[Senate Hearing 113-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne
Feinstein (chairwoman) presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Landrieu, Udall,
Shaheen, Alexander, Cochran, McConnell, Collins, Murkowski,
Graham, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF ERNEST MONIZ, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We
are going to start right on time. We have five votes scheduled
for 3:30. So what we would like to do is go as quickly as we
can. We expect 10 members. I know the minority leader will be
here. I will interrupt the straight early bird which we do,
that we don't alternate sides, we just go straight early bird,
if the minority leader comes and wants to ask some questions
because he would have to go back to the floor. So, we will do
that.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you to this hearing; Mr.
Poneman, you as well. The hearing is to discuss the Energy and
Water Subcommittee budget for fiscal year 2015.
The Department of Energy has requested $27.963 billion for
fiscal year 2015. That's an increase of $682 million, or 2.5
percent, from fiscal year 2014. Approximately $451 million, or
66 percent of that amount, is for the National Security
Administration's Nuclear Weapons and Naval Reactor Programs.
That's a 4-percent increase for NNSA (National Nuclear Security
Administration).
This subcommittee will explore in greater detail NNSA's
budget request on April 30, but the priorities you lay out, Mr.
Secretary, for national security programs in this year's budget
request demand an explanation.
The Nuclear Posture Review finds that the highest national
security priority is ``preventing nuclear proliferation and
nuclear terrorism.'' Two weeks ago, President Obama stated that
what kept him up at night was ``the prospect of a nuclear
weapon going off in Manhattan.'' However, the budget request
makes Nuclear Weapons and Naval Reactor Programs the highest
priority at the expense of non-proliferation and environmental
clean-up activities.
This is hard for me to understand, why we would cut
programs that keep nuclear materials out of the hands of
terrorists, especially when al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups
have repeatedly shown interest in acquiring weapons-grade
material. What is disappointing is that we had a discussion
about priorities before the budget submission and you assured
me that the fiscal year 2015 budget would be more balanced
without adversely cutting non-proliferation.
Instead, the budget request proposes an increase of $533
million, or 7 percent, for nuclear weapons, the largest single
increase in the Department's budget; and an increase of $282
million, or 26 percent, for Naval reactors. It looks like the
Department of Defense had a strong hand in your budget this
year.
In contrast, non-proliferation, which is getting rid of
nuclear material, would see a cut of $400 million, or 20
percent, which would be the largest single decrease in the
Department's budget; and a decrease of $209 million, or 4
percent, for environmental clean-up activities related to past
nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research.
As far as I'm concerned, this is not acceptable. What I see
are additional cuts to well-managed programs that have made
this country safer from nuclear terrorism at the expense of
increased funding for poorly managed nuclear weapons programs,
and I say that with justification that I believe you know
about.
Slashing programs that prevent nuclear terrorism and
protect the health and safety of communities from the effects
of nuclear weapons production is a major concern, and I hope
you're prepared with a good explanation.
I won't touch on the Office of Science. It has increased
$45 million, or 1 percent. It looks to be in pretty good shape.
I'd like to just quickly highlight my biggest concern. It's
in the science budget, and it's ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor).
ITER is an experimental fusion reactor being built in
France. After pressure from this subcommittee, the Department
has provided a more reliable cost estimate for this project.
Unfortunately, the cost keeps increasing. Under the best-case
scenario, the United States' cost to help build ITER will be $4
billion for the Department of Energy (DOE), twice the original
cost estimate. Under a more realistic scenario, the cost may
exceed $6 billion. That's according to an independent review by
your own department, Mr. Secretary.
To make matters worse, an independent assessment of the
ITER organization found a long list of problems that could lead
to additional cost increases and schedule delay. Some of these
include the lack of project management skills and a sense of
urgency to complete the project; a lack of realistic
milestones; too few staff with large project management and
industrial experience to integrate thousands of components for
the most complex engineering project in the world.
Mr. Poneman, I hope you can share your views of whether you
think the project management problems at ITER can be fixed and
whether the United States should continue to fund ITER given
the cost increases and higher scientific priorities.
Actually, this may be an opportunity to experience the
power of the purse.
Joining us today to explore these national security and
energy issues is Dr. Ernie Moniz, the Secretary of Energy. Next
to him is Dan Poneman, the Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Secretary Moniz is recused from the topic of fusion, so Deputy
Secretary Poneman is here to answer any fusion-related
questions, and I believe that that is because of your past
association with MIT and the fusion facility there. So I thank
you both for taking the time to be here today.
Our distinguished ranking member, Senator Alexander.
statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Poneman, thank you for being here. I
look forward to this.
I want to start by thanking Secretary Moniz and Mr. Poneman
for your attention to mercury contamination at Oak Ridge. That
is our highest environmental priority, and yesterday was a day
of remembrance for families who were victimized by their work
at Oak Ridge during the cold war and died or were severely
injured by exposure to toxic materials. This is our concern
now, and I'm glad we're beginning to get a start on it.
My goals are, one, basic research; two, getting control on
the construction progress for major projects to reduce spending
on mature technologies and focus spending on research for new
technologies, and to modernize the deterrent.
Briefly about research, the one piece of advice I've given
to the Secretary, and I don't want to give much to him because
he has lots of experience, is to do some missionary work on my
side of the aisle on ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy), because the Republicans look at some of the
Obama administration energy adventures and don't like what they
see over the last several years, and some have lumped ARPA-E in
with that.
I think it's a very different idea. It came out of a
bipartisan proposal called America COMPETES (America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science), which had as many Republican as
Democrat Senators on it, 30 on each side. It's a descendant of
DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is a
Defense Department miracle, really, in terms of it leading
literally to the Internet, the stealth technology, and I think
Republicans would like ARPA-E, and I encourage you, and I will
help, to make sure that we know the story about the creation of
24 new companies, new projects, the fact that they're thrown
back out in the marketplace very quickly and Government gets
out of their way, and we're beginning to see some advances.
So I'm a big believer in the fact, as I think are most of
us here, that since World War II, it's hard to think of a major
technological advance in our country that's not had some
Government-sponsored research involved in it. That's an
important story. The Office of Science is at the center of
that, and I strongly support generous budget recommendations
for that part of the budget.
We should be about setting priorities, and we shouldn't let
the runaway mandatory entitlement spending squeeze out
investments in research that improve family incomes, improve
lives, and make our country better.
Now, sometimes people say to me, Madam Chairman, what do
you find satisfying about serving in the Senate, and I say,
well, sometimes I go to bed at night thinking I may have done
just a little something to make our country better, and my
little something today is something that the chairman and I
have been working on, and that is I think I may see the light
at the end of the tunnel on this way for us to do a better job
of getting control of these massive construction projects which
are eating up billions of dollars, and it's very difficult for
members of Congress to have the expertise or the ability to
deal with those.
I'm looking for the description of the red team that I had
on one page here. Here it is. And I would cite to the chairman
the red team with the uranium facility, Madam Chairman. A few
months ago we decided that we would meet on a regular basis
with someone who's in charge. But since then--this is what I
understand from the preliminary briefings--they've taken the
review process that the Office of Science has had, which has
been successful in keeping its projects under control. I think
of the Spallatian Neutron Source at Oak Ridge, which was on
time, on budget, even though it was $1.5 billion, and they've
taken the head of the Oak Ridge Lab, Thom Mason. He has had a
60-day process with a team of 25 people from all over DOE.
They've gone to the uranium facility. They spend an entire week
there. Then they went away and did a week of homework. Then
they went back again for an entire week, and they're going to
give us a report this month on what we need to do to keep it
within budget and still meet the objective.
I don't want to pre-judge the report. Maybe it won't turn
out to be something we want. But I like the process. And what I
like is that if there is an existing process in DOE on the
Office of Science side, this is not a hearing about the NNSA,
but I would like to talk about when my time comes why we
wouldn't consider using that same process with the
MOX (mixed oxide fuel) process at Savannah River,
initial projected cost of nearly $5 billion, current cost
between $13 billion and $25 billion. The uranium process
initial cost, $650 million, current cost between $4 billion and
$6 billion. ITER, the Chairman mentioned, where are we going
with that? Billions more. The Chemistry and Metallurgy
Replacement Facility, $3.7 to $5.8 billion.
We need to get control of these runaway costs, and if the
red team review is a way to do that, Madam Chairman, I think we
need to focus some time on it. So I want to suggest, if I may,
to you and to the Secretary that when that report is available,
perhaps we have a special hearing for us to hear it and then to
consider whether to apply that same sort of discipline one-by-
one to these other projects.
Now, finally, I didn't say anything about nuclear weapons,
but that's another area that's hard for us to work on, these
big weapons programs. They're complicated, they're secret, and
we don't have all of the expertise to deal with it. Maybe a
similar type of discipline or review of nuclear weapons
programs would assist us in making sure that we meet our
mission, but that we literally don't waste billions of dollars
that could have otherwise been avoided.
So that's what I'm looking forward to talking about today,
and I thank the chairman for indulging me in a little extra
time to comment on it.
Senator Feinstein. Just to say this, and then we'll proceed
to the Secretary. As you know, Senator, I agree with you 100
percent. We have held these meetings. I think they have been
helpful, but the problem continues on, and it seems to grow.
With the nuclear weapons, we're cutting non-proliferation,
which, heaven knows, is necessary, to pick up all this dirty
stuff, and a lot of progress has been made in doing it. So
we're cutting non-proliferation to add more for nuclear
weapons. Plus you have uranium processing, you have all these
problems with virtually every area of fissile material
production running way over budget.
So the whole arena, I think, is up for very serious
scrutiny, Mr. Secretary.
In any event, we're delighted that you're here. We have
spoken before. So you, as I understand it, will make some short
comments, Mr. Poneman, and we will then go to questions. The
minority leader is here. He has to return to the floor, so we
will take his questions out of order.
Please proceed, Mr. Secretary.
summary statement of ernest moniz
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Chairman Feinstein and Ranking
Member Alexander and members of the committee. I will be very
brief in light of your constraints.
First, as you've already said, the budget request in a very
constrained environment overall is for a 2.6 percent increase,
and I would just argue that reflects, I think, some of the very
important missions we have in terms of a clean energy future
and on nuclear security in particular, in addition to
maintaining the scientific enterprise in this country,
sustaining it, growing it, and of course meeting our
obligations to clean up the mess of the cold war.
I would just say that our budget was organized around our
reorganized Department with our three main focus areas: energy
and science, nuclear security, management performance. As you
have both commented, we have tried very much to elevate the
focus on management performance because we feel we cannot
execute our nuclear security and energy and science missions
unless we, frankly, raise our game in that area.
On science and energy, the budget request is $9.8 billion,
a 5-percent increase.
Again, in the spirit of trying to hurry up, I'll skip many
things. But I'd like to just comment on Senator Alexander's
very kind comments on ARPA-E, which I agree has been a big
success. I would add one thing to some of the things you said,
24 start-ups, et cetera, and that is that uniquely in this
program is also the entrepreneurial flavor that every project,
for example, has, if you like, an advisor on tech-to-market. So
it's a very novel program, and I appreciate the support.
Another thing I'll just mention, in our energy and science
proposals principally, although sometimes involving NNSA, I'd
like to highlight a set of cross-cutting initiatives where we
are trying to bring together the strengths of different offices
in a complementary way in areas like grid modernization, exa-
scale computing, sub-surface science and engineering, areas of
this type. Our laboratory directors are very excited about this
and are prepared to work together.
Nuclear security, budget request $11.9 billion. Chairman
Feinstein has gone through the way that is broken out. Let me
first say that on the weapons side, frankly, the plan put
forward last year was not supportable in any credible budget
environment that we could see. So we went through a very
engaging process with the Department of Defense, with the
National Security Council, with the Weapons Council, and we
committed that we had to sustain the fundamental stockpile
posture put forward in the Nuclear Posture Review, but we had
to just, frankly, stretch it out in ways that had a budget
profile that cut over $1 billion a year over the Life Extension
Programs in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe.
So we made that commitment, and we must have a safe and
reliable stockpile. Regrettably, and I say that honestly, quite
regrettably within our relatively small part of the 2015
budget, we must support weapons, non-proliferation, Naval
reactors, environmental clean-up, and intelligence programs,
and we do believe we still have a very strong non-proliferation
program, which we can discuss. As you said, 2 weeks ago or 3
weeks ago in The Hague, there was the Nuclear Security Summit.
We had some great successes to announce, including the
repatriation of many hundreds of kilograms of HEU (highly
enriched uranium) and plutonium.
I do want to point out that over half of the reduction in
the non-proliferation program was in the specific project of
MOX, where we called for a pause to evaluate that. I
do want to just clear up right now, there has been some
confusion on numbers. Apples and oranges are being compared
when you may have heard a $17 billion number recently. That was
strictly for the fuel fabrication facility. As Secretary of
Energy, I have to look at the entire program to make
MOX, and that's where our estimate is $30 billion,
and we need a discussion to see what our priorities are going
to be in terms of how we dispose of those 34 tons of weapons
plutonium and have the Russians do the same.
Management performance, $6.5 billion. Again, I'll just note
that that is a new focus area with a new organization stood up
to enforce that.
I'll end by saying in the theme that you have both raised
about project management, I'm sure we'll come back to it, but
we are providing, trying to provide a completely new discipline
in how these are advanced. I view, in fact, one of the major
projects not mentioned is the waste treatment project at
Hanford, probably the largest, most complex, and there we're
still negotiating with the State. But we have put forward a new
phased framework that the State has agreed with. Now we have to
work out dates and things.
prepared statement
But I think, again, we're trying to bring realism and
discipline to this process, give you a baseline when we've done
90 percent design, not 10 percent design.
With those comments, thank you for your time, and I look
forward to the discussion.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ernest Moniz
Chairwoman Mikulski and Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Members Shelby
and Alexander, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Budget Request for fiscal year 2015. This is my first
time appearing before this subcommittee since I joined the Department
of Energy last May, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the
budget request advances our clean energy, science, nuclear security,
and nuclear waste cleanup goals to carry out the President's
priorities.
The President has made clear that the Department of Energy has
significant responsibilities for advancing the Nation's prosperity and
security through its mission. In particular, I would like to highlight
three critical mission areas of the Department.
As the President said in the State of the Union address, ``the all-
of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working,
and today, America is closer to energy independence than we've been in
decades.'' This strategy is driving economic growth and creating jobs,
while lowering our carbon emissions. We are producing more natural gas
in the United States than ever before. And for the first time in 20
years, we are producing more oil at home than we import from the rest
of the world. We have also made remarkable progress in clean and
renewable energy. In the last 5 years, we have more than doubled the
amount of electricity we generate from wind and solar. At the same
time, we are making the investments that will enable coal and nuclear
power to be competitive in a clean energy economy, and aggressively
advancing efficiency for its economic and environmental benefits.
In June 2013, the President launched the Climate Action Plan. Under
this plan, the Department is working to reduce the serious threat of
climate change and, with a heightened focus on resilience, preparing
American communities for the impacts of a changing climate that are
already being felt.
Just over a week ago at the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague,
the President reiterated his commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and
security, calling on the global community to decrease the number of
nuclear weapons, control and eliminate nuclear weapon-usable materials,
and build a sustainable and secure nuclear energy industry. All of
these areas are central to the Department of Energy's mission:
maintaining a strong and credible strategic deterrent, working to
secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, and
advancing safe nuclear power technology for the decades ahead.
Both of these mission areas--clean energy and nuclear security--
depend on sustaining America's research and development (R&D)
leadership. The Department of Energy, to a large extent through our 17
national laboratories, plays a key role in our Nation's respective
advantage in the physical sciences.
Finally, the President's Management Agenda includes an emphasis on
Federal agencies' effective and efficient execution of their missions
for the American people.
carrying out doe's top priorities through an effective organization
The Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2015
aligns the agency's funding and organization with these three
presidential priorities.
First, while the Department's science and energy programs have
previously been managed and overseen separately by two under
secretariats, we have merged those roles into a single Under Secretary
for Science and Energy to more effectively carry forth our science and
energy priorities. I'll discuss some of the cross-cutting initiatives
facilitated by this new organizational structure, as well as how we are
reexamining and strengthening the way we work with our National
Laboratories to better carry out our science and energy missions.
Next, an Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, who also serves as
Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
oversees our nuclear security missions and ensures effective and
efficient collaboration across under secretariats on crosscutting
activities and missions. This Under Secretary is also engaging in
discussions with the National Laboratories and with Congress to ensure
that all of our sites are working to serve the public interest to the
greatest extent possible. This position is, of course, established with
the principle high level charge of preserving U.S. nuclear security,
this why we are moving the Office of Environmental Management to the
new Under Secretary for Management and Performance.
Finally, we created the Under Secretary for Management and
Performance to implement a strong focus on management to effectively
carry out our missions on behalf of the American people. It is not a
secret that DOE has room for improvement in this area, and establishing
this new position will bring focus and leadership to these challenges.
This Under Secretary focuses on management across the Department,
and oversees our environmental cleanup programs. It is inherently
complex and challenging to design and implement one-of-a-kind projects
to nuclear safety standards. We have had many successes in implementing
major projects at the Department of Energy, and obviously we have had
and are continuing to have major challenges. We have reduced our Cold
War legacy ``footprint'' by 74 percent. But of course, the most complex
and difficult projects remain. A focus on management and performance is
critical to further building upon our successes and overcoming our
challenges.
The Department of Energy's top-line discretionary budget request
for fiscal year 2015 is $27.9 billion, a 2.6 percent increase above
fiscal year 2014. The Department of Energy's 2.6 percent increase
recognizes our high-priority missions for clean energy and addressing
climate change, nuclear security, and innovation. The Department of
Energy's budget request includes $9.8 billion for energy, science, and
related programs, $11.9 billion for nuclear security, and $6.5 billion
for management and performance and related programs. I will discuss the
budget request for each of these three programmatic areas in more
detail.
Recognizing the importance of the 2-year budget agreement Congress
reached in December, the Budget adheres to the 2013 Bipartisan Budget
Act's discretionary funding levels for 2015. However, these levels are
not sufficient to expand opportunity to all Americans or to drive the
growth our economy needs, and the need for pro-growth investments in
infrastructure, education, and innovation has only increased due to the
Great Recession and its aftermath. For that reason, the Budget also
includes a separate, fully paid for $56 billion Opportunity, Growth,
and Security Initiative (OGSI), which shows how additional
discretionary investments in 2015 can spur economic progress, promote
opportunity, and strengthen national security. Consequently, in
addition to the base budget submission of $27.9 billion for the
Department of Energy, OGSI provides $1.6 billion for additional
investments at the Department of Energy. Those investments consist of
over a billion dollars in the energy and climate arena--including $355
million for climate resilience and $684 million for clean energy and
energy efficiency activities--and $600 million for additional
investments in nuclear security.
In addition to our discretionary budget and OGSI, the Budget also
proposes an Energy Security Trust. This $2 billion investment over 10
years will support R&D into a range of cost-effective technologies--
like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels,
renewable hydrogen, and domestically produced natural gas--and will be
drawn from existing royalty revenues generated from Federal oil and gas
development.
science and energy
The budget request includes $9.8 billion for science and energy
programs to further our all-of-the-above energy strategy, support the
President's Climate Action Plan, continue the Quadrennial Energy
Review, and maintain global scientific leadership. The request includes
$4.7 billion for a portfolio of energy activities consisting of our
applied energy programs, the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
(ARPA-E), the Loan Programs, International Affairs, the Energy
Information Administration, our new Energy Policy and Systems
Analysis program, our proposed consolidation of the Office of Indian
Energy Policy and Programs, and the Power Marketing Administrations.
These offices reflect the wide diversity of programs, roles, and
responsibilities that we have in the Nation's energy sector.
The budget request for science and energy also includes $5.1
billion for the Office of Science, which provides the national research
community with unique research opportunities at major facilities for
nuclear and particle physics, energy science, materials research and
discovery, large-scale computation, and other disciplines.
Together, these programs support the President's Climate Action
Plan, further an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and promote and
sustain U.S. leadership in science and technology innovation to ensure
that clean energy technologies are invented and manufactured here in
America.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) is the U.S. Government's primary clean energy technology
organization, working with many of America's best innovators and
businesses to support high-impact applied research, development,
demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) activities in the areas of
sustainable transportation, renewable power, and energy efficiency.
EERE has experienced tremendous success in contributing to efforts
to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, save American families and
businesses money, and grow the domestic clean energy industry. For
example, EERE has helped manufacturers increase their energy
productivity, including providing technical support to 590 combined
heat and power projects between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013.
Since 1979, EERE-supported RD&D has advanced 220 new manufacturing
technologies that can and will continue to significantly increase
energy efficiency. In addition, through the EERE-supported SuperTruck
Initiative, EERE partners have developed a full-scale, prototype class
8 heavy-duty truck that is 61 percent more efficient than current
technology. And these are only a couple of examples of the work
underway.
The budget request for EERE is $2.3 billion, a 22 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2014 enacted level to fully support investments in
these areas of sustainable transportation, renewables, and efficiency
and manufacturing.
From day one as Secretary, I have placed a strong emphasis on
energy efficiency. This budget follows through on that focus by
proposing a 39 percent increase in energy efficiency programs in
building efficiency, weatherization of homes, advanced manufacturing,
and Federal energy and State and local partnership activities. This
increase includes funding for activities, such as developing and
issuing new appliance standards and working with States on building
code development, to strongly promote energy efficiency in support of
our goals for the climate, the economy, and American competitiveness.
In his State of the Union address, the President articulated his
vision for supporting American manufacturing, including a focus on
increasing the number of our manufacturing institutes to accelerate
U.S. development of world-leading manufacturing technologies and
capabilities. These Institutes connect businesses to research
universities that can help America lead the world in advanced
technologies. In addition to DOE's contribution to the first institute
on additive manufacturing led by the Department of Defense, the
Department of Energy awarded an additional institute this year that
specializes in wide bandgap semiconductors and announced a competitive
solicitation for an additional institute on advanced composites. The
fiscal year 2015 budget request will support at least one additional
manufacturing institute funded at up to $70 million over 5 years, with
at least one-to-one matching funds from the recipient.
