Chinese 

Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Government. 

Mr. HOWELL. They don’t have what, sir? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The ties. 

Mr. HOWELL. So there was one company that we were concerned 

with, additional to Microvast, as you have mentioned. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Amprius. 

Mr. HOWELL. Amprius. And we—after the vetting process, we 

agreed mutually not to go forward—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. 

Mr. HOWELL [continuing]. With an award. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. So the vetting process is working, at 

least in that regard. 

Mr. HOWELL. It is working very well, and we are actually enhancing that vetting process. And so it is—I would say it is an enhanced vetting process at this point. 

And one of the things that we have changed is part of the vetting 

that we do right after the award, like SEC filings we will do before 

award—before selection now. So we will do more vetting before selection on these awards as we go forward. That was the typical 

DOE process that, after selection of award, then we go into detailed 

negotiations, which includes SEC filings, look at the SEC filings of 
38 

the company. And so we will actually be doing that before selection 

of award from now on. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, I didn’t—as my Democrat colleagues are so 

apt to point out, I did not agree with the way things were done and 

some of the focus of the bill, so I didn’t vote for it. But now that 

we are here, I want to make sure the American taxpayer dollars 

are spent correctly. And I appreciate your testimony here today. 

And I yield back. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Florida, 

Ms. Castor, the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is our 

intent, too, to make sure that the Department of Energy has the 

tools it needs to vet these projects. 

You have an enormous responsibility. I mean, already the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure law have created kind of this 

new domestic manufacturing boom. It is hard to keep up with the 

announcements that come so quickly on battery plants, recycling 

opportunities, electric cars, and trucks. 

What have you put in place now to really monitor—you have said 

this is enhanced vetting. Maybe go into a little more detail. We 

have learned some lessons from the Recovery Act of a decade ago. 

What has changed in—that is bringing enhanced vetting and processes? 

And do you have all the tools you need to get the job done? 

Mr. HOWELL. So thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 

And so, in terms of what has changed in the vetting process, we 

actually have developed a research technology and economic security team at the Department. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Hang on a second. We have stopped the time. Our 

technical people tell us you need to move the microphone a little 

bit closer so that they can pick it up for C–SPAN. We could hear 

you fine. 

Mr. HOWELL. Can you hear me now? 

Ms. CASTOR. And point it up. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Mr. HOWELL. How is this? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is much better. 

Ms. CASTOR. Better. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. All right. 

And we didn’t take that time away from you, so if you want to 

start that question—— 

Ms. CASTOR. I think he is going to get into enhanced vetting. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK, go ahead. 

Mr. HOWELL. Enhanced vetting. So our enhanced vetting process 

actually cuts across all of the Department of Energy. It is not that 

we were not doing vetting in the past, but because of the language, 

particularly in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that included 

language on priority given to nonforeign entities of concern, that 

was actually the first time that the Department of Energy actually 

received that type of language in an appropriation. 

So MESC received that, and are sort of the ones that are actually 

out there—— 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. Let me follow up on that, because Microvast is 

a U.S. company. The owner is a U.S. citizen, as far as I know, information that has been provided. They want to move business out 
39 

of China and build more jobs and factories in the U.S. I am sure 

there are a lot of American companies that are doing business in 

China that are not arms of the Chinese Communist Party. How are 

you analyzing? 

Because we want these jobs to be American jobs. We want to 

build our supply chains. And we don’t—but I am sure that there 

are quite a number of companies that do business in China that 

may not be attached to the Chinese Government. 

Mr. HOWELL. And that is correct. So we took the time to determine the appropriate metrics to use in order to determine what the 

influence is from the Chinese Communist Party, particularly. And 

that would include, you know, intellectual property positions for 

that company and the particular technology that is being pursued. 

It also includes ownership of the company, not only investment 

ownership, ownership by the Government itself, ownership by other 

Chinese entities, including investment companies and individuals, 

and also—and the percent of ownership, and key suppliers, as well. 

And then, of course, key personnel, those that are on their board 

of directors, those that are voting members of the board of directors. 

And again, lastly, though, any concerns with the talents programs that may provide concerns for us. 

Ms. CASTOR. So after you go through this enhanced vetting with 

all of those metrics, do companies get some transparency? Do you 

respond and tell them, ‘‘Well, you were not awarded because you 

hit these markers’’? 

Mr. HOWELL. So the Department reserves the right to back out 

of negotiations without explanation. 

Ms. CASTOR. And the companies understand that as they go in 

for those applications. 

Mr. HOWELL. That is written into the funding opportunity announcement, and it is also given to the company, as well. They are 

actually entitled to back out of the negotiations at any time for no 

reason. 

Ms. CASTOR. OK. Oversight and Investigations is going to be very 

important because of the significant responsibilities and resources 

to the Department of Energy. We heard from the Department of 

Energy inspector general on how they—she and her office—very 

constrained. 

So I was very concerned to see what was coming out of the Appropriations Committee for the Department of Energy inspector 

general. It is $92 million below the President’s request. And I 

would hope this is an area where we could work together. We know 

that those monies invested often save taxpayers money. The Department of Energy has been—IG has been funded at a lower level 

than other agencies. 

Does that hamstring what you need to do on oversight, Dr. Howell? 

Mr. HOWELL. So we have actually worked hand in hand with the 

Office of Inspector General early in this process to make sure that 

all of the oversight levers that we have already established 

throughout the Federal Government through DOE on these types 

of awards are in place and are strong and that we have a plan in 
40 

implementing the programs, whether it is detection, whether it is 

mitigation of any issues. 

