On Out-of-Control Gas Prices Since Onset of Iran War  

Heinrich began, “Secretary Wright, on television earlier this week, you said that gas prices may not fall below $3 a gallon until 2027. Do you stand by that today?” 

Secretary Wright answered, “I don't know the future of energy prices. Often I will speculate or look at those things. I would say gasoline prices looks like they peaked about a week or so ago, one dollar a gallon cheaper than they peaked during the Biden administration. Yet we're in the midst of ending a 47-year conflict in the Middle East, a major energy producing region.  

Heinrich pushed back, “It is over four dollars a gallon. Is that reasonable? Do you think that's a good price for people to pay at the pump?”  

Wright responded, “Well, in contrast to the last administration, our goal is as low as possible energy prices. And yes, we were proud to have gasoline prices below two dollars a gallon earlier this year, and we look forward to getting them back there.” 

Heinrich followed, “What are they right now?” 

Wright responded, “Just over four dollars.” 

Heinrich asked, “And what is Diesel?” 

Wright responded, “Diesel is over five dollars.”  

Heinrich responded, “It's closer to six in my state.” 

Wright followed, “It's over eight in California.” 

On DOE Using Emergency Authority to Keep Dying Coal Plants Open 

Heinrich asked, “You've used emergency authority to keep thermal coal plants online. And in cases like Washington, Indiana, Colorado, those thermal coal plants are sitting idle. However, those utilities have already purchased replacement generation, so when they're ordered to stay online, effectively, customers are charged for the cost of maintaining those thermal coal facilities, plus they're charged for the price of replacement generation, because those utilities had to come up with replacement generation before they decided to retire those facilities. Is it appropriate to pass those costs on to consumers? Shouldn't the Department of Energy be responsible for those costs? $42 million in the case of the Michigan plant.” 

Wright responded, “It’s hard to overstate the cost to health and businesses and consumers of blackouts. You mentioned the Michigan plant, the first one we issue...” 

Heinrich interjected, “The state of Michigan and the utility in that case, completely disagree with your conclusion that they were at risk.” 

Wright responded, “Days later, days later, after we kept the Campbell coal power plant running, it was running at maximum capacity, and they were at the edge of a blackout. Northern [Midcontinent Independent System Operator] MISO is one of the most at risk regions there is. That plant has run over that entire summer above average for all assets on the grid.” 

Heinrich followed, “What about the Colorado plant? How often has the Colorado plant run?” 

Wright answered, “The Colorado plant is in western Colorado, and it's in a region that suffers with transmission bottlenecks. If that plant is not there, if a peak demand event comes to that region, they're at high risk of blackout. We want the lights to stay on...”  

Heinrich followed, “I want the lights [on] — reliability is not negotiable. However, I've had co-ops come and complain about those costs being passed on to them when the replacement generation has already been purchased. So my concern is, if you're going to declare an emergency, should you be able to pass those costs on to the customer?” 

Wright answered, “The benefits go onto the customers as well. Let me explain. Senator Heinrich, one other point. We've used 202(c)s for a certain number of gigawatts of coal, a much larger increment of coal slated coal closures were not closed because the utilities and everyone got the message, ‘oh, you're going to have our back’ because state and other politicians were forcing us to close assets. We don't want to close, you're going to cover us. We're not going to close them then.” 

On DOE Repurposing Congressionally Allocated Funds Meant for Carbon Capture Projects to Subsidize Coal Plants 

Heinrich answered, “Well, I don't think it was politicians that decided to close the plant in Colorado. I think it was the utility. The Department of Energy appears to have also repurposed funds that Congress appropriated specifically for carbon capture to subsidize coal [fueled] power plants. What statutory authority allows you to move those dollars? I couldn't find anything in the statute that allowed those to be reallocated. What's the authority you're using to reallocate those funds?” 

Wright answered, “So we have continued to look at proposals for carbon capture on coal plants. When we find one or ones that make economic sense, we will deploy those funds, but we can't deploy carbon capture fund on coal plants that are closed and gone. So yes, these were funds targeted for enhancing coal plants. We're enhancing them to keep them open.” 

Heinrich pushed back, “But if you want to spend those funds on keeping those plants open, you need funds that are authorized to keep those plants open, which does not exist. So you're changing the authority without any statutory basis.” 

Wright answered, “They're funds, they’re dedicated to enhancing the operations of coal plants, and we're deploying them to enhance the operation of coal plants.”  

Heinrich countered, “I think you're on very thin legal ice.” 