Vehicle technologies are a major focus of DOE's EERE budget request
and of the Energy Security Trust proposal. The fiscal year 2015 budget
request supports research, development, demonstration, and deployment
of efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, including the EV Everywhere
goal that aims to make electric vehicles as affordable and convenient
as the gasoline powered vehicles we drive today by 2022. This would be
accomplished through cost reduction and improved performance in
batteries, electric drive systems, lightweight materials, and
integration with the electric power grid. The request also includes
funding to continue a focused research and development effort to reduce
the cost and increase the durability of fuel cell systems. The request
further includes $60 million, administered through authority provided
by the Defense Production Act, in collaboration with the Departments of
Agriculture and Defense, to continue to enable the objective of
producing advanced biofuels that meet military specifications at a
price competitive with petroleum--an initiative first supported with
DOE funding in fiscal year 2014.
The Department's budget request also continues to advance renewable
energy through a number of ongoing initiatives. The request supports
the SunShot Initiative's mission to make solar energy technologies,
including both solar photovoltaic (PV) and CSP technologies, cost-
competitive with traditional sources of electricity, without subsidies,
by 2020. It supports research, development and demonstration for wind
energy, including funds for three advanced offshore wind demonstration
projects to be operational by 2017, and it includes funding to advance
technologies in both conventional hydropower and marine and
hydrokinetic devices. The request continues to support the Frontier
Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE), a new geothermal
energy R&D project started in fiscal year 2014, and a critical step for
learning how to harness our vast but untapped domestic geothermal
resources through enhanced geothermal systems.
Fossil Energy
As part of our all-of-the-above energy strategy, DOE's Fossil
Energy Research and Development program advances technologies related
to the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use
of fossil fuels which are essential to our Nation's security and
economic prosperity. Since President Obama took office, the Department
of Energy has invested more than $6 billion in carbon-capture and
storage (CCS) research, development and demonstration. The Office of
Fossil Energy is leading this charge, supporting critical research and
deployment efforts to ensure that all sources of energy, including
fossil fuels, are competitive in a carbon constrained economy.
The budget request continues the Department's strong focus on
carbon-capture and storage (CCS) through its $476 million request for
Fossil Energy (FE) Research and Development. In addition to our current
portfolio of demonstration projects, The request includes $25 million
for a new demonstration program, Natural Gas Carbon Capture and Storage
(NG-CCS), to support a project to capture and store carbon emissions
from natural gas power systems. Looking into the future, CCS
technologies will be required for natural gas, as with coal, to be a
major player in a low-carbon world.
In addition, the Loan Guarantee Program is currently receiving
applications for up to $8 billion in loan guarantees focused on
advanced fossil energy projects that reduce CO2 emissions. Together
with these ongoing projects and the fossil loans, the fiscal year 2015
budget request constitutes a major fossil energy program.
The request includes $15.3 million to implement priority
collaborative research and development with the Environmental
Protection Agency and Department of the Interior to ensure that shale
gas development is conducted in a manner that is environmentally sound
and protective of human health and safety; $4.7 million to fund a new
midstream natural gas infrastructure program focused on advanced cost-
effective technologies to detect and mitigate methane emissions from
natural gas transmission, distribution, and storage facilities and to
communicate results on methane emissions mitigation to stakeholders;
and, $15 million to conduct lab- and field-based research focused on
increasing public understanding of methane dynamics in gas-hydrates
bearing areas.
The budget request provides for the full operational readiness of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve including restoration of its designed
drawdown capability.
Nuclear Energy
The Office of Nuclear Energy works to advance nuclear power as a
resource capable of contributing to meeting the Nation's energy supply,
environmental, and national security needs. The budget request for the
Office of Nuclear Energy, $863.4 million, is roughly flat compared to
the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. The Office will continue
ongoing work with particular focus in two main areas: the development
of next-generation nuclear reactors and the management of nuclear
waste.
For next-generation reactors, the budget request continues to fund
research and development on advanced reactor technologies, as well as
technical support for two awards to help accelerate the
commercialization of small modular reactors. It also provides funding
for the continuation of the Department's first Energy Innovation Hub
into a final 5 year term, assuming the determination is made that the
Hub meets all requirements and criteria to be eligible for renewal. The
Department is using a formal process make the renewal determination,
which will be completed within fiscal year 2014. This hub is focused on
nuclear energy modeling and simulation and currently centered at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
In addition to the focus on new reactor technologies, the budget
request funds for activities to advance the Administration's Strategy
for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste. The budget request continues to lay the groundwork
for implementation within existing authorities by providing $79 million
for Used Fuel Disposition activities, including $30 million for generic
process development and other activities related to storage,
transportation, disposal, and consent-based siting, and $49 million for
related generic research and development. The budget also includes a
funding reform proposal needed to support implementation of the nuclear
waste management program over the long term.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
The Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) program drives
electric grid modernization and resiliency in the energy infrastructure
through research and development, partnerships, facilitation, modeling
and analytics, and emergency preparedness and response. OE also serves
as the Federal Government's primary liaison to the energy sector in
responding to energy security emergencies, both physical and cyber.
OE's development of advanced sensors to measure the flow of
electricity in real time is enabling grid operators to monitor system
health and mitigate disturbances.
Roughly 1,700 sensors have now been installed nation-wide,
providing wide visibility of the grid that can prevent the kind of
cascading events that caused the 2003 blackout. OE's cybersecurity
research has produced commercially available tools designed
specifically for the energy sector. Just one example is a tool to
assist the electricity sector assess and strengthen their cybersecurity
maturity posture. This program has been accessed by over 100 utilities
and has now been adapted and released for use by the oil and natural
gas sector. OE also responded to three energy emergency events in
fiscal year 2013, including Superstorm Sandy, facilitating restoration
efforts through trained analysts and responders coupled with the
deployment of the program's near-real time visualization capability,
enabling quicker power restoration and fuel delivery systems.
The budget request, $180 million, includes a substantial increase
for OE, over 20 percent, to emphasize grid modernization and resiliency
in several areas. The budget increase supports the Department's growing
focus on increasing the resiliency of the energy infrastructure through
emergency preparedness and response. From the severe cold weather over
the past winter to extreme storms, including Superstorm Sandy, we have
seen how important these activities are. The Department is also focused
on the growing danger of cyber-attacks and the physical security of the
grid. The budget increases funding to strengthen the energy
infrastructure, critical for national, economic and energy security,
against both natural and man-made hazards, through research and
development and through the establishment of an Energy Resilience and
Operations Center.
The budget increase also helps move the Nation closer not only to a
more resilient grid, but one that is also more reliable, efficient and
flexible through research and development into microgrids and grid-
scale energy storage. It also invests in transformation of the
distribution system toward higher performance through new, more
advanced control systems.
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) program
takes a unique entrepreneurial approach, supporting high-risk high-
reward energy technology research projects that could create the
foundation for entirely new industries, but are too early in their
development for private sector investment. With ARPA-E, we are swinging
from the heels and trying to hit home runs, not just base hits.
ARPA-E has invested over $900 million across 363 projects through
18 focused programs and two open funding solicitations. In the past
year alone, ARPA-E has launched focused programs to improve techniques
to manufacture light-weight metals, develop robust battery chemistries
and architectures for electric vehicles, biologically convert natural
gas to liquids, create innovative semiconductor materials for improved
power conversion, and use solar concentration techniques for hybrid
solar converters. To date, 22 ARPA-E projects have attracted more than
$625 million in private-sector follow-on funding after ARPA-E's
investment of approximately $95 million.
ARPA-E funded companies and research teams have successfully
engineered microbes that use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make a fuel
precursor for cars, developed a one megawatt silicon carbide transistor
the size of a fingernail, produced a new hardware device that regulates
the flow of power on the electrical grid and software that allocates
electricity in much the same way Internet routers allocate bandwidth
throughout the Internet.
The budget request provides $325 million for ARPA-E, a 16 percent
increase, which will be split between an open solicitation to capture
potentially transformational ideas not within the scope of existing
programs, as well as 4-5 new programs looking at critical energy
challenges.
Loan Programs
The Department's Loan Programs Office supports a large, diverse
portfolio of more than $30 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and
commitments, supporting more than 30 closed and committed projects. The
projects that LPO has supported include one of the world's largest wind
farms; several of the world's largest solar generation and thermal
energy storage systems; the first new nuclear reactors to begin
construction in the United States in more than three decades; and more
than a dozen new or retooled auto manufacturing plants across the
country. The program as a whole is performing very well to date, with
losses below expected levels.
The example of utility scale solar shows how the Loan Program can
jumpstart an entire industry. If we think back to 2009, photovoltaic
projects larger than 100 MW were non-existent in the United States. And
there was no commercial financing market for large solar projects.
Using Recovery Act Funds, our Loan Program Office financed the first
six utility scale PV projects in the United States. And these projects
helped prove to private industry that the technology was viable and
cost effective. Since our initial investments, 10 new utility scale
projects have been funded by the private sector.
The budget request includes administrative funds for the Title 17
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. While the budget does
not propose new loan authority or credit subsidies, I would note that
the Loan Program celebrated a number of milestones in the last few
months, including the opening of the Ivanpah solar plant--the world's
largest solar-thermal plant--and the financial closing of two loan
guarantees to support the construction of the Vogtle nuclear reactor
project. We have also begun accepting applications for an $8 billion
advanced fossil energy loan guarantee solicitation, and we look forward
to continue to use the Program's existing authority to support the
President's all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Energy Information Administration
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the statistical and
analytical agency in the Department of Energy. EIA collects, analyzes,
and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to
promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding
of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. In
the last year, EIA released a new Drilling Productivity tool, which has
already received widespread, praised from industry participants and
will also lead to a more accurate baseline for production estimates in
many other of EIA's reports. In 2013, EIA also launched the most
comprehensive portal of the U.S. Government's national and State energy
data currently available.
EIA is important both to the mission of the Department and also to
the functioning of energy markets. The budget request proposes $122.5
million, an increase of 5 percent, to fully support EIA's important
capabilities through upgrades to its infrastructure and the development
of the new products for evolving energy markets.
Energy Policy and Systems Analysis
The Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (EPSA),
established last year, serves as my principal policy advisor on energy
and related integration of energy systems and acts as a focal point for
the Department's analysis and development of energy policy that could
facilitate the transition to a clean and secure energy economy. EPSA
carries out strategic studies and policy analysis, maintains and
coordinates a supporting set of analytical capabilities, and carries
out assessments of the strength, resiliency, and anticipated challenges
of national energy systems.
By identifying and prioritizing ways in which DOE programs may be
strengthened to contribute to the economic well-being, environmental
quality, and energy security of the United States, EPSA plays a
critical role in the Department's policy formulation, and in efforts
like the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) and DOE's crosscutting grid
modernization initiative.
The QER report will provide an integrated view of, and
recommendations for, Federal energy policy in the context of economic,
environmental, occupational, security, and health and safety
priorities, with attention in the first report given to the challenges
facing the Nation's energy infrastructures. It will review the
adequacy, with respect to energy policy, of existing executive and
legislative actions, and recommend additional executive and legislative
actions as appropriate; assess and recommend priorities for research,
development, and demonstration programs to support key energy-
innovation goals; and identify analytical tools and data needed to
support further policy development and implementation.
The budget request for EPSA is $38.5 million, an increase of $22.4
million, to support several key initiatives. The increase primarily
funds the crosscutting grid modernization efforts, as well as analytics
and modeling in support of DOE's responsibility as secretariat for the
government-wide Quadrennial Energy Review.
Indian Energy Policy and Programs
The Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (IE) directs,
fosters, coordinates, and implements energy planning, education,
management, and competitive grant programs to assist Tribes with clean
energy development and infrastructure, capacity building, energy costs,
and electrification of Indian lands and homes. IE performs these
functions consistent with the Federal Government's trust
responsibility, Tribal self-determination policy, and government-to-
government relationship with Indian Tribes, and accomplishes its
mission through technical assistance, education, and capacity building;
research and analysis; and financial assistance to Indian Tribes,
Alaska Native Tribes and corporations, and Tribal energy resource
development organizations.
The budget request, which provides $16 million for Indian Energy
Policy and Programs as a separate appropriation, reflects the
consolidation of our tribal energy programs into a single office.
Science
DOE's science programs provide the technical underpinnings to
accomplish the Department's missions and form part of the backbone of
basic research in the physical sciences in the United States. Almost
28,000 researchers use Office of Science user facilities each year, and
the successful construction and operation of these facilities is
central to the economic competitiveness, national security, and
scientific leadership of the Nation.
The budget request provides $5.1 billion for the Office of Science,
a 1 percent increase above fiscal year 2014. The request builds upon
the Department's strength in the development of large-scale
computational capability. The fiscal year 2015 request supports the
Office of Science in developing next-generation computational tools--
and in applying these tools to many of science's grand challenges, such
as climate modeling and computational material science.
In particular, Science will lead, in conjunction with the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), research focused on developing
capable exascale computing platforms. Maintaining a strong program in
high performance computing will be tremendously important to our
economic competitiveness and national security, and government-wide
coordination of this effort will ensure that the United States remains
a global leader in high-performance computing for science, defense and
industry.
The budget request also supports our ongoing commitment to leading-
edge scientific facilities. The request ramps up construction of the
Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University, which was
dedicated on March 17. The request also continues construction of the
Linac Coherent Light Source II--another example of the many cutting-
edge DOE facilities that provide an unparalleled set of research tools
to tens of thousands of science users.
In fiscal year 2015, we sustain our commitment to our highly
productive Energy Frontier Research Centers and three Bioenergy
Research Centers. The budget request also includes funding for the
Office of Science's two Energy Innovation Hubs, which focus on
batteries and converting sunlight to liquid fuels. I would also note
that I have charged the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to look at
how we can evaluate and continue to improve the performance of the
Department's Hub model moving forward. The Advisory Board's draft
report was released late last month, and I would be happy to discuss
its findings once the report is finalized.
Crosscutting Initiatives
Finally, we have identified a number of areas for crosscutting
initiatives to tackle common challenges and recognize shared
opportunities across multiple DOE offices. I have selected these
initiatives because of their potential to be game-changers in energy
and security, to add value through collaboration and leveraging DOE's
full breadth of research and technologies, and to ensure there is no
duplication of effort. These collaborative efforts extend across DOE's
programs and National Labs and are designed to leverage the unique,
first-class array of facilities and capabilities that exist across the
DOE complex.
The grid modernization initiative implements a unified strategy to
address institutional and technological challenges to creating a more
secure, resilient, and flexible future grid. The initiative enlists the
unique strengths and focuses of four offices: OE, EERE, EPSA, and the
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The subsurface environment is critical to the United States for
energy production, energy and CO2 storage, remediation of
existing legacy waste, and ultimate disposal of future energy wastes.
With the subsurface crosscutting initiative, DOE is bringing together
its Science, Fossil Energy, Environmental Management, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, and Nuclear Energy programs into a coherent,
coordinated approach to common challenges in characterizing,
engineering, monitoring, and controlling subsurface systems in various
geologic environments.
The exascale computing initiative continues research and
development with our Office of Science and NNSA leading to the
implementation of advanced computing systems that will be tremendously
productive for science, defense, and our Nation's innovation
leadership. An approach coordinated across DOE Offices as well as
across the government will help to accelerate that effort. The
Department of Energy is part of an interagency effort to optimize
investments to sustain our Nation's leadership in high performance
computing to the benefit of our research capacity, our nuclear security
and our industrial base.
Supercritical carbon dioxide (SCO2) power systems have
broad potential for substantially lower-cost, higher-efficiency energy
in a number of energy areas. The supercritical CO2
crosscutting initiative continues related work in renewable energy and
fossil energy, and fully-funds a new 10-megawatt supercritical
CO2 technology electric power (STEP) demonstration project
in the Office of Nuclear Energy.
Finally, the cybersecurity crosscutting initiative funds activities
in four offices-- NNSA, OE, Science, and the Chief Information
Officer--to strengthen the protection of DOE from cyber-attacks,
bolster the Nation's capabilities to address cyber threats, and improve
the cybersecurity of the energy sector.
nuclear security
The budget request provides $11.9 billion for our nuclear security
missions, a 4 percent increase over fiscal year 2014, in support of
national security priorities articulated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture
Review, the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, and the 2010
National Security Strategy of the United States, to secure nuclear
materials globally, and to ensure protection of DOE's national security
assets.
Weapons Activities
The Department of Energy is responsible for certifying a safe and
reliable stockpile without testing, as long as we have nuclear weapons.
While budget caps have put difficult constraints on the Nation's
national security enterprise, the interagency planning process--
involving the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National
Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget--created a
revised strategy and budget request that remains committed to the ``3+2
strategy'' to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile while reducing the
numbers and types of weapons in the next two decades.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for Weapons Activities is $8.3
billion, a $534 million or a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2014,
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile, and to
strengthen key science, technology, and engineering capabilities and
modernize the national security infrastructure. The budget request
supports the revised strategy to achieve the B61-12 LEP First
Production Unit (FPU) by fiscal year 2020 and complete production of
the W76-1 warhead by fiscal year 2019. The strategy defers the W78/88-1
Life Extension Program by 5 years, achieves the W88 ALT 370 FPU in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2020, and delays the Long-range Standoff
warhead by 3 years to 2027, while evaluating the option for a future
budget request. Under the strategy, the budget continues engineering
design for the Uranium Processing Facility into fiscal year 2015, and
it continues to support the Nation's current and future defense posture
and its attendant nationwide infrastructure of science, technology and
engineering capabilities. We are also continuing to make the
investments necessary for maintaining continuity of plutonium
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory while reducing safety
risks in the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility and PF-4.
The budget request also includes funding for Defense Nuclear
Security (DNS) to support DOE's physical security reform efforts
emphasizing mission performance, responsibility, and accountability.
The request also provides funding within Weapons Activities to sustain
emergency response and nuclear counterterrorism capabilities that are
applied against a wide range of high-consequence nuclear or
radiological incidents and threats.
In short, the budget request continues to support interconnected
critical life extension programs; rebuilding of infrastructure; and the
continuation of the science and engineering base that we will need in
the long run for certification of the Nation's stockpile.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) fiscal year 2015 budget
request is $1.6 billion, a $399 million reduction from fiscal year
2014. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation continues to
support U.S. leadership in nonproliferation initiatives both at home
and abroad that increase global nuclear security. While we will
continue to support a very robust program, the DNN budget reflects a
substantial reduction, which is a result of difficult choices within
our prescribed budget caps. Further, more than half of the reduction to
DNN's budget is due to reduced funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility.
DNN has had many successes in recent years. Since the President
laid out his nuclear security agenda in 2009, DOE's Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) has removed or confirmed the disposition
of over 3,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU)--enough
material for more than 100 nuclear weapons. These removal activities
have resulted in 11 countries plus Taiwan becoming HEU-free. DNN has
also overseen the downblending of roughly 13 metric tons of surplus
U.S. HEU, and cooperated with Russia in the downblending of about 2
metric tons of Russian HEU. I have just returned from the Nuclear
Security Summit in The Hague where the United States and Japan
announced a program to remove hundreds of kilograms of HEU from Japan's
Fast Critical Assembly.
After the conclusion of a 4-year accelerated effort, the budget
request supports continued efforts to secure or eliminate the world's
most vulnerable nuclear weapon materials. The Global Threat Reduction
Initiative will continue to convert or shutdown HEU reactors, remove
vulnerable HEU and plutonium, and protect additional buildings
containing high-priority materials. The research and development
program will continue to improve capabilities in nonproliferation and
foreign weapons program activity monitoring.
The Fissile Material Disposition program remains a vital
commitment. However, as part of an ongoing analysis of options to
dispose of U.S. surplus plutonium, it has become apparent that the
Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility will be
significantly more expensive than anticipated, and therefore, the
budget request places the MOX Facility in cold stand-by
while the Department evaluates plutonium disposition options. While we
remain committed to the disposal of the 34 metric tons of weapons
plutonium, we must go into a standby mode while we look at the full
range of options.
Naval Reactors
The Office of Naval Reactors supports the U.S. Navy's fleet of
aircraft carriers and submarines by maintaining its unique
infrastructure and advanced naval nuclear capabilities. The fiscal year
2015 budget includes funding for Naval Reactors operations at four
Program sites including two laboratories, two operating prototype
training reactors and spent fuel handling operations
Naval Reactors' request for fiscal year 2015 is $1.4 billion, an
increase of 26 percent ($263 million) over fiscal year 2014 spending
levels. The increase is critical to ensuring maintenance of the high
standards required to operate the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered Fleet and
executing its National Security mission. It further funds research,
development, engineering and testing required to support operating and
future nuclear powered warships.
The Program is advancing the design of the life-of-ship core for
the OHIO-class Replacement submarine and meeting scheduled milestones
for manufacturing and development efforts being performed as part of
the Land-based Prototype Refueling Overhaul. Naval Reactors continues
conceptual design for recapitalizing its spent fuel handling facility
in Idaho. The facility is critical to meeting the Navy's aircraft
carrier refueling schedule.
NNSA Federal Salaries and Expenses
The fiscal year 2015 budget request includes $411 million for NNSA
Federal Salaries and Expenses, formerly the Office of the
Administrator, to support the staffing and Federal support needed to
meet mission requirements. The $33 million increase over fiscal year
2014 primarily results from the congressionally-directed transfer of
Corporate Project Management and $20 million to move the Albuquerque
Complex to a different leased facility.
management and performance
The fiscal year 2015 budget request provides $6.5 billion for
management and performance programs, to support efforts to manage more
effectively and to meet our legal and moral obligations to clean up
nuclear waste from the Cold War. As mentioned, a suite of efforts
supported by the budget aim to improve how effectively we carry out our
missions for the American people.
The budget request moves responsibility for the Environmental
Management program from the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security into a
mainline responsibility for the Management and Performance Under
Secretary in order to improve departmental management and execution of
some of our most technically-complex cleanup missions. We are currently
implementing a reorganization to establish an enterprise-wide approach
to health, safety and security that improves both execution and
accountability. We continue to support diversity, small businesses, and
Native Americans across activities at the Department.