We are always appreciative and collaborative with the Office of 

Inspector General, but we have worked with them to make sure 

that not only that MESC has the resources in place as we go forward with these awards, not only to select these awards and negotiate them, but actually to execute them and oversee them. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank—the gentlelady yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, for his 5 

minutes of questioning. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Department of Energy’s budget has ballooned to a size that 

we just simply have never seen before. Since 2021 the Department 

has injected with hundreds of billions in new funds and loan authority: 62 billion through the IIJA, 67 billion through the CHIPS 

Act, 35 billion through the IRA, and 1 billion through the 2023 omnibus. 

To understand what this means, you only have to see how the 

budget has increased since fiscal year 2022, when it was 44 billion. 

Combined, the IIJA, the IRA, CHIPS Act, and omnibus have authorized or appropriated nearly 130 billion to the Department of 

Energy, which, to be honest, has stumbled through program implementation and engaged in negotiations with at least one company 

with questionable foreign ties. 

I have serious questions about staffing capacity and overall management of the budget. Deputy Director Howell, the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains has been entrusted with operating several new programs and administering more than $15 

billion. How many staff does your office currently have? 

Mr. HOWELL. We have almost five dozen staff on board as of this 

week. We also have memorandums of agreement with our procurement and acquisition team at the National Energy Technology Laboratory and our procurement and acquisition team at the Golden 

Field Office. We have also established a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Treasury. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Do you know the rough breakdown between 

Federal employees and contractors? 

Mr. HOWELL. All six dozen or five dozen for MESC are all Federal contractors. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. OK. In your—— 

Mr. HOWELL. I am sorry, I am sorry. Are all—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Federal employees. 

Mr. HOWELL [continuing]. Federal employees. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. OK. We both knew the answer. 

In your testimony, you state your office has been focused on hiring sufficient staff, including program oversight specialists, grant 

management and contracting specialists, and financial audit oversight staff. What percentage of your staff are dedicated to vetting 

applications under financial award programs for issues such as 

problematic foreign ties of applicants? 

Mr. HOWELL. So we have teams of staff for each funding opportunity, and the percentage of our staff is probably about 70 percent 

to 75 percent that are dedicated to the procurement—for the fund-
41 

ing opportunity, technical evaluation, selection. And then we use 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory Procurement and Acquisition Team. That is roughly around 20 FTEs that we use across 

the procurement and legal system and contracting system at the 

NETL Morgantown, and a smaller effort at the Golden Field Office. 

So we have a large contingent. 

Some of our activities actually depend on other offices, by the 

way, general counsel, our Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

U.S., counterintelligence team—— 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I am meeting with CFIUS on Thursday morning, tomorrow morning. 

Mr. HOWELL. CFIUS, yes. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. So—— 

Mr. HOWELL. So we do actually tap into other teams within the 

Department of Energy. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Are you at full staff? 

Mr. HOWELL. No, we are not. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. What additional staff do you need to reach 

those levels? 

Mr. HOWELL. So our target is to get to 88 employees this calendar year to implement both the BIL and the IRA provisions. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. And you are trying to get there by the end of? 

Mr. HOWELL. By the end of this calendar year. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Can you provide an approximate percentage of 

what staff are new to DOE versus those moving from other programs? 

That is not a really fair question. 

Mr. HOWELL. So I can get back to you on that. I don’t have that 

number, but it is—from within the Department of Energy we do 

have a fairly large contingent of folks—key program management 

people who have joined MESC, but we have also tapped into outside resources that are outside the Federal Government, as well, 

and then some resources that are in other agencies. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. On February 21, 2023, Ranking Member Barrasso of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

wrote to the Deputy Secretary Turk, expressing concern that DOE’s 

October 19, 2022, statements regarding selections under the funding opportunities were misleading. 

Are you aware of that? 

Mr. HOWELL. I am aware of that. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The Senate letter noted that October statement 

made references to projects that suggested awards were final, and 

of the 20 companies selected for the award, share prices of those 

companies that were publicly traded increased an average of about 

14 percent between the day before and the day of the Department’s 

announcement. 

There are real-world market implications that accompany the 

awards process, which appear to be at best mismanaged and at 

worst misleading. Does your office plan to make any changes to its 

applicant vetting process or procedure for announcing selections, 

considering these notification concerns? 

Mr. HOWELL. We will emphasize that any selections are the selections for negotiation of award. 
42 

Now, we do have feedback in any one funding opportunity with 

the Department of Energy, particularly one of this size. You could 

get hundreds of applications, and our private-sector investors actually would rather us to announce the selection so that they can free 

up their own resources that were tied to applications. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would like the announcement, too, if my stock 

was going to go up 14 percent. 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, I am thinking of those that were not selected 

because they have actually committed funds to their application 

and committed resources in case that they are selected to negotiate. 

It is also a signal to those that are selected to—that we are going 

to go into deep negotiations, and so they need to set aside their resources in order to meet the need for that negotiation and also to 

provide the foundation for their cost share, because their cost share 

is really what drives the award. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Ms. 

Schakowsky for her 5 minutes of questioning. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, we 

have already seen 142,000 new jobs that have been created. It is 

estimated that between the IRA and the CHIPS and Science Act 

that by 2030 we should see nearly half a million new jobs, which 

is what we need in this country. And yet we see from the Republicans that they want to reverse the progress that we have seen 

and cut these programs, which I think is a serious mistake. 

But I have to tell you that I have been surprised in the discussions about this, the pessimism about the ability of us to have the 

kind of innovation that we need to create the jobs and help our 

economy. And so what I am concerned about is that, you know, we 

will not be able to achieve it if we have those kinds of reductions. 