### 

Heinrich on Department’s decisions to cancel energy projects: “Satisfying a President’s desire for political revenge or intimidation is not a lawful basis for terminating projects that were on track to help reduce soaring electricity prices”   

WASHINGTON — During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to examine the Trump administration’s budget request for the Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27), U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the Committee’s Ranking Member, delivered opening remarks, grilling DOE Secretary Chris Wright on the Department’s cancelation of billions in funding for clean energy projects, circumventing of Congress to prop uneconomic coal plants, and proposing a budget that continues to skyrocket energy costs for working Americans.  

VIDEO: Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) delivers opening remarks on the Department of Energy’s FY27 budget request before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, April 21, 2026.  

“We strongly oppose approval of this action and urge the Forest Service to require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before taking any further action on this proposal,” wrote the lawmakers. 

“We plan to introduce legislation to withdraw the Chama watershed from all forms of mineral entry. We urge the Forest Service to take that legislative effort into account as it evaluates this proposal,” continued the lawmakers. 

“The communities of the Chama Valley — acequia farmers, tribal members, ranchers, and rural families — have tended this watershed for generations. The Forest Service has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that decisions affecting their water, their land, and their future are made with the care, science, and respect those communities deserve,” concluded the lawmakers. 

Also copied on the letter were leaders of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, the Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and the Regional Forester for the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service. 

The full letter can be found here or below: 

Heinrich additionally requested any analysis the administration conducted on how the President’s war with Iran would impact energy costs. As a result of President Trump’s war with Iran, families are currently facing over $4 a gallon for gas – and the President has signaled those prices may continue to rise.  

“I am deeply concerned that the President’s decision to wage a reckless war on Iran will wreak havoc on energy markets for the foreseeable future—driving up energy costs for Americans across the country and causing global economic turmoil,” Heinrich began. 

“Soon after the war began, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) restricted passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz—cutting off a vital energy corridor through which 20 percent of the world’s petroleum and liquified natural gas (LNG) flow daily—and sending energy prices to new highs. And it is clear that the Administration does not have a plan to re-open the Strait—meaning prices will continue to climb,” Heinrich continued. “The Administration dismissed or failed to fully appreciate the impact the closure of the Strait would have on domestic energy and household costs when it rushed into war with Iran and lacks a coherent strategy to end the war and stabilize domestic and global energy markets.”  

Heinrich concluded his letter to Secretary Wright by demanding answers to several questions about how the Trump administration prepared for the economic impacts of the war with Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, requesting documents and any analyses the Trump administration has prepared around the economic impact of the conflict.  

Read the full letter here and below: 

Secretary Wright:

In the days since the President’s decision to enter into a war against Iran with no clear objectives and congressional approval, domestic and global energy prices have skyrocketed. I am deeply concerned that the President’s decision to wage a reckless war on Iran will wreak havoc on energy markets for the foreseeable future—driving up energy costs for Americans across the country and causing global economic turmoil.

Soon after the war began, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) restricted passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz—cutting off a vital energy corridor through which 20 percent of the world’s petroleum and liquified natural gas (LNG) flow daily—and sending energy prices to new highs. And it is clear that the Administration does not have a plan to re-open the Strait—meaning prices will continue to climb.

Less than 300 ships have reportedly passed through the Strait since the start of the war, with nearly 800 ships sitting idle in close proximity waiting to cross. Prior to the war, in comparison, around 130 vessels traversed the Strait daily.

The Administration dismissed or failed to fully appreciate the impact the closure of the Strait would have on domestic energy and household costs when it rushed into war with Iran and lacks a coherent strategy to end the war and stabilize domestic and global energy markets.

In light of these concerns and to better understand the impact of the war on energy markets, I request you provide the following information by April 28, 2026:

1. Prior to the war, what analysis did the Department perform to understand the range of impacts the war could have on domestic and global energy markets? Please provide copies of this analysis clearly identifying the impacts expected by the Department.
2. On March 11, 2026, the Department announced plans to release 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Did the analyses performed prior to the war commencing include potential releases from the SPR? Please describe any relevant assumptions and include copies of the analysis.
3. Prior to the war, did the Department furnish the White House or any cabinet agency or council (e.g., The National Energy Dominance Council) with assessments or reports describing the impact that closing the Strait of Hormuz would have on domestic and global energy markets? If so, please provide copies of those assessments or reports.
4. Have such reports been updated given the current impacts we are experiencing? If so, please provide copies of the updated analysis with detailed descriptions of how you are proceeding to forecast the magnitude and length of any impacts.
5. Prior to the war, did the Department conduct any assessments to understand the impact damage to Persian Gulf energy facilities or infrastructure would have on domestic and global energy markets? If so, provide a copy of those assessments.
6. Since the beginning of the war, describe in detail any analysis conducted by the Department to understand the impact an ongoing war will have on domestic and global energy markets. Please describe the sources of expertise and data the Department has employed to reach these conclusions.
7. Since the beginning of the war, has the Department furnished the White House or any cabinet agency or council (e.g., The National Energy Dominance Council) with assessments or reports describing the impact that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has had on domestic and global energy markets? If so, please provide copies of those assessments or reports with sources noted.
8. On March 10, 2025, you posted on X that “President Trump is maintaining stability of global energy during the military operation against Iran. The U.S. Navy successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing to global markets.” Several minutes after posting this information on your official DOE X account, you deleted the post. The White House later said that the U.S. Navy did not escort a tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. Explain why you posted that the U.S. Navy “successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz” and the genesis of the information in the post.
9. Following recent negotiations with the Iranians in Islamabad that ended without agreement, the President announced a blockade of all vessels entering or exiting Iranians ports. Prior to the President’s announcement, did the Department assess the impact an American blockade on the Strait would have on domestic and global energy markets? If so, please describe in detail the findings of the assessment.
10. Iran has signaled that the Houthis, an Iranian-backed group in Yemen, could close the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf Aden and Arabian Sea. The Strait accounts for 4 million barrels of crude per day. Prior to the war and at any point since, has the Department furnished the White House or any cabinet agency or council (e.g., The National Energy Dominance Council) with assessments or reports describing the impact that closure to both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandeb Strait could have on domestic and global energy markets?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact my staff at (202) 224-4971.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) introduced the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Economic Assistance Assurance Act, legislation to amend the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act to ensure sustained, inflation-adjusted funding for New Mexico communities to maintain vital infrastructure projects, such as road maintenance and repairs for the duration of WIPP’s operation. 

“New Mexico plays a critical role in America’s national security, and WIPP is central to that mission. This legislation ensures sustained, inflation-adjusted funding for public infrastructure around WIPP — from roads to essential services — supporting both its workforce and surrounding communities. I will remain steadfast in ensuring WIPP upholds the highest safety standards,” said Heinrich. 

“Idaho leads the way in nuclear energy innovation, and WIPP is an important part of our success,” said Risch. “This legislation ensures that WIPP remains operational, allowing Idaho to continue to advance nuclear energy research.” 

WIPP, located near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is the nation’s only deep geologic repository for the disposal of transuranic waste generated by the United States’ nuclear weapons program. Since opening in 1999, WIPP has played a critical role in supporting the national defense mission by managing legacy nuclear materials and supporting national security-related cleanup efforts across the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

Communities in southeastern New Mexico have hosted WIPP and the transportation infrastructure that supports the facility for decades. In recognition of this role, Congress included provisions in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 to provide economic assistance payments to the State of New Mexico and affected local communities. These funds support transportation infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and other activities necessary to safely host and support WIPP operations. 

Heinrich and Risch’s legislation ensures that the original authorization level for annual economic assistance, which expired in 2013, remains in place for as long as WIPP remains operational.  

The legislation is endorsed by the Southeast New Mexico College; United Steelworkers Local 12-9477; City of Carlsbad, New Mexico; and City of Hobbs, New Mexico. 

In January, Heinrich secured $10 million in the Fiscal Year 2026 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill to improve roads leading to and from WIPP through recommended payments from the DOE to the State of New Mexico. This investment was the first time that funds have been appropriated for this purpose since 2014. 

### 

Ranking Member Heinrich (D-N.M.) questions experts on strategies to increase transmission and lower electricity costs for consumers during a Committee hearing to examine the state of the grid, March 25, 2026. 

On Building Enough Interregional Transmission to Meet Rising Energy Demand and Lower Costs: 

Heinrich began, “Do any of you think that we're building, and obviously I think the affordability argument is well received by everyone on this Committee because all of us have constituents who are under pressure, but do any of you think that we are building enough interregional transmission to service the existing grid and the kind of growth that we would hope for both the electric sector and the economy?” 

Dr. Reed replied, “Thank you for the question, Senator, I...” 

Heinrich clarified, “I'll go down [the row of panelists]... Let you all answer that. Dr. Reed, you can start, and we'll go the other way.” 

Dr. Reed answered, “Thank you so much, Senator. We are not building the amount of interregional transmission that we need right now, and there are particular barriers that are preventing that from happening. Utilities are not incentivized or even expected to be looking to their neighbors, and so we are losing the economies of scale, and that is costing consumer purses.”  

Fisher agreed, “My short answer is no. My longer answer is, we should look back at the history of, you know, FERC Order 1000, for example. I think the intent was good, but the track record is very poor. The transmission line miles of the very high voltage, lines that has...”  