We are pushing forward initiatives to improve the strategic
partnership with the National Laboratories including by establishing a
National Laboratory Policy Council and a National Laboratory Operations
Board to address strategic and management issues with leadership from
the Department and the Laboratories. We are also working to improve
delivery and reduce the cost of human resource functions and IT
services, to strengthen management through new cyber and incident
management councils, and to institutionalize more effective enterprise-
wide project management by convening a senior-level working group with
representatives from across the Department.
Environmental Management
The Environmental Management (EM) program is responsible for the
cleanup of millions of gallons of liquid radioactive waste, thousands
of tons of used nuclear fuel and special nuclear material, and large
volumes of transuranic, mixed, and low-level waste and contaminated
soil and water. The program also supports the deactivation and
decommissioning of thousands of excess facilities across the complex.
The EM Program has achieved a number of recent successes. To
provide just a few examples, the program has completed cleanup at 91 of
107 sites across the country and significant portions of the remaining
16 sites. Sites that once housed large industrial complexes, like Rocky
Flats in Colorado and Fernald in Ohio, are now wildlife preserves. In
December 2013, EM closed two additional radioactive waste storage tanks
at the Savannah River Site, a major milestone that brings the total
number of tanks closed to six. At Oak Ridge, EM recently completed
demolition of the K-25 facility, a mile-long, facility that was once
the world's largest building under one roof. EM has decommissioned and
demolished another 2 million square feet of excess facilities at the
Idaho National Laboratory. And at Los Alamos National Laboratory, EM is
on track to meet its commitment to complete the removal of all above-
ground combustible transuranic waste by the end of June, despite the
temporary closure of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request provides $5.6 billion for
Environmental Management to meet the Nation's legal and moral
imperatives for environmental remediation at DOE sites. The budget
request continues to support cleanup progress at 16 sites across the
DOE complex, including continued progress on environmental management
of the former uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Portsmouth,
and Paducah. EM has successfully completed many cleanup projects. What
remains are some of the most complex cleanup efforts.
For example, the request supports continued construction of the
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and efforts to
resolve the project's remaining safety and technical challenges.
Consistent with the Department's revised option for WTP, which is
designed to move the WTP toward immobilization of waste as soon as
practicable while resolution of technical issues continues, the fiscal
year 2015 budget includes support for analysis and preliminary design
of a Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System. This approach demonstrates
a commitment to complete the Waste Treatment Plant in a realistic and
sustainable way. This will give Congress and the affected communities'
stronger confidence in the Department to get the job done. We will also
continue making tank waste cleanup progress at Savannah River and
Idaho.
The Budget also proposes $172 million for Legacy Management (LM),
the final element of site remediation and closure after active
remediation is complete. LM fulfills the Department's commitments to
ensure protection of human health and the environment and ensure all
contractual obligations are met.
conclusion
The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2015 budget request will
allow it to deliver the innovative and transformative scientific and
technological solutions to energy, security, economic, and
environmental challenges facing the United States in the 21st century.
Through its Science and Energy programs, the budget request will
further the President's Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution
while reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and will support an
all-of-the-above energy strategy. The budget request for Nuclear
Security programs will advance the President's vision for reducing the
levels of nuclear weapons in the world, strengthen nonproliferation
efforts, and combat nuclear terrorism. Finally, the request for
Management and Performance programs will allow DOE to address the legal
and moral imperative of cleaning up legacy nuclear waste and to better
manage our programs on behalf of the American people.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
In the interest of comity and non-partisanship and
progress, Leader, if you would like to----
Senator Alexander. Justice and truth.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, justice and truth, absolutely.
If you would like to ask your questions now, please go
ahead.
THE PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT
Senator McConnell. Well, thank you very much, Chairwoman
Feinstein and Senator Alexander, for the opportunity to make
some brief comments and interact with the Secretary on an issue
very important to my State.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have talked before, and I'm here
to inquire again about your department's long-term plans for
clean-up at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
For 60 years, the plant has been the major economic driver
in far-western Kentucky. The facility, as you know, is now
transitioning following the Administration's decision to cease
enrichment activities there.
I want to thank you for the attention you've given the
Paducah site, and in particular your work on future energy
development opportunities there.
However, I remain deeply concerned with the Department's
long-term plans for clean-up at the site. As you know, the
Administration's decision to cease enrichment at the facility
has already led to hundreds of layoffs of hard-working, highly
skilled Kentuckians and has created a great deal of hardship
and anxiety in the community.
As I've noted in our previous conversations, there are
certain steps that I hope you'll take to mitigate the impact of
the facility's eventual closing by moving forward with this
vital clean-up work.
In that regard, I understand the Department intends to roll
over some funding that was requested by the Administration last
year and appropriated for fiscal year 2014 into fiscal year
2015. So what is the Department's clean-up plan for fiscal year
2014, and how many jobs do you expect those activities to
create?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. We have enjoyed the
opportunity to work with you and other members of the
delegation in terms of Paducah's future. I would note that
basically it was the company that decided to stop enrichment
for market reasons. Now that will return to us and, of course,
our job is to both go towards D&D (decontamination and
decommissioning) while at the same time trying to work to get
new activity at the site, as you mentioned, as we did last
year.
In terms of the rollover, we are now negotiating the
contract for that handover. These large contracts typically in
EM (Environmental Management) have been 12- to 15-month
affairs. They're very complex. They're very long term. They're
very, very large contract commitments.
Senator McConnell. That leads to what I was going to ask
you.
Secretary Moniz. We are trying to accelerate that.
Senator McConnell. Yes, I was going to ask you when you
thought that negotiation might be completed.
Secretary Moniz. We're trying to accelerate that into the
10-month timeframe, which would be the end of the summer time
period. That, in turn, will determine how much carryover there
will be, which we currently estimate will be in the $50 to $70
million range that we will apply to work in fiscal year 2015.
So that's the basic structure.
Senator McConnell. I was troubled to see the phrase ``cold
and dark state'' used by the Administration to describe a
potential condition for the Paducah facility in a recent
Department budget document. I expect the Department to make
decommissioning and decontamination at Paducah a top priority.
Is it your intention to begin full D&D at the Paducah site as
soon as possible?
Secretary Moniz. We certainly want to move into D&D as soon
as possible, and that's going to be a discussion in terms of
the resources available to the program. But we want to do that
as soon as possible. It's certainly in our interest, and I
think it's appropriate for the community.
Senator McConnell. The site has gone without a dedicated
on-site manager for some time as to the vital position as the
facility continues its transition. Do you have any idea when
you're going to fill that position?
Secretary Moniz. My understanding is the applications are
closed. We will fill the position, and my understanding is we
are just evaluating the final candidates. I can get back to you
with a more precise date.
Senator McConnell. Yes, that would be helpful, because I
think everybody is anxious to know when we're going to get
somebody in that position.
And finally, Senator Feinstein, just one more question.
I've heard continually from the community about the frustrating
lack of communication from the Department regarding these long-
term clean-up plans for the site. Will you please work to
ensure the Department takes the community's thoughts and
concerns into consideration when developing these plans and
communicate them more effectively?
Secretary Moniz. We will certainly try. As you know, I've
met with the mayor and others from the town. I think, frankly,
getting our full-time manager in place hopefully will be a
major part of that improved communication.
Senator McConnell. So let me just wrap it up by saying that
you know, you've been very responsible in this, you know that
this is the single biggest driver of the economy in far-western
Kentucky. This is a huge transition for those folks, and to the
extent that you continue to focus on this, we would all be
grateful. This clean-up is obviously going to go on for a
number of years, and I hope it will enjoy a high priority with
you.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator McConnell. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
We'll go back to regular order here.
NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAM FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your comment, and I wrote it
down: ``I want to dispose of 34 tons of weapons plutonium and
have the Russians do the same.'' In this budget, I don't see
how you do it.
If I understand what this is, the time goal set in 2012 for
removing highly enriched uranium from 200 reactors around the
world was 2022. The 2013 budget let this goal slip 8 years, to
2030. Your budget submission lets this goal slip another 5
years, to 2035. This simply is unacceptable at the same time
we're pouring money into the modernization of certain warheads.
It's just unacceptable.
As another example, by 2025, the United States would have
secured the most dangerous radiological materials in over 2,000
buildings in the United States. Now instead, your budget
submission lets this effort slip 20 years, to 2044.
Has there been a change in threat assessment that I'm not
aware of? Are terrorists no longer interested in acquiring
nuclear or radiological bombs for improvised nuclear devices
and dirty bombs? I don't understand how you can defend this
budget on non-proliferation cuts.
Secretary Moniz. Well, Chairman Feinstein, as I said and as
you know, we certainly have a very constrained 2015 budget, and
Administration-wide we proposed again the stockpile plan that
we felt minimized the cost but yet achieved what has been
agreed to I think very broadly in terms of nuclear posture
review what we need for a safe and reliable stockpile without
testing. Given that, we had to make some tough choices, and
that appeared in many places.
Now, as I say, the things like the GTRI (Global Threat
Reduction Initiative) program, et cetera, they do have
reductions, but I'll put it in the glass-half-full context at
least, that I think we have accomplished a tremendous amount.
There has been a surge, really, over the last 4 years with 12
countries, all HEU removed from them, including I think three
in the last year, year-and-a-half.
We will continue that program, and I can assure you that I
personally and, as you said, the President are very, very much
committed to the non-proliferation program, and we hope that
the resources will in the future allow us to accelerate.
THE INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Poneman, ITER, I'm very concerned
about it. The costs are now between $4 and $6 billion to us,
with $850 million spent to date. Major construction will be
completed no earlier than 2023. That's another 4-year slip. And
in October 2013, independent management review of the project
found serious project management challenges, which could lead
to serious, significant cost increases and schedule delays.
I'm really beginning to believe that our involvement in
ITER is not practical, that we will not gain what we hoped to
gain from it, and instead this money could much better be spent
elsewhere.
Mr. Poneman. Chairman Feinstein, we share precisely the
concerns that you've just stated, and indeed quite accurately
in your opening statement. In fact, one review that we
chartered ourselves found many of the shortcomings that you've
identified, and a very hard-hitting management assessment.
What I can assure you, Senator, is we have used these
tools, and particularly the management assessment, which went
to all the seven participating entities, the European
Commission and six nations in the ITER council to say very
bluntly and very clearly that we need to respond, and the
international organization running the ITER project has to
respond to all of those management assessment recommendations,
has to come up with a corrective action plan, and has to
execute it, and we are very much focused on that and holding
them accountable to that, because it is critically important,
if the project is to succeed, that we get our arms around these
exact problems that you state.
Senator Feinstein. Well, we'll talk more about that.
Senator, would you like to proceed with questions?
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I associate myself with the Chairman's comments about ITER.
I don't need to repeat them.
I'd like to make a comment, and then I'd like to ask a
question and give the Secretary a chance to use the rest of the
time to comment on the question, if he'd like to.
My comment--and we can talk about it later--is I'm not very
impressed with a budget proposal to set aside 5 percent of each
Energy office's annual R&D (research and development) budget as
an incubator to support technologies that aren't included in
the program plans--in other words, not included in
congressional oversight. As indicated, you like to fund novel
projects such as the airborne wind turbine, which is basically
a kite with blades that spins around in the air, which should
be a fascinating thing to see.
But I do support the idea of giving the lab directors 6.5
percent of their budgets for what they think is important and
novel. I do agree with that. I think that's a good idea. But I
don't like the 5 percent set aside for each of the divisions,
and I'd like to talk with you about that sometime.
COST SAVINGS FROM IMPROVED PROJECT MANAGEMENT
But I'd like to go back to what I talked about in my
opening remarks. I mean, you have within your department in the
NNSA, almost all, the largest Government construction projects
in the country. You've got them all, just about, all the
biggest ones, and they're headed to the moon in terms of cost.
And if I'm concerned--I'd like to double energy research.
Senator Feinstein is concerned about non-proliferation. We're
talking about saving billions of dollars if we do a better job
of cost control on these big projects.
One of them is in my home State, the uranium processing
facility. It's gone from, early, a $650 million estimate to
maybe $4.5 to $6.5 billion. Well, Tennesseans, we like the
jobs, we like the spending, we have terrific employees who work
there, but we don't want the Government wasting our money. I
mean, we pay taxes too. And I suspect that in other States
which have these big projects, people feel the same way, and I
know you do, too, Mr. Secretary.
The problem has been how do we get a handle on these big,
complex projects? So my question is this: Does the red team
experience so far--and I know we haven't got a report yet on
the uranium facility. But does the Department's Layman Review,
your procedure by which you use to control cost in the Office
of Science, which has worked pretty well, and this beginning
process that you've used with this huge facility at Oak Ridge,
does it offer promise for use on other major construction
projects, perhaps even nuclear weapons?
I mean, this is a 60-day process. That's all it is. And
it's an intensive thing. And then I think the recommendation
will be that it be done every 6 months, that you don't just do
it once and then go away and worry about something else, all
the way through to the end. It's such a simple thing, but it's
the question of accountability and who's on the flagpole and
who's responsible for a specific result.
Can you talk about whether this offers promise? And then
we'll talk about it again at other times.
Secretary Moniz. It certainly does, and as you implied, it
effectively has been used previously. The Science approach is
kind of a red team in the sense that Danny Layman was always
supplemented by outside experts. Another one that I'll mention
is on the plutonium facility. It was effectively a red team.
That has led to the modular approach. The WTP (Waste Treatment
and Immobilization Plant) at Hanford was effectively a red team
that identified previously unidentified technical problems and
provided at least the start for us to provide a new framework.
At UPF (Uranium Processing Facility), we are committed to
$6.5 billion. We are committed to being out of the 9212
building, which we hope can be maintained safely until 2025.
And the red team that Thom Mason is heading is absolutely
critical to looking at what, in effect, will be a modular-type
strategy and a phased strategy that we can accomplish all that
we need in terms of uranium facilities, uranium content for our
weapons, and do it within that budget.
I would also mention that in my first weeks we put together
a cross-agency project management group with the Science
people, the EM people, the NNSA people. We are trying to get
best practices put in. They are all going to be a little bit
different in the way they do it, but with a fundamental
enterprise-wide set of principles, and that project management
function, the enterprise-wide one, will be within the
management and performance organization even as Science and
NNSA, again, operate their review processes using those
principles.
Another, as I mentioned, we will not move forward with
base-lining until we have 90-percent design, and we want to be
realistic. For example, in the WTP project at Hanford, we
declared we can do a phased process; we still have some
unanswered problems. We will not baseline that part of the
project.
So if we can bring realism and discipline, shared
practices, what works--the red team is part of that--I'm
certainly hopeful that we're going to bring these things under
control.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins.
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I'm very pleased today to have the
opportunity to talk with you about what I view as being one of
the most promising renewable energy technologies that the
Department and our country are pursuing, and that is deep-water
offshore wind energy.
This innovative technology has the potential to make the
United States the global leader in a field of clean energy
development, and also to create jobs right here at home. We are
making progress, as you know, in developing the potential of
offshore wind. One project from my home State of Maine actually
received mention in the Department's budget request, which
noted that the project at the University of Maine recently
became the first grid-connected offshore wind turbine in the
United States and represents the first concrete composite
floating platform wind turbine to be deployed in the world.
I am, however, concerned that this is a global race, and
when you look at what's going on in Europe, Europe has built
dozens of offshore wind projects with an installed capacity of
nearly 6,500 megawatts. The United Kingdom has set a goal of
producing nearly one-quarter of its electricity from offshore
wind in the 2020s.
So what my hope is is that we don't lose this technological
edge to a foreign country but rather that the United States
become the global leader in this technology. I'm pleased that
the Administration's budget suggests a commitment to developing
this technology, and I know that DOE is approaching a decision
to select three of six projects for further funding.
My question to you is two-fold. One, is the Department
looking at making us technological leaders, and the factor of
creating domestic jobs? And second, is the Department committed
to a multiyear approach? Because obviously, just 1 year's
funding is not going to allow us to achieve this goal.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator
Collins. There is no doubt, as is evident in our budget, that
offshore wind is what we are focusing on principally in the
wind program. The issue of stimulating our domestic economy is
very important. I will note, for example, the progress of the
last several years where, in today's onshore wind, we have gone
from roughly 25 percent of the supply chain not that long ago
to about 70 percent of the supply chain now being domestically
sourced.
As one goes to offshore wind, we want to make sure we
continue that. So that involves demonstration projects. As you
said, we will down-select three probably in the early summer to
move those forward. We are also in the budget proposing moving
forward with more research studies in terms of how you
integrate with grids in general. Some places are easier than
others to do that.
But also, at the same time, going back to the jobs, et
cetera, and domestic manufacturing, as you know, we have a
strong emphasis on the manufacturing R&D, if you like, moving
that forward with hubs. For example, we just announced a month
ago or so another manufacturing initiative on composite
materials. One of the applications of that will be very large
wind turbine blades. And as you know, these offshore turbines
are going to get very, very large, 5 to 7 megawatts per
turbine.
So we're moving, we think.
THE WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Collins. Thank you. I only have 20 seconds left, so
I'm just going to tell you the topics and ask permission to
submit the questions for the record.
One is the Weatherization Assistance Program. This is so
important to permanently reduce energy costs for homeowners,
particularly in a State like mine, which has the oldest housing
stock in the nation, and obviously rather cold winters, though
I'm mindful that I'm sitting next to the senator from Alaska.
But this winter we beat you, I believe.
And I do have a technical question which I'm going to
submit about the new $15 million competitive State-level
demonstration of financing methods for multifamily units. I'm
not quite sure what you're proposing there, and I will submit
that for the record.
And finally, with the Chairman's agreement, I will submit
some other records, including one on the need for finally for
us to have a nuclear waste storage site. Maine Yankee, Maine's
nuclear reactor, has been closed for years and years, but we
have nowhere to ship the nuclear waste.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. I think we're all in
agreement with your last commentary, and hopefully our bill
will have a pilot project in it, and Senator Murkowski and
Senator Landrieu have before them a big bill that we all have
worked on for some time. So we are very hopeful that we'll be
able to move with the nuclear waste policy.
Secretary Moniz. Amen.
Senator Feinstein. Amen, yes.
Senator Cochran, you are next.
NAVAL REACTORS
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, on a related subject, the
budget request submitted for our review supports additions to
the Office of Naval Reactors to support our Navy's fleet of
aircraft carriers and submarines that are powered by nuclear
power.
My question is: This is a 26-percent increase over the
current year funding level. That sounds like a substantial
increase. But I wonder, is that enough to accommodate the need
for storage facilities and the processing and other execution
of the national security mission that goes with these reactors?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I believe Admiral Richardson feels
that he can accomplish his mission with this rather substantial
increase. The Department of Defense was certainly very
supportive about this. As you know, it's for doing things like
moving forward to the Ohio-class replacement, and
recapitalizing spent fuel handling at Idaho. So, certainly in
discussing with Admiral Richardson, he believes this budget
would certainly allow him to carry forward on these critical
renewal technologies, if you like, for the nuclear Navy.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Landrieu.
THE MOX PROGRAM
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing recently before a
large group of very influential business leaders from
Louisiana. I appreciate your comments about the all-of-the-
above strategy and your focus on the future of natural gas,
which is so important not just to our State but the whole
country.
But I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the
chairman, about her concerns regarding the nuclear
proliferation issues and the disposal of the core of these
warheads and how this is working out for the Nation.
The initial decisions, as you know, years and years ago
were to retire these nuclear warheads. The idea, after study
and study that went on, when Bennett Johnson was the chair of
Energy, which is 20 years ago, was decided that there would be
some new technologies. We know it today as mixed oxide fuel
fabrication facility, which is MOX. The work is
being done, I think, in South Carolina, but the contractors are
all over the country. The idea is to get rid of 34 metric tons,
8,000 warheads on the U.S. side and on the Russian side.
So my question is: There has been some push by the
Department to move this facility into cold standby. I don't
quite understand that. Number one, there is only $240 million
in the budget. I think we need something like $500 million to
continue the work. Why would we put it in cold standby? I
understand the Department has already studied options for
plutonium disposition in both the original environmental impact
statement in 1999 and in 2012.
So my questions are: Did the Department previously conclude
that MOX was the preferred alternative? And if so,
what changes have come up to make us move in a different
direction, as opposed to staying steady on course and getting
this done?
Now, my second question is related. Given that any change
of course would require us to renegotiate with the Russians,
don't you think that might be a little difficult under the
present circumstances? Please respond.
Secretary Moniz. Challenging. Senator Landrieu, to go to
your first question, let me say that, first of all, when the
plutonium disposition agreement was negotiated with Russia,
there were multiple options, specifically MOX and
so-called immobilization as an alternative pathway. As time
went on, then MOX became the choice, in consultation
with Russia.
The issue now is, I want to stress, that standby is not
ending the project. In light of the extremely tight budgets,
again in the 2015 budget, what we saw is one of these cases
where the costs have gone very, very substantially up, again a
$30 billion life-cycle cost for the overall MOX
project. Again, I want to emphasize--I mentioned it earlier,
because there's been a lot of confusion caused when the
contractors are speaking, they are speaking only about the fuel
fabrication facility, which is about a $17 billion life-cycle
cost in their estimate. So it's about $30 billion. The question
is: Could we continue that, and that is obviously a discussion
for the Congress and the Administration.
Senator Landrieu. But this is a very important question for
this committee, and I'm glad that the four corners are here,
the energy authorizers as well as the energy appropriators,
because this was a commitment that we made, a very important
commitment to world stability and world peace and getting
dangerous things easily out of the hands of terrorists. We have
a contract with no alternative, with no alternative; an
inability, in my view, to renegotiate with the Russians now or
for the foreseeable future. And yet this budget is woefully
underfunded for a project that's not only important to jobs
here at home, which is a very important reason, but it's
important to live up to the commitments that we have made.
So I want to agree with both the ranking member and the
chairman that this budget is woefully undercutting these
efforts with no real alternative.
Secondly, my time is out, so I'm going to submit my second
questions, and I appreciate the potential development of wind
and alternatives, but this renaissance of natural gas is game-
changing for our country, for our strength abroad, our economic
strength at home, our ability to build strong and more
plentiful middle-class jobs. I want to submit a question about
that.
