    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                         FISCAL YEAR 2011 RESEARCH AND
                          DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 3, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-81

                                   __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    55-839                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
    LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California              Wisconsin
    DAVID WU, Oregon                     LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
    MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio                W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
    BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico             RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
    PAUL D. TONKO, New York              BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey        MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               PETE OLSON, Texas
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
    CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
    KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
    ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    VACANCY
                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 3, 2010

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
      Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..........    10
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
      Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    11
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
      Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    12

    Prepared Statement by Representative John Garamendi, Member,
      Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    13

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    14
        Written Statement............................................    16

    Discussion
      The Cancellation of Yucca Mountain.............................    30
      Creating and Retaining Domestic Jobs...........................    30
      Buy American Strategies........................................    31
      The Ultra-Deepwater Program....................................    32
      Energy Hub Goals...............................................    34
      Funding for Nuclear Power......................................    36
      Solar Energy...................................................    37
      Commercializing Technologies...................................    38
      The Mix of Domestic Energy Sources.............................    39
      Potential Energy Efficiency Strategies.........................    41
      High-Performance Computing at DOE..............................    43
      Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling...................................    44
      More on Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste Storage...............    45
      More on Nuclear Waste..........................................    47
      DOE Research Infrastructure....................................    57
      Public Access of High-Performance Computers....................    58
      The Government Tools for Reducing Energy Use...................    68
      Coal and the DOE...............................................    69
      Smart Grid and Wind Energy Transmission........................    71
      Cap and Trade..................................................    72
      More on the Ultra-Deepwater Program............................    72
      Energy Efficiency..............................................    75
      Closing........................................................    76

                 Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy...    78

                 Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Motion To Withdraw Yucca Mountain
      License Application............................................    98

      THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2011 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
                                BUDGET PROPOSAL

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12 p.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

                                hearing charter

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                            The Department of Energy

                         Fiscal Year 2011 Research and

                          Development Budget Proposal

                            wednesday, march 3, 2010
                              12:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
                       2318 rayburn house office building

    Purpose

        On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the Committee on Science and
    Technology will hold a hearing entitled ``The Department of Energy
    Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development Budget Proposal.'' The
    purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony from the Secretary of
    Energy on the President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for energy
    research and technology development programs at the Department,
    including activities under the Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity
    Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
    Energy, and the Loan Guarantee Program.

    Witness

              Dr. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy. Prior to
            his appointment as the 12th Secretary of Energy, Dr. Chu was
            the Director of DOE's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
            and a professor of Physics and Molecular and Cell Biology at
            the University of California. Dr. Chu was the co-winner of the
            1997 Nobel Prize for Physics.

    Background

        The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Department of Energy is
    $28.4 billion, which represents a $1.8 billion or 6.8 percent increase
    over FY 2010. This supports a wide range of activities within the DOE
    mission, including maintaining nuclear weapons deterrence capabilities,
    securing nuclear materials, improving energy efficiency, incentivizing
    production of renewable energy, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and
    investing in research and innovation to enhance the nation's economic
    competitiveness. The FY 2011 budget request builds on $36.7 billion in
    funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which
    is expected to be completely obligated by the end of FY 2010.
        Of the total budget for DOE, approximately one-third is allocated
    for civilian energy research and technology development programs within
    the Science and Technology Committee's jurisdiction. The remainder is
    designated for weapons stockpile stewardship and nonproliferation
    activities in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as
    well as both Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup (EM).
        The FY 2011 budget request continues support for crosscutting
    initiatives that draw on the various program offices within DOE,
    including both new and existing proposals for Energy Innovation Hubs,
    and science and engineering education activities through RE-ENERGYSE
    (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge).

    The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
        The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for ARPA-E is $299.9 million.
    This will be the first year that ARPA-E receives full operational
    funding through the annual appropriations process. ARPA-E was
    established in 2009 with $15 million from the Omnibus Appropriations
    Act of 2009 and $400 million from the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009.
        ARPA-E was originally authorized in the America COMPETES Act of
    2007 (P.L. 110-69). That Act followed on the direct recommendations of
    the National Academies seminal 2005 report, ``Rising Above the
    Gathering Storm.'' The Gathering Storm panel was chaired by retired
    Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Norman Augustine, and included, among
    a number of notable experts Secretary Chu. The panel made a
    recommendation to create a new energy research agency (ARPA-E) within
    the Department of Energy patterned after the successful Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of
    Defense.
        According to the Gathering Storm report, ARPA-E should be
    structured to ``sponsor creative, out-of-the-box, transformational,
    generic energy research in those areas where industry itself cannot or
    will not undertake such sponsorships, where risks and potential payoffs
    are high, and where success could provide dramatic benefits for the
    Nation . . . . It would be designed as a lean, effective, and agile--
    but largely independent--organization that can start and stop targeted
    programs based on performance and ultimate relevance.''
        Shortly after receiving Recovery Act funding, ARPA-E released its
    first Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) in April 2009, and it
    received an unprecedented response of almost 3,700 concept papers.
    After an intensive selection process utilizing expert volunteers from
    industry and academia, 334 of those were chosen to submit full
    applications. Ultimately, 37 projects were chosen to participate,
    totaling over $150 million in awards to a diverse range of technologies
    and performers.
        A second round of solicitations totaling $100 million was announced
    in early December. Informed by a series of open workshops the second
    round focuses on three distinct areas: innovative materials and
    processes for carbon capture, transportation batteries, and liquid
    fuels from carbon dioxide. Despite the comparatively narrow scope of
    this solicitation, ARPA-E received over 600 concept papers. It is
    expected that awards will be announced in the coming this spring, and
    total 30-40 projects. A third round of solicitations is expected soon.
        Given the high demand evidenced by the responses to the first and
    second rounds of funding, DOE and ARPA-E leadership acknowledged that
    it had the capacity to accommodate only a small percentage of
    applications. Consequently, the Department is hosting an ARPA-E Energy
    Innovation Summit on March 1-3rd to highlight some award-winning
    projects as well as those that did not receive awards but would likely
    still be of interest to the investor community.

    Office of Science

        The FY 2011 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.1
    billion. This represents an increase of $218 million or 4.4 percent
    over the FY 2010 enacted level of funding.
        The request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.84 billion, an
    increase of $198.5 million or 12.1 percent over enacted FY 2010
    funding. As the largest program within the Office of Science, BES
    conducts research and supports major user facilities to examine the
    cross-cutting areas of materials and chemical sciences. In FY 2009, the
    program began support for 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs)
    focusing on specific research areas for energy applications that were
    identified in a series of recent reports and workshops. The annual
    budget for each EFRC is $2-5M per year, and each supports 6-12
    researchers from a variety of institutions. In FY 2010, DOE is
    initiating an Energy Innovation Hub on producing liquid transportation
    fuels directly from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water through a
    chemical process analogous to photosynthesis in plants, but without the
    need to maintain life processes. The Hub was funded in FY 2010 by DOE's
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in accordance with the
    FY 2010 Energy & Water Development Appropriations Act, but it is being
    managed by BES. In FY 2011, DOE has proposed to formally fund this Hub
    through BES as well. In addition, DOE is proposing the establishment of
    a Hub on Batteries and Energy Storage in BES, with a request of $34
    million for FY 2011. Energy Innovation Hubs have annual budgets of $25
    million, and will be able to support much larger research teams than
    EFRCs. No Federal funds for EFRCs or Hubs can be used for construction
    of permanent infrastructure, and all awardees must recompete every five
    years.
        The budget would provide $426 million for Advanced Scientific
    Computing Research (ASCR), an increase of $32 million or 8.1 percent
    over enacted FY 2010 funding. This includes funds to continue upgrading
    the Leadership Class Facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
    Argonne National Laboratory.
        Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $626.9
    million under the President's budget, which is $22.7 million or 3.8
    percent over current year funding. In addition to the role of BER in
    areas such as genomics, climate change research, and environmental
    remediation, the FY 2011 request supports continued funding for three
    bioenergy research centers established in FY 2008.
        The request for Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) is $380 million, a
    decrease of $46 million or 10.8 percent below enacted FY 2010 funding.
    This decrease largely reflects a one-year reduction in the U.S.
    contribution to the ITER international fusion project, from $135
    million to $80 million, consistent with the project's current status as
    a final design is determined this year.
        The FY 2011 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $829
    million, which is $18.5 million or 2.3 percent more than the enacted FY
    2010 level. This program conducts fundamental research in elementary
    particle physics and accelerator science and technology, including
    support for research on collaborative international projects such as
    the Large Hadron Collider.
        Nuclear Physics (NP) would receive $562 million, an increase of $27
    million or five percent over FY 2010 funding. NP supports research to
    discover and understand various forms of nuclear matter. It also
    supports the production and development of techniques to make isotopes
    that are in short supply for medical, national security, environmental,
    and other research applications.

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
        The President's proposal of $2.35 billion for the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy represents
    a 5% increase from the enacted FY 2010 level. Under this request
    renewable energy investments would significantly increase for large-
    scale demonstrations in biopower, concentrating solar power, offshore
    wind, and advanced hydropower. Energy efficiency activities would
    continue to support R&D for innovative new building technologies and a
    new focus on retrofitting existing buildings. For the second year in a
    row the Administration is including a proposal to fund a new program
    coordinated with the National Science Foundation called RE-ENERGYSE.
    This would provide educational and training support to universities and
    community colleges.
        The proposed funding for the Solar Energy program is $302.4
    million, an increase of $55.4 million or 22.4 percent over FY 2010
    levels. This reflects an increase of $23.5 million to the Photovoltaic
    R&D subprogram covering the first full year of funding for its PV
    Manufacturing Initiative, a $48.5 million increase to the Concentrating
    Solar Power subprogram to accelerate the installation of large-scale
    solar thermal demonstration projects in the American Southwest, and a
    proposed shift of support for the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation
    Hub from EERE to the Office of Science, as described above.
        The FY 2011 funding request for the Wind Energy program is $122.5
    million, an increase of $42.5 million or 53.1 percent. This increase
    primarily reflects the establishment of a significant subprogram to
    accelerate the advancement of offshore wind through demonstrations and
    technology development.
        The FY 2011 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems request would stay flat
    at $220 million. This program seeks to produce cost-competitive
    renewable fuels from biomass feedstocks, (grass, trees etc.) through
    the advancement of technologies and practices to make the entire
    biomass supply chain more efficient. In coordination with the Office of
    Fossil Energy, the program will also establish a new $50 million
    biopower initiative to accelerate the commercialization of technologies
    which produce electricity and heat from biomass.
        The Buildings Technologies Program (BTP) would receive $231
    million, a 3.9 percent increase over FY 2010 enacted levels. This
    includes an increased emphasis on technology research and development
    for retrofitting the nation's existing building portfolio. The program
    will also focus on promoting the use of more efficient appliances. The
    Buildings Technology program seeks to complete legally required
    efficiency standards pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the
    Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Standards will be issued
    for a variety of appliances and equipment including fluorescent lamp
    ballasts, clothes dryers, residential refrigerators, furnaces and
    boilers.
        Additionally, the request includes $24 million for the Energy
    Efficient Buildings Systems Design Hub. This will focus on state-of-
    the-art energy science and technologies that integrate smart materials,
    designs, and systems to increase energy efficiency in buildings. This
    approach would maximize the efficiency of different components and
    systems in a building. This Hub would be a part of the Administration's
    proposed Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC), a multi-agency
    initiative to spur regional economic growth while making buildings more
    energy efficient. This initiative involves six Federal agencies and up
    to $129.7 million over five years to create a regional research center
    that will develop new building efficiency technologies and work with
    local partners to implement these technologies in area buildings.
        The Administration's budget request would provide a total of $40
    million for the Water Power program. This provides support to advance
    both conventional hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic (MHK)
    technologies, each with $20 million for FY 2011. This request is $30
    million below the explicit $50 million authorization in the EISA for
    R&D for MHK technologies. The $20 million request for FY 2011 is also
    below the FY 2010 appropriation of close to $40 million for MHK
    technologies.
        The proposed funding level for the Geothermal Technology program is
    $55 million, up by $10 million from the FY 2010 appropriation, but
    still $35 million below the $90 million authorized from EISA. This
    funding will continue the Department's focus on Enhanced Geothermal
    Systems (EGS), including three existing EGS demonstration projects, and
    add three new projects.
        The Industrial Technologies Program would receive $100 million, an
    increase of $4 million from the FY 2010 appropriation. The program
    focuses on reducing energy-intensity by 25 percent in the U.S.
    industrial sector by 2017, a goal established by EPAct '05. This
    funding will focus on new initiatives in the chemical and cement
    industries and continue activities in other energy-intensive industry
    sectors, while also focusing more attention on crosscutting activities.
    Specifically, the program will continue to support Combined Heat and
    Power (CHP) activities in the industrial sector through its existing
    projects funded through Recovery Act funds and new R&D on cutting edge
    technologies.

    Nuclear Energy (NE)
        For FY 2011 the Administration requests $503 million for the Office
    of Nuclear Energy research and development, representing an increase of
    $37 million over the FY 2010 enacted funding level. Close to eighty
    percent of that request is dedicated to the Fuel Cycle Research and
    Development and Reactor Concepts RD&D programs. The Administration
    recently expressed support for the expansion of nuclear power, and
    increased its commitment to loan guarantees for new reactors as well as
    commissioned a Blue Ribbon panel to consider long-term strategies for
    used nuclear fuel and waste storage.
        The United States has been conducting research on the reprocessing
    of spent nuclear fuel since 2002 under the Advanced Fuel Cycle
    Initiative and more recently under the Fuel Cycle Research and
    Development program. In April 2009, the Administration signaled a
    change in this initiative when it announced it was no longer pursuing
    domestic commercial reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy
    Partnership (GNEP) program, which had sought near-term reprocessing
    technology development and deployment. GNEP had drawn criticism based
    on the substantial costs estimated for implementing the program and the
    technical challenges associated with developing, demonstrating, and
    deploying advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that
    do not separate out a stream of weapons-ready plutonium. The National
    Academies expressed similar concerns in a series of reports. The new
    strategy of this program will be to examine three distinct fuel cycle
    strategies: once-through, modified-open, and full-recycle.
        The Administration reorganized NE's advanced reactor research
    efforts and created the Reactor Concepts RD&D program. This new program
    will include Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, Next Generation
    Nuclear Power, a new focus on Small Modular Reactor design, and other
    advanced reactor initiatives. The Administration recognized that
    advanced reactor design is a vital part of closing the fuel cycle and
    increasing the efficiency and longevity of both the current nuclear
    fleet and those plants expected to be built in the near-term.
    Furthermore, next generation advanced reactors are expected to provide
    the capacity to utilize advanced fuels reclaimed through reprocessing.
        The FY 2011 budget request also establishes the Nuclear Energy
    Enabling Technologies (NEET) program to provide support to the
    aforementioned programs and develop crosscutting technologies. Amongst
    the goals of this program will be exploration of advanced fuels and
    concepts that will increase the performance of technologies developed
    in the Reactor Concepts RD&D and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
    programs. NEET will also encourage research into high-risk, high-reward
    concepts aimed at providing technological leaps for nuclear generation.
    Furthermore, under the NEET program, the Administration provides $24.3
    million for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. This
    hub program will continue its 2010 work in providing validated advanced
    modeling and simulation tools necessary to enable fundamental changes
    in how the U.S. designs and licenses nuclear power and waste management
    technologies.
        An additional $5 million is requested for RE-ENERGYSE under the
    Nuclear Energy Program.

    Fossil Energy R&D
        The proposed FY 2011 budget includes a significant reduction for
    Office of Fossil Energy (FE) funding. The Fossil Energy R&D program
    would receive $587 million in FY 2011, a decrease of $85 million
    compared to FY 2010 appropriations. Pursuant to the Administration's
    policy to cut oil and gas subsidies the reduction comes largely from
    the proposed cancellations of the Natural Gas Technologies program and
    the Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies program as well as no
    planned FY 2011 Congressionally Directed Projects. Coal-related
    projects would receive $404 million, similar to FY 2010's funding
    levels.
        The FY 2011 budget request for FE's Coal program will be a driver
    to accomplish the Administration's recently announced pledge to develop
    5-10 Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects by
    2016. The Fuels and Power Systems program initiatives will focus on
    research, development, and deployment of technologies to use fossil
    fuels more cleanly and efficiently. This program also supports
    demonstration projects including the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)
    and FutureGen, though both of those programs will not receive funding
    for demonstrations under the FY 2011 plan, and instead FE will focus on
    project execution in all Rounds of CCPI and completion of National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures for ongoing projects.
    Included in this request is $143.0 million for FE's Carbon
    Sequestration program including the Regional Carbon Sequestration
    Partnerships, $65 million for the Innovations for Existing Plants
    program, and $55 million for the Advanced Integrated Gasification
    Combined Cycle (IGCC) program. The Administration will continue to
    explore fuel cell and advanced turbine technologies for deployment in
    central coal power generation facilities. Furthermore, the Advanced
    Research program would receive $47.9 million for its continued
    activities to improve efficiency and reduce costs of advanced coal-
    based systems. The Administration will propose a new budget structure
    for the FY 2012 Clean Coal program to align the four key research areas
    of efficiency, carbon capture, geologic storage, and cross-cutting
    research.

    Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
        The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is
    charged with managing programs to modernize the electric grid, enhance
    security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, and facilitate
    recovery from disruptions to our energy supply. The Administration's FY
    2011 request for OE's Research and Development is $144 million, a $19
    million increase over last year's funding. Included is additional
    funding for smart grid and energy storage technologies R&D. Within the
    smart grid research activities there will be a new focus on power
    electronics. These activities help utilities effectively deliver power
    to customers while providing increased reliability to bulk power
    systems. An integral part of this research will be on promising
    materials for semiconductors. A funding increase of $26 million for
    energy storage technology research will be used to initiate activities
    in community energy systems based on vehicle batteries and the
    development of significantly larger lithium ion cells for stationary
    applications. Additionally, increased basic research and improved
    modeling capacities for Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) systems
    will be conducted. Also notable is a reduction in funding of $10
    million for Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems.

    Loan Guarantee Program
        The FY 2011 budget request proposes funding and authority to
    support approximately $40 billion in additional loan guarantees for
    renewable energy, energy efficiency, and nuclear energy projects.

        Chairman Gordon. The hearing will come to order.
        Let me just bring everybody up to speed on where we are.
    Although the memorial service is over, the House, I understand,
    may still be technically in recess for a few more minutes. We
    have the right to move forward, but I have consulted with the
    Minority, and I want to be sure they feel comfortable with that
    because we are going to then have a series of votes in an hour
    and a half or so and I want to be sure that Dr. Broun has
    plenty of time to ask all he wants to ask. So if we are going
    to do that, we need to get started. So with no objection, then
    we will begin now. I thank you all.
        Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing
    on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request,
    and I especially want to welcome our witness, Dr. Chu. In an
    effort also for brevity, Mr. Hall has suggested that we either
    waive or make our opening statements brief, and so I will be
    brief and simply say that for those that believe in destiny,
    Dr. Chu, your destiny was to be here at this moment and this
    time to bring your unique set of skills, maybe not here at this
    hearing room but here as the Secretary of Energy. You do have a
    unique set of skills that are needed, I think, as we are moving
    really both for national security as well as economic security,
    a time of losing jobs in the 21st century, as we are looking
    for the new jobs of the 21st century.
        So we welcome you here and I congratulate you on a
    tremendous turnout yesterday for the ARPA-E [Advanced Research
    Projects Agency-Energy]. For those that weren't there, there
    were over 2,000 people that came to the ARPA-E. If I could just
    real quickly, since Ralph always tells stories, I will tell a
    quick one. Tony Tether, who was a former director of DARPA,
    when we were talking to him about ARPA-E and how it should be
    set up, he recommended that if he could, he would have ARPA-E--
    I mean DARPA--all on one floor and there would be unisex
    bathroom in the middle of it so that everybody would have to
    come there at some time and have interaction. Well, there was
    only one coffeepot at this meeting yesterday with 2,000 people
    and they were all around the coffeepot. You could hear the
    really the stimulating discussions about what about this, what
    about that. So I think it was a great success.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
        I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Department of
    Energy's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request.
        I especially want to welcome our witness, Secretary Chu.
        Dr. Chu, you have sat before this committee on a number of
    occasions, and your testimony is always valuable and appreciated. With
    all of the changes at the Department we certainly look forward to an
    interesting discussion today.
        It has been an exciting and historic year for the Department of
    Energy. The 2009 Recovery Act provided DOE with almost $40 billion to
    jumpstart our green economy, and to lay a strong foundation for our
    country's future through significant investments in research and
    development.
        While this is a tremendous opportunity for the Secretary, it also
    presents an unprecedented challenge in ramping up programs that, at
    best, spend around one-tenth of that in a normal year.
        I believe we entrusted the right person with this task, and that we
    will look back on this investment as the one that sowed the seeds of
    change for a new U.S. economy.
        The Recovery Act included $400 million in start-up funding for the
    Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy--ARPA-E--a program we
    authorized in the America COMPETES Act two years earlier.
        As Secretary Chu knows well, I have a strong interest in the
    success of ARPA-E, and our Committee has been engaged in rigorous
    oversight of the agency throughout its inception and early development.
        Today, I am pleased to say that we are impressed with the progress
    that you and Dr. Majumdar, ARPA-E's new Director, have made in such a
    short amount of time.
        In DOE's history, it had been unheard of to carry out technical
    reviews of some 3700 proposals--and then to get the money out the door
    to the winners--within just a few months. We have heard stories on how
    this experience compares to previous applications to, and negotiations
    with, DOE. I'd like to hear if there are any positive lessons we can
    learn from this process that can be applied to the rest of the
    Department.
        So obviously I am happy to see the Administration's request of $300
    million for ARPA-E in FY 11, and I believe ARPA-E is moving fast enough
    to justify an even larger investment in the very near future. But it
    appears to be an appropriate, well-justified amount to build on the
    successes we're seeing today.
        I am also pleased with the request for the DOE Office of Science,
    which--along with the Administration's requests for NSF and NIST--
    continues this agency on a doubling path as recommended by the National
    Academies' Gathering Storm report to keep America competitive well into
    the future.
        We will be taking another look at these agencies in the
    reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act this year, and look forward
    to working with you to make this new bill as strong and effective as we
    can.
        Another area we will be focusing on this year is nuclear energy.
    I'm sure there will be some lively discussions this afternoon on the
    Administration's decision to cut funding for Yucca Mountain, but given
    the recent assessments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
    National Academies that a major repository isn't needed anytime soon--
    and may never be needed--I'm most interested in where we go from here.
        I am pleased that loan guarantees for the first new nuclear plants
    in three decades have finally been issued, and I'm impressed with the
    quality of members selected for the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission
    on nuclear waste, just announced by the President.
        I understand that the Department will also be releasing a nuclear
    energy R&D plan in the near future, and we look forward to reviewing it
    as soon as possible. We expect this plan to be an important reference
    as we craft a comprehensive nuclear energy research and development
    bill this year.
        In closing, Secretary Chu, I've appreciated working with you over
    the past year, and urge you and DOE to continue reaching out to us on
    anything we can do to help you make the Department as effective as
    possible. With that, I'd like to yield to the Committee's distinguished
    Ranking Member, Mr. Hall.

        Chairman Gordon. With that, I will yield to my newly
    championed Ranking Member on his way to his 14th term,
    undefeated--16th? What is it, no knockdowns, no--anyway, he is
    back and I am glad.
        Mr. Hall. I will just ask unanimous consent to place my
    statement that you ought to have to listen to into the record.
    Without objection?
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I want to
    welcome Secretary Chu back for his second visit to the Committee. I
    look forward to continuing to work with you on the energy challenges
    that are central to DOE's mission and the Nations well-being.
        When it comes to energy and DOE's budget there is of course an
    abundance of important issues to discuss, but I want to focus my
    comments on three high level areas: (1) energy independence and
    security; (2) the status and outlook for nuclear energy; and (3)
    science and innovation as a priority investment toward maintaining
    America's long-term economic competitiveness.
        Most important--and most concerning--to me in this budget is its
    approach to energy security. While I recognize and generally support
    efforts to advance energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, any
    serious approach to strengthening American energy independence must be
    ``All of the Above,'' and complemented by a comprehensive effort to
    expand traditional sources of domestic energy, primarily oil and
    natural gas. We are all concerned about jobs, so this Administration
    should be heartened by the fact that the domestic oil and natural gas
    industry experienced nine percent job growth from 2002-2008.
    Unfortunately, this budget proposes dramatic tax hikes on domestic
    energy development and aims to eliminate the fossil energy R&D
    programs, including the proven and successful Ultra-Deep program that I
    helped to establish in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These actions--
    combined with delays in opening up new areas for domestic energy
    production and efforts to ration carbon use through Cap and Trade--will
    result in higher energy costs, reduced job growth, and increase our
    dependence on foreign energy sources, including those provided by
    regimes hostile to American interests.
        With respect to nuclear energy, I appreciate the Secretary's stated
    desire to ``restart the nuclear energy industry in America.'' However,
    the signals on nuclear remain mixed, and I hope to see the
    Administration's desire translated into real action and support, from
    loan guarantees, to licensing to R&D. Nuclear waste storage is critical
    and the Administration's determination that Yucca Mountain is not a
    workable option seems cavalier when not based on any scientific,
    engineering or economic analysis. I have written the Secretary asking
    for more information on his decisions and plans in this area. I look
    forward to his thorough and timely response, and to working with him on
    this as we go forward.
        Last, I want to reiterate my strong support for investments in the
    basic research activities that drive American innovation and
    competitiveness. In 2007, the S&T Committee led passage of the America
    COMPETES Act, which placed the DOE Office of Science on a path to
    double over seven years. While I am pleased that the President appears
    mindful of the need for basic research and development, I am concerned
    with how the Administration is choosing to direct the American
    taxpayer's research dollars. I have long feared that ARPA-E would
    divert funding from the Office of Science, and it appears that this
    budget reflects that reality. Moreover, there seem to be multiple other
    programs with overlapping goals and activities that must be better
    explained and distinguished from traditional agency activities. For
    example, it is unclear how the activities supported by the newly
    established and requested energy innovation hubs, the energy frontier
    research centers and traditionally applied energy programs are
    different. We need improved clarity on this question to enable
    prioritization and minimize confusion and potential duplication of
    effort.
        In our current economy we need to be judicious with taxpayer
    dollars. I am concerned with where this budget is taking us and the
    ways the Administration is choosing to direct energy research dollars.
        While I have many more questions and concerns that I hope to cover
    in our discussion and subsequent interactions, these are my top
    priorities that I look forward to hearing from the Secretary on.
        Thank you again for taking the time to be with us today.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
        Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
    on the Department of Energy (DOE) research and development (R&D) budget
    for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 11).
        The President's budget calls for $28.4 billion in FY 11 for Energy
    R&D, a $1.8 billion increase from FY 10. The President's budget
    continues to invest in a balanced energy R&D program that emphasizes
    the development of renewable energy sources, such as ethanol and
    biodiesel, while continuing to use our most abundant and affordable
    domestic source of energy, coal. I applaud the administration's strong
    support of the Office of Fossil Energy's (FE) Coal R&D program. Fifty-
    one percent of electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal,
    and 49 percent of the electricity in my home state, Illinois, comes
    from coal.
        The administration's $400 million investment will expand research,
    development, and deployment of clean coal technologies, including
    carbon capture and storage (CCS), to ensure this stable and affordable
    source of energy remains clean and efficient.
        I was pleased with the DOE's decision last year to continue
    investing in FutureGen, the world's first commercial-scale CCS
    demonstration project. I have been a firm supporter of the FutureGen
    project since its inception, and DOE's $1 billion investment through
    last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reinvigorated the
    project. Since DOE's investment, FutureGen is on the fast-track towards
    completion and has welcomed two new members, Illinois-based Caterpillar
    and Exelon. Despite this progress, DOE's FY 11 budget does not provide
    any further funding for FutureGen, and I would like to hear how DOE
    will continue to support and invest in FutureGen without additional
    funding.
        In addition, I also strongly support the DOE's decision to focus
    the next round of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
    funding on high-risk, high-reward carbon capture research. The results
    of these projects will show us the future of CCS and coal in the U.S.,
    and the projects will build on the work being done now at universities
    and research centers across the U.S., including the Coal Research
    Center at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
        Balancing this investment in fossil energy, the budget invests $2.4
    billion in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency R&D, including
    biofuels and biomass. I strongly support this ongoing investment in
    developing these new renewable energy sources and ensuring our national
    energy policy is sustainable and balanced.
        Finally, the President's budget represents a change in direction
    for the national nuclear energy policy. The budget requests $503
    million for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), an increase of $37
    million over FY 10. This increased funding, in addition to $54.5
    billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new reactors,
    demonstrates the administration's support for the expansion of nuclear
    power. About 49 percent of Illinois' power is generated through nuclear
    energy, and we should continue to develop our nuclear energy program.
    Since the administration decided to eliminate funding for Yucca
    Mountain while expanding our reliance on nuclear energy, I would like
    to hear what steps DOE is taking to store nuclear waste as more nuclear
    energy is produced.
        I welcome Secretary Chu, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank
    you again, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative John Garamendi
        Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on the
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
        Secretary Chu, welcome to the Committee and thank you for your
    testimony. I am very pleased to see the commitment to research,
    science, engineering and STEM education at DOE in the President's
    budget. These investments in our children's future are long overdue.
        In addition to being home to Lawrence Livermore and to the Joint
    Genome Institute, my district is adjacent to the 9th Congressional
    District represented by Congresswoman Barbara Lee that is home to
    another world leading research and institution, the Lawrence Berkeley
    National Laboratory. Berkeley Lab, under the new leadership of Dr. Paul
    Alivisatos, is making great progress on the development of advanced
    energy and environmental solutions.
        As home to four major national scientific user facilities--the
    Advanced Light Source, the National Center for Electron Microscopy, the
    Molecular Foundry and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing
    Center--the Lab serves thousands of scientists annually from around the
    world. From supporting Nobel prize-winning work to finding solutions to
    health, energy and climate challenges, these user facilities are the
    best that our country has to offer and I urge the Department to fully
    fund and support them aggressively.
        In particular, I urge the Department to adequately fund the
    research needed for the next generation of photon light sources. There
    is great potential here for understanding materials and chemical
    reactions at a scale unmatched by current tools.
        Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to praise the
    National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. It is THE work
    horse of the Office of Science advanced computing program serving over
    3,000 users annually. I strongly urge the Department to more fully
    utilize NERSC for working with industry and academia to address our
    energy and environmental challenges.