So I wanted to ask you, Acting Director Howell—what I—I wanted to ask you about the creation of jobs that we need and to hopefully set the record straight on our ability to reach that. And so is 

your office helping to bring back jobs that have been sent overseas 

in the past for decades? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you, Congresswoman, and that is such an 

important question, because that is really what this is all about, 

not only now but in the future. These are future technologies that 

we are investing in, and we have to do that as a nation in order 

to secure American jobs in the future. 

So in terms of American innovation, innovation is what has gotten us here at this point with the battery program. And that is the 

longstanding research and development support from Congress for 

many decades. Many of the key technologies that have been developed in the battery program that has actually launched this revolution were developed with U.S. Federal funds through the Department of Energy, whether it is new cathode materials, new anode 

materials, new battery technologies. 

So we see that, we have done that very well, and we will continue to do that, to go to the next generation that—it will even 

drive down costs, improve performance, and improve our competitiveness. 
43 

There is no reason why our U.S. industry cannot stand up and 

actually compete on a world market here. We can do this whether 

it is in minerals, whether it is in refined materials, whether it is 

in battery production or recycling. So this is a bright spot. And so 

we should really be—number one, applaud the work that we have 

done already to get to this spot, but also take on the challenges 

that we need in order to make sure that we are successful in the 

future. 

One of the things that I have the privilege of being is the Chair 

of the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries. It is a Federal 

consortium of about 17 different Federal agencies, about 60 different offices within those Federal agencies that have banded together to collaborate, to coordinate, and to help each other to make 

sure that we are supporting this robust, this resilient domestic battery supply chain. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask you a question about developing 

the workforce that we need and is—anything that MESC is doing 

to make sure, after we have all these innovations, that we have the 

workforce to do the job? 

Mr. HOWELL. Right, understand that building strong supply 

chains for the United States is more about people than it is about 

product. 

So, for example, in the Manufacturing Energy Supply Chains office, part of—one of our programs is the Industrial Assessment 

Centers, which is used to—actually, to assess ways in which small 

and medium-sized enterprises across the country can improve their 

productivity, can reduce emissions, can reduce energy use. At 37 

universities across the Nation, we are using their engineering students to go out and actually provide these assessments. 

We have also—supporting pilot centers, manufacturing centers 

for battery manufacturing that we are building across the Nation, 

as well. 

The Federal consortium that I mentioned—which DOE is a member—across the Department of Energy—MESC is the anchor tenant—has a workforce task force for batteries, as well. So we are 

working with folks like the Department of Labor, Department of 

Commerce, Department of Defense, as well, to stand up the manufacturing workforce. 

We are—also have launched a—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. My time is actually expired, but go ahead. 

Finish the sentence, if that is all right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOWELL. Launched a private-sector partnership called LiBridge that is also part of that. That includes about 300 different 

industry members that is focused on workforce development, as 

well. So we are working hand in hand with industry on this. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, thank you for your work and for your 

presentation. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. Thank you for the recognition. Thank you for being here. 
44 

You know, the concern isn’t on our side of the aisle, at least not 

for me, that American companies won’t be innovative and create 

the technology that is going to move us forward. My concern is that 

corporate America is just investing for the subsidies right now. 

And if we didn’t get the subsidy, if the people in Congress didn’t 

get the subsidies right, we are going to—our supply chain is going 

to be completely—is going to be off kilter over the next decade or 

so, because we have demanded by EPA that two-thirds of all cars 

will be electric within 10 years. It takes 5 to 7 years to create a 

new car. So that is where all the investment is going. 

So let’s go a few years down the road. We can’t do two-thirds 

that—we can’t do 10—that is 10 million cars. And so what the 

issue is, is that we just completely dismiss—any time we bring up 

any issues, they just get completely dismissed—way out of it. You 

are subsidizing one side of it, not the other, and quite honestly, 

putting in roadblocks for what is the most important thing—is generating power. 

We have had—we have blackouts in Kentucky and—we have 

blackouts in Kentucky. TVA had a myriad of reasons, and one said 

they didn’t realize so many people were using heat pumps. So now 

we have all these heat pumps that demand more electricity, which 

is how it should be. However, you got to build the electricity to support them. 

And then, in the IRA or the Jobs Act—I can’t remember which 

one—subsidizes heat pumps. So we are going to have more of 

those. We are also mandating electric cars. We are going to have 

more of those. But it seems like the administration is mandating 

all of that, but any effort to try to generate more reliable, sustainable, and dispatchable electricity doesn’t seem to be moving forward. 

Does that seem to be very incongruent, that we are going to have 

more demand—batteries don’t produce electricity, batteries don’t 

generate it, batteries store it. Does that not seem incongruent to 

you, the policies of this administration of demanding more electric 

but not wanting to produce it? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you, Congressman, for your concern. I am 

going to put my hat on as former Director of the Vehicle Technologies Office, where we had a partnership with U.S. industry, 

both the automotive sector, the fuel sector, and the electric utility 

sector. They were all on board with electrification, particularly 

from the electric utility perspective. It provides—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, they want to sell it, they just won’t be able 

to generate it. 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, they are—actually have plans, many of them. 

We actually did a study on scale-up EVs—we called it EVs at 

Scale—to look at the progress of the market entry of electric vehicles and what needs to be done on the electric side to make sure 

that the electric utility is capable of supplying the load. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And so we can support 10 million cars a year being 

produced in 9 years? 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes, given time. There has been times in—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Or in 9 years. That is what the rule is. 

Mr. HOWELL. Given time. Now, this report was before 2020, so 

that was 10 years at the time. So given time—— 
45 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, the rule just came. 