And then finally, my third question will be about stepping
up our partnership with Israel now that they have a big game-
changer. They actually discovered oil and gas off the coast of
Israel, our great ally in the Mideast, and what our country is
doing to take advantage of strengthening this partnership and
stabilizing the region.
So I will advance my questions in writing on those two
things.
But, please, Madam Chair, I am extremely concerned about
this MOX facility, and I think Senator Graham shares
those concerns. We've got to just keep this project moving
forward in a cost-effective way.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman of
the Energy Committee. I think your words fall on shoulders that
really agree with you. So I would anticipate some changes in
our process. Thank you very much for the support.
Senator Hoeven, you were up here and your name is here, and
you left for a short time, but I'm going to go back to you and
recognize you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Senator Hoeven. The Keystone XL Pipeline has been in the
process now for 6 years. The State Department released their
final environmental impact statement towards the end of
January. There is a 90-day comment period for agencies, one of
which is yours. I think, then, the process is over, unless I
guess the Administration can come up with something else.
But are you going to comment, and what are your comments on
approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline?
Secretary Moniz. Senator Hoeven, of course, all I can say
right now is that we are generating our comments within the 90-
day period, which is not yet up.
Senator Hoeven. What are they?
Secretary Moniz. Those are still in process.
Senator Hoeven. You don't want to give us, like, a sneak
preview or a hint?
Secretary Moniz. I would have to talk to my staff.
Senator Hoeven. Well, I would strongly encourage its
approval. We worked awfully hard and, I think, met all of the
requirements on repeated occasions. So I would strongly
encourage you to recommend its approval.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORT APPLICATIONS
The second question I have is there are a number of
applications for LNG (liquefied natural gas) export, I think
about 23 that have been provided to the Department of Energy.
Some I think have been pending for between 1 and 2 years.
Obviously, we have a situation in Europe where they're
dependent on gas from Russia, and we need to work not only to
help them and, I think, strengthen their hand so that they can
stand with us to deter Russian aggression, but also it's an
incredible opportunity for our country. States like mine and
others are producing more and more natural gas. It's being
flared off. We need markets for that gas.
So what can you do to expedite those applications? Again, I
think we stand ready here in Congress to help in that process.
I have legislation, along with others, that would provide
approvals for those applications.
So what can you do, and are you willing to join with us in
Congress to try to advance or accelerate that process?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator Hoeven, again. Of
course, I'm very happy to get together and discuss the process,
which, of course, was established back in 2012, the current
process.
A couple of points, if I may make, as context. First of
all, we should kind of note that the approvals to date, which
are conditional approvals--we should also remember that they
won't actually come into existence until 2018, 2019, except for
the first one, which will start at the end of next year. But
the point is it's very important, I think, to get a scale. It's
not like we haven't done anything. We have approved
conditionally 9.3 billion cubic feet per day. That is very,
very close to the entire LNG export of Qatar, by far the
largest exporter in the world, so just to get an idea. This is
an appreciable volume. It's not some small amount. Now, we have
more to evaluate, clearly.
Secondly, when it comes to the issue of--and I understand
that there are a lot of discussions in Congress and elsewhere
about, for example, treating European countries as Free Trade
Agreement countries, as one example.
I would just note that as part of our process, we have a
legal obligation for a public interest determination that
balances domestic market impacts with geo-politics, et cetera,
environmental impacts.
We do not approve cargoes going to any specific place. We
approve applicants to send gas to non-Free Trade Agreement
countries. If we want to start directing cargoes, that would be
a very, very different way of getting into the business plans
and commerce, et cetera. So I just note that as something that
I think needs to be kept in mind.
Third, in the options of extending Free Trade Agreement
privileges to countries without Free Trade Agreements, as a
general comment I would note that those agreements typically
are, as you well know, a long, arduous negotiation of give and
take. The question is whether we want to go around that give
and take in terms of Free Trade Agreements, whether we want to
put aside the public interest determination.
I think these are all questions that we had discussed and
which I'm certainly very happy to do.
Senator Hoeven. Projects like Keystone XL Pipeline and
approving applications for LNG export, for example, I put
together in the Energy Security Act, legislation I have
submitted. We need that both for energy security here and to
help our allies, and I'd ask for your help in accomplishing
those things.
Secretary Moniz. And I would just add, if I may, that--
sorry if we're over, so I'll be very short. But we have always
said that the energy insecurities of our allies is a national
security issue for the United States. So this is certainly part
of the geo-political considerations.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall.
THE B61 LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Under Secretary, thank you both for
being here. I want to thank you for your continued advocacy of
the B61 Life Extension Program. This program is important for
our national security, and I believe the scientists and
engineers at our national labs have made great progress on this
endeavor. Full funding of the program is important to
maintaining this progress. Do you agree that Congress needs to
fully fund the B61 Life Extension Program?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. Well, in the discussions that led to
our submission with the military, we did slip 1 year, but they
agree that 2020 delivery of the first production unit would
meet military requirements, and that would require the budget
as we have submitted to meet that date.
Senator Udall. Which is full funding.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Udall. Yes. Well, I want to thank you for that
answer and for the Department of Energy's commitment to the B61
LEP. While the B61 LEP progresses, it is important to note that
it is not only our legacy weapons that are in need of
refurbishment but the infrastructure of the nuclear enterprise
is continuing to age, and many of our buildings, especially the
CMR (Chemistry and Metallurgy Research) in Los Alamos, are in
need of replacement facilities. Unfortunately, due to NNSA
mismanagement of many of these large projects, the Nation's
analytical chemistry and materials characterization
capabilities are at risk for the future.
THE CHEMISTRY AND METALLURGY RESEARCH REPLACEMENT FACILITY
Mr. Secretary, the NNSA's Governance Review Panel has also
highlighted the problems NNSA has had with managing such large
programs. What are the next steps to address the CMR
replacement facility at Los Alamos, and what are the Department
of Energy's plans to work with the NNSA Governance Review Panel
once their final report is released to reform the NNSA, get
these projects on track, and ensure that taxpayer money is not
wasted in the future?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. Actually, on the B61,
I would add one other thing. Of course, very important for that
is also the way it will lead to a decrease in our number of
weapons and ultimately the retirement of the B83. So I think
this is a very important program to streamline our stockpile.
Senator Udall. And what you're talking about there is if
you can have fewer weapons, they're more accurate, they're more
modern, then you would reduce the overall stockpile.
Secretary Moniz. Exactly, fewer models and eliminate some
entire systems.
Senator Udall. Yes, yes.
Secretary Moniz. On the plutonium facility, again, in the
spirit in which we discussed earlier with Senator Alexander, I
think the modular approach will meet our needs. We clearly need
to be out of the CMR that was built in 1952. Historical
significance is not a criterion for an active plutonium
facility. But we will be using refurbished radiological
laboratories, the PF4, and then we will be adding modules to
eventually get to the 50 to 80 pits per year requirement down
the road.
Senator Udall. And have you fleshed out the modular design
and where you're headed on that?
Secretary Moniz. The first two phases are pretty well set,
and the third phase on the modules, the study is continuing,
but we should be there soon.
Senator Udall. And this Governance Review Panel that you're
going to get the final report on that, I think, where do you
see it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. We expect the Augustine-Mies panel
report in July. We've had very robust, very good discussions
with them. I'll say one thing quite frankly. They have said,
including in their hearing a few weeks ago, that having
engagement at the level of the Secretary in these issues is
critical. I can assure you there will continue to be engagement
in these issues. I believe that we have taken a set of steps in
terms of governance, in terms of culture change which are
completely in the direction that Norm Augustine and Rich Mies,
Admiral Mies have recommended.
As an example, just one example, the reorganization of our
nuclear security functions with much clearer lines of
authority, which has important features like the site officers
reporting directly to the administrator and not having several
intermediate steps.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know I'm out of
time, but I'm going to submit for the record two questions, one
on the waste isolation pilot project and where we're headed
there and with those recommendations, and then also I've been
trying to work with members of the committee on technology
transfer, which I think you've had several reports within the
agency to recommend you move forward. So we'll put those on the
record.
But thank you very much and appreciate your timely response
to those questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Udall.
The vote has begun. It's the first vote due at 3:30. It's
now 3:35. We have three members to go yet, which means we will
not conclude by the second vote. So my plan would be to go down
and vote right now and you handle the meeting, if you will, and
then come back, and hopefully we can conclude.
So if that's agreeable, the next person up is Senator
Graham.
THE MOX PROGRAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
This has sort of been a MOX-centric hearing, and
I just want to acknowledge I think you're a very good choice to
run the Department of Energy. I want to thank the Chairman,
Chairlady and the Ranking Member for the support they've given
the MOX program. Senator Landrieu has been
unbelievably helpful.
I think you gather that we're concerned about
MOX.
Secretary Moniz. I am, too.
Senator Graham. Okay. I know you're very smart, so you got
where we're going on MOX.
Thirty-four metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium could
result in how many nuclear weapons?
Secretary Moniz. Well, that's a question that could be
answered at various levels, but let's just say 9 kilograms is
the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) significant
quantity for plutonium.
Senator Graham. So are we talking about hundreds or
thousands?
Secretary Moniz. Thousands.
Senator Graham. So here's the question for the committee:
What is it worth to the world and to the country to take 34
metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium off the market in Russia
and the United States? That's the question, because you're
talking about thousands of warheads.
As to the MOX program, it is in South Carolina;
that's correct?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Okay. I have been dealing with this for
well over a decade, and so have you. Do you have an analysis
showing the $30 billion life-cycle cost of the MOX
program?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. The report is now undergoing
interagency comment, and we expect to have that completed and
responded to by the end of this month.
Senator Graham. Okay, thank you.
Now, how much would it cost to actually build the facility?
That's not $30 billion, is it? Thirty-billion is the life-cycle
cost for all three buildings; correct?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Okay. So it's about $7 billion; is that
correct?
Secretary Moniz. We would say the to-go cost for the
building itself is $6 to $7 billion.
Senator Graham. Okay. Sixty percent of the construction is
complete; right?
Secretary Moniz. By some counting, yes.
Senator Graham. This committee last year, thanks to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member, dedicated over $403 million to
continue construction. The Administration has put it in cold
standby. Is that your plan?
Secretary Moniz. The proposal is that, again, as we know,
the question is whether the budget can support this. So we
thought that we----
Senator Graham. But my question is----
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Would pause to evaluate
options.
Senator Graham. But my point is that this committee told
you to build the MOX program. We didn't tell you to
study some other alternative.
Secretary Moniz. That is our fiscal year 2015 proposal.
Senator Graham. Well, I'll submit some questions along
those lines. I've only got 2 minutes left.
The bottom line here is that the MOX program is
part of an agreement with the Russians; is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, it is, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. So we've told the Russians that we're
going to MOX our plutonium by turning it into
commercial-grade fuel to be burned in a variety of light-water-
type reactors; is that correct?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, it is.
Senator Graham. Okay. My point is that I want to make sure
that we don't break our agreement with the Russians. I want to
make sure that the people of South Carolina are not left
holding the bag, because there is no alternative to
MOX that's viable, that can meet the time periods
required, and that's cheaper.
Do you really, honestly believe there is a viable
alternative to MOX that will allow the disposition
to go ahead sooner or on time and be cheaper?
Secretary Moniz. There may be. But as we've discussed, all
other alternatives require other discussions.
Senator Graham. What would be some other alternatives?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as I said earlier, the agreement
that was reached with the Russians 15 years ago included
MOX and immobilization.
Senator Graham. So where are you going to put this stuff
when you immobilize it?
Secretary Moniz. As I said, there are other issues to be
addressed.
Senator Graham. There is no plan. There is no viable plan
to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium. There is nobody
going to receive this in an immobilized state. The Russians
have agreed to MOX as the disposition plan 2 years
ago. So I don't know where this is coming from, and I don't
think it's coming from this Secretary, who is a very fine man.
This is a major decision for this committee to address.
We're about to blow a chance to get thousands of nuclear
warhead material off the market forever. You're breaking faith.
Do you agree with me that if you do this, States in the
future are going to be very reluctant to deal with the
Department of Energy, that if after 60 percent of a program is
complete you put it in standby, you ignore the directions of
Congress, you try to come up with an alternative when 60
percent of the program is complete, you change the game 60
percent of the way down the field, don't you think that would
be a wet blanket over future dealings between States and the
Department of Energy?
Secretary Moniz. Well, we have certainly committed to
moving the plutonium out of South Carolina.
Senator Graham. I'm committed to the deal. I'm committed to
the deal that you made with South Carolina. I'm committed to
getting this stuff off the market and finishing the program
that's 60-percent complete that the Nation needs. What is it
worth to take thousands of nuclear weapons off the table and
the world in which we live in? It's worth a lot, and we can do
this a lot less than $30 billion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander [presiding]. Senator Murkowski.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the conversation that we were having
about natural gas, and I appreciate your statement, Mr.
Secretary, that something to the effect of energy insecurity of
our allies impacts our national security here.
I think you pretty much said that when you issued the
license for Jordan Cove last month. The text of the order
provides, ``To the extent U.S. exports can diversify global LNG
supplies and increase the volumes of LNG available globally, it
will improve energy security for many U.S. allies and trading
partners. As such, authorizing U.S. exports may advance the
public interest for reasons that are distinct from and
additional to the economic benefits identified in the LNG
export study.''
I think that pretty much speaks to the role that we can
play here in this country when it comes to our exports and a
recognition that we can be doing so much more for others.
Two questions for you. Do you have any plans to spend
additional Department resources on commissioning yet another
LNG export study, or are we done?
Secretary Moniz. We are always re-examining the situation.
Senator Murkowski. But re-examining is different than what
we did with the export study.
Secretary Moniz. Well, so I think we will have to reach a
decision as to whether we feel--as we re-examine, as you know,
a criterion that was set out in 2012, I believe, is to look at
impacts with cumulative potential exports. And so we continue
to look at supply data. We continue to look at demand data. For
example, there has obviously domestically been an enormous
increase in manufacturing there.
So we keep making these judgments, and I can't say whether
or not that will lead us to say at some point we need a more
formal updating of the analyses that we currently have.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it is something that, again,
you've laid the case out pretty clearly, I think, in this
license, this conditional license for Jordan Cove. I would hope
that we would continue on with the issuance of these licenses
in a manner that is expeditious, that we don't pause, that we
don't spend resources, additional resources on yet more
studies.
You had mentioned the process that DOE currently has in
place regarding the licenses, the licensing came about in 2012,
and you and I have had a limited opportunity to talk about what
flexibility you might have as Secretary to streamline the
permitting process even further. You mentioned a little bit in
your comments to Senator Hoeven.
I have very little time because I have to rush out to the
vote here, but I would hope that you would look to whether or
not there is a possibility to do some reordering within the
queue. It is something that, while this process was set up in
2012 within the Department, it was not set up through
legislation. It appears that you would have a certain amount of
authority that if the Administration recognizes, as you did
with the license in Jordan Cove, that this is truly advancing
the public interest in moving forward with U.S. exports, it's
something that I would hope that you would be considering as
you are weighing these licenses and applications in front of
you.
Secretary Moniz. Again, we are very, very happy to come and
complete our discussions, and with other colleagues here in the
Senate, to see how we might go forward. Right now, as we
discussed, there is a fairness issue in the sense that a
specific ordering was established in 2012, and it does imply
some level of obligation, I suppose.
THE NATIONAL STRATEGY ON THE ARCTIC REGION
Senator Murkowski. Let me go to my next question, because
this is something that I have asked every cabinet secretary as
I've had an opportunity in these appropriations hearings, to
inquire within your Department and the budget that is presented
how you will seek to comply with the Administration's
implementation plan for the National Strategy on the Arctic
Region.
DOE is listed as the lead agency for three programs. You've
got renewable energy resources, climate predictions, and
integration of Arctic regional models. You're also the
supporting agency for other projects.
So what I'd like to know is what funding is included within
the Department's budget for the three programs where you are
the lead agency, as well as any other projects that the
Department is involved with. My concern is we are saying good
things about the Arctic, but we're not seeing that translated
into the budget that has come down from the President, and if
we're going to say the Arctic is a priority, we have to match
resources to the message.
Secretary Moniz. Much of the work that we would do, for
example, on some of the modeling is part of the ongoing
programs. But with regard to things like R&D, for example, I
charged the National Petroleum Council to do a study on what
the Government, what DOE might do in terms of R&D specifically
for the Arctic. So we will get that report back later on this
year.
Senator Murkowski. Perhaps if you and I can sit down to
talk about Arctic strategy, I also have some questions for the
record relating to marine hydrokinetic, as I spill my water all
over me, and geothermal.
Secretary Moniz. Hydrokinetic----
Senator Murkowski. Marine hydrokinetic. It's got great
resource potential. Methane hydrates, geothermal, and some
other areas that are of particular concern to us in Alaska.
Secretary Moniz. Be happy to discuss those with you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
THE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
Senator Murray. Secretary Moniz, thank you. Welcome to, I
think, your first subcommittee hearing. You and I have spoken
several times since you became Secretary, and I do appreciate
your commitment to the Waste Treatment Plant, WTP, and making
progress on our shared goal of treating waste.
But despite our shared goal, I still find myself waiting
after years, I will tell you, of waiting for a comprehensive
plan on the Waste Treatment Plant. The WTP has now been under
construction for over a decade, and we still do not have a real
path forward, and significant technical issues remain
unresolved.
The framework that you put forward in September, as you
described it to me, was not intended to be a proposal but
rather a document for discussion with the State of Washington.
Well, I think it's pretty clear from the State's actions last
week that we are past time for discussions. The State and I
need to see action from your Department, be that on this
framework or something else. It's time for us to move on this,
and if the framework is the right solution, as your budget
request suggests, then we must know that the technology is
proven. We can't be reinventing the wheel again at this stage.
I wanted to ask you today how confident you are that the
direct-feed, low-activity waste is the best course forward for
the Waste Treatment Plant, and what is your level of confidence
in your agency's ability to shift the WTP project into this new
direction and provide proper oversight for the new facility?
Secretary Moniz. Senator Murray, I'm really very confident
that this phased approach, starting with DF Law, is the way to
go. The DF Law will require one new facility but a very
standard technology to clean up cesium, basically, and that
will allow us to get going, and the State has agreed with that.
So I'm very encouraged by that.
Then on the other pieces, the pre-treatment plant and the
high-level waste, well, we just said, look, our approach is to
be realistic. We can set some early milestones, but we have to
resolve these technical problems on criticality and other
things, and that will give us the baseline that we need for the
rest of the project.
I believe in many ways this framework really is a
tremendous improvement on the other framework, not only because
the other framework couldn't work but also because, frankly,
starting with the low-activity waste and gaining the experience
of operating this manufacturing facility, producing glass, et
cetera, will be invaluable. I'm very encouraged by this, but we
were very up-front that we cannot yet baseline the pre-
treatment plant until we resolve some of these problems.
But we published something last week about a redesign of
the pre-treatment plant already in terms of the tanks, which is
going to solve a lot of the problems, not all of them but a lot
of the problems, and we've committed to a second new facility,
which is this new tank waste facility where mixing will go for
the high-level waste.
Senator Murray. And are you confident in the technology on
this?
Secretary Moniz. I'm confident in the technology other than
the questions I cannot answer today because of the research we
need. We are going to do a full-scale tank demonstration with
mixing. That will answer a lot of the questions. If that comes
out as we expect, then I would say I am very confident. But we
have to address these technical issues. We're being very up-
front. They are not resolved. Previously, the plant was
baselined with unresolved technical issues. So I'm just trying
to be honest about it.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNDING
Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate that.
Well, I am also really concerned about the reductions that
you made on the Environmental Management, EM, budget, making
some deep cuts to clean-up sites across the country. The
largest portion, of course, is from the Richland Operations
Office. They have made significant progress on the 2015 Vision,
and in particular on the hazards that could enter the Columbia
River.
However, several high-risk projects close to the City of
Richland, the Columbia River, and the Energy Northwest facility
remain to be completed. The budget 2015 could hamper this
progress, and it really is unacceptable for DOE to kick the can
down the road on this, nor is it acceptable to me and the Tri-
Cities community to put near-term Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)
milestones at risk.
The Washington State Department of Ecology and others have
told me that there are at least four, possibly more, Tri-Party
Agreement milestones that will be placed at risk due to the
budget proposal. Less than 24 hours after this budget proposal
came out, OMB Director Burwell came in front of my committee,
the Budget Committee, and testified that ``legal commitments
are something that are very important and the Administration
takes very seriously and has put forward a budget that we
believe enables us to do that.''
Can you confirm with me that Director Burwell's commitment
that the Federal Government will meet the legal obligations set
forth under the Tri-Party Agreement within the fiscal year 2015
budget request?
Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, we are committed to
both the WTP project and the TPA. After all, they are
interconnected as well. So we understand, this is a system look
at the site that we have to deal with, and the TPA milestones
are very important, as are the Consent Decree milestones which,
of course, we are now renegotiating with the new framework.
The issue is how do we best fit all of this into the
available resources, and that's something I would love to be
able to brainstorm on.
Senator Murray. Are you going to be able to meet those
legal requirements with a $98 million cut?
Secretary Moniz. I will have to look in detail at the
specific milestones. I think it would be better if I got back
to you on those specifics.
Senator Murray. Well, I would appreciate that in writing as
soon as possible.
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Senator Murray. As you know, this is a really intense
situation in our State now. We are all focused on it. We are
well into the chairman's writing this mark, and we need to know
from all of you if this is going to meet the legal requirements
that are set forth.
Secretary Moniz. We'll get back to you promptly.
Senator Murray. I'm deeply concerned it won't. Okay.
I have an additional comment, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. Please, go ahead.
Senator Murray. I just want to mention one final issue.
Washington State has really been a leader in efforts to
develop and demonstrate and deploy a wide array of renewable
energy technologies. A great example of this is the innovative
marine and hydrokinetic research that is currently underway at
our Northwest Marine Renewable Energy Center. It's co-managed
by the University of Washington and Oregon State University.
