WATCH: Padilla Slams Energy Secretary Wright on Cuts to Science Funding in Proposed Budget, Political Cancellation of California Hydrogen Hub Funding

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, questioned Energy Secretary Chris Wright about President Trump's Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget for the Department of Energy and its drastic cuts to science funding.

"Your budget cuts the Office of Science's funding by $1.1 billion. It slashes basic energy science by 20%, Earth and Environmental Systems science by 79%, and High Energy Physics Research by 17%. Even some User Facilities, which are the backbone of the labs, are looking at over 50% cuts," said Senator Padilla. "So, you've claimed many times this affordable, reliable, secure energy for all Americans is a top priority. How is that still a priority given all these cuts?"

Padilla also challenged Secretary Wright on the exclusion of California's ARCHES Hydrogen Hub, highlighting that the determination "was blatantly partisan and, in this case, seems to have violated the law." Padilla pushed Wright to reverse the decision and committed to following up with him to demonstrate that California's proposal was superior to the others.

Earlier this month, Padilla released a statement on President Trump's FY 2027 budget proposal, calling on Congress to reject it and "fight for one that reflects our values, not the whims of Donald Trump." Last week, Padilla questioned Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), about President Trump's Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget and its eye-popping 42% increase in defense spending.

Video of Padilla's full questioning is available here.

A full transcript of Padilla's exchange is available below.

PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Secretary. I want to just jump straight in and get to the bottom of a few things because ever since your first appearance before the Committee, as part of your confirmation hearing, you, the Administration as a whole, has talked a big game declaring a "golden era of energy dominance." And I recall a commitment or prioritization that you shared with us of accelerating scientific capabilities. But I contrast that rhetoric with the realities of the proposed budget which seems to undermine those claims. So, Secretary Wright, you have said that "Our labs (our national labs) are the forefront of innovation and the gemstone of our department." Do you still believe that, yes or no?

WRIGHT: Absolutely. The labs are tremendous, which is why our science budget is actually up slightly, proposed this year from last year.

PADILLA: So you claim that, but your budget cuts the Office of Science's funding by $1.1 billion. It slashes basic energy science by 20%, Earth and Environmental Systems science by 79%, and High Energy Physics Research by 17%. Even some User Facilities, which are the backbone of the labs, are looking at over 50% cuts. So, you've claimed many times this affordable, reliable, secure energy for all Americans is a top priority. How is that still a priority given all these cuts?

WRIGHT: So, there is a separate line item in the Office of Science budget that's now called AIQ-Artificial Intelligence and Quantum. That's all lab funding and that's all work that's done in the laboratories. We've just brought it out as a separate category. In fact, I want to grow that category is much as I can. It accelerates our scientific efforts across all the labs, but it is across the labs.

PADILLA: So, AI is the magic wand, cause AI doesn't magically create data. It doesn't create instruments. It doesn't create the experiments. It can be used to crunch a whole lot of that data, but not to do the fundamental work that our scientists and engineers in these labs do. Let me just point out also from the proposed budget - it cuts the Office of Electricity by 22%, including 61% from Transmission Planning, when we should be looking at how to invest more in our transportation capacity in the United States. It cuts 40% from energy storage which has been a solution to the intermittency challenge that our Chairman has relayed and outlined so frequently. It's critical for reliability, not just in California but across the country. It cuts 17% from Resilient Distribution Systems, when we need to be working on more resiliency, not less. It cuts 18% from the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. How does this help us feel better about the reliability and stability of the grid?

WRIGHT: A lot of these are just more efficient operations within the Department. We are not reducing efforts in any of the things you just mentioned, but AI, for example, is a tool that dramatically enhances our ability to do grid studies of new load interconnections. It used to be very slow, very labor-intensive. We can do that much faster now. You're right, it's even more important than ever, but just cause we are spending less money on it doesn't mean that we're reducing our effort in it. It's just efficiency. And the science one is not actually a reduction in spending, it's just a recategorization of part of it into this specific tool of AI and Quantum.

PADILLA: Yeah, we'll see, we'll see. But one thing we have seen, and anybody who's filling their car with gas every week to get to and from work is seeing, is nothing but increased prices. Let me bring the conversation to one specific project. I understand the unprecedented review of 2,000 Department of Energy projects has finally concluded. In the process of reviewing all these projects, I assume no laws were violated in that review.

WRIGHT: I think that's a good assumption.

PADILLA: Okay, and in the final decisions and determinations of which projects to allow to move forward versus not, that all the applicable laws were complied with?

WRIGHT: Yes. To the best of my own knowledge, yes.

PADILLA: Okay, let me bring to your attention then that as a result of this review, the Administration has taken steps to move forward with five of the seven regional hydrogen hubs, leaving out California's ARCHES Hydrogen Hub. However, according to the law, "at least one regional clean hydrogen hub shall demonstrate the production of clean hydrogen for renewable energy." Secretary Wright, the five that the Department has made the determination to advance do not satisfy that requirement. It seems the determination was blatantly partisan and, in this case, seems to have violated the law. Will you reverse the decision and fund all the hydrogen hubs as required by law?

WRIGHT: We review all of the projects on a bottom-up basis. It is not political. All of the hydrogen hubs have some stuff in what you would call red states and some stuff in blue states, they're all cross-state endeavors. The west coast projects had particular cost problems, even worse than the other hydrogen hubs and lack pipeline infrastructure. Even if you could dramatically lower the cost of producing hydrogen, you got to move it somewhere where it can be used or have state regulations where you can build infrastructure.

PADILLA: Then let me fulfill your request, follow up with you in my office to demonstrate how the California ARCHES Hub is actually the superior of the proposals. And as far as the politicization of the process, I'll end with this, Mr. Chairman. I'm not just reminding the Secretary but the entire Committee. The court in City of Saint Paul v. Wright explicitly said that "Defendants [your lawyers] freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily-if not exclusively-based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024." That's not merit. That's not science. That's politics, and it's wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

###