        Chairman Gordon. Without objection. And Dr. Chu, as you
    know, your written statement will be made a part of the record
    and so we welcome your oral statement followed by each Member
    will have an opportunity to question you for five minutes.
        So with that, Dr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy for the U.S.
    Department of Energy, welcome. You may begin.

        STATEMENTS OF DR. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, U.S.
                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Secretary Chu. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Hall. Members of the Committee, I thank you for
    having the opportunity to be here before you today to discuss
    the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
    Department of Energy.
        President Obama has stated that a nation that leads the
    world in creating new sources of clean energy will be the
    Nation that leads in the 21st century global economy, and I
    fervently share this view. The President's fiscal year 2011
    budget request for $28.4 billion for the Department of Energy
    will help position the United States to be a global leader in
    this new energy economy. The budget request makes much-needed
    investments to harness the power of American ingenuity. This
    request will create clean energy jobs, expand the frontiers of
    science, reduce nuclear dangers and help curb the carbon
    pollution that threatens our planet.
        The President's budget request includes an investment of
    $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
    It also promotes innovative energy efficiency and renewable
    energy projects through $500 million in credit subsidies that
    will support $3 billion to $5 billion in lending. It expands
    the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion to help
    build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity. Through this
    budget, we will increase research, demonstration and deployment
    of wind, solar, geothermal energies, make buildings more
    efficient, develop energy-efficient vehicles, and pursue carbon
    capture and sequestration.
        Nuclear energy must also be part of our clean energy mix.
    Our budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan
    guarantee authority for the nuclear power sector as well as
    $495 million for nuclear energy research and development.
        On February 16th, President Obama announced conditional
    commitments for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for
    what will be the first nuclear power plants to break ground in
    nearly three decades.
        We have many technologies on hand today to begin the
    transition to a low-carbon economy but we will need further
    breakthroughs and better technologies to meet our long-term
    goals. The budget request invests in basic and applied research
    and puts us on a path to doubling the funding for science.
        I know this Committee is deeply interested in the
    Department's research agenda. Indeed, you have been
    instrumental in some of the key R&D initiatives in this budget
    request. I thank the Committee for your efforts to pass the
    America COMPETES Act and for your work to reauthorize this
    important legislation.
        The budget request supports the Department's three new
    complementary approaches to marshalling the Nation's brightest
    minds to accelerate energy breakthroughs. The first approach is
    energy innovation hubs. The hubs are multidisciplinary, goal
    oriented and will be managed by top teams of scientists and
    engineers with enough resources and authority to move quickly
    and respond to new developments. They are to be modeled after
    laboratories such as MIT's radiation laboratory, which
    developed radar during World War II and Bell Laboratories which
    invented and developed the transistor. Ideally, this work will
    be done under one roof. The Department will continue funding
    the three energy innovation hubs introduced in fiscal year
    2010, but in addition we are proposing a new hub to
    dramatically improve batteries and energy storage.
        The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research
    Centers. The EFRCs are mainly university-based, problem-
    oriented research. We have identified key scientific barriers
    to energy breakthroughs and we believe we can clear these
    roadblocks faster by linking together small groups of
    researchers across departments, schools and institutions. The
    Department proposes expanding the Energy Frontier Research
    Centers to capture emerging opportunities in new materials and
    basic research for energy needs.
        The third funding approach is one that was made possible by
    this Committee, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
    or ARPA-E. ARPA-E is technology oriented. We seek the boldest
    and best ideas for potentially transformative energy
    technologies and funding them to see if they will work. ARPA-E
    is also dedicated to the market adoption of these new
    technologies. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $300
    million for ARPA-E. This week, ARPA-E sponsored a successful
    conference here in Washington, as Chairman Gordon mentioned, to
    bring together our Nation's energy innovators. I want to thank
    Chairman Gordon for taking part in this event and for his
    continued leadership on ARPA-E.
        To develop clean energy solutions and maintain nuclear
    security, the Department must cultivate the workforce of the
    next generation. In fiscal year 2011, we are requesting $55
    million to start a ``RE-ENERGYSE'' initiative to support K-20-
    plus science and engineering education.
        In addition to the health of our economy and our planet,
    the Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security
    of our people. The Department is requesting a significant
    increase, more than $550 million, in new funding for the NNSA
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program to help the
    President's goals of securing vulnerable nuclear materials
    around the world in four years.
        To ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our
    nuclear stockpile, we are requesting $7 billion to upgrade our
    infrastructure, support the work of our national labs and
    recruit the skilled workforce we need.
        The budget also protects public health and safety by
    cleaning up the environmental legacy of our Nation's nuclear
    weapons program. In 2010, the Department will discontinue its
    application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license
    to construct a high-level waste geologic repository at Yucca
    Mountain. To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the
    Administration has announced an independent bipartisan
    commission co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and
    Congressman Lee Hamilton to conduct a comprehensive review of
    the back end of the fuel cycle and make recommendations for
    safe, long-term solutions.
        Building a clean energy future won't be easy but it is
    necessary for our economy and our security. As a scientist, I
    am optimistic and I believe we can meet these challenges and
    lead the world in the 21st century. President Obama and I look
    forward to working with this Committee and this Congress to
    build a stronger, safer, more prosperous future. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions at this time.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Chu follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Secretary Steven Chu
        Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Department of
    Energy.
        President Obama has stated, ``The nation that leads the world in
    creating new sources of clean energy will be the Nation that leads the
    21st century global economy.'' I fervently share this view. The
    President's FY 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion will help position
    the United States to be the global leader in the new energy economy.
    The budget request makes much-needed investments to harness the power
    of American ingenuity. This request will create clean energy jobs,
    expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers, and help curb
    the carbon pollution that threatens our planet. As part of this
    Administration's commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Department of
    Energy is also proposing several program reductions and terminations.

    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

        The FY 11 budget request builds on the investments in the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Through the $36.7 billion the Department
    received from the Recovery Act, we are putting Americans to work, while
    helping to build a clean energy economy, spur energy innovation, and
    reduce our dependence on oil. We've begun to make our homes and offices
    more energy efficient, modernize our grid, and invest in key renewable
    energy projects. Getting this money out the door quickly, carefully,
    and transparently has been and will continue to be a top priority for
    me.

    FY11 Budget Supports Strategic Priorities

        To continue the progress we have made, the FY 11 budget request
    supports the Department's strategic priorities of:

              Transitioning to a low-carbon economy by developing
            and deploying clean and efficient energy technologies,
            increasing generation capacity and improving our transmission
            capabilities;

              Investing in scientific discovery and innovation to
            find solutions to pressing energy challenges and maintain
            American economic competitiveness; and

              Enhancing national security by ensuring the safety,
            security and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile without
            testing. The budget request also includes funds to work with
            our international partners to secure vulnerable nuclear
            material around the world within four years, and advance our
            nuclear legacy cleanup.

        These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued
    commitment to improving the management and fiscal performance of the
    Department.

    Energy

        To transition to a low-carbon future, we must change the way we
    generate and use energy. The President's budget request invests in
    clean energy priorities, including an investment of $2.4 billion in
    energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. It also promotes
    innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects through $500
    million in credit subsidy that will support $3 to $5 billion in
    lending. It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion
    to help build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy
    technologies. Through this budget, we will increase research,
    demonstration, and deployment of wind, solar and geothermal energies;
    make buildings and homes more efficient; develop energy efficient
    vehicles; and pursue carbon capture and sequestration.
        Nuclear energy must also be a part of our clean energy mix. During
    his State of the Union address, President Obama said, ``To create more
    of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency,
    more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe,
    clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' The President and I are
    committed to restarting our domestic nuclear industry. Our budget
    request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority
    for the nuclear power sector to help construct the first new nuclear
    plants in decades, as well as $495 million for research and development
    to support the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of
    nuclear energy in the United States and abroad. On February 16,
    President Obama announced conditional commitments for more than $8
    billion in loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear
    power plant to break ground in nearly three decades.

    Innovation

        We have many technologies in hand today to begin the transition to
    a low-carbon economy, but we will need breakthroughs and better
    technologies to meet our long-term goals. I know that this committee is
    keenly interested in the Department's research agenda. Indeed, this
    committee has been instrumental in laying the groundwork for some of
    the key research and development initiatives in this budget request
    through its efforts to pass the America COMPETES Act. I know that the
    committee continues to work during this Congress to reauthorize this
    legislation.
        The budget request invests in basic and applied research and puts
    us on the path to doubling funding for science, a key presidential
    priority. We are also requesting $55 million to start the RE-ENERGYSE
    initiative to help educate the next generation of scientists and
    engineers.
        The budget request also supports the Department's three new,
    complementary approaches to marshalling the nation's brightest minds to
    accelerate energy breakthroughs.
        The first approach is the Energy Innovation Hubs. The Hubs are
    multidisciplinary, goal-oriented, and will be managed by top teams of
    scientists and engineers with enough resources and authority to move
    quickly in response to new developments. They are to be modeled after
    laboratories such as MIT's Radiation Laboratory, which developed radar
    during World War II, and Bell Laboratories when it invented and
    developed the transistor. Ideally, this work will be conducted under
    one roof. The Department will continue funding the three Energy
    Innovation Hubs introduced in FY 2010. In addition, we are proposing a
    new Hub to dramatically improve batteries and energy storage.
        The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research Centers. The
    EFRCs are mainly university-based, problem-oriented research. We have
    identified key scientific barriers to energy breakthroughs, and we
    believe we can clear these roadblocks faster by linking together small
    groups of researchers across departments, schools, and institutions.
    The Department proposes expanding the Energy Frontier Research Centers
    to capture emerging opportunities in new materials and basic research
    for energy needs.
        The third funding approach is the Advanced Research Projects
    Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). ARPA-E is technology-oriented. We are seeking
    the boldest and best ideas for potentially transformative energy
    technologies and funding them to see if they work. The FY 2011 budget
    request includes $300 million for ARPA-E. ARPA-E is also dedicated to
    the market adoption of these new technologies. This week, ARPA-E
    sponsored a very successful conference here in Washington to bring
    together our nation's energy innovators. I want to thank Chairman
    Gordon for attending this event, and for his continued leadership on
    ARPA-E.

    Security

        In addition to the health of our economy and our planet, the
    Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security of our
    people. Last April in Prague, President Obama outlined an ambitious
    agenda to address the greatest threat to global security--the danger of
    terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or the material to
    build them. The Department is requesting a significant increase in the
    budget--more than $550 million in new funding--for the NNSA Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation program to help meet the President's goal of
    securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four
    years.
        The President has also made clear that, as long as nuclear weapons
    continue to exist, it is essential that we ensure the safety, security
    and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. With the $7 billion in
    funds we have requested, we can upgrade our infrastructure that has
    been allowed to decay in the past decade, support the cutting-edge work
    of our National Labs, and recruit the skilled workforce we need today
    and in the future. Over the next five years, we intend to boost this
    funding by more than $5 billion. Even in a time of tough budget
    decisions, we must make this investment for the sake of our security.
        The budget also protects public health and safety by cleaning up
    the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear weapons program.
        In 2010 the Department will discontinue its application to the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct a high-
    level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Both the
    President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not an option.
    To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the Administration has
    brought together a range of experts to conduct a comprehensive review
    of the back end of the fuel cycle. The Blue Ribbon Commission announced
    recently, and co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and Congressman Lee
    Hamilton, will provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term
    solution to managing the Nation's used nuclear fuel and its nuclear
    waste.
        As part of our comprehensive strategy to restart the nuclear
    industry, we also propose breaking down artificial stovepipes and
    merging the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management into the
    Office of Nuclear Energy.

    Management

        Finally, in order to transform the way Americans generate and use
    energy, we must transform the Department itself. As part of the Obama
    Administration's reform agenda, the budget request includes $2 million
    to establish a new Management Reform initiative to provide strategic
    direction, coordination and oversight of reform initiatives. This
    initiative will report directly to me and will receive close personal
    attention. We made important reforms when we began to implement the
    Recovery Act, and now we need to institutionalize those reforms and
    apply them across the Department.
        Additionally, we are committed to being good stewards of the
    taxpayers' money. As we developed the budget, we looked to eliminate or
    reduce programs where we could. For example, we eliminated more than
    $2.7 billion in tax subsidies for oil, coal and gas industries. This
    step is estimated to generate more than $38.8 billion in revenue for
    the Federal Government over the next 10 years.
        Building a clean energy future won't be easy, but it is necessary
    for our economy and our security. As a scientist, I am an optimist, and
    I believe that we can meet this challenge and lead the world in the
    21st century.

    HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY 2011 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET

        The Department's Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request of $28.4
    billion, a 6.8 percent or $1.8 billion increase from FY 2010, supports
    the President's commitment to respond in a considered, yet expeditious
    manner to the challenges of rebuilding the economy, maintaining nuclear
    deterrence, securing nuclear materials, improving energy efficiency,
    incentivizing production of renewable energy, and curbing greenhouse
    gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Together with the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and FY
    2010 budget, the FY 2011 budget request supports investment for a
    multi-year effort to address these interconnected challenges.
        The FY 2011 budget builds on the $36.7 billion in Recovery Act
    funding. By the end of FY 2010, the Department expects to obligate 100
    percent and outlay roughly 35-40 percent of Recovery Act funds. In
    developing the FY 2011 budget request, the Department has taken these
    investments into account. Recovery Act investments in energy
    conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8 billion),
    environmental management ($6 billion), funds supporting loan guarantees
    for renewable energy and electric power transmission projects ($4
    billion), grid modernization ($4.5 billion), carbon capture and
    sequestration ($3.4 billion), basic science research ($1.6 billion),
    and the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
    ($0.4 billion) will continue to strengthen the economy by providing
    much-needed investment, by saving or creating tens of thousands of
    direct jobs, cutting carbon emissions, and reducing U.S. dependence on
    oil.
        The President's FY 2011 Budget supports our three strategic
    priorities:

              Innovation: Investing in science, discovery and
            innovation to provide solutions to pressing energy challenges

              Energy: Providing clean, secure energy and promoting
            economic prosperity through energy efficiency and domestic
            forms of energy

              Security: Safeguarding nuclear and radiological
            materials, advancing responsible legacy cleanup, and
            maintaining nuclear deterrence

        These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued
    commitment to management excellence:

              Management: Transforming the culture of the
            Department with a results-oriented approach

    Innovation: Investing in Science, Discovery and Innovation to Provide
                        Solutions to Pressing Energy Challenges

        As President Obama made clear in his remarks to the National
    Academy of Sciences in April 2009, the public sector must invest in
    research and innovation not only because the private sector is
    sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will
    be broadly shared across the economy. Leading requires assembling a
    critical mass of the best scientists and engineers to engage in
    mission-oriented, cross-disciplinary approaches to addressing current
    and future energy challenges. To develop clean energy solutions and
    maintain nuclear security, the Department must cultivate the science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce of the next
    generation. The FY 2011 budget request of $55 million for RE-ENERGYSE
    (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) supports K-20+
    science and engineering education.
        With every initiative the Department undertakes, sound science must
    be at the core. In FY 2011 the Department will increasingly emphasize
    cross-cutting initiatives to link science throughout the Department,
    specifically with energy and national security programs. These cross-
    cutting initiatives will enhance science capabilities to create
    knowledge and innovative technologies that can be brought to bear on
    national energy and security issues, leverage world-class science and
    engineering expertise to establish global leadership as clean energy
    innovators, and employ use-inspired research to reduce the cost and
    time to bring technologies to market at scale. The Department believes
    that it will deliver solutions more quickly and efficiently through our
    efforts to break down the traditional stovepipes and operate in a more
    integrated and coordinated manner. The FY 2011 Budget continues to
    address the President's priorities in an integrated and efficient
    manner, and to deliver results for the American taxpayer.
        The Department continues its strong commitment to basic research
    and supports the President's Plan for Science and Innovation by
    requesting funding for the Office of Science at $5.1 billion, a 4.4
    percent or $218 million increase from FY 2010. The FY 2011 budget
    request will support the training of students and researchers in fields
    critical to national competitiveness and innovation, and will support
    investments in areas of research essential for a clean energy future.
    The President's Plan commits to doubling Federal investment in basic
    research at select agencies. The Department supports an overarching
    commitment to science by investing in basic and applied research,
    creating new incentives for private innovation and promoting
    breakthroughs in energy.
        To help achieve the game-changing breakthroughs needed to continue
    leading the global economy, the FY 2011 budget request includes $300
    million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
    Introduced in FY 2009, ARPA-E is responsible for enabling specific
    high-risk and high-payoff transformational research and development
    projects. Beyond simply funding transformational research that creates
    revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption
    of those new technologies to meet the Nation's long-term energy
    challenges. This funding, along with the $400 million made available
    through the Recovery Act, will provide sustained investment in this
    pioneering program.
        The Department will continue funding the three Energy Innovation
    Hubs introduced in FY 2010 to focus on developing fuels that can be
    produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficient building
    systems design, and using modeling and simulation tools to create a
    virtual model of an operating advanced nuclear reactor. In addition,
    DOE is proposing a new Hub to focus on batteries and energy storage.
    Each of these Hubs will bring together a multidisciplinary team of
    researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from
    scientific discovery to technological development and commercial
    deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.
        Complementing the Hubs, the Department proposes expanding the
    Energy Frontier Research Centers in FY 2011 to capture new, emerging
    opportunities by furthering its scientific reach and potential
    technological impact by competitively soliciting in two categories:
    discovery and development of new materials critical to science
    frontiers and technology innovations, and basic research for energy
    needs.

    Energy: Providing Clean, Secure Energy and Promoting Economic
                        Prosperity through Energy Efficiency and Domestic
                        Forms of Energy

        In Copenhagen, President Obama emphasized that climate change is a
    grave and growing danger. The imperative now is to develop the capacity
    to confront the challenges climate change poses and seize the
    opportunity to be the global leader in the clean energy economy.
    Meeting the Administration's goal to reduce carbon emissions by more
    than 80 percent by 2050 will be achieved by addressing supply and
    demand through increased energy efficiency, renewable generation, and
    grid modernization, as well as improvements in existing technologies
    and information analysis. An important tool that will continue to be
    used to address these issues will be loan guarantees. The Department's
    FY 2011 budget request, building on the FY 2010 budget and the Recovery
    Act, invests in the research, development, and deployment of
    technologies that will position the United States to lead international
    efforts to confront climate change now and in the future. The long-term
    economic recovery will be sustained by these continued investments in
    the new energy economy.

              Loan Guarantees

        The Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO) is a vital tool for
    promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio of
    clean and efficient energy technologies. In FY 2011, the Department is
    requesting funding and authority to support approximately $40 billion
    in additional loan authority for innovative energy technology
    development. During FY 2010, the LGPO streamlined the application
    review process. The new authority requested will help the Department to
    encourage and to accelerate the availability of loans to leverage
    private sector investment in clean energy projects.

              Energy Efficiency

        In August 2009, President Obama said, ``If we want to reduce our
    dependence on oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our
    manufacturing sector as one of the greatest in the world, we must
    produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the future.'' In FY 2011,
    the Department will promote energy efficiency in vehicles technologies,
    at $325 million. No less important to achieving the President's stated
    ambitions is decreasing energy consumption through developing and
    advancing building technologies ($231 million) and industrial
    technologies ($100 million). Federal assistance for state-level
    programs, such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million, a 50
    percent increase from FY 2010) and Weatherization Assistance grants
    ($300 million, a 43 percent increase from FY 2010), will help States
    and individuals take advantage of efficiency measures for buildings and
    homes, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and develop an
    ever-evolving, technically proficient workforce.

              Clean, Renewable Energy Generation

        The FY 2011 budget request will modernize the Nation's energy
    infrastructure by investing in a variety of renewable sources such as
    solar ($302 million), wind ($123 million), water ($41 million),
    hydrogen ($137 million), biomass ($220 million) and geothermal ($55
    million). These sources of energy reduce the production of greenhouse
    gas emissions and continue the pursuit of a clean energy economy built
    on the next generation of domestic production. The Department is also
    continuing to promote domestic clean energy through the four Power
    Marketing Administrations, which market and deliver electricity
    primarily generated by hydroelectric dams.

              Grid Modernization

        In support of the modernization of the electricity grid, the
    President's FY 2011 Budget requests $144 million for research and
    development to improve reliability, efficiency, flexibility, and
    security of electricity transmission and distribution networks. The
    ``Smart Grid'' will integrate new and improved technologies into the
    energy mix, ensuring reliability, integration of renewable energy
    resources, and improving security.
        While investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy generation,
    and grid modernization are fundamental steps necessary for creating a
    clean energy economy; investing in the improvement of existing sources
    of energy will provide a bridge between current and future technologies
    These technologies are already a major segment of the energy mix and
    will play a critical role in providing a solid foundation that will
    make possible the creation of this new economy.

              Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy

        Nuclear energy currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the
    Nation's electricity and 70 percent of the Nation's clean, non-carbon
    electricity. The request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $495
    million for research, development, and demonstration in addition to
    investments in supportive infrastructure. Work on advanced reactor
    technologies, fuel cycle technologies, waste management, and cross-
    cutting technologies and transformative concepts will help ensure that
    nuclear energy remains a safe, secure, economical source of clean
    energy. The Department will also promote nuclear energy through the
    Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting an additional $36 billion
    in loan authority for nuclear power in FY 2011 (for a total of $54.5
    billion).

              Clean and Abundant Fossil Energy

        The world will continue to rely on coal fired electrical generation
    to meet energy demand. It is imperative that the United States develop
    the technology to ensure that base-load electricity generation is as
    clean and reliable as possible. The Office of Fossil Energy will invest
    $438 million in the research and development of advanced coal-fueled
    power systems and carbon capture and storage technologies. This will
    allow the continued use of the abundant domestic coal resources in the
    U.S. while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
        Accurate energy information and analysis play a critical role in
    promoting efficient energy markets and informing policy-making and
    strategic planning. This budget requests a total of $129 million for
    the Energy Information Administration, the statutory statistical agency
    within the Department, to improve energy data and analysis programs.

    Security: Safeguarding Nuclear and Radiological Materials, Advancing
                        Responsible Legacy Cleanup and Maintaining Nuclear
                        Deterrence

              Reduces the Risk of Proliferation

        In an April 2009 speech in Prague, the President called the threat
    of nuclear proliferation ``the most immediate and extreme threat to
    global security'' and announced his support for a new international
    effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world
    within four years. The FY 2011 budget for the NNSA Defense Nuclear
    Nonproliferation program supports this effort, recognizing the urgency
    of the threat and making the full commitment to global cooperation that
    is essential to addressing this threat. The budget provides $2.7
    billion in FY 2011, and $13.7 billion through FY 2015 to detect,
    secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material
    worldwide. This request is an increase of 26 percent or $550 million
    from FY 2010. The budget supports cooperative nonproliferation
    initiatives with foreign governments and the effort and expertise to
    forge them into durable international partnerships, achieving the
    objective of a world without nuclear weapons. The budget continues the
    installation of radiation detection equipment at international border
    crossings and Megaports, significantly expands materials protection and
    control security upgrades at selected sites in foreign countries to
    address outsider and insider threats, and accelerates the pace of
    highly enriched uranium research reactor conversions with an urgent
    focus to develop the capability to produce the medical isotope
    molybdenum-99 in the U.S. using low enriched uranium. The FY 2011
    budget request provides $4.4 billion over five years for Fissile
    Materials Disposition including the construction of U.S. facilities for
    the disposition of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in fulfillment of our
    commitment with the Russian Federation under the Plutonium Management
    and Disposition Agreement of September 2000, and provides the first
    $100 million of a $400 million U.S. commitment to advance the
    construction of plutonium disposition facilities in the Russian
    Federation. The FY 2011 budget request also supports a funding increase
    for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development for new
    technologies in support of treaty monitoring and verification.

              Leverages Science to Maintain Nuclear Deterrence

        The FY 2011 budget request advances the Department's commitment to
    the national security interests of the United States through
    stewardship of a safe, secure and effective nuclear weapons stockpile
    without the use of underground nuclear testing. As the role of nuclear
    weapons in our Nation's defense evolves and the threats to national
    security continue to grow, the focus of this enterprise must also
    change and place its tremendous intellectual capacity and unique
    facilities in the service of addressing other challenges related to
    national defense. NNSA is taking steps to move in this direction,
    including functioning as a national science, technology, and
    engineering resource to other agencies with national security
    responsibilities. NNSA must ensure our evolving strategic posture
    places the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation
    programs, counterterrorism, missile defenses, and the international
    arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects
    the American people and our allies. Through the NNSA, the Department
    requests $7.0 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation, a 9.8
    percent or $624 million increase from the FY 2010 appropriation. This
    increase provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller nuclear
    stockpile, strengthens the science, technology and engineering base,
    modernizes key nuclear facilities, and streamlines the enterprise's
    physical and operational footprint.
        These investments will enable execution of a comprehensive nuclear
    defense strategy based on current and projected global threats that
    relies less on nuclear weapons, yet enhances national security by
    strengthening the NNSA's nuclear security programs. This improved NNSA
    capability base will mitigate the concerns regarding ratification of
    the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive
    Test Ban Treaty. The FY 2011 request for Weapons Activities has four
    major components. The request for Stockpile Support increases,
    reflecting the President's commitment to maintain the safety, security
    and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear
    testing, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management
    Program outlined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The request for
    Science, Technology and Engineering increases by over ten percent, and
    provides the funding necessary to protect and advance the scientific
    capabilities at the U.S. nuclear security laboratories supporting the
    stockpile and broader national security and energy issues. The budget
    request for Infrastructure supports the operation and maintenance of
    the government-owned, contractor-operated facilities in the nuclear
    security enterprise, as well as special capabilities for secure
    transportation and construction. The security and counterterrorism
    component of the budget provides for physical and cyber security in the
    NNSA enterprise, as well as emergency response assets and NNSA's
    focused research and development contribution to the Nation's
    counterterrorism efforts.