I wanted to just ask you if you would work with me and the
subcommittee to make sure that the Department is committed to
developing these technologies. I think they're really
important, but I just want you to consult with us and with
everyone involved to make sure that the appropriate Federal
agencies and stakeholders ensure that there's no harm done to
our marine endangered species as we move forward.
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Senator Murray. Okay?
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Murray. And on the other ones, I want you to get
responses back to me as quickly as possible. I know you and the
State are going back and forth on this right now. We have a few
months, a month, less than a month to get our bills out, and we
need to meet these legal requirements, and we need to know from
you if we're going to be able to do that.
Secretary Moniz. We'll be happy to work as closely as we
can with you on all of that, and we'll respond to your specific
question promptly.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Shaheen, welcome.
THE ADVANCED MANUFACTURING OFFICE
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will
try and be quick because I know we have votes, but I just want
to take this opportunity to welcome Secretary Moniz.
It's very nice to have a chance to talk to you in this
setting.
And, Secretary Poneman, it's nice to see you here as well.
I am certainly a strong supporter of energy efficiency
efforts, and I have worked closely and had someone from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy up to New
Hampshire, and I think there has been a great opportunity to
work together. Certainly, the same is true of the Advanced
Manufacturing Office, and I know that they work very hard on
cost-effective programs to help the manufacturing base.
I have been working on energy efficiency legislation with
Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, and one of the concerns that
we've heard from some of the groups and businesses that we've
worked with is that there are some concerns about program
priorities and whether they can be better structured to
maximize energy savings, economic development, and job
creation. It's something that we've tried to address in our
legislation, and I know we've worked with some folks in the
office to try and do that.
But I wonder if you could talk about what steps might be
taken within the Advanced Manufacturing Office to better engage
with the stakeholders who the Office is designed to work with.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Well, first of all, of course,
the Manufacturing Office has got a number of initiatives.
Perhaps the most visible lately has been the manufacturing hubs
which are looking to provide kind of the foundational enabling
technology, manufacturing technology advances that will
underpin jobs in American manufacturing, and there are other
programs with research.
But getting to the stakeholder question, I personally
believe that what we need to do is to have a set of strong
regional focuses, because I think different regions of our
country really have different sets of challenges here.
So I think we'd be happy to work with you in terms of
thinking about how to convene the appropriate groups. Certainly
in industrial New England, this would be one example of that.
Senator Shaheen. Well, and certainly I think the hubs are a
great idea. Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to have
one in every State or every region, at least not in the near
term. So thinking about how we can structure the program's
priorities to address the kind of technology research that the
stakeholders also envision as important I think will be
critical as we look at how to be most effective through that
program going forward, and your help with that would be very
much appreciated.
Secretary Moniz. I'd be happy to visit you in Manchester,
an old manufacturing city.
Senator Shaheen. Good. That's very high-tech now, I would
point out.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
THE BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
Senator Shaheen. My other question has to do with the
Building Technologies Program because, again, it has a similar
interest in saving on energy and benefitting from energy
efficiency. So in what ways can the Building Technologies
Program ensure that it not only continues to develop new
technologies but that it also facilitates that private sector
adoption of those technologies and practices?
Secretary Moniz. I think there are a number of mechanisms.
First, of course, in programs like our loan program, there are
opportunities for energy efficiency, and we will be having
another solicitation later on this year which is both
efficiency and renewables.
Another set of discussions going on in the Congress and in
the Administration are can we bring forward new financing
mechanisms that allows one to aggregate investments which tend
to be smaller and give them a certain liquidity in the market?
For example, real estate investment trusts, a discussion going
on there, should those be brought in in terms of their scope,
because right now they are limited in how they are applied.
There's combined heat and power activities.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Secretary Moniz. So there is a whole set of these, and I
think we would be delighted to sit down and try to go through
those and brainstorm and see what we can add to it.
We have, I might say, added in the last 9 months two places
in our organization specifically focused on State interactions.
One is in our intergovernmental but with a much more active
outreach, and energy efficiency is clearly a major part of
that; and second, in our Energy Policy and Systems Analysis
Office, we have a division, if you like, on state outreach. The
focus this year is on energy infrastructure. It enables
efficiency. In fact, in April I think we will be going to New
England for some meetings on that.
So I think this issue is outreach and I think a strong
State and regional focus that is critical for both
manufacturing and efficiency.
Senator Shaheen. Well, good. I will take you up on your
offer to come to New Hampshire. We'd love to have you.
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Senator Shaheen. Thanks very much.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
THE ALCATOR C-MOD
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask.
This Alcator C-Mod, Mr. Poneman, this will be for you. In
fiscal year 2013 and 2014, you proposed shutting down the
Alcator C-Mod and requested no funding for this fusion reactor
at MIT. You assured this subcommittee that shutting down the
reactor would have no impact on U.S. efforts to support ITER or
the ability to attract future scientists to this field of
science.
I am now questioning ITER, and whether we continue with
that remains to be seen. But as I understand it, your fiscal
year 2015 budget asks for $18 million to conduct research at
this facility. The $18 million is only for 5 weeks of operation
and supports 12 graduate students. This would be $1.5 million
per graduate student. Why did you reverse your decision on
shutting down the facility?
Mr. Poneman. Chairman Feinstein, we have, as you've heard
from the Secretary, in all areas made a number of tough
decisions. We decided that the right thing to do in the case of
Alcator C-Mod was to transition out, to find appropriate
placements for these individuals, and therefore initially we
had not proposed further funding for it. But the Congress did
appropriate the funds, and in order to accommodate a smooth
transition we have provided for, as you've indicated, 2 years
of operations at 5 weeks per year. That will allow the students
who have been working at those facilities to finish their
research at that facility, and then we are working on
transition plans so that they will find other places to pursue
their interest in fusion.
We specifically asked if there was any adverse effect in
terms of other things that we are doing elsewhere, either in
the domestic program or in support of ITER, and we were assured
that that was not the case.
Senator Feinstein. Is it true it's $18 million for 5 weeks
of operation?
Mr. Poneman. We are talking about operating that facility
for 5 weeks in the year. That's true. But, of course, the
students prepare for the full academic year to do the planning
for their activities there. Some of the investment goes for
actually operating the facility, and some of the funds go for
the research that is in support of the facility.
For fiscal year 2015, the request for the $18 million
breaks down $11.855 for the facility operations and $6.145 for
the research.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. My second question--and I'm just told
there's 4 minutes left on the second vote, so I probably won't
be able to ask it, and you're going to be happy that I'm not
able to ask it--is on small modular reactors, and particularly
I'd like to know what BNW decided today at their meeting,
whether they intend to continue or not continue. Can you just
quickly answer that?
Secretary Moniz. Actually, I have not received any
information from their meeting today. They were meeting this
afternoon, I believe.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Ernie Moniz, Ph.D.
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
environmental management
Question. As you know, the Department of Energy (DOE) is legally
obligated to complete the cleanup work of both the Richland Operations
Office (RL) and the Office of River Protection (ORP) at the Hanford
Site in Washington State within timelines agreed to under the Tri Party
Agreement and Consent Decree agreement. I have been clear in my
conversations with you that I expect DOE to meet these legal
obligations.
Secretary Moniz, while I appreciate your efforts to work with the
State of Washington on the Consent Decree milestones, I remain deeply
concerned with the cuts proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget request
for RL. Furthermore, it is disappointing that you could not confirm or
deny whether DOE will meet its legal obligations under the Tri Party
Agreement despite a $98 million cut to the RL budget.
The Washington State Department of Ecology and others have told me
that there are at least four near-term Tri Party Agreement milestones
relating to groundwater treatment, the 200 West Pump and Treat
facility, and the Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility that will be
placed at risk due to the budget request. In addition, I have been told
that milestones in the out-years could be shifted to the right due to
the fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Mr. Secretary, will DOE meet its legal obligations under the Tri
Party Agreement within the fiscal year 2015 budget request for RL. If
DOE believes no milestones will be missed in the 2014-2015 timeframe
due to the fiscal year 2015 budget request, please specify what impacts
the proposed cuts will have on milestones in 2016 and beyond.
I also ask that you explain your plans to ensure that RL receives
the funding needed in future budgets to meet its legal obligations to
complete cleanup along the Columbia River and tackle the remaining
cleanup on the Central Plateau. In building these future budgets, I
remind you that the Richland Operations Office and Office of River
Protection each have their own mission, are separate and distinct
sites, and have independent budgets. It will never be acceptable to me
or the Tri-Cities community to rob RL to pay for ORP.
Answer. The Richland Operations Office (RL) is implementing the
2015 Vision for cleanup of the Hanford site, and RL will make
significant cleanup progress with the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request of $914 million. Assuming Congress appropriates the
President's request, key progress will include continued removal of
radioactive equipment from the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) in
preparation for demolition to slab-on-grade, the start of construction
of a facility and purchase of equipment to remove radioactive sludge
from the K Reactor basin, continued safe operation of radioactive and
hazardous solid and liquid waste facilities, removal of hazardous and
radioactive contamination from 1.8 billion gallons of groundwater,
continued removal of contaminated soil from along the River Corridor,
and progress toward the initiation of demolition of the highly
contaminated 324 Building.
While significant cleanup progress has been achieved and will
continue to be made in fiscal year 2015, several challenges have
impacted our progress on certain important projects. These challenges
include the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, which
enacted sequestration, reduced funding at RL by $78 million in fiscal
year 2013, and the fiscal year 2014 lapse in appropriations and
partial-year Continuing Resolution delayed work. The culmination of
these events is anticipated to delay some fiscal year 2015 milestones
that cannot be met even with additional funds.
To the extent milestones are anticipated to be delayed, DOE will
follow the provisions of the Tri-Party Agreement for working with
regulators regarding milestone adjustments, as necessary.
Question. Secretary Moniz, as we have discussed several times, I
have been asking the Department for a comprehensive plan that will
address how to get the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) back on track and
moving toward completion for several years. The WTP has been under
construction for over a decade now and yet we still do not have a real
path forward and significant technical issues remain unresolved. While
I appreciate the attention that you personally have given to Hanford
and the WTP, I continue to wait to hear from you as to what the
Department believes is the best path forward for WTP and will lead to
our shared goal of treating waste.
Is the ``Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposition
Framework'' which you shared with the State of Washington in September
2013 the comprehensive plan that I have been asking for? Or does DOE
intent to produce this path forward through the Consent Decree process
which the Department and State of Washington just began on March 31,
2014?
Answer. The Department's March 31, 2014, proposal to amend the
Consent Decree is a prudent and reasonable approach to immobilize waste
in a glass form as soon as practicable while working to resolve the
technical issues. The Department is working with the State in the hope
of reaching an agreement on a path forward for the construction and
initial operation of the WTP. Until such time as the Consent Decree is
amended by the Court, there will continue to be some amount of
uncertainty. The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2015
provides the resources needed to move forward with continuing technical
issue resolution, continuing construction on the parts of the Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant not impacted by the unresolved
technical issues, and advance the capability to remove cesium and
solids from liquid tank waste so it may be directly fed to the Low
Activity Waste Facility for vitrification.
Question. In the past month there has been a series of instances at
Hanford where workers in or near the tank farms experienced chemical
vapor related symptoms. While all of the workers were examined and have
been cleared to return to work, this high number of cases is
concerning. It is my understanding from discussions with the contractor
and ORP that several short- and long-term measures are being taken to
ensure the health and safety of workers.
Mr. Secretary, is the Department satisfied with these proposed
measures? While we can never completely eliminate chemical vapors in
the tank farms, does DOE believe the contractor is taking all necessary
measures to reduce exposure and protect the workforce? Is there
additional training that could be conducted at the HAMMER Federal
Training Center to better educate and prepare the workforce on the
issue of chemical vapors?
Answer. Worker and public safety is the most important part of our
work. Doing work safely is paramount to the tank waste retrieval
mission. In response to recent events in which Hanford tank farm
workers reported symptoms of chemical vapor exposure, Washington River
Protection Solutions has taken a number of protective actions. Workers
in C-tank farm, where retrievals are taking place are required to wear
respirators. Workers in the A, AX, AY, and AN tank farms, where
chemical vapors recently have been experienced, are also required to
wear respirators. In addition, respirators are available upon request
to other tank farm workers. WRPS is also working closely with the
Hanford site medical provider to review and communicate its policies
and practices for taking care of workers exposed to chemical vapors. A
Chemical Vapors Solutions Team, a joint WRPS management-employee team,
is evaluating a number of improvements to vapor hazard identification,
vapors control and training. In addition, the Department has engaged
the Savannah River National Laboratory to conduct an independent
technical review of this issue with a focus on comprehensive,
engineered solutions for the issue. The Hanford Atomic Metal Trades
Council (HAMTC) has assigned a safety representative as a member of the
independent review team.
Question. As the Department of Energy continues to make progress at
Environmental Management cleanup sites across the country, communities
adjacent to these sites have been working with DOE to transfer land
back to the community for economic development, historic preservation,
tourism, and recreation. Such land transfers are not only a good way
for the Department to demonstrate the progress made at cleanup sites,
but also serve as recognition of the sacrifices made by these
communities to support the Unites States in years past. I have
supported and continue to support efforts by the Department to transfer
land back to local communities.
Unfortunately, this process has proven to be extremely slow,
inconsistent from one site to the next, and there is a clear lack of
direction from the Department itself. At Hanford for example, RL has
been working on a 1,600 acre land transfer since 2011. Despite a
completed Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the requirements of which this
land transfer meets, RL has at least another year of work before this
land transfer may be approved.
Secretary Moniz, what can the Department do to better facilitate
these land transfers? Would a Department-wide process, which is
consistent from site to site, ensure that such transfers occur in a
more timely fashion? Furthermore, what specifically are you doing to
ensure the schedule laid out by RL for the Hanford land transfer
remains on track and continues to progress as planned?
Answer. All land transfers are unique and must comply with a
complex set of statutory and regulatory requirements. DOE must comply
with the detailed requirements of a number of Federal laws, including,
for example, the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic
Preservation Act and National Endangered Species Act, all of which
require extensive study and documentation. There are a myriad of
``preparatory'' activities ranging from field work (some of it driven
by seasonal conditions) such as sampling and analysis, to coordination
with a range of other State and Federal agencies, stakeholders, and
tribal governments that take time and have to occur before a transfer
for economic development, historic preservation, tourism, or recreation
can be finalized.
The transfer of DOE unneeded property is governed by and
consistently implemented under 10 CFR 770. The Cross-Cut Guidance on
Environmental Requirements for DOE Real Property Transfers (Update) of
2005 (DOE-EH-413/9712; October 1997; Revised March 2005), provides
guidance as the title indicates.
I have asked the Deputy Under Secretary for Management and
Performance to work with the Office of Environmental Management to
ensure that the process we must follow before we can transfer the 1,600
acres at Hanford stays on schedule, and more broadly that all future
excess property transfers are managed as projects with established
schedules, scope, metrics and milestones.
Question. As you know, the Department of Energy works with the
Small Business Administration (SBA) to establish small business prime
contracting goals for each fiscal year. The fiscal year 2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act made changes to allow DOE to count
first tier subcontracts awarded by Management and Operating contractors
to small businesses toward this annual small business contracting goal.
How will the Department interpret and implement Section 318? Have DOE
and SBA set a small business prime contracting goal for fiscal year
2014? If so, was Section 318 taken into account? If not, will this
recent change assist the Department in meeting the fiscal year 2014
goal?
While I supported this change in practice, I am concerned it will
not cover all first tier subcontracts awarded by prime contractors
working on nuclear waste cleanup. In my home State of Washington, the
prime contractors at the Hanford site are committed to working with
small businesses in the local community as well as across the Nation.
All of these prime contractors have small business subcontracting goals
ranging from 49 to 65 percent and all of the prime contractors are
meeting these goals. Unfortunately, these first tier subcontracts are
not counted by DOE or SBA towards the prime contracting goals.
As DOE embarks on determining the fiscal year 2015 small business
prime contracting goals with the SBA, I urge you to be cautious in
scope and requirements given that Section 318 could result in
unintended consequences such as potential delays to nuclear waste
cleanup or job losses at small businesses currently operating as
subcontractors on non-Management and Operating contractors. I ask that
you commit to fully analyzing the impacts of future goals on existing
small business subcontractors and work to do no harm to these small
business subcontractors.
Answer. As you may be aware, the President's fiscal year 2015
Budget requests to delete the provision that considers contract dollars
awarded to small business subcontractors under the DOE's management and
operating (M&O) contracts towards the Department's prime small business
contracting goals. Currently, the DOE Office of Small Disadvantaged
Business Utilization is working with the SBA on interpretation and
implementation of the provision. We note that first-tier subcontracts,
like the Hanford (non-M&O) first-tier subcontracts, will continue to
count towards the DOE small business subcontracting goal.
At the present time, we do not believe that Section 318 will have a
negative effect upon prime or subcontracting achievements on our non-
M&O contracts across the Office of Environmental Management complex.
Subcontractors that have contracts with DOE's non-M&O prime contractors
will still be counted toward DOE's small business subcontracting goals.
Question. With the ongoing challenges at WTP, it has become clear
that large portions of the Hanford site will remain in operation longer
than the Department originally expected. As a result the Department
will need to maintain critical infrastructure longer in order to
support continued cleanup operations. It is my understanding that the
Richland Operations Office will begin planning this year for
infrastructure upgrades to systems like water, electrical, power,
sewer, and roads in the Central Plateau to support start up and
operation of the WTP and continued operation of the Environmental
Restoration Disposal Facility and 200 West Pump and Treat Facility.
Does the Department plan to support funding these necessary
infrastructure improvements in the fiscal year 2016 budget and beyond?
Please elaborate on how the Department will support RL's efforts
despite constrained budgets.
Answer. The Richland Operations Office (RL) is responsible for
providing site-wide infrastructure support to both its own cleanup
activities and operations of the Office of River Protection (ORP). The
Department recognizes the need for and has already begun the planning
for upgrades and maintenance of the infrastructure of systems,
including water, electric, power, sewer, and roads, in order to support
cleanup efforts on the Central Plateau, as well as startup operations
of the Waste Treatment Plant.
Question. The Department of Energy is facing a number of nuclear
waste cleanup challenges, and we must ensure that we have the technical
understanding, scientific approaches, and tools we need to sufficiently
address them. I was encouraged to see DOE's continued commitment to
addressing these challenges through the Technology Development and
Deployment (TDD) program. However, I am remain concerned that DOE is
not using all the tools at its disposal in addressing these challenges,
mainly the national laboratories in their role as federally funded
research and development centers. National laboratories like the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
and the Savannah River National Laboratory have unique expertise and
the technical understanding to address the technology needs at cleanup
sites like Hanford, Oak Ridge and Savannah River.
Please elaborate on how the Department's budget request will
continue these efforts, enable the national laboratories to participate
in devising technically-grounded strategies for the EM mission, and
ensure greater alignment of the TDD program priorities with key EM
challenges.
Answer. We strongly agree that Technology Development and
Deployment (TDD) activities are crucial to the Department of Energy's
(DOE) mission of effectively remediating and closing contaminated sites
on cost and schedule. Investment in our TDD activities also has the
potential to generate significant life-cycle cost savings in this
mission. During fiscal year 2015, the Department will continue to
actively engage and leverage the expertise of its own national
laboratories as it executes its cleanup mission. Moreover, DOE will
continue to take steps to bolster its science and engineering prowess
by establishing formal collaborations with other Federal Government
laboratories and academic institutions. Finally, the Department will
continue to explore opportunities to transfer technology from private
industrial entities that have not historically conducted work sponsored
or funded by DOE's cleanup program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. In the budget justification for the Western Area Power
Administration (Western), the Program Direction section shows an
increase of 16 FTE's at WAPA's headquarters. Can you provide further
explanation for the requested staff increase?
Answer. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) budget
justification does not break out Program Direction by location.
However, of the total FTEs requested in fiscal year 2015 across all
programs, an increase of 17 FTEs is attributable to Western's
headquarters. While these positions are staffed out of Western's
headquarters office, they serve the regional needs across our 15 State
territory. The specific additional FTEs requested are identified below.
Two additional FTEs for Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): In fiscal
year 2013, the Risk Management Office/Program was created to develop an
Enterprise-wide Risk Program adopting data-driven common industry
practices in planning, managing, and mitigating risks Western-wide.
This program contributes to the assurance of continued safe and
reliable power delivery to our customers by addressing emerging risks
that present vulnerabilities in the utility industry. The ERM staff
works across all of Western's activities.
Four additional FTEs for IT specialists for cyber security: Threats
to control systems and enterprise-wide networks are at an all-time
high, nationwide. To protect the grid we are responsibly intensifying
resilience to cyber security attacks by establishing a Network and
Security Operations Center (NSOC) to increase protection by logging,
scanning, alerting, sensor monitoring, and by implementing North
American Electric Reliability Commission (NERC) Critical Infrastructure
Protection (CIP-5). We are working closely with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Electricity and Energy Reliability (OE), and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to implement practices that reduce risk and
vulnerabilities across our large geographical footprint impacting
millions of residential communities and commercial industries. These
cyber security specialists support the regions as well as Western's
data center which is based in Folsom, California.
Two additional FTEs for General Engineers for Asset Management
(AM): Western has initiated a formalized asset management program to
capture data on our portfolio of capital assets more uniformly and
systematically. Capital asset-related workload is increasing to design,
develop and implement strategies, plans and policies for proper
investment valuation and portfolio management, design, construction,
and monitoring asset health, condition, risks and costs. Asset
management is a Western-wide activity.
Two additional FTEs for Attorneys: Workload in compliance,
regulation and evaluation of market impacts is increasing due to
various factors (including, but not limited to, FERC Order 1000, inter-
regional planning and cost allocation; FERC Order 764, integration of
Variable Energy Resources (VER); and Regional Transmission Organization
(RTO)/Independent Systems Operator (ISO) opportunities) which require
precision in assessing legal implications to ensure sound
decisionmaking to protect customer and taxpayers' interests. While
physically located at the Lakewood headquarters, all of this legal work
is on behalf of the regions.
One additional FTE for a Supervisory Public Affairs Specialist:
Significant dynamic change and related issues, within, and external to
Western, drive the need for more communication and multi-faceted
communication strategies. This position will ensure we are meeting the
public need for timely information and effective communication with
DOE, other Federal agencies, stakeholders, customers, Congress, State
and local governments, and tribes.