Mr. HOWELL. Given—well, this was actually working on scenarios with the utilities and in terms of EV penetration scenarios 

and what the utility needs would be for those. So—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. We have had a lot of them come to our office, and 

they are concerned about the ability. I mean, it is not just 

dismissible. 

Mr. HOWELL. It is not. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And, you know, you can build—I think it is—somebody told me 70, I have heard 90 plug-in hybrid—plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles for plug-in hybrid than you can for one solid electric vehicle. And you also have—don’t have a problem with range 

if you have plug-in hybrids. You have lower carbon. You don’t have 

zero carbon, you have lower carbon. 

And it just seems like we are incentivizing technology. That is 

why we are not being innovative, because—and let me tell you, 

when you sit a bunch of companies down and say, ‘‘Here is a bunch 

of Federal subsidies if you want to do what we ask you to do,’’ they 

don’t say no. They don’t turn down money. They don’t turn down 

money. 

Let me get to the other. But we also know a lot of the technology 

is coming from the Communist Party. So a lot of the—how do we 

ensure—what processes do you have in place to make sure that the 

Chinese Communist Party does not benefit from Jobs Act money or 

IRA money? 

Mr. HOWELL. So we do have the new vetting process, particularly 

that looks specifically at Chinese ownership of companies. But also, 

we—part of that RTES program is to provide what we call enhanced protections for IP. And so we actually put that into all the 

awards, those enhanced protections. 

We also—in these awards we added the requirements to have a 

cybersecurity plan for each—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I only have about 30 seconds, so let me just get 

to this point. I am sorry. But in your testimony you say, ‘‘should 

those oversight mechanisms uncover direct or—in support of the 

Chinese Communist Party,’’ so you say it is possible. So you are 

saying in your testimony, should you uncover it, you will take appropriate action. What is appropriate action? 

Mr. HOWELL. Well—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Is it zero, zero American dollars going to the Chinese Communist Party-supported enterprises? 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Zero. And that is the case now? 

Mr. HOWELL. For dollars going to the Chinese Communist Party. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, every business in China is related to the Chinese Comm—you can’t separate the two. If you do, you don’t understand China. 

Mr. HOWELL. But however, you can look at a U.S. company and 

determine what the percentage of Chinese ownership is and what 

the control—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So the answer is not zero Chinese ownership. 

Mr. HOWELL. Chinese influence or control? 
46 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Any ownership in a—or any joint venture with a 

Chinese-owned company that is not zero, there—can get subsidies 

under these job acts? 

Mr. HOWELL. If they are not—if they do not control the entity. 

So that draws back into percentage of ownership. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So some percentage can go to the Chinese-owned 

business—— 

Mr. HOWELL. Some percentage would go to a U.S. company that 

may have a percentage of Chinese ownership. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK, thank you for—— 

Mr. HOWELL. So it is going to a—I just want to emphasize it 

would be going to a U.S. company. Some of the U.S. companies are 

actually publicly traded. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And they are pairing with China. 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So they can get the money. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. RUIZ. Nuances, nuances. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Dr. 

Ruiz of California for his 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my district sits Lithium Valley, one of the largest lithium 

sources in the world. You guys are going to hear a lot about Lithium Valley. The United States Geological Survey projects that the 

Salton Sea area alone could produce 600,000 metric tons of lithium 

annually, which is 6 times the current global consumption rate. 

That has the potential to supply 40 percent of the global lithium 

demand. 

Companies in Imperial Valley, in which the Lithium Valley resides, will have the opportunity to extract lithium, manufacture, 

and assemble batteries because of the Inflation Reduction Act. The 

Inflation Reduction Act makes the single largest investment ever 

in combating climate change while bringing clean energy manufacturing jobs to local communities. Since its enactment, companies 

have announced over $242 billion in new clean energy capital investments. 

Additionally, this law has already created over 3,300 jobs and invested $5.45 billion in clean energy projects in California alone. In 

fact, the IRA has given companies like Statevolt in Imperial the opportunity to purchase land for a gigafactory, which will be used for 

54 gigawatt hours lithium ion battery production. This will become 

one of the largest gigafactories in North America and will produce 

enough batteries to power 650,000 electric vehicles per year. 

Additionally, companies like Berkshire Hathaway and General 

Motors are investing in projects in Lithium Valley, and this is just 

the start of a public-private relationship that both Democrats and 

Republicans have been striving for. 

Lithium Valley will become the hub for domestic battery market 

manufacturing that will revitalize the region and our country. And 

these investments will help communities that have been left behind 

for generations, or at least that is the intent. And we will fight to 

ensure that that happens, because as we move toward a clean energy economy, it is important to ensure that supply chain investments strengthen local communities by creating good-paying jobs 
47 

and taking steps to minimize the environmental impacts of these 

industries. 

So, Mr. Howell, how might DOE investments in clean energy 

projects benefit local communities, especially those that have been 

left behind in the past? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you for your congressman and—thank you, 

Congressman, for your question. And it is so important, and I will 

start with Lithium Valley. 

I had the privilege of taking a team, a Federal team, to Lithium 

Valley in April. We had over 15 people from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense to actually tour the area and 

to get firsthand not only knowledge of the source there and the potential for that source, but also we reached out into the community 

to talk to the community on how the Department of Energy can actually help those communities that have been left behind. So that 

is so important. 

I look forward to working with you and the California Energy 

Commission, who hosted us on this visit, in the future to make 

sure that we are providing the support we need to tap into that— 

that really, really important resource for us. Lithium is a future 

energy—— 

Mr. RUIZ. All too frequently, communities of color and low-income 

families shoulder the burden of pollution, environmental hazards. 