              Advances Responsible Environmental Cleanup

        The FY 2011 budget includes $6 billion for the Office of
    Environmental Management to protect public health and safety by
    cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan
    Project and the Cold War. This funding will allow the program to
    continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing on
    activities with the greatest risk reduction.
        As the Department continues to make progress in completing clean-
    up, the FY 2011 budget request of $189 million for the Office of Legacy
    Management supports the Department's long-term stewardship
    responsibilities and payment of pensions and benefits for former
    contractor workers after site closure.
        The Administration has determined that the Yucca Mountain
    repository is not a workable option and has decided to terminate the
    Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The core functions and
    staff to support efforts under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to meet the
    obligation of the Government will transfer to the Office of Nuclear
    Energy by the end of FY 2010.

    Management: Transforming the Culture of the Department with a Results-
                        Oriented Approach

        In order to transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we
    must transform the Department of Energy. The Department is committed to
    strengthening its management culture and increasing its focus on
    results. The implementation of the Recovery Act provided the Department
    with an opportunity to continue to refine best practices in management,
    accountability, operations, and transparency. These best practices will
    be applied in executing the FY 2011 budget.
        To achieve our strategic priorities, the Department requests a net
    of $169 million for Departmental Administration. These funds, along
    with resources in individual program offices, will help transform key
    functional areas such as human, financial, project, and information
    technology management. The request includes $2 million for Management
    Reform within the Office of the Secretary, which will provide the
    Department with strategic direction, coordination, and oversight of
    reform initiatives.

    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2011 PROGRAM OFFICE HIGHLIGHTS

    Office of Science: Supporting Cutting-Edge Foundational Scientific
                        Research

        The Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC) delivers
    discoveries and scientific tools that transform our understanding of
    energy and matter and advance the national, economic, and energy
    security of the United States. SC is a primary sponsor of basic
    research in the United States, leading the Nation to support the
    physical sciences in a broad array of research subjects in order to
    improve energy security and address issues ancillary to energy, such as
    climate change, genomics, and life sciences. In FY 2011, the Department
    requests $5.1 billion, an increase of 4.4 percent over the enacted FY
    2010 appropriation, to invest in science research. The FY 2011 request
    supports the President's Plan for Science and Innovation, which
    encompasses the entire SC budget, as part of a strategy to double
    overall basic research funding at select agencies. As part of this
    plan, the budget request supports the training of students and
    researchers in fields critical to our national competitiveness and
    innovation economy, and supports investments in areas of research
    critical to our clean energy future and to making the U.S. a leader on
    climate change.
        SC is addressing critical societal challenges and key missions of
    the Department of Energy through significant improvements in existing
    technologies and development of new energy technologies. SC will
    accomplish this by: (1) sustained investments in exploratory and high-
    risk research in traditional and emerging disciplines, including the
    development of new tools and facilities; (2) focused investments in
    high-priority research areas; and (3) investments that train new
    generations of scientists and engineers to be leaders in the 21st
    century. The FY 2011 budget request supports all three of these
    investment strategies.
        Two of the four Energy Innovation Hubs being requested in FY 2011
    are through the Office of Science; these Hubs will bring together teams
    of experts from multiple disciplines to focus on two grand challenges
    in energy: (1) Fuels from Sunlight, a Hub established in FY 2010 and
    (2) Batteries and Energy Storage, a new Hub in the FY 2011 request.
        The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) program will be
    expanded in the FY 2011 request to capture new, emerging opportunities
    by furthering its scientific reach and potential technological impact.
    New EFRCs will be competitively solicited in two categories: discovery
    and development of new materials that are critical to both science
    frontiers and technology innovations, and basic research for energy
    needs in a limited number of areas that are underrepresented in the 46
    original EFRC awards.
        The FY 2011 request for the U.S. ITER Project ($80 million, a
    decrease of $55 million from FY 2010) is a reflection of the pace of
    ITER construction as of the end of 2009. The Administration is engaged
    in a range of efforts to implement management reforms at the ITER
    Organization and accelerate ITER construction while minimizing the
    overall cost of the Construction Phase for the U.S. and the other ITER
    members.
        The Office of Science supports investigators from more than 300
    academic institutions and from all of the DOE laboratories. The FY 2011
    budget request will support approximately 27,000 Ph.D.s, graduate
    students, undergraduates, engineers, and technicians. Nearly 26,000
    researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry, and
    international partners are expected to use SC scientific user
    facilities in FY 2011.

    Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: Transformational Research and
                        Development

        The FY 2011 budget request includes $300 million for the Advanced
    Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a program launched in FY 2009
    that sponsors specific high-risk and high-payoff transformational
    research and development projects that overcome the long-term
    technological barriers in the development of energy technologies to
    meet the Nation's energy challenges, but that industry will not support
    at such an early stage. An essential component of ARPA-E's culture is
    an overarching focus on accelerating science to market. Beyond simply
    funding transformational research creating revolutionary technologies,
    ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption of those new technologies
    that will fuel the economy, create new jobs, reduce energy imports,
    improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related emissions, and ensure
    that the U.S. maintains a technological lead in developing and
    deploying advanced energy technologies.

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Developing and
                        Deploying Clean, Reliable Energy

        The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
    strengthens the energy security, environmental quality, and economic
    vitality of the U.S. through the research, development, demonstration
    and deployment (RDD&D) of clean energy technologies and generation and
    advances in energy efficiency. EERE's activities are critical to
    creating a low carbon economy and sustaining strong economic growth and
    job creation while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
    energy imports. EERE programs link advances in basic research and the
    creation of commercially successful products and services to ensure
    delivery to the marketplace for general use and implementation.
        The FY 2011 budget request of $2.4 billion, an increase of five
    percent over FY 2010, is aimed at accelerating revolutionary change in
    the Nation's energy economy. The request includes programs associated
    with meeting the President's goals of investing in the next generation
    of clean energy technologies, vehicles and fuels, and energy efficiency
    measures that reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the industrial
    and building sectors.

    Clean, Renewable Energy Generation
        The FY 2011 budget request continues to work to transform the
    Nation's energy infrastructure by investing over $650 million in a
    variety of renewable sources of electrical generation such as solar
    ($302 million, a 22 percent increase over FY 2010), and wind ($123
    million, a 53 percent increase over FY 2010), as well as deploy clean
    technologies to reduce our dependence on oil. The request includes
    expansions on Concentrating Solar Power, biopower and off-shore wind,
    which will provide new, additional avenues for clean energy development
    and deployment.
        These technologies will reduce the production of greenhouse gas
    emissions and revitalize an economy built on the next generation of
    domestic production.

    Energy Efficiency
        The Department implements a number of efforts to increase energy
    efficiency and conservation in homes, transportation, and industry. The
    FY 2011 budget requests $758 million to accelerate deployment of clean,
    cost-effective, and rapidly deployable energy conservation measures in
    order to reduce energy consumption in residential and commercial
    buildings, and the industrial and Federal sectors. The Department will
    invest $231 million in the Building Technologies program, a 16 percent
    increase over FY 2010 for built environment R&D. Federal assistance for
    state-level programs such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million)
    and Weatherization Assistance Program ($300 million), will continue to
    help citizens implement energy conservation measures, lower energy
    costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and build a technical workforce.
    The FY 2011 request also includes $545 million to accelerate research,
    development and deployment of advanced fuels and vehicles to reduce the
    use of petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2011 budget
    complements the Recovery Act funding for these programs ($3.1 billion
    for State Energy Programs, $5 billion for Weatherization Assistance, $2
    billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing and $400 million for
    Transportation Electrification).

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Moving Toward a
                        More Intelligent Grid to Power the Digital Economy

        The FY 2011 budget request for the Office of Electricity Delivery
    and Energy Reliability (OE) budget is $186 million, an increase of
    eight percent over FY 2010. These funds will build on the ``Smart
    Grid'' investments and other activities.
        The ability of the United States to meet the growing demand for
    reliable electricity is challenged by an aging power grid under
    mounting stress. Despite the increasing demand for reliable power
    brought on by the modern digital economy, the power grid in the U.S.
    has suffered from a long period of underinvestment. Much of the power
    delivery system was built on technology developed over 50 years ago and
    thus responds to disturbances with speed limited by the technology of
    that period. This limitation increases the vulnerability of the power
    system to outages that can spread quickly and impact whole regions.
    Breakthroughs in digital network controls, transmission, distribution,
    and energy storage will make the power grid more efficient, alleviating
    the stress on the system, as well as enable greater use of clean and
    distributed energy sources. The return on these investments will come
    from a reduction in economic losses caused by power outages and the
    delay or avoidance of costly investment in new generation and
    transmission infrastructure.
        The budget request provides $144 million for research and
    development, which supports development of technologies that will
    improve the reliability, efficiency, flexibility, functionality, and
    security of the Nation's electricity delivery system. It accelerates
    investment in energy storage capabilities and funds two new research
    initiatives: Advanced Modeling Grid Research, to develop grid-modeling
    capabilities using the large volumes of data generated by advanced
    sensors deployed on the grid; and Power Electronics, to develop new
    power control devices in collaboration with universities. The proposal
    also continues to support the development of ``Smart Grid''
    technologies and cyber security systems for the power grid.
        The budget request continues support for Permitting, Siting, and
    Analysis ($6.4 million) to assist States, regional entities, and other
    Federal agencies in developing policies and programs aimed at
    modernizing the power grid; and for Infrastructure Security and Energy
    Restoration ($6.2 million) to enhance the reliability and resiliency of
    U.S. critical infrastructure and facilitate its recovery from energy
    supply disruptions.

    Office of Environmental Management: Reducing Risks and Making Progress

        The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to
    complete the safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about
    from over six decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and
    Government-sponsored nuclear energy research. This cleanup effort is
    the largest in the world, originally involving two million acres at 107
    sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials
    known to man.
        EM continues to pursue its cleanup objectives within the overall
    framework of achieving the greatest comparative risk reduction benefit
    and overlaying regulatory compliance commitments and best business
    practices to maximize cleanup progress. To support this approach, EM
    has prioritized its cleanup activities:

              Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in
            the EM complex

              Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and
            disposal

              Used nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition

              Special nuclear material consolidation, processing,
            and disposition

              High priority groundwater remediation

              Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition

              Soil and groundwater remediation

              Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning

        The FY 2011 budget request for $6.0 billion will fund activities to
    maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex and make progress
    against program goals and compliance commitments, including reduction
    of highest risks to the environment and public health, use of science
    and technology to reduce life cycle costs, and reduction of EM's
    geographic footprint by 40 percent by 2011. EM continues to move
    forward with the development of the capability for dispositioning tank
    waste, nuclear materials, and used nuclear fuel. The budget request
    includes the construction and operation of three unique and complex
    tank waste processing plants to treat approximately 88 million gallons
    of radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. It will also fund the
    solid waste disposal infrastructure needed to support disposal of
    transuranic and low-level wastes generated by high-risk activities and
    the footprint reduction activities. In addition to the FY 2011 budget
    request, EM will continue to expend the $6 billion in Recovery Act
    funding provided by Congress to complete lower-risk footprint reduction
    and near-term completion cleanup activities.
        EM carries out its cleanup activities with the interests of
    stakeholders in mind. Most importantly, EM will continue to fulfill its
    responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a ``Safety First''
    culture that integrates environment, safety, and health requirements
    and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the
    workers, public, and the environment, and adheres to sound project and
    contract management principles. EM is also strengthening its project
    and planning analyses to better assess existing priorities and identify
    opportunities to accelerate cleanup work. Working collaboratively with
    the sites, EM continues to seek aggressive but achievable strategies
    for accelerating cleanup of discrete sites or segments of work. In
    addition, functional and cross-site activities such as elimination of
    specific groundwater contaminants, waste or material processing
    campaigns, or achievement of interim or final end-states are being
    evaluated.
        After the EM program completes cleanup and closure of sites that no
    longer have an ongoing DOE mission, post closure stewardship activities
    are transferred to the Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM also
    receives sites remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly
    Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) and private licensees (Uranium
    Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Title II sites). Post closure
    stewardship includes long-term surveillance and maintenance activities
    such as groundwater monitoring, disposal cell maintenance, records
    management, and management of natural resources at sites where active
    remediation has been completed. At some sites the program includes
    management and administration of pension and post-retirement benefits
    for contractor retirees.
        The Administration has determined that developing a repository at
    Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is not a workable option and has decided to
    terminate the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW). The
    Nation needs a different solution for nuclear waste disposal. As a
    result, in 2010, the Department will discontinue its application to the
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a high-
    level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and establish a Blue
    Ribbon Commission to inform the Administration as it develops a new
    strategy for nuclear waste management and disposal. All funding for
    development of the Yucca Mountain facility and RW will be eliminated by
    the end of FY 2010. The Administration remains committed to fulfilling
    its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Office of
    Nuclear Energy will develop an integrated approach to improve the waste
    management options for the Nation and support the Blue Ribbon
    Commission. Ongoing responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy
    Act, including administration of the Nuclear Waste Fund and the
    Standard Contract, will continue under the Office of Nuclear Energy,
    which will lead future waste management activities.

    Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and Advanced Technology
                        Vehicle Manufacturing Program: Supporting
                        Investment in Innovation and Manufacturing

        To encourage the early commercial production and use of new or
    significantly improved technologies in energy projects, the Department
    is requesting an additional $36 billion in authority to guarantee loans
    for nuclear power facilities and $500 million in appropriated credit
    subsidy for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy systems
    and efficient end-use energy technology projects under section 1703 of
    the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The additional loan authority for
    nuclear power projects will promote near-term deployment of new plants
    and support an increasing role for private sector financing. The
    additional credit subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative
    renewable and efficiency technologies that are critical to meeting the
    Administration's goals for affordable, clean energy, technical
    leadership, and global competitiveness.
        The FY 2011 budget also requests $58 million to evaluate
    applications received under the eight solicitations released to date
    and to ensure efficient and effective management of the Loan Guarantee
    Program. This request will be offset by collections authorized under
    Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-8).
        The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program requests $10
    million to support ongoing loan and loan monitoring activities
    associated with the program mission of making loans to automobile and
    automobile part manufacturers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding,
    or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to
    produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and for
    associated engineering integration costs.

    Office of Nuclear Energy: Investing in Energy Security and Technical
                        Leadership

        The Department is requesting $912 million for the Office of Nuclear
    Energy (NE) in FY 2011--an increase of five percent over the FY 2010
    enacted level. NE's funding supports the advancement of nuclear power
    as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy, environmental,
    and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety,
    proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research,
    development, and demonstration as appropriate.
        Currently, nuclear energy supplies approximately 20 percent of the
    Nation's electricity and over 70 percent of clean, non-carbon producing
    electricity. Over 100 nuclear power plants are offering reliable and
    affordable baseload electricity in the United States, and they are
    doing so without air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. NE is
    working to develop innovative and transformative technologies to
    improve the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of
    nuclear energy to support its continued use.
        The FY 2011 budget supports a reorganized and refocused set of
    research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities. This
    program is built around exploring, through RD&D: technology and other
    solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and
    extend the life of current reactors; improvements in the affordability
    of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
    Administration's energy security and climate change goals;
    understanding of options for nuclear energy to contribute to reduced
    carbon emissions outside the electricity sector; development of
    sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and minimization of risks of nuclear
    proliferation and terrorism.
        NE is requesting $195 million for Reactor Concepts Research,
    Development and Deployment. This program seeks to develop new and
    advanced reactor designs and technologies. Work will continue on
    design, licensing and R&D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to
    demonstrate gas-cooled reactor technology in the United States. The
    program also supports research on Generation IV and other advanced
    designs and efforts to extend the life of existing light water
    reactors. In FY 2011, NE will initiate a new effort focused on small
    modular reactors, a technology the Department believes has promise to
    help meet energy security goals.
        The FY 2011 request includes $201 million for Fuel Cycle Research
    and Development to perform long-term, results-oriented science-based
    R&D to improve fuel cycle and waste management technologies to enable a
    safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The budget also requests $99
    million to support a new R&D program, Nuclear Energy Enabling
    Technologies, focused on the development of cross-cutting and
    transformative technologies relevant to multiple reactor and fuel cycle
    concepts. The Crosscutting Technology Development activity provides
    crosscutting R&D support for nuclear energy concepts in areas such as
    reactor materials and creative approaches to further reduce
    proliferation risks. The Transformative Nuclear Concepts R&D activity
    will support, via an open, competitive solicitation process,
    investigator-initiated projects that relate to any aspect of nuclear
    energy generation including, but not limited to, reactor and power
    conversion technologies, enrichment, fuels and fuel management, waste
    disposal, and nonproliferation, to ensure that good ideas have
    sufficient outlet for exploration. The Energy Innovation Hub for
    Modeling and Simulation will apply existing modeling and simulation
    capabilities to create a ``virtual'' reactor user environment to
    simulate an operating reactor. NE will also continue its commitments to
    investing in university research, international cooperation, and the
    Nation's nuclear infrastructure--important foundations to support
    continued technical advancement.

    Office of Fossil Energy: Abundant and Affordable Energy for the 21st
                        Century

        The FY 2011 budget request of $760 million for the Office of Fossil
    Energy (FE) will help ensure that the United States can continue to
    rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic fuel
    resources. The United States has 25 percent of the world's coal
    reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply 86 percent of the Nation's
    energy.
        The Department is committed to advancing Carbon Capture and Storage
    (CCS) technologies in order to promote a cleaner and more efficient use
    of fossil fuels. In addition to significant Recovery Act funds,
    Advanced CCS with $438 million requested in FY 2011 is the foundation
    of the Department's clean coal research program which seeks to
    establish the capability of producing electricity from coal with near-
    zero atmospheric emissions.
        In addition, $150 million of FE's $760 million request will be used
    to promote national energy security through the continued operations of
    both the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil
    Reserve programs. These programs protect the Nation and the public
    against economic damages from potential disruptions in foreign and
    domestic petroleum supplies.

    Energy Information Administration: Providing Independent Statistics and
                        Analysis

        The FY 2011 request for the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
    is $128.8 million, which is an $18.2 million increase over the FY 2010
    current appropriation. EIA conducts a comprehensive data collection
    program through more than 60 surveys that cover the full spectrum of
    energy sources, end uses, and energy flows; generates short- and long-
    term domestic and international energy projections; and performs
    informative energy analyses. EIA disseminates its data products,
    analyses, reports, and other information services to customers and
    stakeholders primarily through its website.
        The increased funding improves EIA's capability to close energy
    information gaps, strengthen analysis, and address significant data
    quality issues. It provides for an expanded survey of energy
    consumption in commercial buildings that will provide more baseline
    information critical to understanding energy use. That survey also is a
    basis for benchmarking and performance measurement for energy
    efficiency programs. The budget request also provides for: expanded
    analysis of energy market behavior and data to address the increasingly
    important interrelationship of energy and financial markets; continued
    implementation of improvements in data coverage, quality and
    integration; upgrades to the National Energy Model; and initiation of
    efforts to track and analyze the adoption of ``Smart Grid''
    technologies and dynamic electricity pricing plans.

    The National Nuclear Security Administration: Ensuring America's
                        Nuclear Security and Reducing the Global Threat of
                        Nuclear Proliferation

        The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues
    significant efforts to meet Administration priorities, leveraging
    science to promote U.S. national security objectives. The FY 2011
    President's budget request is $11.2 billion, an increase of 13 percent
    from the enacted FY 2010 appropriation. The FY 2011-2015 President's
    Request for the NNSA is a significant funding increase over FY 2010
    levels, reflecting the President's priorities on global nuclear
    nonproliferation and for strengthening the nuclear security posture of
    the United States to meet defense and homeland security-related
    objectives:

              Broaden and strengthen the NNSA's science, technology
            and engineering mission to meet national security needs

              Work with global partners to secure all vulnerable
            nuclear materials around the world within four years

              Work towards a world with no nuclear weapons. Until
            that goal is achieved, ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent
            remains safe, secure and effective

              Transform the Nation's Cold-War era weapons complex
            into a 21st century national security enterprise

              Provide safe and effective nuclear propulsion for
            U.S. navy warships

        The FY 2011 budget request of $7.01 billion for the Weapons
    Activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of programs.
    Some activities provide direct support for maintaining the nuclear
    weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual assessments,
    life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement. Science, Technology
    and Engineering programs are focused on long-term vitality in science
    and engineering, and on performing R&D to sustain current and future
    stockpile stewardship capabilities without the need for underground
    nuclear testing. These programs also provide a base capability to
    support scientific research needed by other elements of the Department,
    to the Federal Government national security community, and the academic
    and industrial communities. Infrastructure programs support facilities
    and operations at the government-owned, contractor-operated sites,
    including activities to maintain and steward the health of these sites
    for the long term. Security and counterterrorism activities leverage
    the unique nuclear security expertise and resources maintained by NNSA
    to other Departmental offices and to the Nation.
        The Weapons Activities request is an increase of 9.8 percent over
    the FY 2010 enacted level. This level is sustained and increased in the
    later outyears. The multi-year increase is necessary to reflect the
    President's commitment to maintain the safety, security and
    effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear
    testing, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management
    Program outlined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). Increases are
    provided which directly support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for
    scientific, technical and engineering activities related to maintenance
    assessment and certification capabilities, and for recapitalization of
    key nuclear facilities. The President's Request provides funding
    necessary to protect the human capital base at the national
    laboratories--including the ability to design and certify nuclear
    weapons--through a stockpile stewardship program that fully exercises
    these capabilities. Security and nuclear counterterrorism activities
    decrease about three percent from the FY 2010 appropriated levels,
    leveraging the continuing efficiencies in the Defense Nuclear Security
    budget.
        The FY 2011 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $2.7
    billion, an increase of 25.8 percent over the FY 2010 appropriation.
    The increase is driven by the imperative for U.S. leadership in
    nonproliferation initiatives both here and abroad. In addition to the
    programs funded solely by the NNSA, our programs support the Department
    of Energy mission to protect our national security by preventing the
    spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to terrorist
    organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented in part
    through the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and
    Materials of Mass Destruction, formed at the G8 Kananaskis Summit in
    June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism,
    launched in Rabat, Morocco, in October 2006.
        The FY 2011 President's request for International Nuclear Materials
    Protection and Cooperation reflects selective new security upgrades to
    buildings and areas that were added to the cooperation after the
    Bratislava Summit, additional Second Line of Defense sites, and
    sustainability support for MPC&A upgrades. The Global Threat Reduction
    Initiative increases by 68 percent in support of the international
    effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within
    four years. The Fissile Materials Disposition program increases by 47
    percent reflecting continuing domestic construction of the MOX Fuel
    Fabrication Facility and the Waste Solidification Building, as well as
    design documentation for a related pit disassembly and conversion
    capability. A portion of the funding increase results from the transfer
    of funding associated with the latter activity from the Weapons
    Activities appropriation starting in 2011.
        The President's request of $1.1 billion for Naval Reactors is an
    increase of 13.3 percent over the FY 2010 appropriated level. The
    program supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet, comprised of all of the
    Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers, including 52 attack
    submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile
    submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. These ships are relied on every
    day, all over the world, to protect our national interests. Starting in
    FY 2010, there are major new missions for the NNSA Naval Reactors
    program. A significant funding increase is requested for the OHIO Class
    submarine replacement and for the related activity which will
    demonstrate new submarine reactor plant technologies as part of the
    refueling of the land-based prototype reactor. R&D is underway now, and
    funding during this Future Years Nuclear Security Program is critical
    to support the long manufacturing spans for procurement of reactor
    plant components in 2017, and ship procurement in 2019. Resources are
    also included in FY 2011 to support commencement of design work for the
    recapitalization of used nuclear fuel infrastructure.
        The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides for Federal
    program direction and support for NNSA's Headquarters and field
    installations. The FY 2011 request is $448.3 million, a 6.5 percent
    increase over the FY 2010 appropriation. This provides for well-
    managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountable organization through
    the strategic management of human capital, enhanced cost-effective
    utilization of information technology, and integration of budget and
    performance through transparent financial management practices.

    Management: Transforming the Culture of the Department with a Results-
                        Oriented Approach

        To transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we need to
    transform the Department of Energy. Because the mission of the
    Department is vital and urgent, it must be pursued using a results-
    oriented approach that is safe, fiscally responsible, and legally and
    ethically sound. The Department has developed strong management and
    oversight capabilities during implementation of the Recovery Act, and
    these lessons will be applied to the FY 2011 budget. The budget request
    of $337 million for corporate management includes $75 million for the
    Office of Management, $102 million for the Office of the Chief
    Information Officer, $43 million for the Inspector General's office,
    $62.7 million for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, $37
    million for the Office of General Counsel, and $2 million for
    Management Reform within the Office of the Secretary. The Management
    Reform effort will provide the Department with strategic direction,
    coordination, and oversight of management initiatives. The primary
    mission of this new office is to identify operational efficiencies to
    free up resources for priority mission activities. The Department is
    also requesting $12 million for a new Acquisition Workforce Improvement
    initiative which will be utilized to increase the size and improve the
    training of our acquisition professionals.
        The Department's human capital management efforts are focused on an
    integrated approach that ensures human capital programs and policies
    are linked to the Department's missions, strategies, and strategic
    goals, while providing for continuous improvement in efficiency and
    effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, the Department will develop
    different strategies to attract, motivate and retain a highly skilled
    and diverse workforce to meet the future needs of the Nation in such
    vital areas as scientific discovery and innovation.
        To improve stewardship of taxpayer dollars, the Department will
    continue to issue audited financial statements in an accelerated
    timeframe and provide assurance that the Department's financial
    management meets the highest standards of integrity. The Department's
    FY 2009 financial statements were reviewed by independent auditors and
    received an unqualified opinion. This was made possible by implementing
    an aggressive plan to mitigate and remediate a number of financial
    management challenges that were identified by the Department and its
    independent auditors. In addition, the Department continues to
    strengthen the execution of program funding dollars by having regular
    execution reviews that will ensure funding is processed, approved and
    spent quickly and responsibly. The Department in FY 2011 will continue
    its effort to build and improve its integrated business management
    system.
        The Department is continuing to make progress in improving project
    management and is implementing an action plan with scheduled milestones
    and aggressive performance metrics. The focus of the action plan is to
    successfully address the root causes of the major challenges to
    planning and managing Department projects. The action plan identifies
    eight measures that, when completed, will result in significant,
    measurable, and sustainable improvements in the Department's contract
    and project management performance and culture.
        To improve financial performance in project management, the
    Department has increased the use of Earned Value Management (EVM)
    techniques within program offices. These techniques objectively track
    physical accomplishment of work and provide early warning of
    performance problems. A certification process was instituted for
    contractors' EVM systems to improve the definition of project scope,
    communicate objective progress to stakeholders and keep project teams
    focused on achieving progress. Currently, 70 percent of the
    Department's capital asset projects have certified EVM systems.
        The Department continues to strengthen information technology
    management by consistent execution of robust IT Capital Planning and
    Investment Control oversight and reporting processes designed to ensure
    successful investment performance, including the use of EVM Systems as
    appropriate, and the remediation of poorly performing investments.
    Through the establishment and use of an Enterprise Architecture that
    aligns to the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the Department has
    ensured that all IT investments follow a comprehensive Modernization
    Roadmap.
        The Department continues to take significant actions to improve its
    cyber security posture by implementing its Cyber Security
    Revitalization Plan to address long-standing, systemic weaknesses in
    the Department's information and information systems. Specifically, the
    Department seeks to ensure that 100 percent of operational information
    technology systems are certified and accredited as secure and that the
    Department's Inspector General has rated the certification and
    accreditation process as ``satisfactory.'' Additional steps will be
    taken to ensure that electronic classified and personally identifiable
    information are secure.