Two additional FTEs for contract specialists: The positions are
required to meet increased workload demands in procurement, address the
Strategic Integrated Procurement Enterprise System (STRIPES)
implementation, ensure compliance with changing procurement
requirements, enable execution of strategic sourcing initiatives to
promote cost savings and improve efficiencies in material and
acquisition management.
Four additional FTEs for the Transmission Infrastructure Program
(TIP): TIP is a full cost recovery program and these positions.
(Financial Manager, Budget Analyst, Accountant and Project Management
Support Technician) are necessary to meet the anticipated increase in
the number of project proposals that seek to obtain funding through the
use of Western's borrowing authority.
Question. Within Western, what are the Corporate Services Office's
total costs for fiscal year 2013-2015? Please also break out overheads
and direct charges, total dollars as well as overhead rates.
Answer. Total costs budgeted for CSO in fiscal year 2013 were $59.3
million. Of this, $44.4 million was an indirect charge and the
remaining balance was a direct charge.
Total costs budgeted for CSO in fiscal year 2014 are $64.7 million.
Of this, $44.8 million is an indirect charge and the remaining balance
is a direct charge.
Total costs budgeted for CSO in fiscal year 2015 are $67.8 million.
Of this, $50.1 million is an indirect charge and the remaining balance
is a direct charge.
As a general rule, about 80 percent of the indirect costs are
passed into overhead rates. The remaining indirect costs are directly
burdened to construction or operations and maintenance project rates
for the regions.
Question. Western's budget request shows $74,448,000 in alternative
financing for Construction and Rehabilitation. What alternative
financing tools are being used, and how much will be coming from what
sources?
Answer. Western relies heavily on voluntary customer participation
in alternative methods for capital financing to supplement the
appropriations provided for the Construction and Rehabilitation
program. The authority is provided in Public Law 66-389, ``Sundry Civil
Appropriations Act'' (1922). Given customer advances for the
Construction and Rehabilitation program are voluntary contributions,
they are not mandatory; and generally, are not determined until the
funds are required near the execution year. Therefore, it is extremely
difficult to identify with certainty the sources or the distribution.
Western discusses funding needs with customers and discloses the
estimated need for capital resources and its reliance on customer
advance funding in the budget request. The capital needs are requested
from customer groups benefitting from the power system investments.
Question. In Western's ``Program Direction Support Services and
Other Related Expenses,'' the budget request for ``Other Services'' has
grown from $15,086 in fiscal year 2013 to $24,016, an increase of over
35 percent in 3 years. What costs are included in ``Other Services,''
and what amounts are requested for each category?
Answer. Western's increase of approximately $8.9 million in the
fiscal year 2015 President's Budget Request as compared to fiscal year
2013 within its Construction, Rehabilitation, Operations and
Maintenance (CROM) Account, Program Direction, ``Other Related
Expenses'', specifically ``Other Services'' is primarily attributable
to an increase in architectural and engineering services for design
work estimated to be beyond available resources, which will require
outsourcing. Nearly all of the increase in Western's fiscal year 2015
estimate for ``Other Services'' is due to the following design
projects: the Central Valley Project (CVP) Easement Improvement
Project, Keswick-Airport/Airport-Cottonwood Reconductoring Project,
Cottonwood-Olinda Reconductoring Project, Blythe-Parker rebuild,
Coolidge-Valley Farms rebuild, and the Henry-Sievers/Coolidge-Valley
Farms rebuild. NERC/FERC requirements dictate that Western analyze and
mitigate low, medium and high priority issues with our lines. The
analysis piece of this effort is reflected in the fiscal year 2015
estimate for ``Other Services'' and ties into the architectural and
engineering phased activity reflected in Western's 10-year capital
construction plan. Over the last few years, Western has placed an
increased emphasis on performing engineering studies for future
potential/programmed projects prior to the actual start of the project.
Question. This year's budget request has significantly less detail
in describing Western's needs. Why is that?
Answer. The amount of detail that Western includes is coordinated
with the Department of Energy, which in recent years has aggressively
worked to streamline costs by reducing paper, unnecessary detail and
processing. To add value and reduce costs, Western extensively
streamlined the budget request document while maintaining and improving
the quality of the narratives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
lng exports
Question. The shale boom has opened up the possibility of something
previously considered impossible; exporting gas from the United States
to our allies. It is vital, then, that we ensure that permitting and
approval for these export facilities is not held up by unneeded
bureaucracy. The Department of Energy has stepped up its approval
process over the last several months, but it is still not where it
needs to be. There are twenty four projects currently awaiting
approval. Some of them have been waiting for over 800 days. I commend
you on the recent approval of Jordan Cove in Oregon as well as the six
other approved facilities: Cheniere (Louisiana), Freeport (Texas), Lake
Charles Exports (Louisiana), Dominion Cove Point (Maryland), Freeport
(Texas, expansion of earlier approval), Cameron LNG (Louisiana) and
Jordan Cove (Oregon). Combined, these represent 9.27 bcf/day of export
capacity.
What can be done to speed up this process to help open up a freer
market for our allies across the globe and create more critical U.S.
jobs?
Answer. As of April, 2014,\1\ the Department is processing
applications as expeditiously as possible. The Department has
conditionally approved LNG export permits from proposed facilities
equivalent to 9.27 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas (or 96
billion cubic meters a year) that can be exported to countries with
which the United States does not have a free trade agreement that
requires national treatment for trade in natural gas (non-FTA
countries), such as European countries. In addition, the Department has
granted authorizations to export LNG from proposed facilities to
countries with which the United States has free trade agreements that
require national treatment for trade in natural gas (FTA countries)
equivalent to 37.96 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The FTA
authorized volumes are from facilities that include the non-FTA
authorized facility volumes, and therefore are not additive to the non-
FTA volumes authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On May 29, 2014, the Department of Energy announced that in
order to reflect changing market dynamics, the Department is proposing
to review applications and make final public interest determinations
only after completion of the review required by environmental laws and
regulations that are included in the National Environmental Policy Act
review (NEPA review), suspending its practice of issuing conditional
commitments. The proposed changes to the manner in which LNG
applications are ordered and processed will ensure our process is
efficient by prioritizing resources on the more commercially advanced
projects, while also providing the Department with more complete
information when applications are considered and public interest
determinations are made.
The Department's practice of issuing conditional authorizations to
export LNG to non-FTA countries was designed to provide regulatory
certainty before project sponsors and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) spend significant resources for the review of export
facilities required by environmental laws and regulations that are
included in the NEPA review. However, market participants have
increasingly shown a willingness to dedicate the resources needed for
their NEPA review prior to receiving conditional authorizations from
the Department of Energy. In response to these and other developments,
the Department intends to make final public interest determinations
only after a project has completed the NEPA process, instead of issuing
conditional authorizations. By removing the intermediate step of
conditional decisions and setting the order of DOE decisionmaking based
on readiness for final action, DOE will prioritize resources on the
more commercially advanced projects.
The proposed procedural change will improve the quality of
information on which DOE makes its public interest determinations. By
considering for approval those projects that are more likely to
actually be constructed, DOE will be able to base its decision on a
more accurate evaluation of the project's impact on the public
interest. DOE will also be better positioned to judge the cumulative
market impacts of its authorizations in its public interest review.
While it is not assured that all projects for which NEPA review is
completed will be financed and constructed, projects that have
completed the NEPA review are, generally speaking, more likely to
proceed than those that have not.
In response to an evolving market, this proposed change will
streamline the regulatory process for applicants, ensure that
applications that have completed NEPA review will not be delayed by
their position in the current order of precedence, and give the
Department a more complete understanding of project impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are significant volumes. To put it in perspective, the non-
FTA authorized volume of 9.27 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas
is essentially equal to the 2013 LNG exports from Qatar, the world's
largest LNG exporter, more than the total amount of LNG that Europe
currently imports, and equal to over half the natural gas Europe
currently imports from Russia.
keystone xl pipeline
Question. It has been over 5 years since TransCanada first applied
for a permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. This critical
infrastructure project will carry an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil a
day to U.S. refineries and would create over 40,000 jobs and lessen our
dependence on foreign oil. I have been urging for approval of Keystone
XL for over 3 years now. I understand that when the 90-day Federal
agency comment period ends in the coming weeks, Secretary of State John
Kerry will provide the national interest determination of the Keystone
XL Pipeline. I recently led an effort with 10 of my Senate colleagues
calling on the Administration to implement an explicit timeline to get
the national interest determination no later than 15 days after the
comment period ends and a final decision on Keystone by May 31.
Could you define the role of the Department of Energy in providing
input to the State Department regarding the national interest
determination of the Keystone XL pipeline?
Answer. The State Department is responsible, under Executive Order
13337, to determine if granting a permit for the proposed pipeline
would serve the national interest. Consistent with the Executive Order,
the national interest determination involves consideration of many
factors, including energy security, health, environmental, cultural,
economic, and foreign policy concerns. The Department of Energy is one
of several Departments and Agencies that the State Department is
required to seek input from in terms of the national interest. As such,
the Department's input will primarily address the energy security and
energy market implications of the proposed pipeline permit application.
Question. Given that input, do you intend to push for prompt
approval of the pipeline?
Answer. The Department cannot answer this question at this time
because the Department's input addressing the factors required under
Executive Order 13337 are currently being reviewed.
U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement--Binational Industrial
Research and Development (BIRD) Energy Program
Question. The BIRD Foundation was established by the U.S. and
Israeli governments in 1977. It was a priority of Presidents Gerald
Ford and Jimmy Carter, and received its first appropriations in H.R.
4877, the Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 1977. It is a jointly run
venture between the U.S. and Israeli governments, and in my view, is
incredibly efficient. For every $1 of Government funding--half of which
come from the U.S. Government, half from the Israeli government--, the
applicants have to match with at least $1 in private financing. In
2007, we expanded the program and created a BIRD Energy program,
focused on funding innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency
ventures, and the Department of Energy runs it on the U.S. side. The
funding began in 2009, and we've gotten a great bang for our buck. For
every $1 we put in, the joint venture receives a total of approximately
we leverage it $4.50 times:
We have financed innovative companies from Phoenix, Arizona, to
Madison, Wisconsin, to Scranton, Pennsylvania working on solar,
bio fuels, and energy efficiency. As you know, I've introduced
legislation that has passed the Energy Committee, as well as
the House, that expands this program to include innovative
fossil fuel projects. We usually appropriate $2 million a year,
but I am asking for $5 million.
Given the success of the BIRD Energy program, and the expansion we
are supporting, do you think that the program would be able to utilize
the additional bandwidth of $5 million that I'd like to see?
Answer. Based on previous funding cycles for BIRD Energy, it is
unclear whether there would be sufficient high-quality applications to
support this increase in funding. More importantly, this increase in
funding would require matching from the Israeli government, on which
DOE cannot comment.
Question. How else is the Department of Energy supporting Israel's
development of their newfound natural resources?
Answer. The Department of Energy plans to continue to develop its
already strong relationship with Israel on strategic energy matters.
DOE intends to pursue opportunities to enhance its cooperation with
Israel, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Government
of Israel, including the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures,
Energy, and Water Resources (MIEW).
The U.S. and Israeli Governments participated in the annual U.S.-
Israel Energy Meeting in Israel on March 25, 2014. The Energy Meeting
covered topics including natural gas regulation, clean transportation
fuels, the energy/water nexus, energy storage, and critical energy
infrastructure protection, and the Energy Meeting included energy
sector site visits around Israel. The U.S. delegation included
participants from DOE, DOE's National Laboratories, the Department of
State, and the Department of Interior, and was led by DOE. The Israeli
delegation included participants from multiple Government of Israel
agencies, and was led by MIEW.
wind energy
Question. Wind energy holds enormous promise as another source of
energy for our country, and to create a great number of new jobs. I
understand that Maine has had great success in their efforts, but there
are legitimate concerns that other countries will overtake the United
States' competitive advantage. One of the critical pieces of
information to clarify for policy makes is price. I understand that in
most cases, contracts between an operator and a utility are private,
bilateral agreements that are not made public. Given the government's
presence in the wind energy space, and the continued strong interest, I
think it is critical that we have an operating assumption of price, and
how that compares with more traditional sources of energy.
Measured in cost per kilowatt hour, how does wind compare to
consumer costs for energy derived from other sources?
Answer. While energy contracts are often not made public, the Wind
Program has collected data on 302 wind power purchase agreements (PPAs)
representing 24,626 projects, and reports on aggregated trends in the
annual Wind Program-funded Wind Technologies Market Report. Wind PPA
prices generally have been falling since 2009 (from $70/MWh) and now
rival previous lows set a decade ago, with the average levelized long-
term price from wind PPAs signed in 2011/2012 falling to around $40/
MWh. PPA prices are generally lowest in the interior region, where they
are competitive with wholesale electricity prices, and highest in the
west.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/
2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of energy from wind power, in areas with good wind
resources, has decreased from over 55 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in
1980 (current dollars) to under 6 cents/kWh today in the interior
region of the United States. For comparison, the Energy Information
Administration reports that the average retail price of electricity for
all sectors is approximately 10 cents/kWh.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_year/
january2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
high energy physics
Question. As you appropriately put it in your testimony, the Office
of Science:
``Provides the national research community with unique research
opportunities at major facilities for nuclear and particle
physics, energy science, materials research and discovery,
large-scale computation, and other disciplines.''
In many ways, the fiscal year 2015 DOE budget request sustains its
investment in the basic research by providing the Office of Science
$5.1 billion. Unfortunately, that support is not equally distributed.
The budget proposes to cut $52 million from the High Energy Physics
program--Fermi National Accelerator Lab would disproportionately absorb
$41 million of this cut.
While the Department is waiting for the Particle Physics Project
Prioritization Panel (P5) to issue its report in May, detailing a new
strategic plan, the U.S. should at least sustain the current budget,
which is consistent with DOE's previous guidance to P5 that HEP would
receive 3 years of flat funding.
With that in mind, what are the promising directions you see for
U.S. physics community under a flat budget scenario?
Answer. This is a very exciting time for high-energy physics, with
several recent major discoveries that open up new areas of
investigation, including the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN, the
measured large mixing of neutrinos enabling qualitatively new
investigations of fundamental questions, and rapid advances in the
ongoing searches for dark matter and dark energy. While there are more
opportunities to pursue than fit into a flat budget, we expect P5 to
make recommendations for a set of compelling science projects that can
be executed in such a scenario.
Question. The particle physics community is a global community, and
the U.S. is building significant momentum with Europe for the Long
Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) with strong support from Congress
for preliminary work on the project.
What is DOE prepared to do to ensure a robust future for U.S.
leadership in high energy physics and the Long Baseline Neutrino
Experiment?
Answer. The U.S. is currently the world leader in several research
areas in the Intensity and Cosmic Frontiers and is making new
investments to continue this leadership. The U.S. also plays key roles
and has leadership positions in offshore scientific opportunities that
maintain our high visibility and impact in the global HEP program.
Several nations in Europe and Asia as well as CERN have expressed
interested in joining the world-leading neutrino program at Fermilab,
including the Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE), potentially
contributing to both the scientific effort and the detectors and the
neutrino beams. P5 heard from these potential partners while collecting
input and will carefully consider this as they formulate their
recommendations The Department is committed to supporting a robust
program in particle physics including a domestic program that builds on
the infrastructure and expertise at Fermilab to provide U.S. leadership
in the global particle physics effort.
environmental management
Question. While the Department has made significant strides to
reduce the footprint of legacy nuclear waste sites across the country,
the cleanup of smaller sites with non-defense waste has been largely
neglected--forcing these sites to use their own funds to clean up the
waste.
In the last decade, Argonne National Laboratory used its own funds,
which could have otherwise been dedicated to scientific research, to
transport waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New
Mexico. Before WIPP's temporary closure in June, Argonne accounted for
almost half of all the transuranic waste transported to WIPP.
Given that reasonable increases in funding to clean small, non-
defense sites could have a substantial effect on DOE's waste footprint,
what can the Department do to ensure sufficient funding through the
Environmental Management program is given for these activities?
Answer. As the Environmental Management program enters its 25th
year, much progress has been made to clean up and close both small and
large legacy radioactive sites. EM has completed to date 91 sites and
has made significant progress at the remaining sites. The Department's
Office of Science nuclear research and development work at Argonne
National Laboratory resulted in contamination of some research
facilities and the generation of radioactive wastes. As you may be
aware, the Office of Environmental Management (EM) used Recovery Act
funds to achieve a certain amount of cleanup at Argonne, creating the
remote-handled transuranic waste stream that you mention. Once the
Recovery Act funds were spent, the Office of Science continued to fund
the ongoing cleanup of the Alpha Gamma Hot Cell Facility, to the
advantage of both the EM and Office of Science efforts. The legacy work
scope of EM at the Argonne National Laboratory has been completed. The
cleanup of newly generated waste is the responsibility of the Office of
Science.
office of fossil energy
Question. FutureGen 2.0, a project to develop a near-zero emission
coal-fired power plant while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
generating tremendous economic opportunity at the same time, is
scheduled to begin scheduled to begin construction this year.
How does FutureGen 2.0 fit into the larger clean energy strategy at
DOE and the President's Climate Action Plan?
Answer. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an integral part of the
President's Climate Action Plan to safely and cost effectively reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. The Office of Fossil
Energy is working to develop a suite of technologies that can
affordably capture carbon dioxide and then safely and permanently store
or reuse it. The Office of Fossil Energy has a portfolio of commercial
scale CCS demonstration projects, including FutureGen 2.0, and is
intended to demonstrate the technical and commercial viability of these
technologies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
ceiling fans
Question. Has the Department of Energy studied the relationship
between fan use and air conditioning use?
Answer. In response to comments on the framework document regarding
the potential interaction between ceiling fan and air conditioner
usage, DOE published a Request for Information (RFI) in the Federal
Register on October 22, 2013, asking for additional data and
information on the subject (78 FR 62494). DOE reviewed third-party
studies on this topic as well as the 50 comments and data that were
submitted to DOE in response to the RFI. DOE plans to utilize the
knowledge and information gained from the RFI and from independent
research to further study the relationship between fan use and air
conditioning use during the course of the ceiling fan rulemaking.
Question. Does the Department have statistics on the amount of
energy consumption fans save as an alternative to air conditioning?
Answer. DOE does not have statistics on the amount of energy
consumption fans save as an alternative to air conditioning. As part of
the RFI, DOE specifically asked for information and data on consumer
behavior with regards to ceiling fan usage and purchasing decisions.
DOE received varying responses to its request in the RFI with some of
the data indicating that consumers do not adjust their thermostat when
they use a ceiling fan and there is no clear indication that consumers
substitute purchases of ceiling fans for purchases of air conditioners.
In addition, DOE recently released energy efficiency and cost data on
ceiling fans, which generally shows manufacturers can achieve a 35 to
45 percent increase in airflow efficiency with a less than $8 increase
in the manufacturing cost of the fan. At this incremental increase in
manufacturing cost, DOE does not have data that indicates that consumer
purchasing behavior would be impacted.
Question. Will the Department go forward with the rulemaking even
if it lacks empirical data regarding the relationship between fans and
A/C?
Answer. As part of this rulemaking, DOE is interested in reviewing
any and all information pertaining to ceiling fan energy consumption,
including information on consumer usage patterns. Among the data that
DOE has reviewed to date are the following:
--2009 RECS data to indicate usage patterns and ownership rates of
ceiling fan and air conditioning equipment.
--2003 and 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation study
(RASS) and RECS data to identify potential substitution effect
for ceiling fan and air conditioner ownership.
--A Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) study on 400 homes and the
comfort levels provided by ceiling fans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ James, P., J. Sonne, R. Vieira, D. Parker, and M. Anello. ``Are
Energy Savings Due to Ceiling Fans Just Hot Air?'' In Proceedings of
the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 8:89-93.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 1996. Washington D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--An AcuPOLL survey on consumer behavior.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ALA comment, No. 59 at p.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--An SDG&E study with information on ceiling fan and air conditioner
use.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ SDG&E. Statewide Investor Owned Utility Ceiling Fan Study.
Prepared by RLW Analytics. 2002. (Last Accessed April 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--2002 Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) study on 25
households with ceiling fans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The SMUD study was conducted as part of a larger California-
wide study on ceiling fan operational characteristics, and can be found
in Chapter 4 of that study. See RLW Analytics, Inc., prepared for San
Diego Gas & Electric Company, Statewide Investor Owned Utility Ceiling
Fan Study, Chapter 4 (2002) (SMUD Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's report ``Ceiling Fan and
Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in the U.S.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kantner, C.L.S., S.J. Young, S.M. Donovan, and K. Garbesi.
Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kit Use in the U.S.--Results of a
Survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk. July 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE will take into account all of the information during the course
of the rulemaking.
Question. Do you agree that the Department should have sufficient
empirical data regarding these issues before moving forward with a
rulemaking that could result in decreased energy savings while
simultaneously reducing consumer choice?
Answer. DOE plans to consider the impact on consumer choice as part
of the rulemaking. Preservation of consumer choice is addressed by one
of the factors that DOE must weigh when considering energy conservation
standards for ceiling fans as required by statute.
department of energy construction
Question. You commissioned a ``Red Team'' review of the Uranium
Processing Facility led by Thom Mason to look at how to fix the
project. Are you also going to take the lessons learned from the `Red
Team' review and apply that to these other projects whose budgets are
constantly growing?
Answer. DOE/NNSA uses lessons learned from every review to improve
project performance across our portfolio. We perform these reviews
annually and at critical decision points to ensure all projects are
properly progressing. The reviews are staffed with subject matter
experts from across the complex. The reviews focus on the following
areas: Technical; Schedule, Cost, and Risk; Management and Acquisition,
Environmental, Safety, Health & Quality Assurance, and Start-up and
Commissioning. Each review produces recommendations that the project
responds to in a time-phased corrective action plan.
Question. In the Office of Science they do regular reviews of
construction projects. Shouldn't we be doing that with all DOE
construction projects?
