Good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are.

I'm Derek Brower, the FT's US energy editor.

I'm in New York, so anybody joining me

on this side of the Atlantic, welcome.

One person who is, and I am delighted is joining us,

is the United States Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm

for the conference's last session.

Truly leaving the best last, I think.

I don't know about that.

Before we begin, a note of housekeeping.

Please, any questions that you have for Madam Secretary,

please send them in using the box, chat box,

on the right of your screen.

And second, if you want to tweet about this,

please use the hashtag #FTEnergyTran.

Madam Secretary, welcome.

Let's begin.

If I could I'd like to start with Europe

because a lot of our audience is there.

There's an energy crisis under way, as you know, in Europe.

Gas and electricity prices are at historic highs.

Do you blame Russia for this?

Well, we're certainly watching it.

I'll say this.

I just got back from Poland and met

with a number of the eastern and central European countries,

and there was a deep concern that there was withholding

of supplies and manipulation of the market

in order to demonstrate, if you will,

the indispensability of Russian gas as Germany

considers its Nord Stream 2 approvals.

However, I don't have information

to say that that is the case.

We are watching it very carefully.

Obviously, the US wants to make sure...

and there is a ripple effect in the United States, as well.

We are seeing natural gas prices shoot up also.

So we are undergoing a process internally

to the federal government just to let

you know to look at this issue and to make sure

that we're doing all we can, both here

and in Europe, to ensure that people

have the supplies they need.

Does that include the possibility

of investigating market manipulation by Gazprom

as the Polish government has called for?

Well, I know the Polish government was very concerned

about that as well.

Suffice it to say we're aware of the request.

We're aware of the fact that there does seem to be what...

well, I say a choke point and not as much supply.

But there are also, I understand -

and it's true in the United States, too -

this ramp-up after Covid takes a little bit more time than

people would like given how quickly winter is emerging.

And it is projected to be a bit of a colder winter.

So there are those issues.

Let me just say that we are looking at it.

It sounds...

I mean, those are fairly moderate comments.

It sounds like you're trying to cool some of the rhetoric.

Because some of your colleagues in Europe are talking about

this as an energy war almost.

We're in the grip of another energy war.

Do you fear that it could spiral into that?

I worry about that, certainly.

I mean, you don't want to see energy made into a weapon.

And the weaponisation of energy is a serious problem.

I'm not saying that is happening right now.

I am saying that we understand the concerns,

and that, given the enormous jack-up in prices,

there deserves to be special eyes on it,

and we are looking at it.

But at the moment, we don't have a conclusion on that.

Is there anything you think the US can do on the supply side,

for example, to help?

And I ask because the previous administration, as you know,

talked of freedom gas and so on helping to break Europe's

dependence on Russian gas.

Should the US, or can the US, send more gas right now?

Most of the cargoes that are sold in the spot market

seem to be bought by Asia right now,

and the market is sucking them in one direction

and not arriving in Europe.

Is there something more that the US

can do to help relieve Europe?

You know, again, we have an inter-agency process looking

at this.

I mean, as you know and as Europe knows, I mean,

we are in a position where we preside over a free market.

And so we don't own the means of supply

and we don't own the ability to direct.

And so the question is, what are the tools at our disposal

to make sure that there is supply

that's adequate both for Europe, as well as for the United

States.

I will say that our LNG supply at this moment

is almost to the cap of the existing capacity.

So you'd have to build out... even though new terminals are

authorised, they have not been built out yet.

It would take, obviously, some time for that

to happen to jack up additional supply.

So it's not as obvious of a solution

as one might otherwise think.

The capacity limits are almost reached.

Let me stay with the international mark

and ask about oil prices because WTI, West Texas Intermediate,

the US benchmark is near $80.

Brent is above $80.

Levels that some economists say will

start to slow the recovery, the economic recovery,

from the pandemic.

The administration has expressed its alarm

about gasoline prices, and President Biden

has talked about them.

Do you think Opec is doing enough?

Last week, they met, or earlier this week, they met.

And after the US asked for more supply

they stuck to their existing plan.

Is the Opec group of producers, Opec-Plus,

are they doing enough to cool what could be a damaging oil

price rally?

Well, I think that everybody was hoping

that there would be additional supply made available

so that prices would not be jacked up.