                                   Discussion

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Chu. Questions begin now. I
    recognize myself for five minutes.

                       The Cancellation of Yucca Mountain

        The Administration's decision to cancel funding for Yucca
    Mountain has proven to be perhaps the most controversial change
    that the Department has undertaken, yet the Administration
    originally signaled its support for nuclear power and its
    interest in expanding the advanced nuclear fleet through its
    loan guarantee announcement. So in your professional opinion,
    what is the impact of the Administration's Yucca Mountain
    decision on the expansion of nuclear power in the United
    States?
        Secretary Chu. I believe it is going to have no impact on
    our expansion. The NRC has declared that nuclear waste where it
    is now and moving to dry cask storage will be safe for many
    decades. That gives us time to prepare a much better, more
    comprehensive view of what is going on. We know a lot more than
    we did in the early and mid 1980s when the Nuclear Waste Act
    was passed. So this blue ribbon commission now has an
    opportunity to step back, look at the whole template of options
    that exist today and could be developed in the next 20, 30, 50
    years and that is where we are heading.
        Chairman Gordon. As I understand it, they have 18 months to
    report or give an interim report and then six more months to do
    a final report. That seems like a long time. Are you expecting
    it to take that--I mean, is that the outside of it? Are you
    expecting it take that long?
        Secretary Chu. No, that is the outer limit. I think both
    chairmen are very anxious to get started. The first meeting
    will be held, I believe it is March 24th and 25th.
        Chairman Gordon. You have put together a good, balanced
    group so I think that this is an Augustine type of group and so
    we look forward to that particular report.

                      Creating and Retaining Domestic Jobs

        You know, and oftentimes too, we are all concerned about
    taxpayer dollars being used to develop technology through the
    Department of Energy or elsewhere here in this country that
    winds up creating jobs elsewhere. And so with ARPA-E and the
    other programs that you are putting together, are you doing
    anything to help make sure that, you know, the bulk of those
    jobs will stay here in the United States?
        Secretary Chu. It is certainly our intent and our interest.
    First you have to develop the ideas, but you are quite right,
    Mr. Chairman, that you need a comprehensive plan. You need
    investment tax credits, you need a number of things so that you
    keep the manufacturing of these new technologies here in the
    United States. I think that is a very important part of our
    path towards economic--
        Chairman Gordon. So are you working on that package, or is
    it here yet, or when will that be rolled out?
        Secretary Chu. Well, we are working on it but you have to
    get some of the incentives and so that when a manufacturing
    company says--let me just say one of the biggest incentives is
    a home market. If you have a home market for some of the energy
    technologies, what any manufacturer, multinational manufacturer
    wants to do is, they want to manufacture in that home market;
    so the best incentive is to create that home market and that
    demand, and so that is one of the crucial things that will
    hopefully help us.

                            Buy American Strategies

        Chairman Gordon. And when you think of home markets, the
    biggest buyer is of course the Federal Government, and we have
    seen the analogy that with DARPA, that they had a buyer already
    there with the Department of Defense. You know, are there
    efforts to look at how we can make the Federal Government the
    buyer of some of these new technologies even if they may be 10
    percent or 20 percent more expensive? You know, if a new light
    bulb is more expensive than, for example, the contemporary one,
    is there a way that we can give some preference to some level
    so that we can then get that supply chain and can we look at
    with DOD on islands and other remote areas that don't have a
    grid there where the alternative energies, you know, could be
    placed?
        Secretary Chu. That is being done. In fact, DOD as one
    prime example is looking very actively. They have a new, I
    think it is at an assistant secretary level for energy now at
    the Department of Defense. Because of their budget, they can
    actually create some market draw, if you will, and to adopt new
    technologies. They are very concerned about these things, and
    that is precisely one of the strategies we are looking at.
        Chairman Gordon. Well, I think this Congress has shown over
    and over a preference to buy American. I think we might add to
    that, you know, buy American new technology. And so I hope as
    you discuss this that you will come to us if there are
    authorizations or something we need to do to help expand those
    markets.
        Secretary Chu. Oh, I will raise one thing. The budget
    request for $5 million in this advanced manufacturing thing,
    the so-called 48C, that was oversubscribed three to one for the
    first part of it in the Recovery Act, and so we hope that
    Congress will be willing to support that. That is again a key
    to keeping manufacturing here in the United States.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Secretary Chu.
        Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          The Ultra-Deepwater Program

        Mr. Secretary, I think we are very fortunate to have more
    than 50 years of natural gas supply, according to the Energy
    Information Administration, and natural gas is a clean source
    of energy. It can help bridge the transition from fossil fuels
    to next-generation fuels. Yet a lot of these reserves are in
    areas that are little difficult to produce economically and
    efficiently, and I have been working for 10 years on the Ultra-
    Deep legislation. I know you are very familiar with it. We
    finally passed it and got it in the energy bill that was
    passed, I think, two years ago. 2005, how many years is that?
    You remember my problem with mathematics. But anyway, we
    finally got it into that bill and that bill was passed, and I
    flew out west to Arizona to sign that bill with Senator
    Domenici, the President did, and Joe and I flew with him, and
    at that time he gave everybody a pen but he turned to me and
    said, ``Hall is with us here. He just came along because he
    wanted some free coffee on Air Force One.'' What he didn't know
    was, I had six of his mugs in my briefcase at that time.
        But the long and the short is, we went out there, we signed
    that bill and it was in the bill and our President signed it
    then, and since has tried to take it out, was unable to take it
    out because the House Floor voted not to take it out and it is
    there now. You know, it is based on the fact that we know
    energy is there but we can't get it up, and if we get
    technology to get it up and we trade the energy that they get
    up that they won't get up if they don't get the technology. It
    looks like it makes sense to me.
        Last year I stated my disappointment with the President's
    2010 budget to terminate the Ultra-Deepwater and unconventional
    natural gas and other petroleum resource programs. So again,
    let me express my disappointment that even after our discussion
    on that day in March of 2009, the budget seeks to eliminate the
    Ultra-Deep program, and for that matter, the fossil fuels
    research and development budget. Let me reiterate, I strongly
    disagree with this policy which ignores the ongoing importance.
    Even your own EIA says oil and natural gas will play in our
    domestic energy picture through the year 2035. The energy
    security aspects of this issue are obvious, and after last
    year's hearing where you promised to look into and educate
    yourself to the programs created by section 999 of the Energy
    Policy Act of 2005, I had hoped the scientific and technologic
    contribution would be just as obvious to you.
        I am not going to take up all my time with my question, Mr.
    Chairman. The policy of terminating the Ultra-Deep program is
    especially troubling in light of the fact that this
    Administration has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up
    to $2 billion to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras,
    to finance offshore deepwater oil exploration in the Santos
    basis near Rio de Janeiro. I don't understand something like
    that. I don't think it makes any sense at all to do that. While
    I am not necessarily opposed to technology transfer to develop
    natural gas resources in our pursuit of energy security, we
    ought to be promoting and using innovative technologies for our
    own domestic exploration. So I guess my question to you is, do
    you support the termination of the Ultra-Deep program?
        Secretary Chu. Yes, I do. If you will allow me to explain,
    I did look into it after our first discussion. First, I do
    believe that natural gas is a transition fuel in this century
    in order to get a clean energy supply. I might also add that
    the Department of Energy since 1978 has explored--and this is,
    I think, one of our real success stories--has explored natural
    gas development in methane coal beds and especially in shale
    gas at a time when the oil and gas companies didn't want to
    look at that, and that is effectively the shale gas supplies
    and the methane coal bed supplies. Most people think it has
    increased our gas reserves from 30 percent to as much as
    doubling our gas reserves.
        My feeling about Deepwater is, we have a methane hydrates
    program that is now shifted over to the Office of Science, but
    it is a program I feel that we should develop. That is still at
    a time when the oil and gas industry does not want to invest in
    it. They are willing to go along but as soon as--I feel and the
    Administration feels, as soon as the oil and gas industry sees
    this and they have the commercial means, the financial means to
    develop that, then we want to let the companies take it over.
    In those instances where commercial companies say this is too
    speculative, we don't want to do this, I think that is the role
    in the Department of Energy. And so the methane hydrates
    program is something I support, the shale gas program
    historically over the years, for 15 years. We stopped it one
    year before that, Chalmers picked it up and said it is perfect.
    And so that is really the strategy we want to use.
        Mr. Hall. But the program has been working the last three
    and a half years at about 20 universities that are producing
    and contributing to it. It pays for itself out of energy that
    we won't get if we don't get the technology. If we get the
    technology, we will get it. And now we are talking about
    transferring that. Let me ask you this. Do you think it is
    acceptable to fund exploration in other countries but not
    domestically?
        Secretary Chu. I am not actually familiar with this loan
    you spoke of, of funding Petrobras, so I would have to look at
    the----
        Mr. Hall. Please do.
        Chairman Gordon. If the Secretary would yield, I think what
    happened is, I think the XM Bank has loan money to Brazil for
    their drilling, but the XM Bank did it at the request of
    American industry. It is American companies' equipment. And so
    it is not the Federal Government, it is XM Bank loaning money
    to buy American equipment then to go to Brazil, as I understand
    it.
        Mr. Hall. And I will repeat my question. It is not who does
    it, but do you think it is acceptable to fund exploration in
    other countries but not domestically when we should be able to
    do it here, when it is proven that we have the repay with what
    we get that we won't get if we don't get it?
        Secretary Chu. I think, you know, the university research
    you speak of, I think that is wonderful but I also think gas
    companies do have the financial resources to support that.
        Mr. Hall. But you will look into it, won't you?
        Secretary Chu. I will look into it again. I will.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
                       Prepared Response of Secretary Chu
        DOE acknowledges that applied research and development does help
    industry increase domestic resources in an environmentally responsible
    manner. However, given current world oil prices, we expect that major
    oil companies can support ongoing levels of offshore activity.
        Regarding Brazil, the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) decided
    to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help
    finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. According to
    EXIM's President Fred P. Hochberg, ``This increases the likelihood that
    American--not foreign--workers will be employed to satisfy part of the
    company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years.''
    Mr. Hochberg also noted that the mandate of the EXIM is to help create
    and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports.

        Mr. Hall. I will ask you next time about it. You are very
    pleasant.
        Secretary Chu. I try to be.
        Mr. Hall. I yield back.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is very serious about this too.
        Secretary Chu. I understand.
        Chairman Gordon. We want to look at it and see if there are
    incentives to bring the oil companies to bear here.
        Mr. Wu, you are recognized.
        Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                                Energy Hub Goals

        I will be very brief in my questioning, Mr. Secretary, to
    encourage you to take as much time as you in discussing this
    particular topic. I find your rollout of the hub lab concept
    very, very interesting. There are three that are out for
    proposals, and if you could discuss some of your goals, what
    are you looking for in proposals and what you hope to achieve
    over time. I would be very interested, perhaps with the most
    emphasis on the most recent rollout on energy-efficient
    buildings.
        Secretary Chu. Well, the goal is the following. I look
    back, I started thinking about this maybe three or four years
    ago. How do you accelerate innovation? And there were times in
    the United States where you really wanted to accelerate
    innovation. In particular during wartime, we wanted to
    accelerate innovation in the Manhattan Project and the
    development of radar. There was a time when Bell Labs took a
    very long-term view but they also, for example, wanted to
    accelerate innovation in getting rid of those vacuum tubes that
    kept on burning out on them, and so they entered into a program
    to develop a solid-state version of the vacuum tube. So what
    were the common denominators in all these aspects? They put
    scientists together with engineers. They said, we want a
    leadership team and so they are going to span the whole gamut.
    These are the scientific questions we have to answer, but we
    are not going to stop at answering scientific questions. We
    have to go all the way to delivering the goods, put radar on a
    ship or an airplane. We have to deliver the goods and so we
    want this team to be very dedicated. Or we are not going to
    fund the project. You didn't ask Oppenheimer and Fermi and all
    those people, well, give us your idea, we will decide whether
    it is good or not and then after a while we will decide if you
    want us to do something else, we will decide whether you want
    to go. No, we assembled the best team and said solve the
    problem, and you have got to solve it quickly. And because of
    that, these teams of scientists very actively managed, knew on
    a day-by-day, week-by-week basis what was going on, so they
    were much more intimately connected with what was going on than
    one can ever be in Washington. And it was the management team
    of people like Glenn Seaborg who was developing ways to
    separate plutonium chemically, that when you read his diaries,
    he was on top of what was happening every day and said OK, we
    can do this, and something happened. We couldn't get a
    detector, we are going to invent a detector; we can't wait for
    it to be developed by a commercial company. OK. So you can go
    lickety split, and that is the idea. You want to go lickety
    split, you want to go with a team that can actually--the top
    scientists who are actually participating but also great
    managers.
        The selection of these Hubs in large part will be dependent
    on how dedicated and how good these managers will be, not how
    good as scientists but also how good as science managers they
    will be, and that is one of the keys. We want to replicate what
    did work in times of real national need before but now in the
    energy sector.
        Mr. Wu. Mr. Secretary, how do you calibrate the, if you
    will, divide, and perhaps ``divide'' is too strong a term,
    between the research side of the enterprise and the
    engineering/dissemination/economic development side of the
    equation?
        Secretary Chu. Well, let me give you an example of a DOE
    hub, although it is not called a hub. In fact, this was also
    what was in my mind. It was in my old laboratory, Lawrence
    Berkeley Laboratory. It had to do with bioenergy. They came up
    with a breakthrough. The leaders of this hub were some of the
    world leaders in a new field of science called synthetic
    biology, and so they reprogrammed bacteria to, when fed simple
    sugars, produce a direct substitute for gasoline, not something
    that they later refined--you can almost put it in the tank--and
    to overproduce it. I learned about this. It was published in a
    very prestigious journal called Nature. I e-mailed my friend
    and director of the Laboratory, ``this is great, what is the
    time scale, how good does it have to be to be commercially
    viable without subsidy, question number one? What's the
    timeline when you will get an up and down vote?'' He said it is
    going to be within 90 percent of what we think is the
    theoretical maximum. Already, a company, LS9, is running with
    that, and the same team that did the basic research is making a
    little pilot. So those scientists are walking over and they are
    saying we are going to do this, and he said within two years we
    will have an up/down vote to see whether this flies both in the
    LS9 commercial work and from what we are doing.
        So those scientists are actually part of delivering the
    goods, and that institute was founded on a more corporate
    structure, so it is not that a basic scientist hands off to an
    engineer that hands off to some development group. No, they are
    going to walk it. So that is exactly the type of thing I am
    looking for in the other hubs.
        Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. As
    knowledgeable as you are, I think that what I find most
    appealing about your presentation is the passion which you are
    able to convey. Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. Comrade Rohrabacher.

                           Funding for Nuclear Power

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Secretary, how much money have we been
    spending on research into nuclear power over the last few years
    and how much are you proposing that we spend this year?
        Secretary Chu. I am going to have to go back and look at
    the exact number but it is on the scale of certainly tens of
    millions. You mean on the very research----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Research.
        Secretary Chu. I think on the scale of tens to perhaps 100
    million. I have to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Annually?
        Secretary Chu. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. And----
        Secretary Chu. I just reminded myself, the whole nuclear
    R&D, fiscal year 2011 is $503 million, fiscal year 2011 request
    is $500.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Five hundred million?
        Secretary Chu. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And over the years is this an interest or
    this is about what we have been spending?
        Secretary Chu. I have to plead ignorance on what the
    history is.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. Fine. Well, Mr. Secretary, we have
    been spending considerable money on R&D research into nuclear
    energy over the years, and $500 million is a sizable sum. The
    Administration just has announced that the President is behind
    this idea of moving forward, offering some sort of loan
    guarantees that will be available to build a new nuclear power
    plant for the first time in over two decades. Can you tell us
    how that--will there be preconditions that that power plant is
    different than the power plants that were built two decades ago
    before all of this money was spent on trying to research and
    come up with newer ways and better ways of producing nuclear
    energy?
        Secretary Chu. OK. So certainly the power plant, the first
    loan, is a Westinghouse designed power plant. The engineers
    feel it is considerably safer than the older designs of the
    last generation.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Is it a light water reactor?
        Secretary Chu. It is a light water reactor.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Secretary, they were building light
    water reactors 50 years ago.
        Secretary Chu. Absolutely, so----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Why is it that we are building a light
    reactor that still has leftover waste when there are several
    companies, very substantial companies who say they can build
    reactors that will basically not have that waste problem?
    General Atomics to be one, which is a high-temperature gas-
    cooled reactor which says they are going to actually take stuff
    out of Yucca Mountain rather than put it in.
        Secretary Chu. So there is a difference between--let me
    take the questions one at a time. There is a difference with
    this light water reactor. It is much more passively safe.
    Instead of feedback, you know, backup after backup systems, you
    are storing water up high so that if something goes wrong, the
    water runs down due to gravity. It is much, much less likely to
    have any issue based on, oh, if something goes wrong, there is
    another system that backs it up, and if that goes wrong, there
    is another system that backs it up. Because of that, people
    feel that it could be made much less expensively, much less
    investment and also much safer. The reactor you are talking
    about, the General Atomics one, that is part of our $500
    million that we are investing. The next-generation reactor
    after that would be called Gen 4, gas-cooled reactors. We want
    to support that as well.
        But nuclear takes time and so even developing the next
    generation of light water, still safer reactors, while you are
    doing that, we also want to support these things like the
    General Atomics reactor.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Secretary, I would suggest that we
    should not be basing our next generation of nuclear energy that
    now we are investing in with something that substantial is an
    old concept, they are steam engines, when we have some
    revolutionary ideas coming out and that should be our focus
    rather than spending money on the old stuff.

                                  Solar Energy

        Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the Bureau of Land
    Management has not given one permit for a solar energy project
    on Bureau of Land Management land? There are 105 of them that
    have been waiting five years. Are you aware of that?
        Secretary Chu. No, I am not.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. Well, I would hope that you would look
    into this. This is unconscionable. At a time when we are
    talking about developing alternative sources of energy, making
    us self-sufficient, and is it your understanding--I have got
    about 15 seconds left--that we can now build solar facilities
    in places like the desert that would be competitive with
    producing electricity with the coal-fired plants and oil-fired
    plants?
        Secretary Chu. Getting there. In all honesty, not quite.
    They still need a little help. But let me return a little bit
    back to, there is a distinction between our $500 million in
    research. We are not researching light water reactors of the
    type that are being--you know, like the Westinghouse AP-1000.
    We are researching the gas-cooled reactors of General Atomics.
    The loan guarantees which are scored--the Department is Energy
    is tasked to convince OMB that it will cost the taxpayer zero
    dollars and so I think this is not fully appreciated. So those
    loan guarantees are self-pay, you know, the assets of the
    company, the stability of the company, the fact that they are
    loan guaranteed for the first run, went to a consortium of
    companies that already had pre-purchased power agreements for
    the nuclear power, very, very different. That is to just get,
    you know, today's technology going again--it is actually not
    today's, it is tomorrow's in the sense that we don't have
    operating in the world an AP-1000. But in the meantime, the
    $500 million are to look at much better reactors, much newer
    concepts, smaller modular reactors, things of that nature, and
    so that is what we are--
        Mr. Rohrabacher. We are capable of doing that. We should be
    building them rather than just research upon research.
        Secretary Chu. I agree. I mean, the small modular reactors,
    Babcock and Wilcox wants to develop them. We will help to down-
    select which ones will apply for an NRC license.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        And Dr. Baird is recognized--excuse me. Mr. Lujan is
    recognized.

                          Commercializing Technologies

        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman,
    thank you very much as well.
        Secretary Chu, I want to commend you on a recent
    appointment that you made in appointing Karina Edmonds as
    National Technology Transfer Coordinator in the Office as well.
    I think this signals an important relationship going forward
    with our DOE laboratories and moving forward towards
    commercializing some of the technology that is being developed
    by some of the brightest that we have in the country. Your
    emphasis in your statements around innovation, that there that
    will be breakthroughs and better technologies to meet our long-
    term goals, these efforts that were highlighted by the
    President as well and as reflected in the budget with
    innovation, investments in science, discovery and innovation,
    to provide solutions to pressing energy challenges. And Mr.
    Secretary, as we talk about these programs and completely
    understanding how we can create more jobs, we can do a better
    job of commercializing some of these big ideas and finding ways
    to get them to the marketplace so that we engage in
    manufacturing domestically, so that is something that I am
    anxious to see more of.
        Two weeks ago, I had a visit to Los Alamos National
    Laboratories and talked to them about a program that is
    supported by corporate funding called North New Mexico Connect,
    which supports opportunities for small businesses and for some
    of our scientists, physicists, engineers to use
    entrepreneurialship to commercialize these ideas and to take
    part in these projects, but I was discouraged that there didn't
    seem to be a serious investment coming from DOE itself as
    opposed to the partnership that was put together with the
    corporate funding, and so Mr. Secretary, I would ask for you to
    comment on what you feel the role of DOE is, what can we expect
    from a funding perspective to support efforts like that within
    our DOE laboratories, specifically at NNSA DOE laboratories, to
    help engage in promoting some of these big ideas, creating the
    jobs which will lead to some commercialization manufacturing
    domestically?
        Secretary Chu. Well, first, thank you for recognizing that
    appointment. I think she is wonderful, and it is something--
    when I walked into the--before I walked into the job, when I
    walked into the job of laboratory director of the Lawrence
    Berkeley Lab, one of the first things I did was to get the
    person in charge of technology licensing from Stanford, which
    has a very good reputation and a truly outstanding reputation
    nationwide, worldwide, for taking discoveries out of the
    laboratory and getting them into the commercial sector. And so
    this person as a favor to me came over and spent a day to say
    how we can improve things. Probably the most important thing I
    did when I was director is--you know, every year there is a
    merit review. There is no salary adjustment of our scientists
    and engineers. So every year there is a merit review, and there
    were many criteria, about 12, 15. I lowered it to four or five.
    Number two after quality of papers, was patents and
    disclosures. It wasn't listed before. And a remarkable thing
    happened. The number of patents and disclosures all of a sudden
    started to pick up just by that single stroke of the pen; you
    know, you are going to be judged on how many patents and
    disclosures you produce.
        And so there are many things that actually can be done for
    free. We want to do this now Department-wide. There is a reason
    why--I mean, we in the Department of Energy feel that we are
    going to be responsible for the entire innovation chain from
    the basic research all the way to not only the applied
    research, development, piloting, getting it out to deployment,
    but also deployment to scale, and so we--and the entire energy
    sector because we feel that the energy sector, since it reaches
    every part of U.S. life, will be a key future to our future
    prosperity. So we want very much for the private sector to be
    picking up these things because of the fact that we fund the
    most physical science in the United States, you know, the
    national lab assets, the people in universities are some of the
    best things we have in the United States. That is our
    competitive edge. And so we are going to be very focused on
    that.
        Mr. Lujan. Well, I appreciate that very much, Mr.
    Secretary, and would ask for your consideration on how we could
    tie fees with our laboratories to exactly what you saw from
    behavior with getting more patents out and things of that
    nature.
        And lastly, Mr. Secretary, I just want to tell you that I
    anxiously await the announcement for consideration for an
    individual to fill the Administrator position for Defense
    Nuclear Nonproliferation as we talk about the concerns and what
    has been highlighted by this Administration to make sure we
    bring attention to securing loose nuclear materials in addition
    to everything else associated with it. I very much appreciate
    that.
        Thank you very much for my time today, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Bartlett is recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Bartlett. Thank you.

                       The Mix of Domestic Energy Sources

        Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask a couple of questions to
    kind of put our energy challenge in perspective. France gets,
    what, 75, 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Are you
    pretty sanguine about our and the world's electricity energy
    future with more nuclear, with wind, with solar, with
    microhydro, with true geothermal where we are tapping into the
    molten core of the earth?
        Secretary Chu. I think we are going to need all those
    things as well as much improved generation of conventional
    sources to use our fossil fuel sources in a much cleaner way.
    For example, as you well know, we are deeply committed to
    developing the technologies in carbon capture and sequestration
    so we can continue to use coal in the United States but in an
    environmentally responsible way. So we need all these things.
        Mr. Bartlett. Is not the liquid fuels energy future a bit
    more challenging? I understand that the world is now pumping
    and using about 84 million barrels of oil a day. That is
    correct?
        Secretary Chu. I agree with you. The liquid fuels part is
    the most challenging. So the strategy, if you will bear with me
    for 30 seconds, it has to be multifaceted. Number one, we are
    investing in trying to electrify personal vehicle
    transportation for short range, 50 miles to a couple hundred
    miles. That would offload some of it. We are investing in next-
    generation biofuels that will give you much less fossil fuel
    investment in order to get per liter of fuel. We quite frankly
    see ethanol as a transition fuel. It is fine for now but we
    would like to, like that experiment I just told you about----
        Mr. Bartlett. May I ask you a question about liquid fuels
    future? The world uses about 84 million barrels of oil a day.
    We use a fourth of that. We are going to find more oil but we
    would like to use more oil because we like our economy to grow.
    The industrialized world would like to use more oil. The
    developing world, like India and China, would like to use a lot
    more oil. Would you agree that the more oil that we all like to
    use, that we will be kind of lucky if we can find that much
    more oil in the world?
        Secretary Chu. I actually think, so what is happening now
    is, there is conventional oil and then there is what is called
    non-conventional oil or deep offshore oil and so as the demand
    grows, especially in the developing countries, the overall
    world demand is projected by IEA [International Energy Agency],
    the EIA [Energy Information Administration], all these--to
    actually grow, the OECD countries probably to plateau but
    because of China, India and other developing countries, the
    overall demand will grow. But I see a transition already
    happening now from conventional oil on shore to offshore to
    harder-to-get oil to things of that nature.
        Mr. Bartlett. That is true, sir. The more expensive oil is,
    the more oil we are going to be able to pump because the new
    oil we are finding is more difficult to get. We use 84 million
    barrels of oil a day. That means in roughly 12 days we use a
    billion barrels of oil, correct? It is pretty simple
    arithmetic.
        Secretary Chu. Yes. I will trust you.
        Mr. Bartlett. Eighty-four million barrels of oil a day.
    That means in 12 days we use a billion barrels of oil. So when
    somebody talks about that we found 10 billion barrels of oil,
    that is going to last us 120 days.
        Secretary Chu. That is right.
        Mr. Bartlett. Big deal.
        Secretary Chu. Well----
        Mr. Bartlett. I use the numbers from your Department, the
    reserves that Saudi Arabia has, the reserves that Russia has
    and the percentage of the world's oil. They have roughly the
    same figure when I use those, when I compute from those.
        The world has today about 1.2, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil.
    I think there is general agreement. There has been general
    agreement on that for about a decade now, that that is the
    amount of oil we find. Sir, if I divide into that, you know,
    every 12 days we use a billion barrels of oil, we have enough
    oil at the rate we are now using it to last 40 years. That is
    all. Now, it is not going to be 40 years like we are using it
    now and then fall off a cliff. It is going to be ever harder
    and harder to get, more and more expensive.
        Sir, I don't see this budget anywhere near recognizing the
    urgency that we need to have to address that. You agreed that
    the amount of oil that we are likely to find, we are going to
    be more than lucky if the more oil we find is equal to the more
    oil that we would like to use and the developing world would
    like to use. So with almost seven billion people facing 40
    years of oil, don't you think we ought to have more urgency
    about substitutes?
        Secretary Chu. We are working very hard on that, but let me
    also remind you that the oil recovery is getting better and
    better. Before--you know, you stick a hole in the ground, you
    get five percent out. You start pumping water though it, you
    get more out. Now the average oil recovery is around 30, 35
    percent of the oil in the ground and those reservoirs can
    actually be pumped up, moving to 50 percent, so a lot of things
    are happening that enable you to recover more oil in your
    proven reservoirs. Saudi Arabia is now talking 50 percent
    recovery average of their reservoirs and they think they can
    get to 70 percent. So I would say it is not clear to me that we
    will run out of oil in 40 years based on these trends, and
    based on the fact that we are learning how to recover what we
    used to think were inaccessible forms of oil. But let me also
    say that there is an urgency, I feel an urgency for--
    transportation fuel is the hardest. If you look at the energy
    density in jet plane fuel and diesel fuel, it is astoundingly
    high. To replace an airplane or a long-haul truck or a boat
    with something else aside from liquid fuel is difficult and so
    we are looking towards ways of getting substitutes. You know,
    the Secretary of the Navy wants, I think by 2030, to decrease
    fossil fuel use in the Navy, to get substitutes which include
    efficiency and also biofuels, to decrease fossil fuel use by 50
    percent. So there are plans out there. You know, I hope we can
    get there. There are plans out there that we want to look at
    this very aggressively and so there is a sense of urgency
    because it will take time to deploy these things to scale, but
    also we want to clean up our oil supply as well because there
    is a carbon issue. That is why electrification of personal
    vehicles is something I think we can do and so there is urgency
    there. We do want to decrease our imports of foreign oil.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Chu, I suggest that you recommend Dr.
    Bartlett for a position in OMB. I think that would improve your
    budget much.
        Dr. Baird is recognized.