Answer. An important improvement driven by the Department's Root
Cause Analysis and Corrective Action Plan, and codified in DOE Order
413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital
Assets (November 29, 2010), and overseen by the Department's Office of
Acquisition and Project Management is the implementation of Project
Peer Reviews, a best practice successfully employed by the Office of
Science, across the Department. Project Peer Reviews provide a means to
monitor project development and execution and foster sharing of design,
procurement and construction lessons learned by leveraging Federal and
contractor staff from across the complex that have requisite knowledge,
skills and experience for particular projects, disciplines, and phases.
Project risks and how they are effectively being managed are central to
these reviews. Results of these reviews are provided to the
Headquarters' Acquisition Executive (which is the Deputy Secretary for
large projects costing $750 million or more, or those specifically
determined to require additional attention) soon after completion of
the review.
incubator program
Question. Could you explain how you could ensure that, if we
approve it, the Incubator Program proposed for EERE would not be
duplicative with ARPA-E?
Answer. The DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) is focused on achieving aggressive and well-defined mid-to-long
term clean energy goals for the United States of America. EERE's
mission and program goals, including its proposed Incubator Programs,
are complimentary to, and not duplicative of, ARPA-E's activities.
EERE works with industry, academia, National Laboratories, and
other partners to craft Technology Office-specific Multi-Year Program
Plans (``roadmaps'')--evaluating pathways for future market potential
and public benefits of clean energy technologies by incorporating in-
house expertise, market awareness, and knowledge of private
investment.\9\ EERE focuses the majority of its resources on a limited
number of ``highest probability of success'' pathways and approaches
identified within each roadmap, to ensure that the program initiatives
are supported at a critical mass (both in terms of dollars and time)
for maximum impact. While this roadmap-based approach is one of EERE's
greatest strengths, it creates inherent challenges in recognizing and
rapidly onboarding new or unanticipated high-potential pathways which
may ultimately be superior to approaches envisioned within the existing
roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For an example of one of these roadmaps, EERE-Bioenergy
Technologies Office's May, 2013 roadmap is available at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/mypp_may_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While EERE strategically plans and evaluates its support of RD&D
activities according to these technology roadmaps, we also recognize
how dynamic innovators in the clean energy economy constantly integrate
new ideas and discoveries to create competitive advantages. The fiscal
year 2015 EERE Budget Request is seeking support from Congress to
include a small fraction of its annual funding for ``Incubator''
programs within each of its technology offices. The Incubator programs
are intended to allow EERE to develop, assess, and screen new
potentially impactful ``off-roadmap'' technologies, which may be ``on-
ramped'' into future roadmaps. DOE's pilot SunShot Incubator Program
began in 2007 and continues to foster innovative solutions across the
Solar Energy Technologies Office portfolio.
In fiscal year 2014, EERE assembled a cross-cutting panel of
technology managers from seven different EERE Technology Offices to
explore what Incubator programs could look like for each office, and as
a result, issued several pilot-Incubator Funding Opportunities
Announcements (FOAs). EERE has and will continue to engage ARPA-E in
order to clarify the distinctions between the EERE Incubator and ARPA-E
awards.
Each EERE Technology Office Incubator FOA is presently intended to
run annually and be open to all applicants within a given technology
area. While ARPA-E also runs several competitive solicitation
processes, ARPA-E seeks potentially transformational and disruptive
technologies that would require substantial revisions of technology
roadmaps beyond that of EERE or industry. This is a significantly
different from seeking ideas that may be added to an established
roadmap.
Question. I also want to make sure this doesn't end up looking like
a slush fund that your program managers can spend on their projects
without involving the Appropriations Committee, like kite-based wind
power that you know we would never approve. Could you explain what
oversight role this Committee would have in the projects this program
would fund?
Answer. Incubator funding may not be used by an EERE Technology
Office Director at his or her discretion, and therefore it is in no way
a slush fund. To spend funding appropriated for an Incubator award, the
Office Director must issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)
soliciting proposals. Each Technology Office FOA is presently intended
to run annually and eligible topic areas and projects would be limited
to Congressionally-authorized EERE program office activities.
Under EERE's procedures, all proposals submitted will be evaluated
and scored by outside independent technology and industry experts in
the field to identify the most promising emerging new approaches using
key criteria such as technical merit, impact on national energy goals,
project research and commercialization plan, and project team
capabilities and resources.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Applications that are determined to be compliant will be
evaluated in accordance with each FOA, and by the standards set forth
in EERE's Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure (76 Fed. Reg.
17846, March 31, 2011) and the guidance provided in the ``Department of
Energy Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance,'' which is
available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/meritrev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This vigorous review process involves written applications
culminating in a Federal Consensus Board recommendation to the
Selection Official. The Selection Official would select projects based
on the recommendations of the Federal Consensus Board, after
considering policy factors. If the Selection Official deviated from the
recommendations of the Federal Consensus Board, the Selection Official
must justify this deviation in writing. Finally, all selections would
be communicated to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of each
Appropriations Committee prior to obligation.
oe emergency operations
Question. Given the small amount of time that these Federal
Regional Energy Advisors would spend under FEMA emergencies, what would
they do the rest of the year, especially in the three FEMA regions
where they haven't been needed since 2012?
Answer. The Regional Energy Advisors (REA) will be composed of
highly technical staff who will be focusing, year-round on three key
areas: (1) risk management, (2) enhancing resilience & reliability, and
(3) cutting edge solutions. The work they would be doing in these areas
would be to help States and regions tackle the unique challenges they
face that require tailored solutions to address resilience and
reliability issues. The ultimate goal is to equip States (as well as
tribal and territorial entities) and critical energy assets owners and
operators with appropriate tools and knowledge to enable them to better
protect from and quickly restore and recover against all hazards. It
also gives each key stakeholder (State and energy asset owner and
operator) the ability to share information with the Federal Government
about their unique State and regional needs. Ultimately, this can serve
to drive R&D and other technical solutions.
Because energy permeates throughout all other critical sectors,
DOE's regional employees will work with other Federal partners within
the region to ensure interdependencies are considered. While other key
Federal partners have regional representation to address resiliency
issues (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigations, Department of Homeland
Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Transportation, etc.), DOE lacks suitable
regional presence. Furthermore, the Department recognizes that not
every energy incident is supported under the Stafford Act nor does it
involve FEMA. Threats such as aging infrastructure, geomagnetic
disturbances, electromagnetic pulse, cyber attacks, or physical attacks
on key components of the electric grid or other energy infrastructure
rarely fall under the FEMA umbrella. There are also high-impact-low-
frequency events such as potential catastrophic earthquakes within the
New Madrid Seismic Zone (directly threatening Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and indirectly
impacting most of the East Coast) or the 2003 blackout that affected 55
million people in the Northeast. Therefore, support to FEMA emergency
response is not the sole driver of the need for the REAs and the
activities they will perform.
In addition, residing within the region provides the Federal
Regional Energy Advisors with the ability to understand needs and
identify some of the trigger points that otherwise could be missed,
especially in this dynamic environment, where new trigger points can
arise as a result of newly emerging threats.
An example to consider is last winter's propane shortage which
impacted the Midwest and Northeast. A number of events triggered the
crisis:
--The agricultural sector experienced a late, wet harvest (Fall 2013)
which required a greater than normal amount of propane to dry
crops;
--A key pipeline was shut down for maintenance (November and December
2013) which moves supplies from Canada to the Midwest;
--A key propane storage facility in the Midwest was shut down for
leak testing which impacted a major propane storage location
before the start of winter); and
--Very cold winter impacting the majority of the Nation.
These events or triggers, when viewed individually, might not draw
national attention due to the relatively low magnitude of the trigger,
but when these triggers are combined, the cascading effects are major.
An embedded DOE employee within the region could have been aware of the
triggers and been able to provide advance warning and recommend
potential solutions well in advance of potential shortages. Moreover,
each of the DOE regional employees will have a direct line of
communication with one another which will facilitate the identification
of geographical interdependencies and a better understanding of trigger
points that extend beyond geographical boundaries.
In summary, the Federal Regional Energy Advisor has a dual role: to
respond to emergencies and to assist States and critical energy
infrastructure owners and operators to minimize energy disruptions as a
result of strong resiliency and reliability efforts. In addition,
having a consistent physical presence opens up communication channels
in both emergency and non-emergency situations. Year-around activities
include but are not limited to:
--Leading DOE's regional mitigation efforts against those regional
threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the
regional energy sector by developing and coordinating
activities with key stakeholders and partners within State and
local government and the private sector.
--Conducting or managing complex analysis of existing systems in
order to assist individual States with identification of energy
policy issues impacting the protection and security of systems
that makeup the energy infrastructure within the assigned
region.
--Serving as technical expert responsible for mapping new strategic
approaches, providing situational awareness and identifying
rapidly changing parameters including trigger points leading to
potential future impacts to the energy sector both inside and
outside of the assigned region.
--Applying expert engineering knowledge of the interdependencies of
the energy infrastructure with other critical infrastructure
and comprehensive understanding by identifying areas vulnerable
to potential threats, attacks, or disruptions.
--Identifying potential opportunities for State and/or regionally-
tailored technology or mitigation solutions to protect or
enhance the resilience of critical energy infrastructure.
--Engaging with States representatives, critical infrastructure
owners and operators, regional Federal partners and
collectively identifying potential requirements for
technological solutions.
--Evaluating systems and concepts, for the purpose of assessing areas
where changes or modification are needed to enhance the
integrity and reliability of the existing energy
infrastructure.
--Performing work to enable integrated assessments of programs,
policies or legislative initiatives affecting the areas
involving electricity and other energy systems.
--Leading regional energy exercises or workshops for States and
representing DOE in workshops led by other regional s agencies
(including FEMA; Army Corps of Engineers; Department of
Homeland Security; Environmental Protection Agency; and
others).
--Collaborating with other DOE Federal Energy Regional Advisors by
identifying dependencies between energy in the region with
different critical infrastructure sectors in other regions and
vice-versa. This includes providing warnings to other Energy
Regional Advisors, DOE Washington DC Office, and Federal
partners about trigger points with potential for future
cascading effects.
Question. Is there another less expensive way to provide this
service without hiring 10 additional Federal workers?
Answer. The level of service envisioned through this structure
would be difficult to achieve without the permanent presence of the
full time Federal employee in the respective regions. Nonetheless, DOE
is exploring less costly alternatives to meet some of those services.
wind
Question. Secretary Moniz, the Department has to prioritize its
research and development funding to make the biggest impact. With all
of the good research and development you have going on at the
Department of Energy, should we really be helping wind developers get
permits more quickly?
Answer. The Department is focused on addressing major market
barriers and challenges to enable wind cost-competitiveness and
increased deployment, including access to transmission and mitigation
of radar, environmental, and permitting issues which can impact access
to higher wind classes and constrain siting decisions. These activities
make the process more efficient and transparent, and reduce investment
uncertainties by enabling realistic capital and operating cost
estimates for financing purposes. Reducing permitting costs and
ensuring that permitting and siting decisions are based on the best
available science has relevancy to all applications (land-based,
offshore and distributed), and is therefore broadly applicable to the
goal of deploying cost-competitive wind power.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
offshore wind
Question. Mr. Secretary, building on my comments on deepwater
offshore wind, another exciting opportunity in marine renewable energy
is tidal power. I would like to highlight one project in Washington
County, Maine: the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project. This project is
the Nation's first commercial, grid-connected tidal energy project, and
is the result of innovative research and development by a Maine company
with research and development assistance from Sandia National Labs, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and a number of institutions of
higher education throughout the U.S., including the University of
Maine. It has been funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the
Maine Technology Institute, and private investors. This project has
already injected more than $25 million into the local economy and has
supported more than 100 local and supply chain jobs. While Congress has
provided critical funding for R&D activities in support of a marine
energy industry in the U.S., I believe that our funding strategy must
also focus on commercialization of promising technologies. The
Department of Energy will continue to play a critical role in efforts
to accelerate the speed and scale of marine hydrokinetic technology
deployment and help secure American leadership in this emerging clean
energy industry. How does the Department's budget request reflect a
strategy of capitalizing on the current levels of investment in tidal
and other marine energy technologies?
Answer. Fostering a domestic MHK industry requires strategic
investments in research, development, testing, and demonstration to
drive down the cost and improve the performance of the most promising
and cost-competitive technologies. The Department plans to invest $30.5
million in fiscal year 2015 to promote MHK technology development and
testing in laboratory and open-water settings, while gathering the
operational, environmental, and cost data needed to accelerate the
responsible deployment and commercialization of MHK technologies such
as wave and tidal. Given the relatively low technical maturity of
devices and the nascent state of the industry, DOE will support the
technological research and development necessary to drive MHK down the
cost curve towards competitiveness with localized electricity markets.
Testing and demonstration will also help drive a domestic MHK industry.
For example, supporting in-water demonstrations, the Water Power
Program will have the opportunity to evaluate the entire innovation
process from demonstration inception to completion, validating
construction, generation, and operating expenses and informing the
investor community on the status and progress of MHK systems. The
Department also expects to compile, analyze, and disseminate
performance data from device testing to enable the validation and
improvement of numerical modeling tools. DOE anticipates that the
datasets will be freely available to entrepreneurs and industry to
allow for the simulation of device array designs and array impacts on
marine surroundings. Continued support of research, development,
testing, and demonstration is expected to be important for helping the
U.S. MHK industry achieve technology cost-competitiveness at local
coastal hurdle rates over the long-term.
nuclear waste
Question. I was encouraged to see that the Department's
Congressional Justification notes the importance of the safe, long-term
management and disposal of used nuclear fuel, and references the
strategy released by the Administration in January 2013 that followed
the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission report. The Maine Yankee site in
Wiscasset, Maine, is one of twelve shutdown commercial reactor sites in
the country that would benefit from an interim storage solution. The
facility is staffed 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The storage fees,
insurance, security and taxes come at the expense of Maine utility
ratepayers. To date, DOE has not fulfilled its obligation to dispose of
this material or removed any spent fuel from the site. An interim-
storage solution would allow old nuclear plant sites to be completely
decommissioned and put to other beneficial community uses. I understand
that there are some State and local jurisdictions that have expressed
an interest in discussing the possibility of hosting a centralized
storage facility, including most recently Governor Perry of Texas. I
certainly hope that the Department has taken advantage of those
expressions of interest and have opened a dialogue with some of these
officials. Can you spend a few moments telling us what you plan to do
with the funding in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus to advance this issue
within your existing authorities?
Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Department is laying the ground
work and developing options for decision makers on the design of an
integrated waste management system. Activities being conducted to
support the Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste and are limited to those that are
permitted under existing legislative authority. These activities
include planning for a consent-based siting process, developing
conceptual designs for interim storage, planning for large-scale
transportation with a focus on used nuclear fuel from shut down reactor
sites, and performing cross-cutting analyses and evaluations of
storage, transportation, and disposal with an integrated, systems
approach.
Question. Can you describe the additional authorities you might
need to allow the DOE to enter into an agreement with a State and local
jurisdiction whereby DOE would take title to the material at sites such
as Maine Yankee and ship that material to a licensed centralized
storage facility in a consenting State?
Answer. Authority is needed that permits DOE to proceed with the
siting, construction and operation of centralized interim storage
facilities. We believe that a linkage between opening an interim
storage facility and progress toward a repository is important so that
States and communities that consent to hosting a consolidated interim
storage facility do not face the prospect of becoming a de facto
permanent facility without consent: however the linkage should not be
such that it overly restricts forward movement on a pilot or larger
storage facility that could make progress against the waste management
mission.
weatherization assistance program
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Weatherization Assistance Program
request comes close to restoring the 2008 funding level as many of my
colleagues and I have been urging. Weatherization plays a vital role in
permanently reducing home energy costs for low-income families and
seniors in all States. With some of the oldest housing stock in the
Nation, Maine has a great many homes that can benefit from
weatherization. I wanted to ask you today about the multi-family
financing demonstration initiative proposed in the budget request. I
noted the proposal to use $15 million of the amount provided for WAP
for what is described as competitive ``State-level demonstrations of
financing methods for low-income multi-family units, including
technical assistance for recipients . . . '' Will you describe in
greater detail what the Department is proposing, including what
financing methods the Department has in mind?
Answer. The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) proposed in
Volume 3 of the Department of Energy fiscal year 2015 Congressional
Budget Request that $15 million be available on a competitive basis for
weatherization assistance for State level demonstrations of financing
methods for low-income multi-family units, including technical
assistance for recipient of the total proposed fiscal year 2015 WAP
funding, $15 million is expected to be used to fund competitively
selected projects to demonstrate the viability of a variety of
financing options, including, but not limited to revolving loan funds
(RLFs), interest rate buy-downs, on bill repayment (OBR) and other
mechanisms in the multi-family residential buildings sector. The
financing models that prove successful could support expansion of
weatherization activities in the underserved residential multi-family
sector.
funding assistance to states
Question. I also wanted to ask about available funding to States.
We struggled to find every possible dollar to fund Weatherization in
the past 2 years, and yet I understand that the Department has not made
all the fiscal year 2013 funds available to the States. Also, I
understand that the funding notice telling States their 2014 funding
level was issued just days before the start of the Program Year.
Moreover, States need to make decision about 2015 funding in the next
few weeks. Why has DOE been unable release all the 2013 funds to nearly
a third of States even though the program year has ended? Do you expect
States will have unspent funding in their Weatherization `pipeline' at
the end of the 2014 program?
Answer. The Department appreciates efforts by members of Congress
to restore Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funding levels.
These formula funds are essential to support the infrastructure of
States and local agencies that provide WAP services to low-income
families throughout the Nation.
For context, the WAP operates on a series of Program Years (PY) for
its 59 grantees (fifty States, District of Columbia, five U.S.
Territories, and three Native American Tribes). Sixteen grantees use an
April 1 PY start date; 31 grantees use a July 1 PY start date; and 8
grantees use an October 1 PY start date.
Congress appropriated $68 million in fiscal year 2012, below prior
years due to the temporary availability of unspent Recovery Act and
prior-year appropriations. In fiscal year 2013, the Congress provided
$64 million for WAP, after sequestration cuts imposed on funding
provided by the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution (CR), which was
based on the fiscal year 2012 level. This funding level is below that
required to maintain the WAP network at minimum capacity.
Once fiscal year 2013 CR funding became available to allocate in
January, 2013, WAP grantees had spent all but $70 million of prior-year
funds. Recognizing the shortfall caused by the fiscal year 2013 CR and
sequestration, DOE reprogrammed $68 million in additional funds into
WAP to help maintain the network. Formulation and congressional
approval of the reprogramming were not completed until June 6, 2013, at
which point DOE developed the final formula allocations. DOE
distributed the official notification of funding availability to the
grantees on June 21, 2013, nearly 6 months later than normal.
In addition, there were several new requirements added to improve
the quality and accountability of applications in 2013 that required
additional time for several grantees. These included: new requirements
for using WAP funds for expanded health and safety purposes; detailed
descriptions of how training and technical assistance funds were to be
used; more details on staffing and other operating costs; and outlining
of implementation strategies for quality control certification and
ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation standards.
As of May 9, 2014, 51 grantees (or 86 percent) have approved 2013
Grant Applications and are spending funds and weatherizing homes. There
are eight grantees (or 14 percent) that still do not have 2013
applications in place. Each has access to sufficient funds to continue
operations until their 2013 funds are made available through the
approval process. DOE anticipates making the fiscal year 2014 awards on
a normal schedule.
DOE expects that there may be a limited amount of funds available
in the pipeline at the end of the 2014 Program Year. This is normal,
since the WAP is a reimbursement program and final quarter reports and
reconciliation occurs after the end of any Program Year. In addition,
grantees and subgrantees operate a ``production line'' business model,
meaning that funds need to remain available when transitioning from one
program year to the next in order to maintain production while
retaining staff, warehouses, vehicles, insurance and other operating
costs. It is normal to expect 60 to 90 days of cash equivalent on hand
at the end of a program year--or $25 million to $40 million--to fund
operations until new contracts can be executed between grantees and
their subgrantees.
As of April 30, 2014, grantees had $107 million available in
unspent funds from Program Year 2013 and previous balances. The grantee
network reports average WAP expenditures of $14 million per month or
$42 million per quarter. The spending levels are lower than normal
because of lower allocations in 2012 and 2013. The network has about 7
months of funding left from all previous allocations.
The 2014 Program Year expenditures are anticipated to begin within
the next 30 to 60 days as new applications are approved. It is expected
that the average per month expenditure will increase to normal levels
($17 million to $20 million per month) now that WAP funding has
returned to near normal. For the last 8 months of the 2014 Program
Year, WAP expenditure should be $120 million to $140 million--leaving a
balance of $35 million to $55 million as transition to the 2015 Program
Year. This is within the normal range for funds available to grantees
and subgrantees from 1 year to the next as described above.
Question. Will you provide an estimate of the program's capacity
for expending the available funding before the start of the 2015
program year?
Answer. As stated in the response to question 2 above, the 2014
Program Year expenditures are expected to begin within the next 30 to
60 days. It is expected that the average per month expenditure will
increase to normal levels--$17 million to $20 million per month--now
that WAP funding has returned to higher levels. For the last 8 months
of the 2014 Program Year, WAP expenditure should be $120 million to
$140 million, leaving a balance of $35 million to $55 million as
transition to the 2015 Program Year. This balance is within the normal
range from 1 year to the next.
Question. Have procurement and contracting processes slowed down
the funding flow?
Answer. DOE has been managing a transfer in WAP procurement
functions from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to the
Golden Service Center in Golden, Colorado. As noted in the DOE Response
to Question 1 above, there were new program requirements associated
with the fiscal year 2013 funding. DOE staff are working to streamline
the application review and approval processes and to ensure timely
approvals of grant applications.
deep offshore wind
Question. The United States has nearly 4,000 GW of offshore wind
capacity within 50 miles, enough to power the U.S. four times over.