Moving to cleaner energy sources will lower emissions—which will 

lower emissions is a step in the right direction, but we need to 

make sure that our investments building up clean energy and critical mineral supply chains that—are not inflicting new harms on 

communities already impacted by past pollutions, especially in 

terms of battery and the recycling of batteries. 

So as we work to stand up these new industries nationwide, 

what steps is MESC taking to ensure federally funded projects 

minimize negative environmental and health impacts? 

Mr. HOWELL. So part of our selection criteria is a reduction in 

those—part of the impact evaluation is how much reduction in negative impacts could that particular project actually achieve, whether that is greenhouse gas emissions, criteria emissions, water use, 

energy use. 

We also have part of a sort of a unique activity within these 

awards to actually reach out to the communities—we call it the 

Community Benefits Plan—to discuss how these awards can actually increase jobs in the area, training, and address community 

concerns and issues that that specific community may have with 

that award. 

Mr. RUIZ. OK, so I look forward to meeting with you separate 

from this hearing to discuss the opportunities—— 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUIZ [continuing]. Specifically for the economic and wellbeing of the local residents with this incredible opportunity not just 

for our country, the State, but also specifically for those communities that for too long have been the most underresourced, the 

most underserved in the State of California. 

Mr. HOWELL. I look forward to it. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. 
48 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 

gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for his 5 minutes of 

questioning. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to hold 

my breath until California allows lithium mining to happen in that 

State and the EPA allows it with their threat on mining across the 

country. And without baseload generation, you are not going to 

have the energy produced to make all the EVs work. So we need 

baseload generation. And then you also need copper mining for the 

motors. You have to wind copper around and make the motors that 

go in the EV. 

So, you know, why is there a threat on—an assault on mining 

in this country? It is just baffling that we are talking about mining 

here. 

Mr. Howell, will you commit to answering the questions raised 

in our December 14 letter regarding DOE’s grant awarded to 

Microvast? 

Mr. HOWELL. Would you ask that question again, sir? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Will you commit to answering the questions that 

we raised in this December 14 letter to you—or to Secretary 

Granholm—— 

Mr. HOWELL. So—— 

Mr. DUNCAN [continuing]. About Microvast? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you. I will take that back to the Department 

of Energy. That is actually handled by another office. I am actually 

not—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. So you are just committing to taking that question 

that I just asked you back. You are not committing to answering 

the question. 

Mr. HOWELL. The Department of Energy is in the process of answering those questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Since December 14? Wow, they—you know, that is 

over 6 months. 

You know, the rush to green has resulted in new efficiency 

standards with marginal efficacy and that would increase our reliance on foreign manufacturers. We heard from others already 

about critical components, from distribution transformers to capacitors for HVDC transmission lines. New efficiency standards have 

required different manufacturing processes we have in limited supply domestically. I guess the Lithium Valley will solve all that. 

Unfortunately, instead of utilizing the few manufacturers we 

have here at home, we see contracts go abroad. I heard the ranking 

member of the full committee talk about Republicans. Republicans 

wanted to onshore industry. We were called fascists and nationalists, wanting to make America great again, wanting to bring manufacturing back to this country to provide jobs and the critical components that we need to make it all work. 

So does MESC provide any advice or coordination with other Department programs such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to advise on how proposed efficiency standards will 

impact domestic supply chains? 

Mr. HOWELL. We do have partnerships with—across the Department of Energy. In terms of actually advising, it would be in the 

manufacturing capacity of our expertise rather than the efficiency 
49 

capacity expertise. So in terms of manufacturing of transformers 

and high voltage DC components and things of that nature, that 

is where our expertise would lie. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Shouldn’t those be made here in the United States? 

Mr. HOWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right now we are relying on Italy and Germany. 

Mr. HOWELL. We have—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. For the first phase of transmission line infrastructure build-out, it is a European company that is sourcing capacitors 

from Siemens and a company in Italy. Shouldn’t those be made 

here? These are critical, right? 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Sixty thousand needed for the infrastructure. 

Mr. HOWELL. And we ask your support to help MESC to actually 

develop programs—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. There is a company in South Carolina that actually 

can make the capacitors, but yet they are competing with a European company because the company that got awarded the contract 

is from Europe. What if Europe decides they are going to build out 

their infrastructure and, hey, they need all the capacitors? Then we 

don’t have a supply chain here, 60,000 that are needed. 

Mr. HOWELL. I am not aware of the specific award you are talking about. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, it—in your testimony you mentioned the Department is standing up a $65 million program, battery and critical 

material recycling retailers as collection points and State and local 

programs. Who do you think should be responsible for the disposal 

of EV batteries at the end of their life? 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, it could cut across the owner of the vehicle 

and the actual—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. So we are putting the burden on the owner to know 

where to dispose these, or to dispose them themselves? 

Mr. HOWELL. Typically, vehicles are already disposed of, 

salvaged. And so we would see that—we would be working with 

those salvage dealers and companies and associations to actually 

collect the vehicles, like they do today, and safely transport key 

components like the battery to a recycling center. 

Mr. DUNCAN. See, I see the mechanics having to dispose of them, 

not knowing where to put them and taking them to their local 

landfill. 

Mr. HOWELL. They are actually—well, they would not be compatible with the local landfill. And—however, they are actually valuable and worth money. So I don’t think—I would hope that a—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, that is assuming you have recyclers out there 

that will actually pay somebody for them. 

Should the taxpayer bear the cost of recycling the EV batteries? 

Mr. HOWELL. EV batteries right now are actually profitable to recycle because of the cobalt and the nickel and the lithium. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I know of one company that is doing it. 