                     Potential Energy Efficiency Strategies

        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Dr. Chu. Good to see you. Having had
    the privilege of spending most of the day yesterday at the
    ARPA-E summit and the day before and then much of this morning
    there, I want to commend you and Dr. Majumdar for the success
    and also Chairman Gordon for writing the legislation that
    created this. My wife and I were talking this weekend about
    some of the many challenges the country faces, and she said
    what are we doing right? And I said I think the Department of
    Energy and ARPA-E but I also want to acknowledge the national
    labs in addition for their ongoing work which has done so much
    over the years, so well done on that.
        As we look at meeting energy needs, my own belief is that
    the problem is urgent, as Dr. Bartlett has said many times in
    this Committee. I think we can save 20 percent of our energy
    budget in 20 weeks, I don't think we have to wait, through
    fairly simple behavioral adaptations, and I don't mean some
    voodoo social science stuff, I mean just making the right
    decisions like inflating your tires, et cetera, which have been
    subject to derision but are actually legitimate measures. If we
    just drove the bloody speed limit, we would save a fair amount.
    We don't have to lower the speed limit, just drive it.
        There are some other things I think we can do. The
    President rolled out the HOMESTAR program yesterday, I
    understand, and let me give you just a couple of examples of
    things we have kicked around. When you buy a house in this
    country, you get information about what the kind of heating or
    air conditioning is but you get no useable cost information. If
    we just put MLS listings required in some fashion that when you
    buy a house, you get the annual energy budget, the actual
    expenditures month by month, two houses that look like the same
    purchase price but one has $150 greater monthly output for
    energy is a much more expensive house over time, vastly more
    expensive, and you now reward people who make the investments
    both in behavior change and technology just by listing it, no
    costly audits, no intrusive anything, just list the energy
    price for the year.
        Secondly, transportation audits that just give people
    information. You could use Google Earth to do this and say what
    is the real cost of this home you are buying? Because it is
    cheaper in the 'burbs but you can spend an hour and a half
    commuting into Washington, D.C., what is the real cost in terms
    of your time value and the energy transportation cost? Again,
    it is free but gives people information they can make a
    decision with.
        Regarding the HOMESTAR program, the best time to make an
    energy investment in your home is at point of purchase for two
    reasons: the cost of the borrowing, if you are borrowing
    $200,000 for a home, another $20,000 to energy retrofit is
    additional but small relative to the base cost, but secondly,
    you are not in the home. You don't have a bunch of people
    trooping through with insulation or new windows. Some way,
    finding a way to incentivize point-of-purchase retrofits, seems
    to me to be a really major investment with buildings consuming
    40 percent of our energy.
        Finally, a question. I am very concerned. You know, my
    state had--the last major nuclear investment in this country
    was in my state. We call it ``WPPSS'', the Washington Public
    Power Supply System. The assumption--and by the way, those are
    bankrupt and never completed with one sole exception but the
    rest of the towers standing there. They make great echo
    chambers. Some rock band is going to discover them, but it is
    not their original purpose. But this business that we are
    making loan guarantees, my belief is, we are investing, whether
    it is CCS in major coal plants or major nuclear plants, I think
    we are investing in antiquated computers, to be perfectly
    honest. When you go to the ARPA-E and other places around the
    world as I have had the privilege of doing, I think a
    distributed energy scientist like Daniel Serra or some other
    bright person working on it is going to obviate a lot of this.
    And so what we are doing is making this big loan guarantee and
    investment for something that may not be necessary. If we cut
    consumption by 20 percent behaviorally, right there we obviate
    a whole lot of nukes. If we invest distributed energy
    technology, we further do it. What is your thought on that? I
    worry we are putting a lot of money in antiquated technology.
        Secretary Chu. Well, actually, I agree with you 100 percent
    on the gains on energy efficiency. Many of the things you had
    suggested I like so much that we actually started the ball
    rolling on them about half a year ago. So we are starting to
    talk with HUD, is it possible to try to get the FHA to ask for
    a year's energy bill? You know, motivate homeowners to putting
    those energy retrofits and, you know, here is the zip code,
    this is the energy use in this home, this is the energy use for
    this square footage in this entire region, so it is like a
    refrigerator label. We are also recognizing that, you know,
    people live differently. Some people like it very warm at 78,
    not 70, or I happen to keep our house at 65 but I don't think
    many people like to do that.
        Mr. Baird. My wife and I have the same discussion.
        Secretary Chu. So we are also trying to develop a mechanism
    within the Department of Energy, a means of rating the home
    itself so you have what the real usage is, you know, like an
    EPA mileage of the house. So we are doing all those things. In
    terms of the best time to do the home is during a turnover, I
    absolutely agree with that. So HUD has energy mortgages but
    only like 1,000 a year so we are trying to figure out how to
    get it so it is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands a
    year. You know, we have 130 million homes. Average turnaround
    time is seven years. So if we can start doing major retrofits,
    you can start to turn over the stock of homes in a major way
    but you have to make it very painless to the homeowner that
    they have confidence, that the added little bit more you put in
    your mortgage, which is a nice long-term loan, low interest
    rate, you will recover in energy savings on a monthly basis so
    you are not out of pocket and in fact you are making money. And
    so these are many of the programs we want to do. Gas mileage,
    higher mileage standards is another thing. So the only thing I
    disagree with you is, I don't think it is 20 percent, I think
    it can be 50 percent.
        Mr. Baird. I would agree. I am thinking 20 percent in 20
    weeks.
        Secretary Chu. Oh, well, OK.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes.
    Oh, Ms. Biggert. Excuse me. Ms. Biggert is recognized for five
    minutes.

                       High-Performance Computing at DOE

        Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
    Secretary Chu.
        As a long supporter of the Department of Energy's Office of
    Science, I commend your efforts to increase the funding by 4.4
    percent, which is consistent with the COMPETES Act, and of the
    program increases, I am glad to see the Advanced Scientific
    Computing Research receive a boost, and considering the
    importance of that to DOE and the research community, do you
    have plans for a sustained investment in our leadership-class
    computing facilities, and more specifically, will the
    Department consider utilizing the advanced computing
    infrastructure across the programs in DOE to meet many of our
    energy challenges?
        Secretary Chu. The short answer is yes, we see a sustained
    program. We are finding out as the computers get more powerful,
    as the algorithms get more powerful, we can begin to simulate
    design in a real way, complex designs spanning the gamut
    between combustion in a diesel engine so you don't have to
    build another prototype and see what happens. The poster child
    of that is a collaboration with Cummins Diesel Engine and
    Sandia National Labs; they skipped the prototype part. They
    designed it on a computer. They do measurements on that and it
    worked according to the computer simulation. These are very
    complex simulations.
        Ms. Biggert. Do you see a role for the computing as
    facilitating solutions----
        Secretary Chu. Yes.
        Ms. Biggert. --to grid modernization or----
        Secretary Chu. Oh, well, the computer----
        Ms. Biggert. --fuel cycle?
        Secretary Chu. Everything. The grid modernization will
    absolutely require a very, very--the so-called smart grid will
    require a very deeply intelligent computer system so, you know,
    when the wind stops blowing, the sun stops shining, it will add
    to the robustness of our energy supply. It has to manage two-
    way flows. I mean, right now in the United States distribution
    system, there are these regional sections, and if you want to
    go across, someone calls up the line and says hey, can you send
    me a little more juice? It is just like in the old-time movies,
    you know, the ship captain says all ahead, full steam. He goes
    down to the engine room and they start shoveling coal. We can't
    use that anymore going forward, computers will be an integral
    part of the distribution.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you, and I have got a couple more
    questions so I have to rush, I guess.
        Secretary Chu. OK. Sorry.
        Ms. Biggert. In your testimony in 2006 before this
    Committee talking about funding ARPA-E--and I do congratulate
    the Chairman for the success of ARPA-E, and I am not going to
    eat crow. But it is critical--you said that it is critical that
    the funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the
    Office of Science, and I am not sure from looking at the
    budget, is the $300 million for ARPA-E taken out of the Office
    of Science budget?
        Secretary Chu. No.
        Ms. Biggert. So that is a separate----
        Secretary Chu. The Office of Science budget is on a path to
    doubling the budget of the Office of Science and, you know, in
    this respect I believe in the old tradition, in the words ``do
    no harm.'' The Office of Science is a great part of the
    Department of Energy, and you want to keep it on a path of
    budget doubling.
        Ms. Biggert. And I congratulate you. Doubling that budget I
    think is very important.

                          Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling

        And could you just talk a little bit about the evolution of
    DOE's R&D work on used fuel recycling over the past year and
    what is going to happen?
        Secretary Chu. Well, thank you for that question. There are
    two goals. Right now the fuel reprocessing technologies that
    exist today, for example, the one that Areva has, we believe is
    not economically viable as witnessed by the huge cost overruns
    in the recycling plant in Japan--almost a factor of three from
    $6 billion to over $20 billion. It is not proliferation
    resistant. And so these are real problems. You know, it doesn't
    make financial sense and it doesn't make nonproliferation
    sense. So we want to do research to see if we can get to a
    place where it makes both of those things. In addition to that,
    we are also looking at reactors in this $400 or $500 million
    range where right now you dig uranium out of the ground, you
    use less than one percent, it is like half a percent of the
    energy content of that mined ore and the rest becomes spent
    fuel, possibly waste. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could use 20
    percent, you know, once-through cycle? If you do that, you go
    from one percent to 20 percent. Then you have just reduced the
    waste by a factor of 20. But in addition to that, we also want
    to do research in fast neutron reactors designed to burn down
    the long-lived radioactive waste to reduce the lifetime. All
    these things will be factored into what the Blue Ribbon
    commission is being charged to anticipate what might happen in
    the next 50 years. That will totally rewrite what we are going
    to do with the back end of the fuel cycle. So there are all of
    these possibilities. It will take time because anything having
    to do with nuclear, because of the safety concerns, does take
    time, but we do have time and we have at least a half a century
    to do this. And so I feel very committed. Here is an
    opportunity to go forward. And by the way, like with small
    modular reactors, here is an opportunity to recapture an
    industry the United States started. The first nuclear reactor
    was built in the United States and it has now gone abroad. You
    know, France and Japan and Korea have more nuclear production
    capabilities for reactors than we do. So, you know, we want to
    bring that high-tech manufacturing back to the United States as
    well. We again want to be a leader in that for our prosperity
    as well as clean energy.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Matheson is recognized.

                More on Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste Storage

        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Chu, welcome
    to the Committee.
        You mentioned in your opening statement, or actually, I
    think it was in response to the Chairman's question in your
    discussion about high-level nuclear waste disposal and the
    decision to move away from Yucca. I actually agree with that
    decision to move away from Yucca. And when you were talking
    about it, you mentioned that as an interim measure with dry
    cask storage technology we have available onsite at operating
    power plants. To your knowledge, are there any space
    limitations for that type of onsite storage?
        Secretary Chu. To the best of my knowledge, no.
        Mr. Matheson. And you also mentioned that when the Congress
    passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act back in the 1980s that we
    knew a lot less then than we now know. Is it your understanding
    that dry cask storage in terms of the capability for doing that
    was not very well understood back in the mid-1980s? Is that one
    example of where we have learned more since then?
        Secretary Chu. That is one example, but it goes much deeper
    than that. I think given, for example, in the proposed
    repository at Yucca Mountain, first it was for 10,000 years,
    then there was a Supreme Court ruling that says no, it is
    whatever--well, it turns out I knew the scientists doing a lot
    of the simulations for the water flows in Yucca Mountain, and
    the maximum leak out would be at a half a million years. Well,
    quite frankly, we haven't built--humans haven't built anything
    that has lasted a half a million years. Roman aqueducts come to
    mind, 2,000 years. And so what you really want to do is, you
    want to do something that is inherently natural deposit safe.
    So there are other geological repositories in that case. And
    also if you don't want to ever have access to it, for example,
    you might want to consider over the next few hundred years we
    could put it somewhere in some places where you want to have
    access but when the economic value is really spent down, then
    you can say, you know, we don't think we will ever have any
    more economic value and you reduce the amount of waste. Then
    you want to put it in a place that guess what, you never want
    it back. So we know of geological sites, for example, in salt
    domes, you put it in the salt dome. The salt oozes around it
    and you can't get--those things were rejected because maybe we
    need to get it back. Well, no, in this case we might not ever
    want to get it back. The beauty of those things is, they are
    radioactively dated and they have been around for tens of
    millions of years. So imagine the continents of the world
    drifting around, but this thing has been safe for ten million
    years. That is good. So again, we know a lot more. So it goes
    much deeper than--we can take a fresh look at this.
        Mr. Matheson. Right. I appreciate that. And I assume you
    will be engaged with this bipartisan commission in their
    discussion?
        Secretary Chu. Well, I mean, they are a very ``blue
    ribbon'' committee, and we stand by to offer them information
    but they are going to make recommendations to me, to the
    President and to Congress and they can form little
    subcommittees for points of technical information, but we
    really want their best advice.
        Mr. Matheson. Another question I wanted to ask you about,
    in terms of the NNSA's stockpile stewardship rule, over the
    past few years there was talk about coming up with a new
    generation of weapons. There was the Reliable Replacement
    Warhead program. And yet I believe it was just in the past year
    with the most recent JASON analysis of the existing stockpile
    and its projected life or longevity or viability, there was a
    certain confidence that this existing stockpile could be
    maintained for, in my opinion, a reasonably long amount of
    time. What is your view right now of the need to develop a next
    generation? Or do you think the existing stockpile stewardship
    program with the existing stockpile satisfies our needs for the
    next, I don't know, few decades?
        Secretary Chu. Well, first there is going to be a nuclear
    repository review that will be coming out hopefully in the next
    couple of weeks and that sets a tone for what we in the
    Department of Energy need to do. The JASON part I am aware of
    had to do with the pits----
        Mr. Matheson. Yeah, the pits.
        Secretary Chu. --the core of the nuclear device, the thing
    that starts it off, and in their view, the pits--themselves for
    a long period of time. Now, having said that, many of these
    devices were designed with vacuum tubes, and you can't even buy
    the vacuum tubes anymore. So merely by replacing vacuum tubes
    with integrated circuits, things of that nature that don't, in
    my mind, constitute a new weapon at all, it is just hey, you
    can't buy this stuff and replace it with something, modern
    electronics. It doesn't enhance any capability. I think those
    things need to be done and so you differentiate that from the
    pits. So what we are going to be doing is, we are going to be
    looking at these very complex issues and certainly wanting very
    much--recognizing what the President said in his speech, where
    we want to go towards eventual elimination of nuclear warheads
    around the world, but as long as other countries have them, we
    are going to have them, but so far from my knowledge from where
    we are today, we can extend the lifetime of these weapons.
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             More on Nuclear Waste

        Mr. Secretary, my comments and questions today focus on how
    the Department makes it decisions and whether or not the
    American people trust those decisions. To be candid, recent
    decisions have me befuddled. Case in point, the record is
    fairly clear that you have supported unilaterally disarming our
    Nation's economy by advocating a carbon tax and a carbon
    tariff. Your rationale for this irresponsible policy is based
    on the claimed scientific consensus regarding the severity and
    impacts of anthropogenic climate change. As evidence of this
    consensus, you specifically cited the National Academy of
    Sciences. Setting aside the recent issues revealed by the
    Climate Research Unit's leaked e-mails, the almost daily
    revelations of errors in IPCC reports and the numerous
    investigations related to the process by which that consensus
    was reached, I am a little confused by why you selectively
    embraced findings from these scientific bodies, why you
    embraced the consensus surrounding climate change.
        You ignore a report from the National Research Council on
    Yucca Mountain which states, ``There is a strong worldwide
    consensus that the best, safest, long-term option for dealing
    with high-level waste, HLW, is geologic isolation.'' One of the
    first acts of our Department was to essentially shutter the
    doors of Yucca Mountain, our Nation's only option for dealing
    with high-level waste, despite clear legal obligations after
    over 25 years of scientific study with billions of dollars at
    risk and no plan going forward. Georgia ratepayers have already
    paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund over $708.9 million. While two
    nuclear reactors are going to be built in Georgia, it has been
    three decades since a new nuclear plant has been built. Yet DOE
    terminates the license application for Yucca Mountain. You
    initiated a blue ribbon commission to look into storage options
    but their report won't be completed until the end of this
    Administration's term and after a certain Senator's reelection
    bid. Why not keep the program on track until you receive those
    recommendations, or why not spend the collection fees for the
    Nuclear Waste Fund--suspend the collection for the Nuclear
    Waste Fund until a storage solution is agreed to? How can you
    justify continuing the collections of hundreds of millions of
    dollars in fees from electricity consumers in these tough
    economic times? It is just not right. Right now, you are
    essentially kicking the can down the road all the while you
    defend our Nation's only existing storage option, a decision
    that appears to be politically motivated, not based on science.
        In order to understand the rationale behind these
    decisions, Ranking Member Hall and I along with Ranking Members
    Barton and Walden wrote to you last May with over 12 specific
    questions. Your response to the committees of jurisdiction was
    frankly laughable. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to enter the letters into the record from me
    and the Ranking Member as well as the response from Secretary
    Chu.
        [The information follows:]

        Chairman Gordon. With no exception, so ordered.
        Mr. Broun. I once again wrote to you last month restating
    my concerns and questions, and also seeking information
    regarding the establishment of this so-called Blue Ribbon
    Commission. I have yet to hear back. Mr. Secretary, this
    Committee is an important responsibility to oversee your
    Department. I hope you will take our current request seriously
    and be more responsive to future inquiries.
        During the President's inaugural address, he stated his
    intention to ``restore science to its rightful place.''
    Unfortunately, all we have seen from this Administration is
    rewarding of political allies, cherry picking scientific
    recommendations and obfuscation. The American people deserve
    more than empty rhetoric when it comes to scientific integrity
    and they deserve more than arrogance, ignorance and
    incompetence when it comes to making decisions.
        Mr. Chairman--I mean Secretary Chu, I would like to ask,
    what is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw the
    application on Yucca Mountain from the NRC?
        Secretary Chu. I would be glad to go into this, but in the
    limited time, I do believe we have much better options. There
    is no disagreement with the National Academy study that says
    geologic storage sites are the best option. The salt dome I was
    talking about was a geological storage site. If you have been
    to Yucca Mountain, there are issues with it. Its repository
    nature depends a lot on the assumed precipitation at that site
    over a million-year period. And so there are many issues like
    that. In terms of the BRC and the timing of the report, the
    time scale that is listed officially, both General Scowcroft
    and Congressman Hamilton actually want a much more accelerated
    time, and I am all in favor of that. Ideally, quite frankly, I
    don't want to box them in a corner, but they are targeting this
    year to get this first draft out. So there is no desire to kick
    any can down the road regarding the Blue Ribbon Commission.
        With regard to climate data and the understanding, I still
    believe very strongly that the overwhelming body of evidence--
    well, let me stand back and say that the overwhelming body of
    evidence still is that the climate is changing, it is caused by
    humans, and although the uncertainties on what happens going
    forward are large, it is not an uncertainty as to whether it is
    happening or whether it is caused by humans, it is to the
    degree. The way science works is, sometimes there are
    occasionally bumps and warts, and what happens is, science
    investigates itself and tries to find out, and that is exactly
    what is happening, but as far as I know, there is a
    overwhelming body of evidence that still says--in fact, the
    more recent, especially the satellite data as it gets better
    and better is putting to rest concerns that we might have had
    10 to 20 years ago.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Chu.
        Dr. Broun's views aren't unanimous but he certainly needs
    to have his letters responded to.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
                       Prepared Response of Secretary Chu
        I appreciate your interest, as expressed in your February 3, 2010,
    letter, in the decision regarding the Yucca Mountain project and the
    convening of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Expanding our Nation's
    capacity to generate clean nuclear energy is crucial to our ability to
    combat climate change, enhance energy security, and increase economic
    prosperity.
        An important part of a sound, comprehensive, and long-term domestic
    nuclear energy strategy is a well-considered policy for managing used
    nuclear fuel and other aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel
    cycle. Yet the Nation's approach, developed more than 20 years ago, to
    manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste has proven ineffective.
    Fortunately, over the past two decades scientists and engineers in our
    country and abroad have learned a great deal about effective strategies
    for managing the back end of the fuel cycle.
        The Administration has decided that Yucca Mountain is not a
    workable solution. As a result, President Obama requested that I
    establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The
    Commission will consider a broad range of technological and policy
    alternatives as well as the scientific, environmental, budgetary,
    economic, financial, and management issues surrounding each alternative
    it considers. The Administration remains fully committed to meeting its
    obligations for disposition of the nation's civilian and defense
    nuclear waste.

        Secretary Chu. I will do that.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Lipinski is recognized.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          DOE Research Infrastructure

        Mr. Secretary, thank you for your contributions now to our
    Nation, what you are doing as Secretary. I was just out at
    Emeryville at JBEI, and they were speaking very highly of all
    that you did to help get JBEI started out there. The
    collaborative work, research and attempts to develop biofuels
    are very encouraging out there, and I think that was a great
    example of pulling together different institutions to do some
    really important work and a good example of what you have tried
    to do, and what you are trying to do right now, as Secretary.
    So I congratulate you and thank you for doing that.
        I am concerned to some degree about the--that many of our
    research facilities in this country are suffering from chronic
    underinvestment in deferred maintenance. As I am sure you know,
    the NSF's last survey of science and engineering facilities
    documented a problem at academic research facilities, a $3.6
    billion backlog in deferred repair and renovation, and I have
    heard anecdotally of problems at the national labs as well. And
    this concerns me in that we clearly understand we cannot lose
    our leadership in science and engineering, and I am concerned
    that we may not be able to lead and we might be having
    inefficient use of research dollars if we don't have the
    infrastructure that we need. So I wanted to ask you what your
    current--what is your impression of the current state of DOE
    facilities, especially the national labs? And I was intrigued
    in your statement, you had talked about $7 billion requested
    for upgrade of infrastructure, and if you could be--expound a
    little bit on what that is going to be for.
        Secretary Chu. Well, regarding the infrastructure in the
    national laboratories, it is uneven. There are some that are--
    especially the new national laboratories I think are in a
    little bit better condition. Recovery Act money has been
    invested in a lot of that delayed maintenance, but going
    further than that, actually replacing the buildings. Once the
    laboratory buildings get to be 50, 60, 70 years old, it is hard
    to keep them going. It is better to start anew. It is more
    economical, in fact to start anew. And so that is an issue.
    Again, in my old laboratory, the oldest national laboratory in
    the complex, we had a fair fraction, I forget the exact number,
    but it was something like 40, 50 percent were over 50 years
    old. There is a section of old buildings, wooden buildings
    called Old Town. It was called Old Town when I was a graduate
    student there in 1970. It is still there. So at least there are
    plans to knock it down through Recovery Act money and it won't
    be done probably for another two or three, five years but--so
    yes, to your point, it is an issue.
        The infrastructure having to do with the NNSA labs are the
    fact that because of many budget stresses and other issues over
    a period of perhaps a decade, maybe a little longer but
    certainly over a period of a decade the amount of--the fraction
    of money spent for science and technology, and the
    infrastructure more important than anything else. It also
    includes the total assets of the lab, including the people,
    have been declining. The fraction of money spent on science and
    technology in those laboratories was going down steadily so
    that over a 10-year period it would have been cut in half and
    we were entering the ninth year of that 10-year period. So----

                  Public Access of High-Performance Computers

        Mr. Lipinski. If I can--sorry to interrupt you. I want to
    get something else in before my time runs out. I would like to
    continue the discussion about what may be done about helping
    with improving the infrastructure at our national labs. The
    other thing following on what Ms. Biggert said, I am very happy
    to see the leadership computing facility at Argonne, the
    increase in funding requested. I am a little bit concerned
    about with high-performance computing that some of this has not
    been available, have not reached small manufacturers. They have
    not had the ability to take advantage of that. I was at Sandia
    also and what you were talking about earlier about what they
    are doing with Cummins. I saw that and was told about that.
    What are some ways that you look to helping, especially small
    manufacturers, but even Boeing, some of the supply chain for
    Boeing is having trouble being able to access and use--be able
    to use high-performance computers?
        Secretary Chu. Well, I think the major issue in very high-
    performance computing is they have many, many processors, tens
    of thousands, going now up to 50,000, 100,000 processors. In
    order to use them all concurrently, efficiently, you have to
    have very, very skilled programming. So there is a program at
    DOE called INCITE which teams up applied mathematicians,
    computer scientists with the scientists because as you go to
    these very complex machines, most scientists don't have the
    technical expertise. You know, after you have ganged up 1,000
    of them, going from 1,000 to 10,000, it doesn't get 10 times
    better. And so it begins to waste a resource. So in the very
    highest leadership computing, we actually have these teams of
    scientists but the average small company doesn't have that
    expertise. One of the things that I am very interested in doing
    is developing what I would call automatic parallelization. You
    write some code in Fortran or C++ and it begins to
    automatically allow you to use thousands of processors. We
    don't have that yet, and that is what is the next logical step
    in order to bring high-performance computing to the average
    engineer, the average scientist.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Chu, I am afraid you are a victim of
    your own knowledge. We are getting close to votes, and I don't
    want to have to hold you. So I think Dr. Broun has a unanimous
    consent request.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to insert a document at the end of my
    questioning period of Secretary Chu. It is called a Sustainable
    Energy Future: Essential Role of Nuclear Energy, dated August
    2008, and pay particular attention to the third bullet point
    here which says ``employing integrated approach''----
        [The information follows:]

        Chairman Gordon. Without objection, we will make that a
    part of the record.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, and I want to note that Secretary Chu
    signed this document.
        Chairman Gordon. Let me real quickly, I want to let you
    know the policy of the Chairman in terms of adding to the
    record. We want to keep a complete record, but if we have
    something that is 1,000 pages, we probably will not put it in
    the record but refer to it in the record and have it kept here.
    That is perfectly fine. But I don't want to surprise you at a
    later date if somebody has a thousand-page document. Part of it
    is just the expense of doing it.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Bilbray is recognized, and I think you
    all are going to try to work things out so we will all be----
        Secretary Chu. I will be very brief.
        Chairman Gordon. OK.