Heinrich interjected, “Very minimum.” 

Fisher continued, “That stat has plummeted. We should acknowledge that fact and try to, try to do something different.” 

Snitchler answered, “Senator, thanks for the question. I think it's clear that being able to move electrons from where they are being generated to where they are needed, particularly in times of stress, is critically important. That's how we ensure grid reliability. And as we have seen retirements come off the system and the slow addition of new resources, the importance of that transfer capability continues to be highlighted as an area of importance.” 

On Developing Transmission in Ways that Provide Value for Consumers: 

Heinrich followed up with Dr. Reed, “Dr. Reed, go a little deeper. You talked about how to capture value for customers, how to save them money, as opposed to just bring additional costs onto the rate base. Go a little deeper into how we can capture that value and actually benefit customers.” 

Dr. Reed answered, “Thank you, Senator. I'm happy to. What is causing us to lose this value for consumers is that we are not building the transmission. We have seen a number of economic analyses that find that, on average, $100 million is lost per gigawatt of transmission line that was not built per year, in the last 10 years. These transmission lines are not being built for a handful of reasons. One is that they are very complicated. This is an interstate and interregional project, and it does not enjoy a federal siting and permitting authority, as natural gas pipelines do. These electrons are moving or intended to move in interstate commerce, and instead, they are being held up by processes at the individual states requiring approval. This is duplicative red tape that discourages developers and makes it longer for them to be able to complete these projects. There are also not expectations at utilities to be looking to the regions to build these interregional lines. We have an opportunity to enable both utilities and private merchant developers who would not show up on a customer's utility bill to build more if we can fix these regulations.”  

Heinrich responded, “To your point, I was deeply involved in, in facilitating and working on one interregional power line, and it took 17 years to get all of the approvals to actually make that a reality. I think there are a number of places where our incentives are not aligned. You mentioned the issue of compensation for some of the values that those, those power lines provide. Walk through that a little bit, because obviously, I think, you know, there's a mismatch between transmission and generation.” 

Dr. Reed replied, “Yeah, I'm happy to, Senator, thank you. High voltage direct current was the topic of my PhD thesis. I don't think I can cover that in a minute, but I will note that it is a semiconductor-based technology that has the ability to act differently than our existing grid system. So, it provides an excellent backbone, because it provides different services and different values. It can move power long distances, which captures the value for consumers, but the way that, that it controls electrons also provides stability to the grid. There's complicated reasons involving voltage and frequency that we can discuss offline, but HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) ensures that we are keeping electric equipment online by keeping the voltage and frequency where it needs to be.”  

On Incentivizing Utility Companies and Private Developers to Deploy Grid-Enhancing Technologies: 

Heinrich turned to grid-enhancing technologies, “One of the tools that has been used very effectively in other parts of the world and sporadically here in the U.S., are grid-enhancing technologies. But we have this model, particularly within state-regulated utilities, where the incentive is often... I mean, the responsible parties, my utility as an example, in central New Mexico, has really leaned into GETs. But, there is also an incentive for utilities to build big and then get [those costs] rate-based. How do we create a more aligned incentive with GETs so that we can get more out of the existing grid?” 

Dr. Reed answered, “Thank you, Senator. There are a number of options that Congress and FERC can pursue to incentivize more of these grid-enhancing technologies, and part of it is expectation. What are we requiring of the grid? We should be using the lines that we built to a higher capacity. Grid-enhancing technologies, through dynamic line rating, power flow control, all of these can help us use those lines better and move the power around. And the way that we set expectations on how reliability is achieved and provide financial incentives to utilities or private developers to provide those services are ways that we can get more of this advanced technology incorporated.” 

On Powering Data Centers Efficiently: 

Turning to data centers, Heinrich asked, “Dr. Reed, if each one of these large load data centers was its own generator, would that be the most efficient use of capital to, to power the, that part of the demand sector?” 

Dr. Reed answered, “Thank you for the question, Senator. I think the most efficient use of capital to power data centers is the choice of the data centers themselves. And I think the best option that we can provide for American competitiveness and for growing industries here is to ensure that they have those options available to them, both a robust grid that can provide reliable and affordable power and options for building their own private grids to provide their own power.” 

Heinrich asked for clarification on how private grid models impact consumers, “And describe to me any risk associated with customer impact with the sort of private grid model.” 

Dr. Reed replied, “Thank you for the question. I think the way that we think about transmission benefits is important to consider here. Where, if we have a robust backbone to our grid that can provide affordable power that benefits consumers. The more consumers of electricity that there are on the grid, including high consumers such as data centers, there would be more rate payers who are helping pay for that valuable infrastructure.” 

###