Mr. HOWELL. There are several companies, actually, doing it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. I would love to know who they are. 

Mr. HOWELL. OK. 
50 

Mr. DUNCAN. Has MESC consulted States and localities or received any feedback about the potential role in the recycling process? 

Mr. HOWELL. Oh, we have, and we have worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well, and their consumer electronics programs. So we are working with EPA, we are working 

with the NHTSA, and the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Agency to 

make sure that we put in process the capability to safely collect 

batteries, to store them, and to transport them to a recycling center. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Lord, I hope so, because, you know, these are highly toxic. And I know of a case—I am glad the Environment Committee is having a brownfield hearing this week, because I know 

of one instance where a transformer was thrown into a landfill in 

New Jersey, and the company that manufactured it on behalf of 

the DoD—because they were required to during World War II— 

ended up having to pay millions of dollars in fines. They didn’t 

throw it in the landfill, they were just the manufacturer. Somebody 

did. 

If the consumer throws a lithium battery in a landfill, who is responsible for the cleanup? 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And in regards 

to my neck of the woods, if there isn’t a positive value, it is going 

into the next holler over. 

With that, I yield to the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, 

for her 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. So we all 

agree on this committee in a bipartisan way that lithium and cobalt are going to be essential for the clean energy transition. 

And as we heard from Mr. Ruiz, we—you know, we do have reserves of some of these minerals, and—but many of the largest deposits of these minerals are in other countries. And that is not our 

fault. That is Mother Nature and just the nature of geography. So 

we can’t control where the minerals naturally occur. 

But what we can do is we can do something about where we are 

refining the minerals. So that is what I wanted to ask you about, 

Mr. Howell, because this is one thing China has invested very 

heavily in, critical mineral refining. They capture about 90 percent 

of the rare earth element processing and 70 percent of the lithium 

and cobalt processing. And I know the Department knows this, because last Congress the Democrats invested more than $6 billion 

to build domestic critical mineral processing and recycling through 

programs administered by the Office of Manufacturing and Energy 

Supply Chains. 

So here is my question. I have got a couple of questions. Number 

one, will these investments help us compete with China on critical 

mineral processing and build up domestic processing capability irrespective of where the deposits are? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you, Congresswoman. And to answer your 

question point blank, it is yes, that is exactly what our mission is. 

That is exactly what we are trying to actually execute. We have 

come a long way, even with these first awards with lithium and 

nickel, and—but we have a long way to go. 
51 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So my other question is, you—now Congress has allocated $6 billion for this. Is that going to help speed up the 

timeframe to be able to process this? Because that is what we need 

to do, and pronto. 

Mr. HOWELL. It will help speed up, for example, the selections for 

award. We selected 2.8 billion of the 6 billion for negotiation of 

award. The private sector actually invested an additional $6 billion 

in those awards. So that was a $9 billion effort to stand up refining 

capability. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And how fast are we going to start—be able to 

start standing it up, would you estimate? 

Mr. HOWELL. So we are—we have made three awards already. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. How long is it going to take them to start 

doing it? 

Mr. HOWELL. Typically, these factories take around 36 to 42 

months to—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So maybe 3, 31⁄2, 4 years. And how much was 

that expedited by the investment that we made? 

Mr. HOWELL. By 3 or 4 years—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So maybe it was cut in half, the amount of 

time it would take. 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. That is excellent. Why would you say it is important to invest in both critical mineral processing and recycling, particularly in the battery supply chain? 

Mr. HOWELL. The minerals and materials and the refined materials that are contained in the batteries represent about 50 to 60 

percent of the value. And when you are talking about—of an electric vehicle battery. And you are talking about a potential market 

of 100 to 200 billion dollars. We can’t just walk away from half of 

that because we do not install the refining capability and the precursor capability. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You are exactly right. It seems like a good investment for us. 

So we keep hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle 

about DOE’s ability to oversee Federal investments. Now, the job 

of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is to make sure 

that we are—that these investments are being overseen. So you 

have been at DOE for at least a couple of decades, so I want you 

to talk about this for the record. 

Does DOE take seriously its obligation to responsibly use taxpayer money? 

And what kinds of protocols does DOE have in place to make 

sure that you are doing that? 

Mr. HOWELL. Absolutely. The Department of Energy takes extreme serious the—our role of overseeing the execution of taxpayer 

dollars. And we do work with the—with offices throughout the 

agency to ensure that we have the right oversight on these 

projects, including the Office of Inspector General, our procurement 

offices, our acquisition offices, and, of course, our technology—our 

technical program managers, as well. 

Typically, once we have an award in place, we have a working 

team that will actually monitor and shepherd that program 

through its life cycle, all the way through the end of the award to 
52 

even the disposition of equipment. And we use many different processes to monitor the award. 

The first thing is to definitize the actual project, to make sure 

that we have the right milestones, budget periods, and tasks in 

place as we launch. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK, I am out of time. If there is more you want 

to say, you can supplement. 

Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentlelady, she yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for his 5 minutes 

of questioning. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What components for an ion lithium—lithium ion batteries are 

made in the United States? 

Mr. HOWELL. What components? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, what components of your—say an EV battery. 

Mr. HOWELL. So almost—— 

Mr. PALMER. Not assembled, made. 

Mr. HOWELL. In almost—OK. So the battery—let’s start with the 

battery cell technology, the battery cell production. 

In 2020 the United States had 60 gigawatt hours of capacity installed. 

Mr. PALMER. No, no. Let’s simplify this—— 

Mr. HOWELL. OK. 