And the president, President Biden,

has made it clear that he wants Americans to have access

to affordable and reliable energy, obviously, at the pump,

but natural gas too.

The administration really is committed

to doing everything we can to make sure that everybody

is paying - that Americans are paying -

fair and affordable gas prices.

This is a similar problem, right?

We don't own our own gas supply or oil supply.

And so the market is what the market is.

Presidents don't control the cost of gasoline.

And we also are aware that we want

to move into a clean energy environment,

and that, while this transition occurs,

we want for people to not bear the cost of that

in terms of at the pump.

And the president, even in deciding

on how to pay for his big agenda in Congress,

he made it clear that raising gas taxes, for example,

is not on the table.

He drew a red line for that.

So he does not want to raise costs

on everyday people for anything.

And so, while we go through this transition,

he wants to incentivise the development

of clean technologies and clean fuel supplies

without having everyday citizens pay for the cost of that.

And the White House has said that all tools

- I think Jen Psaki said this earlier this week

- all tools are on the table in terms of trying

to deal with this price surge.

Does that include releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve, for example?

Yep, it's a tool, for sure.

And is that a possibility in the next coming weeks?

Well, it's a tool that's under consideration.

There are regularly scheduled sales already set.

A regularly scheduled sale set.

So that might provide some.

But again, it's very much marginal assistance

overall given the scope of the problems.

But nonetheless, that is a tool, and certainly the president

will consider that.

And possibly restricting exports.

Is that also on the table?

That's a tool that we have not used, but it is a tool as well.

And as I say, we have an intergovernmental process

that is going on.

And as Jen Psaki said, all tools are on the table.

But some are more readily available than others.

Let me turn to the US now and ask about...

we'll stick with the oil for a sec.

Oil and gas.

US producers, the shale producers, as you know,

say these price rises are the outcome of policies

from the Biden administration.

In particular, they cite the moratorium on leasing

of federal lands for fracking.

Do you think producers in the US should

be doing more to increase production

right now themselves?

Let's be clear that the moratorium was on new leases,

and there were a whole lot of existing leases

that were not even being used, that

were available, that are available,

to be able to be taken advantage of.

We want to see supply and demand be at a place

where we don't see huge increases in prices.

So I'll just leave it at that, and the president

is very concerned about that.

OK.

Let me turn to Congress.

The president has been adamant that his sweeping clean energy

agenda will go ahead.

These are huge plans, as we all know

and as we've discussed a lot in this conference.

And his agenda rests on Congress's approval

of these plans later this month, potentially,

or when the vote comes in the coming weeks.

You've been following the machinations and the debate

in Congress closely, of course, and are very

familiar with what's happening.

What do you think is likely...

not what you want to come out of this process,

but what do you think is likely now to emerge from Congress

in terms of how much of the $3.5tn reconciliation package,

how much of the $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure bill,

how much of these packages will survive by the time Congress is

done with them?

I mean, as you're aware, the bipartisan infrastructure deal

will largely stay intact, I predict.

And I think that's pretty clear.

It's just a question of the size of the Build Back Better,

the second piece, the Build Back Better agenda.

You're aware, of course, that the president

spoke with members of his party over the past couple of days

and told them that they would have to pare down the ambition.

And so whether the real question is whether they pare everything

back, or whether they put certain categories off

to the side and fund others fully.

I know that even just as I was coming on to this call,

I saw Senator Manchin describing what he thought

were his priorities.

And he has a pretty big say in how this is shaped.

So I do think that, combined, this is still

going to be a huge investment in our nation.

And from my column of the world in the Department of Energy,

it is going to be a huge investment in technologies,

and in projects, and in a grid deployment authority that

really takes us to the next level

and knocks down a lot of the barriers

that we have seen in the past.

So the issue really comes down to, quite honestly,

whether there will be this clean electricity performance

programme or some version of it that incentivises utilities

to do the buildout and has both incentives and penalties

and goals.

And so is it the CEPP, as we call it?

Or is it something that's got those elements?

That is part of what the last bit of negotiation is to occur.

I think there will be consensus around the investment in tax

credits to incentivise the buildout of clean energy.

We have been eager to incentivise

all kinds of clean energy.

- clean broadly defined.

That includes, obviously, wind and solar and renewables,

but it also includes decarbonisation