                  The Government Tools for Reducing Energy Use

        Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chu, again I want to say I was excited the
    President chose you. My biggest concern is making sure that
    your science does not get blocked by Washington's politics.
        We talk a lot around here about how people need to change
    their lifestyles and to reduce their emissions and conserve
    energy. Business has to change its operations. But the one
    thing we don't see talked about much is how government needs to
    change. We are right now burning dirty coal to generate
    electricity for this place, and, you know, we are talking about
    all these lofty ideas but the reform aspect--in fact, I think
    the term we always talk about energy is, we need a Manhattan
    Project. The fact is, Mr. Secretary, the Manhattan Project
    could not legally be done today. It would be illegal to do it
    because of regulations. Are we looking at--are there any
    studies being done in your department of what we need to do to
    change government regulations to make energy more efficient? I
    will give you an example. We talk about conservation of
    individuals but government control of traffic could reduce
    emissions and consumption by almost 22 percent. You know, Mr.
    Baird talked about slowing down. Nobody even talks about the
    fact that the problem is the fact that the law isn't enforced?
    Is there any study or any proposal to do a study to look at
    what government and governments can do to reduce the energy
    dependency and to clean up the environment?
        Secretary Chu. Specifically to your point, there probably
    are. I can't name the things, but let me just say very quickly,
    the Department of Energy does have a slight regulatory role. We
    do appliance standards, and those appliance standards have
    saved the country many billions of dollars. We are expanding
    those appliance standards because sometimes there is no price
    that will give it--oh, this is the best part. For the first
    time in history, the Department of Energy, we are enforcing
    them.
        Mr. Bilbray. I appreciate that, and I serve over the
    government reform, but my problem I have is that we--don't you
    believe that somebody who is looking at the scientific side of
    it needs--it needs to be from that perspective that we look at
    the government obstruction and barriers to get--a good example.
    I drove a natural gas car in the 1990s but most public utility
    commissions will not allow public utilities to rate base you
    home dispensing of clean gas for cars. It is a technology we
    have but the government regulation keeps you from doing that.
    We don't allow--the building code doesn't allow the use of a
    lot of renewable resources because of obstruction. Don't you
    agree that it is time that as scientists look at this and say
    look, we would love--these are barriers that we have. A good
    example, let me just say, the algae fuels discoveries in
    California, I met with the governor and pointed out our
    environmental regulations in California stopped the production
    of algae fuel in California for the next decade where the
    scientists at Scripps have to go to New Mexico to do it. Don't
    you think that it is time that we have scientists take a look
    at--you know, start speaking out and be able to have some voice
    to be able to say these barriers must be eliminated?
        Secretary Chu. Well, I think we are actually doing
    studies--there are many weatherization state energy grants.
    There are things like energy efficiency conservation block
    grants. There are NEPA requirements mandated by Congress. We
    are working through those things so that we can get--so we are
    trying to----
        Mr. Bilbray. I don't understand. We talk about spending
    money but we are not talking about asking government to do what
    we are asking business and individuals to do: change your
    operation, change your mindsets. And we are not doing that. You
    know, I take a look every time I stop at a stop sign. It could
    be a yield sign. It is five times more polluting than not
    having that sign there. But nobody calls the government down
    for that kind of emissions. It is out of sight and out of mind.
    Don't you think from a scientific point of view, especially
    when we talk about nuke, we talk about all these things, and
    government is in the way. The government answer is always,
    well, we will spend more money, and that is the big challenge I
    have there, and I appreciate. I am just raising this to please
    take a look at this. I look forward to working with your
    Department. I hope that we can do with nuclear power what we
    did with the interstate system and have your Department do more
    than just look at it and participate, but be the lead agency
    that is siting it. We couldn't build freeways and the
    interstate system in this country if we approached the
    transportation system the way we have approached our energy
    system. We would still be driving on two-lane roads. The
    private sector doesn't ask for a grant to site a freeway, to
    permit it. The government does that, and then we put it out to
    contract to the private. I would like to see us work together
    to be able to create that same dynamic when it comes to energy
    independence.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
        Mr. Wilson is recognized.

                                Coal and the DOE

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Mr.
    Secretary.
        The Department of Energy has a longstanding policy of
    refusing to provide loan guarantees to companies that are in
    litigation. What is frustrating to me is that environmental
    groups have taken advantage of this policy, filing thousands of
    frivolous lawsuits against the coal-related projects and
    holding them up in courts indefinitely. Companies with viable
    projects are unable to proceed on a basic level because they
    can't get loan guarantees from the Department. I know that Ohio
    Governor Strickland has been in contact with the Administration
    about this as well, and therefore I ask you, will you be
    considering reexamining your Department's policy in certain
    situations for coal?
        Secretary Chu. Well, in terms of loan guarantees, I don't
    think, to be quite candid, we can say we can give a loan
    guarantee to a company that is in litigation because we have a
    responsibility to taxpayers and sometimes the litigation puts
    the company at some uncertainty and financial risk. And so we
    have to certify again, ultimately, to the OMB that taxpayer
    dollars are protected. So when there is litigation, we have to
    say well, wait a minute, we can't do this until that is
    settled. So unfortunately, I think because of the constraints
    of the loan guarantee program, we can't do much about that.
        Mr. Wilson. It is unfortunate. Let me go on to my second
    question. Ohio coal supplies 87 percent of the electricity, and
    most importantly, a lot of jobs in our area of Ohio. To me and
    my constituents, it would appear that the Administration has
    declared a war on coal with the hopes of eliminating its use
    entirely. Yet I see no way that this country's energy needs can
    be met without coal. How does the Department of Energy intend
    to bridge the gap both in terms of energy needs and jobs
    between now and 10 years from now if the pursuit to end coal
    usage were to be successful?
        Secretary Chu. Well, we are investing quite a bit of money
    into learning how to use coal in a clean way so that we can
    continue to use it. As an example, through our programs and the
    Recovery Act, over $4 billion of Federal funds have been
    invested in clean coal technologies over the last several
    years. That is actually matched by industry of something like
    $6 billion or $7 billion. And so there is a very healthy
    partnership going on to develop better and better ways,
    economically viable ways, to capture the carbon and to prove
    that it is safe in geological sites in, I believe, six or seven
    sites around the country. So are very heavily invested in that.
        Mr. Wilson. And all due respect, Mr. Secretary, it looks
    like the Administration is saying one thing and then doing
    something entirely different. For example, on February 3rd, the
    President announced an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
    and Storage. However, only two days earlier, the President
    revealed a budget with $85 million cut to fossil fuel research
    and development. Can you address this perception in a way that
    sheds light on the future for coal within the Department of
    Energy?
        Secretary Chu. Sure. Because of the investments we have
    been making in the Recovery Act, as I said, $4 billion over a
    couple years is not chicken liver, to use an old Chinese
    expression. So we have a lot of investments out there, and the
    Clean Coal Power Initiative is being led by the Department of
    Energy's Jim Markowsky, a super guy. I don't think they are
    mixed signals. If you look at the amount of investment that we
    have been making over the last couple of years, our goal is to
    develop this technology so it can be deployed routinely in 10
    years.
        Mr. Wilson. Can I ask then, what steps are being taken by
    the Department of Energy this year in regard to the stated goal
    of having five to ten carbon capture and sequestration
    demonstration projects by 2016?
        Secretary Chu. I would be glad to give you a detailed list
    of the projects we have invested in so you can see for
    yourself.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
                       Prepared Response of Secretary Chu
        Over $3.3B of the $3.4B the Office of Fossil Energy received in the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and over $600M in appropriated
    Clean Coal Power Initiative funds will go toward demonstration
    projects. These projects will count toward meeting the President's goal
    of five to ten carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects
    by 2016. Additionally, on February 3, 2010, the President issued a
    memorandum establishing an interagency Carbon Capture and Storage Task
    Force to identify barriers to widespread CCS deployment. One of the
    topics the task force will investigate is the adequacy of the currently
    planned demonstration projects.
        Following is a list of projects currently underway or planned:

        Currently underway:

             FutureGen

             HECA--Hydrogen Energy California IGCC project

             Summit--Texas Clean Energy IGCC project

             Southern--Kemper County IGCC project

             Excelsior--Mesaba IGCC project

             AEP--American Electric Power Mountaineer Post Combustion with
            Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project

             NRG--Post Combustion with CCS project

             Basin--Post Combustion with CCS project

             Neuco--Pegasus Software project

        Planned: 5 or 6 Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS)
    projects (down-select coming in June, 2010)

        Mr. Wilson. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Smith is recognized.

                    Smart Grid and Wind Energy Transmission

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of
    time, Nebraska wind transmission capacity--you know where I am
    going, the President's request for $144 million to research and
    develop smart grid technology. How might you think we would be
    able to capitalize on the wind resources of middle America and
    yet still lack the transmission capacity?
        Secretary Chu. I think we need both simultaneously. It is a
    very complex problem, as you well know. It goes across
    jurisdiction, FERC plus the Department of Energy. We need the
    cooperation of the states. The siting problem is the most
    vexing problem, siting and costing.
        Mr. Smith. Siting of turbines or----
        Secretary Chu. Sorry, the siting of the transmission lines.
    The turbines----
        Mr. Smith. What do you see as the primary obstacle to
    those?
        Secretary Chu. I think people don't like to see high-
    voltage transmission lines in their backyard. They think, you
    know, bringing electricity to people is just fine, just don't
    put it in my backyard.
        Mr. Smith. And do you feel that that is a local issue or is
    it sometimes some outside groups who want to determine where
    something like that should go or shouldn't exist?
        Secretary Chu. I think it is both, but to be frank, I think
    there are a lot of people who really don't want these very high
    towers in their backyard. So we have to think of mechanisms in
    order to make that happen. But we don't have the answer now.
    The Green Cabinet has been meeting on this issue because we
    know it is a problem, but I have to say quite frankly, we don't
    have the clear solution yet.

                                 Cap and Trade

        Mr. Smith. Shifting gears just a bit, on the cap and trade,
    I know that I have been contacted by numerous folks. One person
    suggested when I raised concerns about the rail industry,
    particularly in my district, she suggested that hauling wind
    turbines could replace hauling coal. Is that feasible? And if
    not, do you see it on the horizon?
        Secretary Chu. Well, I think you want to haul wind
    turbines, put them up and then I think there could be coal by
    wire if you--there are many, many opportunities. You don't
    haul, you generate the electricity, you can sequester the
    carbon where you mine it and then you transmit the electricity
    but, it depends on the commercial viability and those things.
    And so one is looking at all these ways of doing this.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. And when it comes to the Energy
    Information Administration estimating how much energy prices
    might skyrocket under cap and trade, and to use someone else's
    words and description there, given their mission to analyze the
    information to promote sound policymaking and our
    responsibility to make sound policy decisions, can you comment
    on what that agency has done in terms of estimating the cost to
    the public?
        Secretary Chu. Sure. I don't remember the exact number but
    it is--you take the average family of four in a household, an
    average household. There was a range. I seem to remember it is
    somewhere between 30 and 45 cents per day, so multiplied by 365
    days, we are talking a couple hundred dollars a year added
    energy expense. Let me add, though, that if one
    simultaneously--which, you know, to some, that is significant,
    to others, it is not, but if you simultaneously develop
    programs to help the American homeowners weatherize their
    homes, make their homes tighter, more efficient, the bills
    could actually go down.
        Mr. Smith. OK. I know it sounds cliche in this town to
    thank you for your service but I am grateful for your service.
    Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized for just a few
    seconds.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you.

                      More on the Ultra-Deepwater Program

        Mr. Secretary, if you ever get around to answering all of
    Dr. Broun's questions, I hope you will come back to the one the
    I asked you about, section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005. It has been working, and you have a program to eliminate
    the Ultra-Deep program, how can you justify eliminating that.
    But loaning, whether it is the government or an entity, $2
    billion to Brazil to finance offshore deepwater Santos base in
    Rio de Janeiro. Try to find that for me. Thank you, sir, and I
    yield back my time.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See additional material submitted for the record in Discussion
    chapter ``The Ultra-Deepwater Program''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Gordon. The geographically flexible Mr. Diaz-
    Balart is recognized.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very well put.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your service. I
    have two questions. Really, one should be relatively quick.
    Yucca Mountain, specifically what scientific analysis was used
    to determine that scientifically that was no longer the place
    to do it and where is it? In other words, was there a deep
    scientific analysis, a group of scientists got together, they
    did a report, a study, where is it, who did it?
        Secretary Chu. No, I believe there was no--sorry. Let me
    rephrase that. I believe there is no scientific group that got
    together and did that.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. There was no scientific analysis to
    determine that?
        Secretary Chu. No, there is scientific analysis, but
    specific to your question, there was no group that was formed
    that did that.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, what scientific analysis? Who made
    the--who did the scientific analysis to determine that and
    where is that analysis or was it--how was that decision made
    scientifically? I am talking about, what was the scientific
    analysis behind the decision? Remember, the President said he
    wanted to bring science into its rightful place, and I am
    paraphrasing. Where is the scientific analysis and who made it?
        Secretary Chu. Well, there are a number of things. As the
    project unfolded over the 25 years, there was growing
    realization that there were issues. The original design, for
    example, there was a realization--so bits of information were
    coming along at the time and so, for example, there was a
    realization that the natural geography wasn't enough, you
    needed a titanium shield that would be many, many billions of
    dollars more in order to protect the water influx into it. So
    these were things--so to the best of my knowledge, more and
    more mounting issues were growing.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, and again I apologize. I do
    have to rush because we are running out of time. I apologize.
    But here is the issue. I mean, look, there was a decision made
    to withdraw that application so where was the scientific
    analysis that determined that? Where is it? In other words, we
    know there are a million issues in all this stuff. There are a
    million issues on both sides. But there was a decision made to
    withdraw the application. Where is the scientific analysis to
    do that?
        Secretary Chu. I would be glad to give you some of the
    things over the period of years that were growing concerns, but
    in the end, as I said, let us look forward. There are, I
    believe, much better options today.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. I understand that, but a decision was
    made, and what I am hearing from you, sir, is that there was no
    scientific analysis made, that things had been heard in the
    past and therefore hey, let us just do it. There was no
    specific scientific analysis made to make this decision is what
    I am hearing.
        Secretary Chu. Well, no. What you asked is, was there a----
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Specific scientific analysis.
        Secretary Chu. Was there a specific committee formed and
    made the scientific analysis.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. No. What--how was the scientific analysis
    made? I mean, is it because we have heard things in the past? I
    mean, you know, we now know that there are a lot of things that
    people heard in, you know, magazines and scientific decisions
    were made based on that. What was the scientific analysis and
    who made it to withdraw the application? It is a relatively
    simple question.
        Secretary Chu. There is no single report.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. There is no scientific analysis?
        Secretary Chu. Well----
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Was there a recent scientific analysis
    that showed something different?
        Secretary Chu. By analysis, you are talking about a written
    report?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Scientific analysis.
        Secretary Chu. Well, I would be glad to give you
    information on as time progressed what things were coming up. I
    would be glad to give you----
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. But there was no specific scientific
    analysis to make the decision to withdraw the application?
        Secretary Chu. Well, it depends. You have to define for me
    if you don't want a letter explaining what some of the reasons
    that made it look like perhaps not the wisest choice. I would
    be glad to supply you with that. But if that doesn't count as a
    scientific analysis, I am not----
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, you tell me. Do you consider that
    scientific analysis to make a decision of this scope or do you
    expect more scientific analysis? If you can get back to me,
    because I am not seeming to get it now.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
                       Prepared Response of Secretary Chu
        As requested by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart at the March 3, 2010,
    House Science and Technology Committee hearing, I am submitting
    information on the reasons for withdrawing the Department's license
    application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the
    Yucca Mountain repository.
        DOE is committed to meet the Government's obligation to take
    possession and dispose of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-
    level nuclear waste. The Administration believes there are better
    solutions to our spent fuel and nuclear waste storage needs than Yucca
    Mountain. The science has advanced considerably since the Yucca
    Mountain site was chosen 25 years ago. That is why we have convened the
    Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future; it will provide
    advice and make recommendations on alternatives for the storage,
    processing and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and
    nuclear waste. The Commission plans to issue an interim report in 18
    months and a final report within 24 months of its inception.
        The decision to withdraw the pending NRC application accords with
    these decisions and avoids wasting approximately $9 million per month
    on a licensing process for a project that is being terminated. It also
    ensures that the limited remaining funds available for the project are
    devoted to winding it down in a responsible manner that preserves
    scientific knowledge, retains employees with critical skills within the
    Department and minimizes harm to all affected employees.
        The Department of Energy's Motion to Withdraw before the NRC
    summarizes its rationale for moving to withdraw the Yucca Mountain
    license application.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Motion is included in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the
    Record.

        We talked a little bit about the stimulus. There is a thing
    today that I just saw on Politico which talks about the
    stimulus. It says a number of Democrats are--this is the
    article--furious that a majority of the grants from the clean
    energy program from last year's stimulus have been awarded to
    foreign companies including one project that they make specific
    mention to, 3,000 jobs created in China where a tenth of those
    created in the United States. You know, I mean, we have all
    heard about the stimulus. It has obviously been a dismal
    failure, and we have heard about the $18 million web pages and
    the millions of dollars for political consultants that helped
    individual candidates and millions of dollars going to
    Congressional districts that don't exist. This just seems to be
    another example of that. And if you wonder why the American
    people know, the reality is because here is just another
    example. I don't think it is in the published edition for all
    of you. It is on the web one. Mr. Chairman, again, it seems to
    be now another example of, if this happened in a different
    country, if money to create jobs went to Congressional
    districts that didn't exist, to projects that don't exist and
    to other countries, if this happened in a Latin American
    country, we wouldn't even call this waste. We know what we
    would call it. We would call it corruption.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Ehlers gets to have the last word.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, and if Mr. Diaz-Balart will remain a
    minute, I will give him my answer to his question but very
    briefly. I think the basic problem started in 1980 when
    Congress passed a bill which to me seemed rather absurd putting
    requirements on Yucca Mountain that in my mind could not
    possibly be met under any reasonable procedures and made it
    extremely costly. There are far better ways to deal with the
    nuclear waste than Yucca Mountain. And I don't want to waste my
    time by going into a lot of the details but I think the
    Department of Energy did the right thing, that Congress itself
    should have recognized that. I attempted when I first got here
    to try to write a decent law. The reaction from almost every
    Congressman I met was, oh, no, we don't want to touch that, we
    don't want to touch that, we don't want to touch it. And if you
    don't touch the law and change the law to deal with new
    discoveries and new situations, you can't make progress. So I
    think the decision was the right one.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Will the gentleman yield for 15 seconds?
        Mr. Ehlers. No. I have very little time and you have had
    more than enough time.

                               Energy Efficiency

        I just want to comment on a major issue that I think the
    Department should spend a lot more time on, and that is part of
    what Dr. Bartlett was talking about and Dr. Baird, and I would
    hope that we would put far more emphasis on energy efficiency
    than we have. We have put far more emphasis on educating the
    people about energy waste, what is efficiency. I find that most
    people, most laypeople, don't even know what energy is, let
    alone energy efficiency, and I would love to see the Department
    doing more. I think it is an indictment, and this is long
    before you got here, that the only government program that
    really helped on energy efficiency did not come out of the
    Department of Energy but from the EPA with their Green Lights
    program for businesses. They went around the country, talked to
    businesses, showed them what the payback time was to put in
    efficient lighting in their factories, their shops, their
    stores, and by George, it was about a year and a half,
    sometimes two years payback time. Any businessman would jump at
    an investment that gets paid off in that short a time, and I
    would really like to see the Department of Energy emphasize
    that much more and be a servant of the people in that way.
        I am delighted with what you are doing with the appliance
    standards, by the way. That is very good.
        Also, Dr. Baird had some good points too and I won't repeat
    that, but I support what he was suggesting too. So I think the
    word was that you should probably hire or have the White House
    hire Dr. Bartlett and Dr. Baird. I don't know about Dr.
    Bartlett. I think he plans to run again but Dr. Baird is not
    running again. I am not running again. But I don't want a job.
    I just would be happy to help in any way I can without pay.
    That is a standing offer. But there is so much to be done in
    the area of energy efficiency, energy sources and energy
    education that I really think a lot of effort should go into
    that, and I would be happy to--we are out of time here, but I
    would be happy to talk to you about that.
        Secretary Chu. I will take you up on that. There are not
    enough physicists in the Department of Energy. We would be
    happy to have one more.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
        Mr. Ehlers. Even an unemployed one.

                                    Closing

        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Chu, you are always a crowd pleaser,
    so thank you for being here.
        The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
    statements from members and the answers to any follow-up
    questions the committee may ask the witnesses. The witness is
    excused and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                  Appendix 1:

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
     Responses by Secretary Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S.
            Department of Energy

    Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

    Infrastructure Spending

    Q1.  I would like to understand DOE infrastructure spending and plans.
    Your written testimony states that DOE has requested $7B to ``upgrade
    our infrastructure that has been allowed to decay in the past decade,
    support the cutting-edge work our National Labs, and recruit the
    skilled workforce we need.'' How much of this $7B is going to
    infrastructure support, including both equipment and facilities? How
    does this subtotal breakdown between science laboratories and NNSA
    facilities? How large is our deferred maintenance backlog at the
    National Labs?

    A1. The $7 billion dollars to which you refer is the total requested
    for the Weapons Activities appropriation within the National Nuclear
    Security Administration to ensure the safety, security and
    effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. Of the $7 billion,
    approximately $2.4 billion will provide infrastructure support. Within
    this amount, about $2.3 billion is for programs that predominately
    support equipment and facilities--Readiness in Technical Base and
    Facilities; Secure Transportation Asset; Facilities and Infrastructure
    Recapitalization Program; and Site Stewardship. The balance of the $2.4
    billion funds capital equipment, general plant projects and
    construction line items supporting other Weapons Activities program
    areas.
        Of the $2.4 billion in infrastructure support, approximately $1
    billion would be spent at the Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National
    Laboratories.
        As of the end of FY 2009, the deferred maintenance backlog at these
    laboratories was approximately $1.5 billion.

    Q2.  I understand that the total Office of Science FY 2011 request for
    science laboratories infrastructure is $126 M, 1.3% less than FY 2010
    appropriations. Is this correct? How much do you project the Office of
    Science will need to maintain and modernize its physical plant over the
    next 10 years?

    A2. The FY 2011 request reflects the completion of funding in FY 2010
    for the Interdisciplinary Science Building at Brookhaven National
    Laboratory, as well as increases in remaining ongoing projects and the
    initiation of two new projects at the Fermi and Jefferson laboratories.
    The net effect is a small reduction in the FY 2011 request relative to
    the FY 2010 appropriation. The Science Laboratories Infrastructure
    program includes construction projects that will modernize the Office
    of Science laboratory facilities and utility systems, ensuring that
    they are mission-ready and can fully support scientific discovery.
    Seven projects have started design, construction, or both, with two
    additional projects proposed for 2011 funding. The cost of the full
    portfolio of recapitalization projects for which we have tentatively
    identified a need is roughly $2.2 billion.

    Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko

    Q1.  During my review of the Electricity Delivery and Energy
    Reliability budget I noticed an increase of $26 million for energy
    storage technology research towards larger lithium ion batteries. My
    question is why is DOE requesting extra funding directed towards only
    larger lithium ion batteries, when there are many different types of
    batteries under development especially when it comes to stationary
    uses. Why not make the funding technology neutral?

    A1. The Department's FY 2011 increase for energy storage supports
    investments in a range of energy storage technologies and electricity
    grid applications, not just lithium ion batteries. The $26 million
    increase will provide funding for a whole portfolio of research and
    field verifications, including advanced lead-carbon batteries, metal-
    air batteries, ultra fast flywheels, ultracapacitors, compressed air
    energy storage technologies, as well as large scale lithium ion
    systems. Also included are analytical studies of storage costs and
    benefits, and ongoing collaborative projects with state energy agencies
    such as California and New York.

    Q2.  I think most everyone on this committee is looking forward to the
    creation of the energy innovation hubs. I believe they will produce
    great outcomes for DOE and for our nation. Even through DOE is still in
    the process of setting up the first innovation hub, have there been any
    issues that have arisen thus far with implementation? Also, are there
    issues Congress can help resolve when it comes to streamlining and
    simplifying the application process for future hubs?

    A2. The Department of Energy is in the process of establishing three
    Energy Innovation Hubs under the FY 2010 appropriations: Fuels from
    Sunlight; Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors; and Energy
    Efficient Building Systems Design. The Department coordinated
    development and issuance of the three Funding Opportunity Announcements
    (FOAs) for these Hubs. In each instance, applications are being
    evaluated according to the specific merit review criteria set forth in
    each FOA. The process is proceeding smoothly, and awards will be
    announced later this fiscal year. The application process for any
    potential future Hub will likely follow this same process.

    Q3.  Do you support 100% fuel neutrality in the Clean Cities program to
    allow the best technology to come to market, instead of picking a fuel
    winner? If not, why not?

    A3. Yes, the Clean Cites program has supported fuel neutrality to allow
    local and regional groups to choose which technologies and alternative
    fuels make the most sense for their specific situation. This policy
    accommodates regional diversity and practical considerations related to
    local economic, business case, and market conditions as well as
    technology performance issues (impacts of severe cold or hot weather,
    unusual vehicle duty cycles, local air quality regulations, etc.). For
    the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request, Clean Cities proposes a portion of
    the budget for focused activity in electrification infrastructure to
    facilitate the introduction of a number of electric drive models, as
    well as to supplement activity supported by the Recovery Act.

    Questions submitted by Representative John Garamendi

    Q1.  NERSC is no longer a part of the INCITE program, even though
    industry could often benefit more from the software expertise and
    computing capabilities of NERSC. Why is this the case and does the
    Department have a plan for utilizing the unique capabilities of NERSC
    for solving applied problems that may not need the massive computing
    power of the Leadership Class Facilities?

    A1. Although NERSC is no longer a part of the INCITE program, the ASCR
    Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC), created in 2009, allocates up to
    30 percent of the computational resources at NERSC and the Oak Ridge
    and Argonne Leadership Computing Facilities to scientists from
    academia, industry, other agencies, and the DOE applied programs. This
    allocation process is available year-round for high-risk, high-payoff
    simulations in areas directly related to the Department's energy
    mission, for national emergencies, and for broadening the community of
    researchers capable of using leadership computing resources. We believe
    that this is a more appropriate allocation mechanism for those industry
    and applied program research applications that may not need the massive
    computing power of the Leadership Class Facilities.

    Q2.  The Department of Defense is the nation's largest single user of
    energy and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognizes the need for
    DOD to use alternative energy and improve energy efficiency to support
    its critical national security mission. In my District, Travis Air
    Force Base, the premier airlift facility on the West Coast, is taking
    steps to achieve greater energy efficiency and use energy from
    renewable sources, but they will need new technology to achieve their
    goals. As you know, my District is also home to two DOE national
    laboratories--Sandia and Lawrence Livermore. Therefore, what steps is
    the Department of Energy taking to partner with DOD to make sure that
    new energy technologies are being transferred and made available for
    the DOD to implement? Specifically, how are the capabilities of the DOE
    national laboratories being used to support the important DOD
    objective?