Mr. PALMER [continuing]. Because there are people watching 

this, and we need to simplify it. You have technical expertise, I 

worked in engineering, so I don’t want to get down in those weeds. 

Let’s say 90-something percent of all of the battery is manufactured in China, the component parts. So when you are talking 

about battery production in the United States, what you are really 

talking about is assembly of the components manufactured in 

China. 

Mr. HOWELL. Not totally. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I didn’t say totally. I said 90-something percent. 

Mr. HOWELL. In some areas it is 90 percent. In some areas it is 

less than that. 

Mr. PALMER. OK. 

Mr. HOWELL. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. But the vast majority of batteries that are being assembled in the United States, the component parts are manufactured in China. 

And back to—I think my colleagues across the aisle have raised 

some interesting points about the minerals that are required. Obviously, we have huge reserves of lithium, but we just took off, made 

off limits the largest cobalt reserve in the entire country in Minnesota. It is also a major reserve of nickel. You have to have cobalt, 

you have to have nickel. And 78 percent of the cobalt is sourced 

in China that you have to have for this, 100 percent of the graphite. And we have got graphite reserves here in the United States. 

And with all due respect to my friend from California, there’s 

substantial lithium reserves in Arkansas. 

But the problem is to utilize those reserves, we have to mine 

them, we have to refine them, and we have to manufacture the— 
53 

whatever the component parts are that we need from those minerals. And we are not doing that. We are dependent on China. Do 

you disagree with that? 

Mr. HOWELL. So we are dependent on China today on many of 

the aspects of materials and refined materials. 

Mr. PALMER. It will be 25 years minimum before we can catch 

up with China. That is how far ahead of us they are in battery production. 

Mr. HOWELL. OK, I am going to say that is debatable. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, it is debatable only because you—it doesn’t fit 

your narrative. 

Mr. HOWELL. No, that is not true. For instance, these awards 

that we just awarded, we awarded enough capacity—— 

Mr. PALMER. Let me suggest to you that if you had all of the 

components, everything you needed in minerals right now, you 

might be correct. But you can’t even get a mine permitted in the 

next decade under the—under current conditions. So I just think 

people need to understand how far behind we are and how dependent we are on China. 

There is another issue that I want to raise in the time I have 

left, and it has to do with battery technology that was described 

as breakthrough technology. There are about a dozen scientists in 

the State of Washington—it is a vanadium redox flow battery. And 

I don’t know what you know about this, but this was—this would 

have been a battery about the size of a refrigerator. It would have, 

I think, powered a whole household. It could have been recharged 

with a solar panel. I mean, this was truly breakthrough stuff, and 

in 2021 the Department of Energy gave the license to China. 

I think NPR was trying to do an investigative report on this. The 

DOE has not been forthcoming with information. What do you have 

to say about that? What do you know about that? 

Mr. HOWELL. So I am familiar with the vanadium redox flow battery. It is for stationary applications, for grid applications. There 

was some IP developed at the Department of Energy’s Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory that eventually was licensed to a 

Chinese company. 

Mr. PALMER. But that is money—that work was funded with U.S. 

taxpayer dollars. 

Mr. HOWELL. Yes, it was. 

Mr. PALMER. And you gave the license to China. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this is something we need to look into a 

little bit further. So with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the gentleman 

yielding back. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I said in my opening—and I—you know, just based on 

what I heard—and I am not trying to be, you know, disrespectful, 

but it just seems like, you know, on the Republican side there is 

this notion that we are so far behind China it is almost like there 

is nothing we can do to catch up, and maybe there is no use even 

trying. I don’t want to put words in my colleagues’ mouths, but, 

you know, I am just worried that these—you are getting these 

mixed partisan signals. 
54 

You know, on the one hand Democrats are saying let’s make investments, let’s try to do things that will make a difference here 

in terms of competition with China and then, you know, colleagues 

on the other side suggesting maybe it is hopeless. I mean, doesn’t 

that—doesn’t—don’t these mixed signals, you know, about longterm funding for these DOE programs have a negative impact on 

companies’ willingness to make investments in the United States? 

If you could just briefly answer that, and then I will get to my 

second—the real questions I have. 

Mr. HOWELL. I will say that long-term, disciplined investment 

strategy for the United States, both on the Federal level and the 

private sector, is going to be very important going forward. And 

mixed signals can cause confusion in the industry and also can 

cause a lot of start/stops with the Federal programs. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Now, before our last hearing on this 

topic, Republicans spent months questioning a potential DOE 

award to Microvast. It was mentioned again today. And then, when 

press reports indicated that DOE would not move forward with an 

award to Microvast after conducting due diligence, Republicans 

still looked to undermine DOE. So I just think you are in—essentially, in a no-win situation here with what the Republicans are 

doing to you today and elsewhere. And ultimately, it is going to undermine any actions or investments that you make. 

So I just wanted to give you an opportunity to walk through the 

process of selecting companies for negotiation and your due diligence process. 

Let me ask two questions. From the time that a company applies 

for an award for one of the programs in your office, what due diligence does DOE conduct, and what other agencies do you partner 

with in that process? 

Mr. HOWELL. So from the time that the selection is made for negotiation—so even before that time, we have worked with other 

agencies to evaluate these applications and selected the most compelling applications, whether it is technical merit, whether it is 

market potential, investment and resources that the company has 

proposed. 

Once those selections are made, we deep dive into the negotiation 

process to really definitize those awards. So we do work—in this 

case, it is—typically falls on our procurement and acquisition team, 

our technical leaders at the Department of Energy to move through 

that process. We do use other teams like the general counsel, like 

the counterintelligence, like the CFIUS team to look at any sensitivities for that particular company or company team, and then 

develop potential—whether those sensitivities warrant us walking 

away from that award or are providing mitigation strategies to 

overcome barriers or gaps or concerns that we might have. 

