[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