    A2. Significant collaboration exists between the Department of Energy
    (DOE) National Laboratories and the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE
    Lab capabilities are being used to help DOD achieve its alternative
    energy and energy efficiency goals.
        As an example of this support, the Federal Energy Management
    Program (FEMP) within the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy used American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
    funds to issue a call for National Laboratory technical assistance (TA)
    services for Federal agency applicants. FEMP provided TA to DOD
    facilities through this call with the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines,
    Pacific Command (PACOM), and Northern Command (NORTHCOM). While not all
    projects fit into one category, most projects involve retro-
    commissioning, renewables, assessments, training, micro-grid/smart-grid
    analysis or some combination of these four activities.
        The PACOM technical assistance project funded through the FEMP ARRA
    TA call is one example of using an integrated team of DOE National Labs
    to address complex DOD energy objectives. To help meet energy
    challenges at PACOM, FEMP organized a multilaboratory team to use each
    labs area of expertise. The PACOM energy goal is to develop an
    integrated, expanded approach for military installations which will
    advance energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy manager training,
    and micro grid assessments. Instead of implementing individual
    projects, this systems approach maximizes energy savings by providing a
    framework for integrating the individual components into a logical
    whole.
        FEMP has also funded NREL to provide expertise on in-theater
    tactical energy use assessment trips with the Marine Corps and the Air
    Force. During these two trips, NREL experts helped identify potential
    energy efficiencies in a deployed environment
        DOD and the Services are also receiving lab expertise through the
    DOD-DOE Initiative Net Zero Energy Installation (NZEI) activity to
    address issues of energy security. Through this initiative, NREL is
    analyzing one installation from each service to determine the potential
    for it to become a net zero energy installation. The sites selected are
    MCAS Miramar (Marine Corps), Air Force Academy (Air Force), and
    Pohakuloa Training Area (Army). The Navy project identification is
    pending. Based on the MCAS Miramar project, NREL is creating a
    standardized NZEI process template for other military bases.
        In conclusion, the DOE National Laboratories are a resource for DOD
    facilities to achieve their energy goals. Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy
    Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, supported
    this in her testimony before the House Armed Services Committee
    Subcommittee on Readiness, stating, ``With respect to facilities
    energy, the military's most valuable role will be as a testbed for next
    generation technologies coming out of laboratories in industry,
    universities and the Department of Energy \1\.'' DOE continues to
    interact with DOD to increase coordination and ensure that the DOD can
    increase its access to the DOE's National Laboratory System.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Statement of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
    Installations and Environment Dr. Dorothy Robyn before the House Armed
    Services Committee Subcommittee on Readiness. February 24, 2010 http://
    www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/robyn-testimonyO22410.pdf

    Q3.  I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your prompt
    attention to a letter my colleagues and I sent on February 1st
    requesting you to appoint a Technology Transfer Coordinator. This
    appointment is an important first step in the revitalization of a
    robust Technology Transfer program which will ultimately lead to
    additional U.S. jobs and reestablish the technology, leadership of the
    U.S. Mr. Secretary, I would like to know, now that the Coordinator is
    in place, how does the Department intend to find the funding needed to
    actually get money to our national laboratories to make technology
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    transfer a reality?

    A3. On February 23, 2010, I announced the selection of Dr. Karina
    Edmonds to serve as the Department of Energy's new Technology Transfer
    Coordinator. She will oversee a coordinated, strategic effort on behalf
    of the Department to increase the rate of successful technology
    transfers, create clean energy jobs, and provide more solutions to our
    energy and climate challenges. Dr. Edmonds will work directly with the
    Department's national laboratories to accelerate the process of moving
    discoveries and inventions from the laboratory to the private sector
    and ensure that America's scientific leadership translates into new,
    high-paying jobs for America's families.
        Dr. Edmonds is scheduled to join the Department in mid-April 2010.
    Among her first tasks will be visits to the national laboratories, to
    discuss opportunities for streamlining the technology transfer process
    and reducing transaction costs. This should make the Department a more
    responsive partner for both large and small companies, as well as
    nonprofit R&D institutions, venture capital, and other investors.

    Question submitted by Representative Lincoln Davis

    Q1.  The DOE energy programs conduct a significant part of the research
    at the Office of Science labs, drawing on the strong capabilities and
    tools that exist there. However, much of the infrastructure that
    supports these programs is aging and no longer state of the art. While
    the Recovery Act has provided an opportunity to renew DOE
    infrastructure, there may still be additional opportunities to create
    jobs by considering funding infrastructure at science labs conducting
    research for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by
    using some of the remaining ARRA funding. Oak Ridge has been working on
    a Translational Research Building that is ready to go and would be on
    example of how job creation could be accelerated and future EERE
    research supported. Secretary Chu, do you think we need to be using
    funds across the complex to modernize and update all science lab
    facilities that conduct EERE R&D work? Furthermore, could Recovery Act
    funding for EERE be used to address some of the immediate
    infrastructure needs of the program across the national laboratory
    complex?

    A1. The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    (EERE) works with a variety of national laboratories to accomplish our
    mission of strengthening America's energy security, environmental
    quality and economic vitality. Yes, we believe that utilizing funding
    across the complex to modernize all labs that conduct EERE R&D is a
    good idea. To that end, EERE has awarded over $258 million in Recovery
    Act funding to facilities projects that are largely directed to
    construct, upgrade, renew and modernize lab facilities and their
    infrastructure:

              Integrated Biorefinery Research Expansion--$13.4
            million for the construction of a national facility that
            provides continuous industrial scale research and development
            process capability designed to accelerate the development of
            advanced waste cellulose to ethanol production processes.

              Renewable Energy and Supporting Site Infrastructure--
            $86.8 million to acquire renewable energy capabilities to
            replace electricity and gas purchased through the local
            utility, increase security capability, provide ADA access
            improvements, and provide enhanced site pedestrian access and
            circulation to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
            This project will develop a renewable energy strategy and
            design renewable energy supply networks to power the NREL site
            and buildings in pursuit of net zero energy.

              Lab Call for Facilities and Equipment--$104.8 million
            to construct and/or buildout an existing facility to conduct
            research on the systems design, integration and control of new
            and existing buildings; construct highly flexible, highly
            instrumented, pilot scale facilities needed to support new and
            enhanced R&D into advanced energy storage technologies
            (batteries, ultra-capacitors, asymmetric or hybrid ultra-
            capacitors) for automotive applications; and construct and
            operate a highly flexible, highly instrumented low cost carbon
            fiber technology demonstration facility for demonstrating and
            evaluating new low-cost manufacturing processes and
            technologies at pilot scale.

              National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) Upgrades--
            $10.0 million to provide the NWTC with two major upgrades to
            existing facilities that support testing of wind turbines:
            upgrades to the 2.5MW dynamometer facility to 5.0MW and
            upgrades to the electrical distribution system.

              National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Ingress/
            Egress Project--$44 million for the parking, site access, and
            roadway improvements necessary to efficiently and effectively
            support development of the NREL campus and to maintain the
            safety and security of NREL.

        For example, $54 million was competitively awarded to the Oak Ridge
    National Lab for infrastructure investments expected to create jobs and
    aid future research. The investments at Oak Ridge include a Net-Zero
    Energy Buildings Research Laboratory and a 20,000 square foot Carbon
    Fiber Technology Center to help develop the next generation of
    lightweight materials to improve vehicle efficiency. These investments
    address critical infrastructure needs as the labs continue to expand
    their portfolios of research. The Recovery Act investments at Oak Ridge
    and other national labs are key to advancing our R&D work as well as
    accomplishing our mission.

    Question submitted by Representative Ben Chandler

    Q1.  Secretary Chu, the Department of Energy, through the American
    Reinvestment and Recovery Act and other funding opportunities, has
    shown that advanced battery manufacturing technology is a priority for
    the Obama Administration. As you know, nearly all high-volume
    commercial production of advanced batteries occurs in Asia, where
    government investment has facilitated the rapid development and
    production of these technologies. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is
    attempting to help the United States become a leader in the development
    of this technology by establishing a Battery Manufacturing R&D Center.

              The center--a joint effort between the Commonwealth
            (represented by the University of Kentucky and the University
            of Louisville) and Argonne National Laboratory--will focus on
            the development and integration of manufacturing technology for
            new energy storage applications, and more specifically, the
            research and development of new battery technologies for the
            automotive sector.

              How does the work that this Center will perform mirror the
            goals of the Obama Administration on advanced battery
            manufacturing technology? Also, how does the President's budget
            create or encourage research and development and/or
            manufacturing opportunities to create a vibrant and globally
            competitive Lithium-Ion industry in the United States?

    A1. The President's budget places increasing importance on supporting
    research and development of battery technology. The American
    Reinvestment and Recovery Act created major opportunities for
    establishing domestic lithium-ion manufacturing facilities through
    competitive awards. In addition, the Advanced Technology Vehicles
    Manufacturing (AVTM) loan program and 48c tax credits support domestic
    manufacturers of advanced batteries. The combination of accelerated R&D
    and investment in manufacturing capabilities is expected to help create
    a vibrant and globally competitive advanced battery industry in the
    United States.
        The work the Battery Manufacturing R&D Center plans to perform
    supports the goals of the Administration to establish a domestic
    advanced battery manufacturing capability. Its emphasis on battery
    manufacturing technology could help to bridge the gap between existing
    competitively awarded battery research/development efforts and the
    industrial materials and processes that are needed for fabricating
    these batteries on a mass production scale and at a globally
    competitive cost.
        As you are probably aware, the Commerce Department's National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently awarded an $11.8
    million grant to the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
    Research (CAER) to expand their laboratory facilities, including
    research into advanced battery technology for plug-in hybrid vehicles
    at the Kentucky-Argonne National Battery Manufacturing Research and
    Development Center. The new facility will include labs for process
    development, prototype manufacturing and testing to support applied
    research on batteries and capacitors.

    Questions submitted by Ranking Member Ralph M. Hall

    Office of Science Prioritization

    Q1a.  In 2006 testimony before this Committee on behalf of the National
    Academies' Gathering Storm report, you said ``In funding ARPA-E, it is
    critical that its funding not jeopardize the basic research Supported
    by the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The committee's
    recommendations are prioritized and its top recommendation in the area
    of research is to increase the funding for basic research by 10% per
    year over the next seven years.'' [Source: http://science.house.gov/
    commdocs/hearings/ful106March%209/Chu.pdf]

              The DOE budget requests $300 million for ARPA-E, but only
            provides a four percent increase for the Office of Science
            (after it received just a two percent increase in FY 2010).
            This clearly violates the principle set forth in your 2006
            testimony and the NAS Gathering Storm recommendations. What is
            the basis for the Administration's decision to place a lower
            priority on Office of Science funding?

    A1a. The President's Plan for Science and Innovation commits to
    doubling the overall Federal investment in basic research at the Office
    of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology. The FY 2011 Office of Science request of
    $5.12 billion represents 41 percent growth over the FY 2006
    appropriation of $3.63 billion; this growth equates to an annualized
    growth rate of 7.1 percent, close to the annualized growth rate of 7.2
    percent required to double funding over ten years. While the
    President's Plan does not promise a specific growth rate for each
    individual agency, basic research funding in the Office of Science is
    on a strong growth path. Funding support for the Advanced Research
    Projects Agency-Energy has not jeopardized this growth path.
        In addition to the annually appropriated funds, the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $1.6 billion for the Office of
    Science, which further supports the Office's basic science mission and
    the President's Science and Innovation Plan.
    Q1b.  Related to this, your testimony stated that the budget ``sustains
    the President's commitment to double the budgets of three key science
    agencies,'' including the DOE Office of Science. However, the Office of
    Science is increased by just 4.4 percent, after receiving only a two
    percent increase last year. Do you intend to double the budget for the
    Office of Science and if so, over, how many years?

    A1b. The FY 2011 request represents a 7.1 percent annualized growth
    rate since the FY 2006 appropriation. The White House Office of Science
    and Technology Policy released a document as part of the budget rollout
    entitled ``Doubling Funding at Key Science Agencies'' (available at
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
    doubling%2011%20final.pdf), which shows the doubling profile is on
    track to be completed by FY 2017.

    Q2a.  You stated in your testimony that ARPA-E ``is dedicated to the
    market adoption'' of new energy technologies. The statutory charge for
    ARPA-E, however, makes no reference to ``market adoption'' but instead
    says that ARPA-E's mission should be to ``overcome longterm and high-
    risk technological barriers.'' Please reconcile this statement in your
    testimony in the context of ARPA-E's statutory charge.

    A2a. Your statement is correct about the statutory mission given for
    the establishment of ARPA-E in the America COMPETES Act of 2007. The
    statute elaborates on the means to achieving this mission as
    ``translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into
    technological innovations'' and ``accelerating transformational
    technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely
    to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.'' Included
    among the responsibilities of the ARPA-E Director in achieving the
    goals of ARPA-E is through awards that target acceleration of
    ``demonstration of technologies and research applications to facilitate
    technology transfer.'' We feel that the intent of the statute, though
    not completely explicit and at the same not entirely implicit, is for
    ARPA-E to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers that
    are preventing the translation of scientific discoveries and cutting-
    edge inventions into technological innovations, and to facilitate the
    transfer of those technological innovations to the market.
        It is important to note that ARPA-E will not be picking the winners
    and deciding which technologies and associated products will be put on
    the market. Demand pull from the market and private companies will
    decide the winners. ARPA-E's role is simply to identify and fund
    research projects that will overcome the long-term and high-risk
    technological barriers that are preventing a promising potentially
    transformational technological innovation from getting to the stage
    where private investment will take over and turn the technology into a
    marketable product. Furthermore, ARPA-E will invest in multiple
    competitive approaches to reach technology targets, and then let the
    private sector pick those approaches that is best for business.

    Q2b.  Related to this, the law establishing ARPA-E states that it
    should pursue ``high-risk'' technological advances ``in areas that
    industry by itself is not likely to undertake.'' This seems
    appropriate, and will presumably ensure that tax dollars don't compete
    with venture capital or other private equity, but rather are focused on
    advancing technologies through the ``valley of death'' that is too
    risky for private investment. Do you agree with this philosophy--
    specifically that tax dollars should not be invested/spent on
    technologies where the risk is already low enough to attract private
    investment?

    A2b. I do agree with the philosophy outlined in the ARPA-E authorizing
    legislation. ARPA-E has a rigorous process for evaluating and selecting
    proposals. For its first funding opportunity, ARPA-E evaluated over
    3,700 concept papers, and selected only 37 submissions for award. ARPA-
    E does not fund applications that are deemed to have low
    transformational value, meaning incremental improvements on existing
    technology. ARPA-E does not seek to ascend existing learning curves;
    instead, ARPA-E seeks to create entirely new learning curves. These
    types of projects have high technical and/or market uncertainty, and
    are not being funded by industry.
        We meet and communicate regularly with venture capitalists and
    other private investors to get a sense of their appetite for risk and
    the types of projects they are funding and not funding. In addition, I
    have hired staff with background in the venture capital industry in
    order to make more precise determinations of the types of high risk
    projects that are appropriate for ARPA-E to fund.
        Let me also explain through the figure below. Office of Science
    funds research in basic science and, at times, feasibility of a basic
    idea or a concept. Private capital is generally available at Technology
    Readiness Levels when products can be made based on a technology, and
    customers are ready to buy such products. Therefore, from the concept
    feasibility stage to the product development stage, a big gap exists
    today where many good ideas perish because the concepts cannot be
    translated into technologies. When these technologies are disruptive
    and could make today's approaches obsolete, this translation of ideas
    to technology is too risky both for the private sector and the applied
    science offices in DOE, especially. ARPA-E's goal is to invest in
    translating such ideas and concepts into disruptive technologies and
    helping to make them market ready. Furthermore, ARPA-E will invest in
    multiple disruptive technological approaches to reach the same goal
    (e.g., high energy density, low-cost batteries for plug-in hybrid
    vehicles), and then let the private sector pick the winning technology
    based on what is best for business. Hence, ARPA-E's goal is to reduce
    technological risks at various stages of developing disruptive
    technologies.

    Q3.  Last week, investigative reporter John Stossell revealed that DOE
    awarded over $500,000 in Stimulus funding to a company whose top public
    policy executive is married to the DOE political appointee (Assistant
    Secretary for EERE Cathy Zoi) in charge of the program that made the
    award. While the Department has stated that the appointee officially
    recused herself from the award process, her subordinates were
    presumably aware of, and potentially impacted by, the connection
    between their boss in this company.

              What is your reaction to this story? Do you agree that it
            presents conflict of interest concerns, if not legally then at
            least perceptually? If so, how will you address these concerns?
            What additional steps is the Department taking to ensure that
            similar conflicts of interest are avoided as part of the
            unprecedented ($27 billion) spending that it is carrying out
            due to the Stimulus bill?

    A3. The entire Obama Administration and the Department of Energy in
    particular are committed to the highest ethical standards, and we take
    very seriously allegations of misconduct or appearances thereof This
    Administration has been extraordinarily transparent and has put in
    place unprecedented ethics rules. With regards to this particular
    issue, the Department has taken concrete steps to maintain the
    independence of the merit review process. As the Committee knows, Ms.
    Zoi disclosed her husband's employment prior to her confirmation both
    to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and in her public
    financial disclosure report. The law requires her to recuse herself
    from acting on any particular matters that would have a direct and
    predictable effect on her husband's employer. She has fully complied
    with that recusal and voluntarily gone much further. She has completely
    recused herself from any DOE business regarding window manufacturing.
    The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a screening
    mechanism in place to ensure that matters from which she is recused do
    not reach her desk. The matters she is recused from are handled by a
    senior career official and her principal deputy, and by the
    Undersecretary and the Deputy Secretary where appropriate. However, the
    bulk of issues that EERE is involved in do not affect her husband's
    employer. These procedures are in place throughout the Department and
    we are confident in our ability to avoid conflicts.

    Tax Increases on Fossil Fuels and Dependence on Foreign Energy

    Q4.  In your budget testimony to the committee last year, you
    emphasized reducing dependence on foreign oil and energy security as
    one of your top priorities. This year, you did not mention it, but you
    do note that the budget raises taxes on domestic energy sources and
    cancels oil and natural gas R&D programs. These measures will obviously
    raise the cost of production, increasing energy imports and our
    dependence on foreign oil, including that from hostile sources. Please
    reconcile these policy choices with your prior emphasis on energy
    security. Has the Department estimated how much impact these tax
    increases will have on domestic oil and gas production and, ultimately,
    energy prices? If not, why not?

    A4. The Administration and the Department continue to emphasize the
    pressing need to reduce our dependence on oil as an essential matter of
    energy security. To promote this goal we are pushing forward with a
    wide range of initiatives including Vehicle and Fuel Cell Technologies
    to improve the efficiency with which we use energy as well as new
    alternative and ``green'' energy sources such as solar and biofuels. In
    addition, the President recently announced that the Department of the
    Interior can consider leasing oil and gas resources on the Federal
    Outer Continental Shelf off Virginia and other selected parts of the
    Atlantic seaboard and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
        With respect to the Administration's proposal to reduce some of the
    advantageous tax benefits for the domestic petroleum industry, we
    believe as a matter of good tax policy that the Federal Government
    should not provide incentives for the commercial production of oil and
    gas. The Department has not estimated what the impacts might be on
    domestic production from these tax changes.

    Q5a.  What is DOE doing to ensure the NRC quickly establishes a
    licensing protocol for Small Modular Reactors? When do you envision the
    first design being licensed?

            b.  Please explain the evolution of DOE's R&D work on used fuel
            recycling over the past year.

            c.  How much progress has been made in partnering with the
            industrial community on development of the Next Generation
            Nuclear Plant? What is the status of the project?

    A5a. The DOE does not specify licensing protocol to the NRC for any
    reactor type. As an independent regulatory authority, the NRC
    establishes the licensing process for new nuclear power plants. The
    Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has, however, been interacting with the
    NRC and attending forums and workshops with industry to consider the
    unique licensing requirements of small modular reactors (SMRs). These
    meetings and workshops are expected to help identify technical and
    potential regulatory questions such as differences in size,
    vulnerability and safety system requirements that are inherent to SMR
    designs. NE is also participating with NIST, NRC, vendors, and other
    relevant stakeholders to assure that the unique elements of SMRs are
    addressed in new or existing nuclear codes and standards. Improved
    licensing protocols and updated codes and standards are expected to
    benefit the licensing of large LWR plants and could help provide a
    basis for industry's eventual SMR design certification and plant
    licensing. It is possible that industry could submit design
    certification applications to the NRC for light water reactor-based
    SMRs as early as 2012, depending on the maturity of the technology. We
    anticipate the NRC review cycle for the Design Certification to take
    approximately three years, with the first SMR design potentially being
    certified in the 2015 timeframe.

    A5b. During the past year, DOE's R&D work on used fuel recycling has
    shifted from a program in support of possible near-term implementation
    of evolutionary processes to a science-based research program seeking
    revolutionary approaches to recycling. The current program is designed
    to understand the fundamental mechanisms of the separation process and
    to develop advanced processes far beyond today's solvent extraction
    methods.

    A5c. The Department has been working with private industry since the
    Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project began. Industry has helped
    define the requirements that guide all NGNP research and development,
    has participated with the Department as we work with the U.S. Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission on gas-cooled reactor licensing, and has
    completed a number of trade studies and pre-conceptual design reports
    for the NGNP. Industry has also worked with the Department to identify
    end-users and to establish end-user requirements for the NGNP. On March
    8, 2010, the Department announced that it would cost share with
    industry for the conceptual design of the NGNP with teams led by
    Westinghouse Electric Co. and General Atomics. The status of the NGNP
    project was provided to Congress in the NGNP Report to Congress, which
    was submitted in March 2010.

    Green Jobs

    Q6.  Promoting ``Green Jobs'' or ``Clean Energy Jobs'' is clearly a
    priority for the administration as reflected in this budget, and
    President Obama has often noted that the cleans energy subsidies
    pursued in Germany and Spain provide a model that he would like the
    U.S. to follow. However, a growing body of data indicates that these
    models are inefficient and highly expensive. An authoritative study by
    one of Spain's leading universities found that the average subsidy cost
    for each ``green job'' created in Spain was $800,000, and that Spain's
    creation of 50,000 green jobs resulted in 110,000 lost jobs elsewhere
    in the country. A similar study in Germany found that wind and solar
    subsidization in Germany amounted to $244,000 per ``green job'' and
    added 7.5% to the cost of household electricity bills.

              Do you agree with and have you considered the studies'
            conclusions that such subsidies hurt job creation and increase
            energy prices in formulating your own green jobs agenda? How
            does the administration's plan for subsidizing green jobs
            compare to from the models employed in Europe and cited by
            President Obama?

    A6. I am not familiar with the studies you reference. While there are
    some initial costs to promoting the growth of green jobs, these up-
    front costs can be viewed as ``down payments'' on a future workforce
    that will have the skills to complete globally in the clean energy
    sector. At present, not one American university offers a master's
    program in interdisciplinary energy studies that covers clean energy
    technology industries as well as business, economics, and other useful
    disciplines to create well-rounded energy entrepreneurs of the future.
    In addition, the American Association of Community Colleges estimates
    that less than ten percent of the nation's 1,700 community colleges
    have begun to develop curricula for renewable energy and energy
    efficiency career tracks, and these programs generally lack national
    standards and accreditation processes. As we transition to a clean
    energy economy, developing national standards, training a new workforce
    (including measures to ``train the trainer''), and improving quality
    and accountability are all important steps that take time and money to
    initiate. President Obama is committed to investing in clean energy
    jobs that cannot be outsourced. One example is in the home
    weatherization and retrofit market, which create jobs while saving home
    owners money on their utility bills. Moreover, through leveraging the
    investments made in the Recovery Act, the Federal Government plans to
    partner with state and local governments to help expand the nation's
    home retrofit market by supporting municipal energy financing and
    increasing the use of Energy Efficient Mortgages, among other measures,
    that will reduce retrofit costs to the homeowner and create good-paying
    weatherization jobs.

    Q7.  EERE Budget documents state that the $50 million for RE-ENERGYSE
    will emphasize a ``communications/media campaign to promote energy
    efficiency to K-12 students.'' What specifically will this ``campaign''
    entail? Is it appropriate for EERE and the Federal Government to invest
    tax dollars to behavioral-change activities at high schools? Given that
    energy efficiency measures typically include important tradeoffs (such
    as increased costs and lower convenience) and raise questions that
    students and other citizens should be free to decide upon on their own
    terms, how is such policy (and even political) activism an appropriate
    use of Federal tax dollars?

    A7. The Department of Energy's newly proposed energy systems education
    and technical training program, RE-ENERGYSE, has been designed to
    create and enhance U.S. science, technology, engineering and math
    (STEM) education opportunities, and improve STEM and energy education
    resources for teachers and students; and is not intended at changing
    behaviors or inducing activism.
        Through the Department's FY 2011 Budget Request, $55M was included
    for RE-ENERGYSE ($50M administered by EERE and $5M administered by NE),
    which will educate and prepare today's students and workforce to enter
    and excel at professions in the low-carbon economy. The bulk of the RE-
    ENERGYSE proposed funding ($46M) will support technical and research-
    focused undergraduate, community college, graduate and post-doctoral
    education opportunities, with $9M of funding to support K-12 education
    and outreach. The K-12 and outreach activities will be aimed at
    inspiring the next generation of Americans to pursue careers in
    science, technology, engineering and math disciplines (STEM). Such
    activities could include: curricula development, competitions, teacher
    support and training, and communications/media campaigns that will
    harness a mix of technologies and innovative education methods such as
    videos, contests, and web interactivity. These activities will engage
    and attract students to STEM disciplines, and are critical to
    increasing the pipeline of students entering STEM and energy fields.
        The communications/media campaign key activity will achieve a two-
    fold goal of communicating EERE's mission while simultaneously
    developing the next generation of scientists, engineers, energy
    entrepreneurs, and other energy professionals. To ensure the greatest
    impact, these funding opportunities will be awarded through a
    competitive grant process and will be made to schools, organizations,
    non-profits, etc., who can demonstrate the greatest ability to attract
    and engage K-12 students to STEM and energy disciplines using
    innovative education and communications methods.

    Yucca Mountain

    Q8a.  What is the scientific or technical basis, if any, for your
    decision that the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is ``not an
    option''?

            b.  How does your decision comport with the Department of
            Energy's (DOE statutory obligations under the Nuclear Waste
            Policy Act of 1982, as amended?

            c.  Prior to your public statements that Yucca Mountain
            repository is ``not an option,'' was any analysis performed of
            the potential taxpayer liabilities associated with such a
            decision?

            d.  Please provide all documents relating to any legal,
            technical, or scientific analyses that formed the basis for
            your decision to re-evaluate nuclear waste disposal
            alternatives to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository,
            including, but not limited to, evaluations and recommendations
            that led you to determine that Yucca Mountain was ``not an
            option.''

            e.  What was the process for making your decision that Yucca
            Mountain repository is ``not an option''? Please describe and
            identify when and with whom you consulted, including, but not
            limited to, a description and identification of attendees at
            any public meetings, any Administration meetings, and any
            consultations with States affected by the decision.

            f.  In reaching your determination that the Yucca Mountain
            repository is no longer an option, did you consult with or
            receive any briefings from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
            Board, DOE laboratory directors or personnel, or any DOE
            scientists or technical personnel who performed work on the
            Yucca Mountain project? Please describe when and with whom you
            consulted, including, but not limited to, a description and
            identification of attendees at any meetings.

            g.  Have you shared your rationale for determining that the
            Yucca Mountain repository is ``not an option'' with the Nuclear
            Waste Technical Review Board or the Nuclear Regulatory
            Commission?

            h.  Have you or your staff prepared any analyses of the
            potential impact that failing to pursue the Yucca Mountain
            repository may have on the construction of new nuclear plants,
            which are essential to providing clean and reliable energy in
            the future? If so, please provide any such analyses.

            i.  How do you believe the Administration's decision to scale
            back the Yucca Mountain project will affect DOE's
            responsibility to develop, construct, and operate repositories
            for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
            waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Nuclear
            Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, and the Energy Policy Act
            of 1992?

            j.  If a repository at Yucca Mountain is not pursued, what does
            the Administration propose to do with the billions of dollars
            that have been collected from ratepayers for the Nuclear Waste
            Fund?

    A8a. Scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to
    disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced
    over the 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was initiated. And,
    the Administration believes we can find a better solution that achieves
    a broader national consensus. That is why we have convened the Blue
    Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future; it will provide advice
    and make recommendations on alternatives for the storage, processing
    and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear
    waste. The Commission plans to issue an interim report in 18 months and
    a final report within 24 months of its inception.

    Ab. DOE is acting in a manner consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy
    Act (NWPA) and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. The AEA gives
    the Secretary broad authority to carry out the Act's purposes,
    including the authority to direct the Government's ``control of the
    possession, use, and production of atomic energy and special nuclear
    material, whether owned by the Government or others, so directed as to
    make the maximum contribution to the common defense and security and
    the national welfare.'' This power was not limited in any relevant way
    by the NWPA. On the contrary, under the NWPA, the NRC proceeding as to
    Yucca must be conducted ``in accordance with the laws applicable to
    such applications . . . .'' NWPA Sec.  114(d), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
    10134(d). Those laws include the NRC's regulations governing license
    applications, including the provision authorizing withdrawal of
    applications, 10 C.F.R. Sec.  2.107(a).