Mr. PALLONE. So what kinds of concerns would keep DOE from 

actually providing a company an award? 

Mr. HOWELL. Well—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Maybe you have answered that, but if you—— 

Mr. HOWELL. Well, sure. So ownership by a Federal entity of concern, as defined in the regulations and in the appropriation, the 

control that a Federal entity of concern could actually exhibit over 

a U.S. company. That control could be shares in the company, it 
55 

could be the parent company ownership as well, and it could also 

be, as I mentioned, voting members on the board. It could be key 

personnel being part of a talent program, it could be an IP position. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. All that. Well, look, let me just thank you, Mr. 

Howell, thank you for the work that DOE has taken on in making 

these programs a success and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are 

well spent. 

So I just hope, again, that Republicans will join us in helping 

DOE succeed, because I do think this is important. I don’t think 

it is too late. And I think we have to do whatever we can to move, 

you know, our country forward and be competitive with China. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our ranking 

member for cohosting this hearing. And thank you to our witness, 

Deputy Director Howell. Thank you for sharing your very informed 

voice and experience, and grounding us in facts. I appreciate that. 

Our clean energy transition needs to move quickly to prevent the 

worst consequences of climate change. We also must move quickly 

to experience the economic benefits of being the global leader in 

this transition. The U.S. has already missed out on some earlier 

opportunities to invest in clean energy, while other countries like 

China invested aggressively to give their industries a lead. But 

now we have that opportunity to reverse that trend. Major investments made by legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act and the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are helping bring manufacturing 

jobs back to the U.S. and build those supply chains. 

My Republican colleagues often call for ending our reliance on 

global supply chains, in part to protect human rights, but they 

have opposed these major legislative efforts that would help us 

build ethical and resilient supply chains right here in the U.S. 

So Deputy Director Howell, the MESC is overseeing billions of 

dollars in investments to build domestic clean energy supply chains 

and manufacturing. I hope your testimony helps everyone better 

understand how effectively these investments will advance American interests, including by protecting human rights. 

So how will the investments made through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law make clean energy 

supply chains that much more transparent? 

Mr. HOWELL. Thank you for your question, Congressman, and 

just—you know, I do want to emphasize that the MESC commission cuts across many different parts of the energy sector industrial 

base. 

We have talked a lot about the battery and electric vehicle space 

today, but there’s things like the grid, you know, particularly on 

transformers, high-voltage DC circuits, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, 

platinum group metals, things of that nature that’s very important. 

And we have programs in place or are being executed that would 

actually fill key gaps within the manufacturing supply chain in the 

United States across those sectors, plus more. 
56 

I will want to emphasize, too, we have a lot of focus on small and 

medium-sized enterprises, manufacturing enterprises across the 

Nation. When we really think about small and medium-sized enterprises, you are really talking about 99 percent of the jobs in the 

United—manufacturing jobs in the United States. So it is so important for us to support our entrepreneurs in the small and medium 

enterprise—manufacturing enterprises, as well. 

So, you know, our support cuts across the energy sector industrial base. We are continuing to do the modeling, mapping, and 

analysis necessary to understand where we should focus our, you 

know, our resources. 

And I am thankful for the billions of dollars we have, but we 

need to also understand that this is a long-term play, and we need 

a consistent effort for decades to make sure that we seize this moment and capture as much of the clean energy manufacturing base 

as we possibly can as a nation. 

Mr. TONKO. Right, that is a very good point. 

And last year DOE published a clean energy supply chain strategy with pillars aimed at improving supply chains, including enhancing traceability and other steps to better protect human rights. 

So how is MESC implementing this strategy and working with 

interagency partners to ensure awardees are upholding labor and 

environmental standards and protecting human rights? 

Mr. HOWELL. So, you know, part of—particularly in the battery 

manufacturing grant program, which actually has support in the 

minerals and refined materials area, and particularly separating 

key minerals from extracted feedstocks, part of our evaluation process is to understand where those extracted feedstocks come from, 

and that they are environmentally sustainable, that they—wherever those feedstocks come from, that it is—you know, those feedstocks are procured by, you know, groups that value human rights 

in the extraction process. So that is part of our evaluation. 

We also have a Federal consortium for advanced batteries that 

is—that has a working group on battery materials and minerals 

that is also looking at environmentally sustainable governance of 

extracted feedstocks. 

And we are launching—the President has launched the Advanced 

Battery Materials Initiative, which has a focus for accelerating permitting in an environmentally sustainable and safe way. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, thank you. 

With that, I believe I yield back. I have other questions. I will 

submit those to the subcommittee. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Seeing no 

further Members wishing to ask questions, I would like to thank 

our witness for being here today. 

I would also hope to get your commitment that you will answer 

the questions that we had about the vetting process, since they 

said, ‘‘We will let you know after the vetting process is over.’’ That 

appears to be over for at least those first—that first tranche. And 

if you could get us that information, I would appreciate it. 

Also, you are probably going to get a written question about how 

do we get the lithium out of the water, because both Ms. Castor 

and myself—the ranking member—have areas in our region that 
57 

are known as the Lithia Springs. And if it is that valuable, how 

do we get it out of the water? Because unlike the Salton Sea, ours 

is not evaporating and staying, ours is going downstream if we 

don’t catch it. 

Anyway, that being said, and pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record, and I ask that witnesses submit 

their response within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. 

Did you have something, since I made a comment? Did you have 

another comment? 

Ms. CASTOR. I do not, thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And without objection, the subcommittee is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