    Ac. The spent nuclear fuel litigation liability is currently estimated
    to be $12.3 billion. Depending on the alternative option adopted as the
    nation's policy on spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste that
    liability could increase or decrease. I look forward to receiving the
    Blue Ribbon Commission's forthcoming recommendations on ways to proceed
    with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.

    Ad. As noted above, I believe that the scientific and engineering
    knowledge has advanced considerably over the past two decades and that
    those advances, as reviewed and evaluated by the Blue Ribbon
    Commission, should inform our choice of a solution to the nuclear waste
    disposal issue.

    Ae. As the Secretary of Energy, I am responsible for this decision.

    Af. Please see my answers above.

    Ag. I have not shared my views with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
    Board. DOE's Motion to Withdraw before the NRC summarizes its rationale
    for not proceeding with the Yucca Mountain application.

    Ah. The Department is confident that the decision not to proceed with
    the development of the Yucca Mountain repository will not have an
    impact on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Spent nuclear
    fuel can be stored at nuclear facilities for many more decades. We will
    have recommendations from the Blue Ribbon commission by the end of 2011
    or early 2012. The Department and Congress will thus have ample
    opportunity to move forward with a better approach to these issues in a
    manner informed by the Commission's recommendations.

    Ai. Please see answer to subquestion (b) above.

    Aj. The Administration will utilize the monies in the Nuclear Waste
    Fund to fulfill its responsibility for the disposal of spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The specific path that the
    Administration takes will be informed by the recommendations of the
    recently constituted Blue Ribbon Commission.

    Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis

    Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Considerations

    Q1.  What is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw the Yucca
    Mountain application from the NRC? Is this a decision grounded in
    science or in political ideology? Has DOE conducted any analysis of the
    science and engineering behind the site or design to substantiate this
    decision?

    A1. In my judgment the scientific and engineering knowledge on issues
    relevant to disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has
    advanced over the twenty years since the Yucca Mountain project was
    initiated. I believe future proposals for the disposition of such
    materials should thus be based on a comprehensive and careful
    evaluation of options supported by that knowledge, as well as other
    relevant factors, including the ability to secure broad public support,
    not on an approach that has not proven ineffective over several
    decades.

    Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Considerations

    Q2.  Why is this application being withdrawn before the NRC has
    completed its safety and environmental reviews of the Yucca Mountain
    site?

    A2. As stated previously the Administration has determined that Yucca
    Mountain is no longer a workable option. At this point, it no longer
    makes sense to expend limited resources on the licensing of the Yucca
    Mountain repository.

    Q3.  Do you agree that this decision is in violation of the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act?

    A3. No, I do not agree that this decision is in violation of the
    Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), as amended, or any other provision of
    Federal law. The Atomic Energy Act gives the Secretary broad authority
    to carry out the Act's purposes, including the authority to direct the
    Government's ``control of the possession, use, and production of atomic
    energy and special nuclear material, whether owned by the Government or
    others, so directed as to make the maximum contribution to the common
    defense and security and the national welfare.'' Exercise of this power
    in connection with the NRC proceeding was not limited in any relevant
    way by the NWPA. On the contrary, under the NWPA, the NRC proceeding as
    to Yucca must be conducted ``in accordance with the laws applicable to
    such applications . . . .'' NWPA Sec.  114(d), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
    10134(d). Those laws include the NRC's regulations governing license
    applications, including the provision authorizing withdrawal of
    applications, 10 C.F.R. Sec.  2.107(a).

    Q4.  Without Yucca Mountain, what do you plan to do with the DOE-spent
    fuel and high level waste accumulating at the Environmental Management
    Sites at Savannah River and elsewhere? Do you expect these sites and
    their surrounding communities to continue to bear the risk of temporary
    waste storage?

    A4. DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste will continue to be
    safely stored at the Department's sites until an alternative method of
    meeting the Federal Government's obligation to dispose of high-level
    waste and spent nuclear fuel is identified. The Office of Environmental
    Management will work with our stakeholders to assure them we intend to
    continue our tank waste projects as planned and in accordance with our
    compliance agreements, as reflected in the FY 2011 Budget Request.

    Q5.  The Blue Ribbon Commission is directed to review all alternatives
    for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent
    fuel and high level waste. Will the Commission review Yucca Mountain as
    an option for permanent disposal? If the Commission finds geologic
    storage to be the optimal decision for securing nuclear waste over the
    long term, will the Administration renew efforts at Yucca Mountain?

    A5. The Commission will not review Yucca Mountain as an option for
    permanent disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission to focus on alternative
    methods of meeting the Federal Government's obligation to dispose of
    high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.

    Q6.  How do you reconcile the Administration's decision to terminate
    the Yucca Mountain Project with their commitment to bringing more
    clean, reliable nuclear energy on-line? Are you confident that the
    nuclear industry will be able to attract investment without a clear
    solution for long-term waste storage?

    A6. The Administration remains committed to fulfilling its obligations
    to dispose of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level
    radioactive waste. I am confident that the nuclear industry will be
    able to attract investment and the decision to terminate the Yucca
    Mountain repository will have no bearing on the ability of the industry
    to attract investment. Spent nuclear fuel is safe in on-site storage
    for many decades, and, during that time, I am confident that, working
    together, we can devise better solutions for the long-term disposal of
    spent nuclear fuel.

    Q7.  Is DOE currently working with the NRC to streamline the
    application process to bring new nuclear reactors to market quicker?

    A7. As an independent regulatory authority, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission (NRC) establishes the licensing process for new nuclear
    power plants. There is a working relationship between NRC and DOE in
    certain contexts but, owing to the distinctly different roles,
    missions, and responsibilities of the two agencies, DOE is not directly
    involved in the licensing process. DOE and NRC are cooperating on
    technical issues that may affect the overall licensing process. The two
    agencies are working on the implementation of the Next Generation
    Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Licensing Strategy, contained in the report
    submitted to Congress in August 2008. Periodic discussions are held on
    technical and procedural issues, including R&D needs, regulatory gaps,
    emerging technical issues, and requirements for a licensing application
    for NGNP. NRC and DOE have also been interacting on small modular
    reactors (SMR), together looking at technical issues and clarifying
    process points for the SMR vendors.

    Fossil Energy

    Q1.  The United States has considerable reserves of clean-burning
    natural gas both on-land and off-shore. These resources are
    significantly more energy secure than domestic petroleum resources
    because they are less exposed to price fluctuations dictated by foreign
    suppliers. Do you agree that these resources can buy us time as we
    transition to new sources of energy? Do you agree that these resources
    can start reducing energybased pollution in the short term?

    A1. The U.S. has an abundant supply of secure, domestic natural gas
    that has significant environmental benefits over other fossil fuel
    sources. Compared to coal-fired power generation, natural gas produces
    half the CO2 and almost no sulfur oxide. For this reason,
    natural gas can play an important role in cutting greenhouse gas
    emissions. Natural gas can also be an important support to greater use
    of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar--variable-output
    natural gas electric plants can balance the electric grid when paired
    with solar and wind plants that supply intermittent power. These
    benefits are available now and can quickly expand because of the
    existing natural gas delivery and power generation infrastructure and
    the low capital costs for new natural gas power generation.

    Hydrogen

    Q1.  This budget increases resources for research into solar, wind, and
    geothermal energy, but cuts hydrogen and fuel cell funding. Why does
    the administration continue to reduce investment in hydrogen? Does the
    Administration recognize the potential of hydrogen as a transportation
    fuel?

    A1. The Department's reduction of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
    Technologies (HFCT) budget by $37 million, allows a balanced portfolio
    of transportation solutions and continued focus on battery and advanced
    vehicle approaches for more near term impact. However, the Department
    will also maintain a strong effort in key areas of hydrogen and fuel
    cell research and development. In addition to $137M in the EERE HFCT
    program, DOE has requested $50M for the Solid State Energy Convention
    Alliance (SECA) Program and expects to maintain funding levels at
    approximately $38M through the Office of Basic Energy Sciences for
    long-term and crosscutting R&D in hydrogen and fuel cells.
        The Department does recognize the long term potential of hydrogen
    as a transportation fuel. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is one of many
    transportation technologies being pursued by the Department including
    plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles.

    Q2.  In your opinion, how will we break free from our dependence on
    foreign oil if we do not pursue investments in multiple transportation
    fuel alternatives?

    A2. We will not break free from our dependence on foreign oil without
    pursuing all viable options. This must include electric drivetrains
    (powered by renewable electricity for GHG reduction) for light-duty
    vehicles, biomass-derived liquid fuels that are compatible with
    existing fuel infrastructure for legacy light-duty vehicles and heavy-
    duty trucks, and mode-shifting from road transportation of freight to
    rail or barge/ship. There is also a substantial role to be played by
    domestic alternative fuels such as compressed and liquefied natural gas
    for road vehicles (especially buses and heavy-duty trucks).
    Improvements in efficiency of engines for future vehicles also
    represent an important opportunity for reducing foreign oil dependence.
        The Department has a portfolio of programs to develop
    transportation alternatives including: programs addressing plug-in
    hybrid vehicles, advanced battery research for vehicle applications,
    the use of biofuels in transportation, and the development of hydrogen
    fuel cell vehicles.

    Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

    Q1.  Section 228 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
    (P.L. 110-114) directed ``Not later than 90 days after the date of
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
    Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, a report on
    the progress of the research and development that is being conducted on
    the use of algae as a feedstock for the production of biofuels,''
    specifically, ``identify continuing research and development challenges
    and any regulatory or other barriers found by the Secretary that hinder
    the use of this resource, as well as recommendations on how to
    encourage and further its development as a viable transportation
    fuel.'' Although a draft of this report has been made available to the
    committee, the final report has been held up so the Department of
    Energy can seek peer review. When can we expect a final report to be
    made public? What, if anything, do you expect to be changed from the
    draft? Is it the Department's position all scientific research should
    be peer reviewed before it is published or applied in rulemaking?

    A1. A Report to Congress titled ``Microalgae Feedstocks for Biofuels
    Production'' in satisfaction of the EISA 2007 Section 228 requirements
    was provided to members of the House Committee on Science and
    Technology and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on
    May 1, 2009. During the preparation of the Report to Congress, DOE
    convened a stakeholder meeting with algae researchers, technology
    developers, investors, and government officials to draft a more
    inclusive report intended for public release. The report, entitled The
    National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap, surveys a broader
    technology landscape than the original Report to Congress. DOE released
    a draft of the Roadmap to the public in June 2009 as part of a Request
    for Information (RFI) process, and used comments it received in the
    editing process. The Roadmap is currently being reviewed through our
    concurrence process. It is the Department's position to ensure the
    quality of all scientific documents and reports to be disseminated to
    the public, and to abide by the guidelines set forth by the Final
    Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin) as prescribed
    by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The initial Report to
    Congress was to be distributed on a limited basis within government,
    therefore it was not required to be reviewed. In contrast, The National
    Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap will be peer reviewed in accordance
    to the DOE Information Quality policy based on the OMB guidelines.

    Q2.  Please address current research to improve and commercialize small
    hydropower--anything less than one megawatt, including both tidal and
    small moving water sources. What efforts are underway to improve and
    commercialize this technology? What can this committee do to expedite
    research in this area?

    A2. The Department of Energy supports the small water power industry in
    the design and development of devices and components, as well as the
    deployment and testing of those devices in the laboratory or in-water
    settings. The Department supports the development and testing of a wide
    variety of hydrokinetic systems and components, from earliest-stage
    proof-of-concept studies through full-scale demonstration projects, as
    well as certain small hydropower projects. Projects are typically
    funded through competitive awards, which are designed to help devices
    progress toward commercial readiness along well-defined technology
    readiness levels. The testing of these devices and components in a
    variety of settings allows the Department to determine baseline costs
    and performance attributes for different water resources and technology
    types. The Department is also investigating technological innovations
    that will reduce the cost of generation at sites appropriate for small
    hydropower development.
        While the energy contained in small hydropower resources like
    tides, rivers and streams is vast, the exact amount of extractable
    energy has not been well quantified. The Department has funded projects
    to conduct resource assessments for in-stream and tidal energy
    resources.
        The Department awarded funds to national laboratories during FY
    2009 to conduct basic and applied research and development projects.
    Laboratory projects are developing essential tools and methods for the
    engineering, design, and testing of marine and hydrokinetic
    technologies, such as tidal power; and they will identify, analyze,
    predict and prioritize environmental impacts from marine and
    hydrokinetic energy production to minimize the time, costs, and
    potential environmental risks associated with siting and deploying
    these systems. Together these efforts will help accelerate the
    commercialization of small hydropower systems.
        Finally, the committee may expedite research in the area of
    hydrokinetic commercialization by supporting our FY 11 budget request
    which will continue the initiatives listed above.

    Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

    Q1.  Secretary Chu, what is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw
    the application from the NRC? What new facts do you have or have you
    considered, as Secretary of Energy, to determine that you should
    withdraw the application? Under what statutory authority are you
    withdrawing the application? Please provide the citation for the
    record?

    A1. Scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to
    disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced
    over the 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was initiated. And,
    the Administration believes we can find a better solution that achieves
    a broader national consensus. That is why we have convened the Blue
    Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future; it will provide advice
    and make recommendations on alternatives for the storage, processing
    and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear
    waste. The Commission plans to issue an interim report in 18 months and
    a final report within 24 months of its inception.
        The Atomic Energy Act (``AEA'' or Act) gives the Secretary broad
    authority to carry out the Act's purposes, including the authority to
    direct the Government's ``control of the possession, use, and
    production of atomic energy and special nuclear material, whether owned
    by the Government or others, so directed as to make the maximum
    contribution to the common defense and security and the national
    welfare.'' AEA Sec.  3(c), 42 U.S.C. Sec.  2013(c). Exercise of this
    power in connection with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
    proceeding was not limited in any relevant way by the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act. In fact, the NWPA is clear that after the Secretary submits
    the license application for the Yucca Mountain repository,
    consideration of that application is to proceed in accordance with the
    laws applicable to such applications. NWPA Sec.  114(d), 42 U.S.C.
    Sec.  10134(d).
        These laws include the AEA and the regulations adopted by NRC to
    implement the AEA. The regulations permit an applicant to withdraw an
    application. 10 C.F.R. 2.107.

    Q2a.  The Copenhagen ``accord'' requested countries voluntarily submit
    by January 31, 2010, individual pledges to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. As I understand it, each nation determined its own target
    for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and this accord is only
    ``politically'' binding in nature. The world views the U.S. and China
    as the greatest emitters, although I believe the Chinese surpassed our
    levels and India's emissions continue to grow. China pledged to limit
    emissions as a share of its growing economy and the U.S. pledged
    reductions from historic levels.

              Are you concerned that at a time when the U.S. economy is in
            a recession and China's economy is growing, that committing the
            United States to such a reduction will place our country's
            economy farther behind?

    A2a. There is a burgeoning clean energy market worldwide and commitment
    to climate change action can be a foundation for future economic
    strength. Since 2005, clean energy investments have increased 230
    percent, reaching a total investment of $162 billion worldwide by 2009,
    according to a March 2010 report by The Pew Charitable Trusts, ``Who's
    Winning the Energy Race? Growth, Competition and Opportunity in the
    World's Largest Economies''. China leads global clean energy
    investment, with $34.6 billion, compared to the U.S. at $18.6 billion.
    Comprehensive long-term U.S. climate change policy would provide clear
    market signals to help the U.S. clean energy technology industry
    compete in this growing global market.

    Q2b.  The Copenhagen ``accord'' requested countries voluntarily submit
    by January 31, 2010, individual pledges to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. As I understand it, each nation determined its own target
    for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and this accord is only
    ``politically'' binding in nature. The world views the U.S. and China
    as the greatest emitters, although I believe the Chinese surpassed our
    levels and India's emissions continue to grow. China pledged to limit
    emissions as a share of its growing economy and the U.S. pledged
    reductions from historic levels.

              Since this ``politically'' binding accord is unenforceable,
            what steps would the United States take if China does not
            comply with the pledges it has made in the accord? When you
            testified before this Committee last year, you indicated that
            the U.S. might be forced to place tariffs on Chinese good if
            the Chinese were not willing to reduce greenhouse gas
            emissions. Would you still consider this an option?

    A2b. The international community took a meaningful step forward during
    the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate
    negotiations in Copenhagen. The resulting Copenhagen Accord represents
    the first time that all major economies, including China, pledged to
    reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to projections. This is an
    important step forward. China has already taken significant actions to
    address climate change and to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of
    its economy and we expect that it will fulfill its commitments under
    the Accord. The Administration is closely monitoring the steps China
    and other major emitters are taking in line with the Copenhagen Accord.
    As appropriate the Administration will also review the need for trade-
    related measures in domestic energy and climate legislation. We look
    forward to working towards an effective global climate agreement that
    serves our economic, national security, and environmental interests.

    Questions submitted by Representative Brian P. Bilbray

    Nuclear

    Q1.  You've made statements that commercially available used fuel
    recycling technology is not proliferation resistant. Could you detail
    for the Committee your definition of a ``proliferation resistant
    technology?'' If such a proliferation technology is developed, would
    you have any objections to exporting such a technology to other
    countries, irrespective of their proliferation history or credentials?

    A1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines proliferation
    resistance as ``that characteristic of an NES (nuclear energy system)
    that impedes the diversion or undeclared production of nuclear material
    or misuse of technology by the Host State seeking to acquire nuclear
    weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.'' However, the U.S.
    Government has not and should not embrace a single definition of
    proliferation resistance or a specific level of proliferation
    resistance as acceptable or not acceptable. We view proliferation
    resistance as a matter of degree, rather than as an absolute. Our
    review of the concept of proliferation resistance shows that it cannot
    be applied in a vacuum without considering other critical factors when
    making technology choices on a nuclear energy system. In other words,
    there is no ``silver bullet'' technology that satisfies all of our
    proliferation concerns.
        Regarding the transfers of technology directly or indirectly
    related to the recycling of used nuclear fuel, the Atomic Energy Act
    requires a number of considerations, including a determination of
    whether the action will constitute the transfer of sensitive nuclear
    technology to the recipient. Other criteria for consideration are what
    the recipient learns or derives from the export for development of
    similar systems, the use of the exported system itself, and the
    disposition pathway for recovered fissile materials. Decisions about
    nuclear systems exports must be made on a case-by-case basis weighing
    many factors.

    Q2.  Nonproliferation is a goal we all share. I think it is important
    that we distinguish between proliferation resistant technologies and
    proliferation resistant systems. As Secretary of Energy, you have a
    great deal of responsibility in securing this nation's sensitive
    technologies and materials. Is it your position that the United States
    cannot design systems safeguards that would allow for the near-term
    recycling of used fuel in this country, given all the sensitive
    materials and technologies that your Department already successfully
    secures? If this is not possible, what are the obstacles we need to
    overcome to create such a system of safeguards? Why haven't you
    included any R&D in your budget request that would address these
    obstacles?

    A2. The deployment of nuclear fuel recycling technology in the United
    States or in any of the other Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) does not
    constitute proliferation because the NWS already have nuclear weapons
    and the technology and knowledge to build weapons. However, nuclear
    weapons proliferation by nation states and the terrorist threat are
    separate and distinct issues. While proliferation of nuclear weapons is
    not a concern in NWS, the issue of physical security is a significant
    concern that must be addressed when deploying new technologies or
    recycling facilities. The United States will always attempt to develop
    and deploy nuclear technologies that are as easy to safeguard and
    effectively secure as possible, no matter where they are deployed.
        In developing safeguards systems, the United States looks to the
    IAEA for guidance and also relies upon its own expertise with the
    nuclear fuel cycle. Our funding to the national laboratories for the
    Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) and the Fuel Cycle
    Research and Development program support continued advances in state-
    of-the-art safeguards concepts, as well as techniques and equipment for
    deployment not only in the United States, but also in other countries
    at existing and planned reprocessing/recycling facilities. The budget
    request includes $7.8 million for Material Protection, Accountancy, and
    Controls Technology within Fuel Cycle Research and Development. This
    will continue the work started in fiscal year 2010 to develop
    technologies and analysis tools to enable next generation nuclear
    materials management for future U.S. nuclear fuel cycles to prevent
    diversion or misuse, thereby, reducing proliferation risks and
    enhancing confidence and acceptance of nuclear energy.
        Future decisions about the recycling of used fuel in this country
    in the long term will depend on many factors in addition to
    nonproliferation and security issues. Economics, waste management,
    policy considerations and environmental factors are also very
    significant considerations, as well as the international ramifications
    of domestic decisions. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
    Future will examine these issues along with many others and I look
    forward to their advice and recommendations.

    Q3.  Why aren't we moving forward aggressively with proven reprocessing
    technologies since we know that eventually that will be required to
    implement real clean air policies?

    A3. The Department has a science-based research program on reprocessing
    technologies underway that is focused on identifying advanced
    reprocessing concepts that would be more efficient, safer and less
    expensive than current conventional processes. This research program
    will be able to inform future decisions on commercial reprocessing.

    Q4.  Mr. Secretary--Following the announcement at the American Chemical
    Society regarding low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), commonly known
    as ``cold fusion,'' international press accounts in the New Scientist
    and the economist reported upon this new, energy technology
    breakthrough. According to the reports, if this technology is validated
    and can be commercialized, it would provide a clean, CO2-
    free, abundant energy source that could replace oil and gas. This would
    have a positive and significant impact on U.S. foreign policy by
    potentially reducing our dependence upon foreign energy sources. It
    would also contribute to minimizing nuclear waste material. Would the
    Department of Energy be willing to investigate and research this
    technology to determine its efficacy?

    A4. The Office of Science supports basic energy research and R&D on
    related applications, subject to peer review in accordance with Federal
    regulations. The Office of Science considers all proposals submitted
    within its competitive solicitations and evaluates all in terms of
    merit according to established guidelines and procedures for research
    proposals.

    Algae Biofuels Questions

    Q1.  The FY 2010 E&W Appropriations conference report directed the
    Department to ``provide not less than $35 million for a comprehensive
    research, development, and deployment strategy focused on algal
    biofuels.'' It is my understanding that to date, the Department has
    allocated roughly $10 million of these funds. Please elaborate as to
    how the Department has spent or is spending the $10 million, and how it
    plans to utilize the remaining $25 million, for algae fuels RD&D as
    specifically directed by Congress.

    A1. The Department is directing $35 million Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and
    Water appropriations toward comprehensive research, development, and
    deployment of algal biofuels. DOE is planning to direct $25 million to
    three alternate consortia that were competitively selected and peer-
    reviewed from the funding opportunity announcement, DE-FOA-0000123. The
    Department is allocating the remaining $10 million in FY 2010 funds to
    support three additional categories of efforts: capacity building
    projects at the National Laboratories through a competitive and peer-
    reviewed process; projects aimed at determining the resource potential
    of land, water, CO2, and other nutrients to sustainably
    support commercial-scale algae production; and lifecycle analyses
    projects at universities and the National Laboratories to develop the
    Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation
    (GREET) modules for algae and to enhance international collaborations.
    The Biomass Program has begun spending on some of these projects,
    including components of the algae resource assessments and life cycle
    analyses, while other efforts are in the procurement and negotiation
    process.

    Q2.  The President recently announced his administration's new national
    biofuels plan that emphasizes a change in focus from second generation
    (ethanol) to third generation (dropin) transportation fuels. How will
    the DOE change its current funding and R&D resource allocations from
    focusing so overwhelmingly on second generation cellulosic biofuels, to
    following the president's lead in focusing on third generation drop in
    fuels, such as algae based fuels?

    A2. In May 2009, to further his Administration's commitment to advance
    biofuels research and commercialization, President Obama established
    the Biofuels Interagency Working Group.\2\ In February 2010, the
    Working Group released its Growing America's Fuel strategy, which
    provides direction on several areas across the supply chain that
    support what are considered first, second, and third generation
    biofuels. In addition, the interagency Biomass Research and Development
    Board has committed to working closely with the Working Group as it
    defines a range of research and development coordination activities
    that will support the nation's transition toward developing greater
    volumes of sustainable cellulosic and hydrocarbon renewable fuels.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Working Group is comprised of representatives from the
    Departments of Energy (DOE), Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA).
        \3\ The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 established
    the Board, which was continued under the Food Conservation and Energy
    Act of 2008. DOE and USDA co-chair the Board, which is comprised of
    members from DOE, USDA, EPA, the National Science Foundation, the
    Department of the Interior, the Office of Science and Technology
    Policy, and other agencies the Board invites, such as the Departments
    of Transportation and Defense.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is crucial the Department of Energy (DOE) carry out its
    cellulosic ethanol investments, which are central to technology and
    industry growth as well as meeting Renewable Fuel Standard
    requirements. Our R&D and integrated biorefinery results will enable
    DOE and its national laboratory, academic, and industry partners to
    leverage and inform comparable technology developments for hydrocarbon
    biofuels. For example, Table 1 shows that many pilot, demonstration,
    and commercial-scale projects selected from 2007 through 2009 are
    scheduled to come on line over the next three years; \4\ the total
    multiyear Departmental investment toward these projects is more than
    $723 million--including appropriated funds as well as American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act funds with a total non-fed cost share of over $1.6
    billion.\5\ The execution of these projects will provide critical data,
    lessons learned, and ideas for improvement-all of which could
    noticeably increase production efficiencies and reduce fuel costs going
    forward.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ For example, as of April 1, 2010, one demonstration-scale
    partner is now operational; a commercial-scale partner has initiated
    construction. We expect four additional projects to move into their
    construction phases later this fiscal year.
        \5\ See Energy Policy Act of 2005 section 932, and increases to FY
    08 and FY 09 authority through the Energy Security and Independence Act
    of 2007.

        DOE's Biomass Program has also taken substantial steps to
    accelerate hydrocarbon biofuels research, development, and
    demonstration (RD&D) in the past few years. We have annually evaluated
    the states of biofuels technologies to ensure work is progressing
    sufficiently. Since 2008, we have selected or awarded more than $465
    million toward hydrocarbon fuels in FY 08, FY 09, and FY 10 funds as
    well as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds-to multiple RD&D
    projects. These projects include six pilotscale, two demonstration-
    scale, and one commercial-scale \6\ integrated biorefineries as well as
    two advanced and algal biofuels consortia. We believe a balanced
    portfolio of investments is needed to develop both second and third
    generation biofuels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ This integrated biorefinery project was originally awarded
    under a demonstration-scale solicitation; however, plans are for a
    facility large enough to be considered commercial-scale.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our planned RD&D commitments for FY 11 will continue to shift
    toward supporting hydrocarbon biofuels activities while maintaining our
    commitments to cellulosic ethanol RD&D. Considerably more hydrocarbon
    biofuels RD&D is required over the next several years-and our consortia
    and integrated biorefinery activities are absolutely critical to
    achieving success. In this regard, we have developed internal targets
    for 2017 to focus our partners' efforts related to renewable gasoline,
    diesel, and jet fuels.

    Q3.  The Joint Genome Institute (JGI) can play a significant role in
    algae-based fuel development by helping the algae industry develop a
    library of sequenced: algal strains. Is this something that the
    Institute (JGI) sees as a priority on its own, and is willing to work
    on, or something that requires more attention and direction from
    Department of Energy to achieve?

    A3. The Department and the Joint Genome Institute recognize the
    important role that algae can play in renewable biofuel development.
    JGI has provided genomic information on many algal species including
    green algae, diatoms, and cyanobacteria, as well as metagenomic
    information on algal blooms and environmental algal mats. JGI
    encourages high-throughput DNA sequencing and analysis projects in
    support of the DOE mission and national priorities to develop abundant
    sources of clean energy, control greenhouse gas accumulation in the
    atmosphere (especially carbon dioxide), and clean up contaminated sites
    for which DOE has ownership or stewardship responsibilities. Priority
    for proposed projects is established according to the JGI review
    process guidelines. JGI is encouraging the algae industry to submit
    proposals for consideration for the current Community Sequencing
    Program (CSP) 2011 call, especially relating to the development of
    clean energy sources.
                                  Appendix 2:

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Motion To Withdraw Yucca Mountain License
                                  Application