Approximately two-thirds of this capacity is in deep water. In order to
foster the development of ocean energy resources, other countries such
as the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Portugal have established
test sites for ocean energy. They have funded environmental-permitting
studies and provided electrical infrastructure, including undersea
cabling and grid interconnection, for these test sites. Private
industry, working with research institutions, has then used these
``ready'' sites to build and test advanced offshore wind turbines and
other ocean energy harvesting devices, spurring further commercial
developments. Considering that the Advanced Technology Demonstration
projects are currently slated to each test one proprietary basic
technology family, their ability to spur innovation could be multiplied
many-fold if we can build on this investment. What role do you see for
DOE to establish national offshore wind test sites that are designed to
test multiple technologies for years to come?
Answer. The Department does not currently have plans to establish
dedicated national offshore wind test sites due to the cost, size, and
timelines needed to test offshore wind systems, as well as the fact
that many challenges for offshore wind are regional and even site-
specific. However, the fiscal year 2015 Budget Request supports
continued operation of world class testing infrastructure to provide a
wide breadth of testing and research capabilities for all wind market
segments. The program will continue to support its existing full scale,
accredited test facilities, and also continue to support the
development of test methods, which are critical for supporting U.S.
wind energy innovation and cost of energy reductions. The test
infrastructure supports wind turbine design testing and wind turbine
component and system research.
For example, the fiscal year 2015 budget supports the development
of blade and drive train test procedures and methods through
partnerships with the Massachusetts Wind Technology Testing Center for
blade testing and the Clemson Large Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing
Facility. These state of the art facilities have unique testing
capabilities and are sized to support the trend toward larger wind
turbines for both utility scale and offshore wind.
The advanced technology demonstration projects for offshore wind
will also test out new innovations in offshore wind technologies,
conduct additional research on topics such as environmental impacts and
interactions between turbines, and share data with DOE to benefit the
industry at large.
Question. In addition, grid connectivity is a huge cost barrier for
smaller projects, and can be estimated near $30-50 million for a
project in the 25 megawatt range that is 10 miles from shore. Has DOE
considered providing competitive funding to permit and construct grid
interconnection for one or more national test sites?
Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the second phase of the competitively
selected Advanced Offshore Wind Demonstration projects will provide
funding and technical assistance, and will support inter-agency
coordination, to accelerate the implementation of the offshore wind
demonstration project by, in part, eliminating uncertainty due to
large-scale market and permitting barriers, including all necessary
grid interconnection requirements.
In fiscal year 2011, the Wind Program also competitively selected
four projects to study the impacts of adding offshore wind to the U.S.
grid. These efforts, which are well underway, include a national multi-
year integration, resource, and technology assessment with
participation from industry, labs, and academia, as well as regional
studies on the Carolinas, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
national arctic strategy
Question. In the Administration's Implementation Plan for the
National Strategy for the Arctic Region, the Department of Energy is
listed as the lead agency for three programs. These include:
--Pursuing development of renewable energy resources;
--Climate predictions; and
--Integrate Arctic Regional Models.
The Department was also designated as a supporting agency for
numerous other projects. The intent of having multiple agencies
involved is to avoid duplication, make the Federal Government's role in
the Arctic more efficient and effective, and enhance the potential for
government support by showing the interest across agencies.
Could you tell me what funding is included in your Department's
budget request for the three programs DOE is the lead agency for, as
well as any other projects the Department is involved in for the Arctic
region?
Answer. DOE supports the National Strategy for the Arctic Region
(NSAR) and its Implementation Plan through various activities across a
number of DOE program offices. The Office of Indian Energy anticipates
allocating approximately $750,000--30 percent of its total technical
assistance budget--to Arctic efforts in Alaska. The Office of Science
has also requested $37 million for ongoing basic research to support
the NSAR. The Office of Fossil Energy has a $15 million budget request
for gas hydrates, which will be distributed across several projects
using future Funding Opportunity Announcements, some of which may be
Arctic-related. Further, the Office of Emergency Operations budgets
$50,000.00 per year for Arctic Council related activities. While the
program is not involved in any of the three programs under the National
Strategy for the Arctic Region, our participation in the Arctic Council
is to address radiological issues.
Question. What is the current status of the WIPP facility and how
does its shutdown impact your current fiscal year budget and your
budget request for the next fiscal year?
Answer. DOE is working to determine the source of the radioactive
release, and multiple entries into the underground repository have been
completed. The teams continue to take videos and photos and gather
technical information for analysis by industry leading experts.
DOE is currently evaluating impacts on fiscal year 2014 work in
progress, and fiscal year 2015 plans, both in response to the fire and
radiological events at WIPP and impacts of the WIPP shutdown on TRU
waste generator sites. The root cause of the incidents is still not
precisely known, so cost and schedule for the recovery plan is still
under development.
lng licensing--jordan cove lng project
Question. DOE issued a conditional license for the Jordan Cove LNG
project last month. According to the text of the order: ``To the extent
U.S. exports can diversify global LNG supplies, and increase the
volumes of LNG available globally, it will improve energy security for
many U.S. allies and trading partners. As such, authorizing U.S.
exports may advance the public interest for reasons that are distinct
from and additional to the economic benefits identified in the LNG
Export Study.'' Do you have any plans to expend additional departmental
resources on commissioning yet another LNG export study?
Answer. As of April, 2014,\11\ the Department has not determined
whether or not to update the 2012 Two-Part LNG Export Study. However,
it bears observing that the Department has found in its most recent
decisions, including Jordan Cove, that the overall conclusions reached
in the 2012 LNG Export Study are still valid. This finding was based in
part on a review of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 which contains the
most up-to-date analysis from the Energy Information Administration. In
order to maintain high confidence in future actions, there may come a
time when the Department seeks to conduct additional study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ On May 29, 2014, the Department of Energy announced plans to
undertake an economic study in order to gain a better understanding of
how potential U.S. LNG exports between 12 and 20 billion cubic feet per
day (Bcf/d) could affect the public interest. Using more recent data
from sources like the Annual Energy Outlook 2014, the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) will update its 2012 LNG Export Study,
which only looked at export cases of 6 and 12 Bcf/d. Following the EIA
update, DOE will again contract for an external analysis of the
economic impact of this increased range of LNG exports and other
effects that LNG exports might have on the U.S. natural gas market.
While these studies are underway, the Department will continue to act
on applications as stated above. To date, the Department has issued
final authorization for export to non-FTA countries at a rate of 2.2
Bcf/d. If at any future time the cumulative export authorizations
approach the high end of export cases examined, the Department will
conduct additional studies as needed to understand the impact of higher
export ranges. At all levels, the cumulative impacts will remain a key
criterion in assessing the public interest.
Both the EIA study and the external analysis of economic impacts
will be made available for public comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How much flexibility do you have, as Secretary, to modify
DOE's licensing process with an eye towards streamlining?
Answer. As of April, 2014,\12\ DOE could modify its licensing
process, but it would need to be done carefully, with a reasoned
explanation for changing course, while taking into consideration the
fairness to applicants and responsiveness to market forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ On May 29, 2014, the Department of Energy announced that in
order to reflect changing market dynamics, the Department is proposing
to review applications and make final public interest determinations
only after completion of the review required by environmental laws and
regulations that are included in the National Environmental Policy Act
review (NEPA review), suspending its practice of issuing conditional
commitments. The proposed changes to the manner in which LNG
applications are ordered and processed will ensure our process is
efficient by prioritizing resources on the more commercially advanced
projects, while also providing the Department with more complete
information when applications are considered and public interest
determinations are made.
The Department's practice of issuing conditional authorizations to
export LNG to non-FTA countries was designed to provide regulatory
certainty before project sponsors and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) spend significant resources for the review of export
facilities required by environmental laws and regulations that are
included in the NEPA review. However, market participants have
increasingly shown a willingness to dedicate the resources needed for
their NEPA review prior to receiving conditional authorizations from
the Department of Energy. In response to these and other developments,
the Department intends to make final public interest determinations
only after a project has completed the NEPA process, instead of issuing
conditional authorizations. By removing the intermediate step of
conditional decisions and setting the order of DOE decisionmaking based
on readiness for final action, DOE will prioritize resources on the
more commercially advanced projects.
The proposed procedural change will improve the quality of
information on which DOE makes its public interest determinations. By
considering for approval those projects that are more likely to
actually be constructed, DOE will be able to base its decision on a
more accurate evaluation of the project's impact on the public
interest. DOE will also be better positioned to judge the cumulative
market impacts of its authorizations in its public interest review.
While it is not assured that all projects for which NEPA review is
completed will be financed and constructed, projects that have
completed the NEPA review are, generally speaking, more likely to
proceed than those that have not.
In response to an evolving market, this proposed change will
streamline the regulatory process for applicants, ensure that
applications that have completed NEPA review will not be delayed by
their position in the current order of precedence, and give the
Department a more complete understanding of project impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
marine hydrokinetics and test centers
Question. Coming from Alaska, I am a big supporter of funding to
advance development of a marine hydrokinetic industry, producing so-
called ocean wave, tidal, current and thermal energy. I see your water
power budget does call for a $3.9 million increase in funding, to $62.5
million, a rather modest increase apparently directed toward more
convention hydropower from non-powered dams. My concern is that you
seem, by this budget, to be cutting funding for wave, tidal and current
energy down to about $30 million from $41 million this year and $35
million in fiscal year 2013. This industry is on the cusp of
demonstrating commercial systems, but needs more help with funding of
additional demonstration projects to prove the commercial viability of
systems and to get projects into the water to prove their efficiency
and durability. This budget doesn't seem to provide enough funding for
demonstrations, plus the continual need for research and testing
centers. By comparison, wind is being proposed for a $26.8 million
increase and wind is a very mature technology. Why isn't the Department
devoting more to fund research and demonstrations for marine
hydrokinetics?
Answer. EERE is taking MHK research, development and demonstration
seriously, and does believe it has an important role in the
Administration's ``all of the above'' energy strategy moving forward.
Given the relatively low technical maturity of devices and the nascent
state of the industry, significant technological research and
development is necessary to drive MHK down the cost curve towards
competitiveness with localized electricity markets.
In fiscal year 2015, the Department's Budget Request reflects a
more equitable split across MHK and hydropower. The $30.5 million
requested in fiscal year 2015 for MHK allows the Water Power Program to
continue its ongoing efforts to advance water power technologies and
accelerate their market adoption. For example, the fiscal year 2015
Request supports continued MHK applied research and development and
testing of innovative component technologies designed specifically for
the challenges of the marine environment, and testing and research to
address key environmental uncertainties that arise within the rapidly
developing industry, among other activities. In summary, the
Department's Budget Request provides the priority and funding stability
necessary to continue making progress in marine and hydrokinetic
technologies.
Question. Let me follow up. Congress in 2007 created the National
Marine Renewable Energy Centers to conduct research on marine
hydrokinetics and that legislation gave them the authority, at least in
DOE's past views, to test and verify the performance of MHK devices.
This year you seem--admittedly with congressional involvement in the
fiscal year 2014 consolidated budget bill--to want to recreate the test
centers inside DOE. I can live with the Department wanting a testing
facility, but only if the Department does not sacrifice all its already
sunk investments in the test centers. Will you continue to provide
operational plus planning and construction grant funding for
competitively selected open-ocean deep water wave energy testing
facilities if we approve this budget?
Answer. The Water Power Program will aim to test and demonstrate
the viability of MHK systems at pre-permitted open-water site(s)--that
is, at existing sites and test facilities that DOE has helped to
develop for which FERC licenses and environmental assessments have
already been secured. While the Department is continuing to support
ongoing work such as the fiscal year 2013 Wave Testing Infrastructure
Development Funding Opportunity and existing collaborations with the
Navy's Wave Energy Test Site, no new funding is planned in fiscal year
2015 for the planning or construction of deep-tank or open-ocean deep
water wave energy test facilities.
Following Congressional intent in the explanatory statement
accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act, the
Department will not provide funding support for a deep tank test
facility in fiscal year 2014. The Department will not replicate any
existing research and device verification facilities, including any
facilities that might exist at DOE NMRECs.
methane hydrates
Question. Mr. Secretary your budget calls for a $14.4 million
increase in funding for natural gas technologies. And it mentions your
plans to ``conduct lab and field-based research'' on methane hydrate
dynamics. Back in 2012 the Department conducted what appeared to be a
very successful test in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil field of technology
using carbon dioxide to help unlock methane from hydrate structures--a
test predominately paid for by industry including the Japanese. I want
to see enough funding in your budget to support practical testing of
technology to unlock methane hydrates, while also adequately funding
research to understand the hazards and environmental issues with
tapping this resource. Exactly what amount and type of field research
is the Department intending to undertake in fiscal year 2015 by this
proposal?
Answer. In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, appropriations
were used to fund Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) to re-engage
the research community and the National Labs in the development of a
comprehensive portfolio of projects which researches and addresses
critical issues in methane hydrate R&D and the resulting resource,
hazard, and environmental implications. A total of 21 projects were
awarded supporting laboratory, modeling (including analysis of the data
acquired during the successful arctic testing during fiscal year 2012
that you referenced), and to a lesser extent, field research
opportunities in the areas of resource characterization and increasing
the understanding of methane hydrates' role in the natural environment.
For fiscal year 2014, DOE issued a FOA for applications that focus on
two technical areas: (1) field evaluation of the potential resource
through scientific tests in Alaska, and (2) field programs for marine
gas hydrate characterization. In fiscal year 2015, the increased
appropriation requested will be utilized to fund the field projects
awarded through the fiscal year 2014 FOA.
Question. Are you planning a year-long flow test of this technology
in your budget to be conducted with help from the State of Alaska and
the oil industry on Alaska's North Slope? And is the funding sufficient
to fund such a test?
Answer. The nature and duration of any project is dependent upon
the projects that are proposed and awarded in response to the fiscal
year 2014 FOA. The State of Alaska has reserved lands on Alaska's North
Slope which can be utilized for arctic methane hydrate research, and
potential applicants are aware of the availability of those State
lands. The fiscal year 2014 FOA makes it clear that applications
proposing highly-leveraged projects (i.e., a high recipient cost-share)
are anticipated.
Question. Does your budget provide enough money to do both in the
coming year?
Answer. The $15 million request provides adequate funding to ensure
steady progress towards our goal of furthering the scientific
understanding of naturally-occurring gas hydrates; understanding the
links between methane hydrates and global environmental processes; and
the resulting resource, hazard, and environmental implications. Field
testing and resource characterization projects will be designed to
simultaneously provide research on environmental implications.
geothermal energy
Question. The geothermal budget proposes a hefty increase of $15.7
million. I have supported increases in recent years to push enhanced
geothermal system technology and demonstrations. The biggest risk in
geothermal is finding the exact location of the resource to reduce
expensive exploration drilling. What are we getting for that increase?
Answer. The Geothermal Technology Office budget request will allow
us to advance the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal
Energy (FORGE), which DOE hopes will accelerate a commercial pathway to
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) development in the United States. EGS
is critical as it provides the potential to create viable geothermal
resources that otherwise might be commercially impractical. In
addition, the increase proposes key initiatives intended to reduce the
cost and risk of geothermal development, such as critical materials,
play fairway mapping, and the new subsurface crosscut that seeks to
accelerate innovation in below ground R&D across DOE. Play fairway
mapping and resource confirmation from temperature gradient wells or
slim hole exploration wells holds excellent potential for locating and
testing resources in a cost-efficient manner.
Specifically, the increased funding reflects a number of key
initiatives that will diversify the Geothermal Technologies Office's
RD&D portfolio:
--the initiation of site characterization activities for the EGS
FORGE initiative;
--validation of play fairway maps through targeted exploration of
slim hole and/or temperature gradient well drilling to
characterize and confirm the most prospective geothermal areas
identified;
--funding to advance extraction of important materials from
geothermal brines --such as lithium, zinc or manganese--as
additional value streams to power production; as well as
additional funding for advanced direct use, and cascaded
surface technologies whose applications extend the reach of
geothermal beyond the western U.S.;
--an incubator activity that will fund high-impact ``off-roadmap''
geothermal technologies and help industry surmount critical
technological barriers to commercialization; and
--a subsurface crosscut initiative that leverages DOE resources and
expertise to address common subsurface R&D challenges across
the agency.
Question. Exactly what will we get from additional EGS funding in
fiscal year 2015 and what will we get from your ``play fairway'' effort
to provide better public assessments of exploration risks--I assume new
nationwide heat maps--showing the real potential and location of
conventional geothermal resources?
Answer. EGS.--EGS has advanced from a long-term vision to a
commercially-viable growth opportunity for geothermal, with an
estimated resource potential of 100+ GW in the U.S. The National
Renewable Energy Lab further estimates that in-field and near field EGS
projects have the near-term potential to add 7-10 GWe in the U.S.
alone, at highly competitive rates and at very low risk. Building off
of GTO's successful portfolio of EGS demonstration projects, the
Geothermal Technologies Office is focused on creating and accelerating
a replicable commercial pathway to large-scale, domestic EGS power
production through the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal
Energy (FORGE) initiative. The fiscal year 2015 request focuses on site
characterization at FORGE, to identify the best candidate site for
developing a DOE-managed site for high-risk and transformative EGS
testing and validation--at a larger and more complex scale than the
current EGS demonstration portfolio.
Play Fairway.--In January 2014, EERE/GTO announced $3 million to
spur geothermal energy development using play fairway analysis, a
technique that identifies prospective geothermal resources in areas
with no obvious surface expression. These mapping projects, which will
be regional in nature, are intended to focus on using existing geologic
and geophysical data to develop maps that identify areas with a higher
probability of containing a geothermal resource. While commonly used in
oil and gas exploration, play fairway analysis is not yet used in the
geothermal industry. By improving success rates for exploration
drilling, this data-mapping and analytical tool could help attract
investment in geothermal energy projects across mapped regions and
significantly lower the cost of geothermal exploration. The ultimate
goal is to move beyond the ``known geothermal resource areas''
(identified by industry and the government in the 1970s and 80s) to a
new and more-highly reliable approach to resource and opportunity
mapping.
Question. Are you making any progress in that regard and exactly
how will funding in fiscal year 2015 produce better results?
Answer. The Geothermal Technologies Office has made significant
progress in our EGS R&D and demonstrations portfolio, which serves as
the technical foundation for our FORGE initiative. Similarly, the
Office has made key advancements over the years in our Innovative
Exploration Technologies, and those lessons learned undergird the Play
Fairway Analysis initiative. The Play Fairway Analysis competitive
announcement was issued in January 2014, and the Department is
currently reviewing applications; the FORGE competitive announcement is
scheduled for release in Q3 fiscal year 2014. Requested fiscal year
2015 funding is expected to advance the next phase of development in
both the FORGE and Play Fairway efforts, which were launched in fiscal
year 2014. Planned activities in fiscal year 2015 include:
--FORGE. The identification and initial characterization of a FORGE
site that maximizes scientific and operational return on
investment with the broadest applicability to future industry
activity. We expect to issue the FORGE competitive announcement
in Q3 fiscal year 2014.
--Play Fairway. Validation of play fairway maps through additional,
select data collection such as temperature gradient wells. We
expect to announce awardees of the fiscal year 2014 FOA by Q4
fiscal year 2014.
renewables construction aid
Question. Given the Administration's concerns about carbon
emissions, I would think this administration would want to encourage
construction of renewable energy generation projects. Back in 2007
Congress passed two provisions that I sponsored in the Energy
Independence and Security Act, Section 803 for all renewables and
Section 625 for solely geothermal projects in high-cost areas, that
provided grants of up to 50 percent to aid in the actual construction
of renewable energy projects. The Department has never proposed to
provide any money to fund such grants, even in years such as 2009 when
it received vast additional funding under the terms of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Why is the Department so adverse to
modify its priorities and provide some assistance to implement these
matching grants for projects in high-cost areas and actually bring more
low-carbon energy production on line?
Answer. Section 803 and section 625 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) allows 50:50 cost share of renewable energy
construction grants. To date, the Department has not requested funding
for Section 803 or 625. In alignment with the Department's mission, DOE
believes that investment in research and development will provide the
maximum rate of return on taxpayer investment as compared to more
expensive, location-specific demonstration and deployment projects. For
instance, EERE's total fiscal year 2015 budget request for renewable
electricity is $521.3 million. Even if this amount were matched by
private cost share, it would be dwarfed in comparison to what is
invested in building renewable energy projects with other policy
incentives. However, the Department will look to sponsor, when
appropriate, demonstration projects where applying this authority to
validate new technology performance and economics in high cost areas
could spur follow-on private investment and be replicated at scale. DOE
looks forward to working with Congress and other government agencies to
determine the best policy mechanisms and existing authorities to
incentivize private investment in building new renewable energy
projects.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility
Question. The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request asked for
money for construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
(MOX). Congress authorized and appropriated funds in fiscal
year 2014 for this purpose. However DOE now plans to use the money to
put MOX in cold standby.
What does ``cold standby'' mean?
Answer. The Department has determined and communicated to the
contractor, MOX Services, that we will continue with
construction activities through 2014, retaining the key nuclear
engineers and other highly-skilled workers that will be needed
regardless of the path forward. The NNSA intends to work with the
contractor on a plan for placing the project in cold standby during
fiscal year 2015, and we are continuing our ongoing discussions with
Congress as they review and evaluate the fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
Beginning in fiscal year 2015, the Department intends to place the
MOX project in a reversible cold standby condition,
preserving the taxpayer investment while we independently validate
whether there is a more efficient path forward to dispose of excess
plutonium. As part of these efforts, we would stop design and
construction activities not required to support placing the
MOX facility in a safe and secure state. This action will
minimize costs while working with MOX Services to develop a
detailed cold standby execution plan. This plan would include but not
be limited to closing and securing design documents, developing
equipment maintenance and preservation plans, completing work efforts
to protect the site such as closing construction openings, closing pipe
and conduit, and securing purchased materials, and developing a
staffing retrograde plan for professional and craft labor. We will
complete subcontracts where it is more cost effective to finish or take
delivery rather than suspending or terminating a subcontractor's
performance. We will account for and protect Government property,
records, and data and perform any other activities that the project
teams believe need to be taken to preserve the Government investment
should the project be restarted.
Question. How much cost will it add to the MOX program
to put the facility in cold standby? How much would it cost the
taxpayer to terminate the MOX program?
Answer. If the MOX project were placed in cold standby
we would minimize costs to the greatest extent and preserve the
taxpayer investment while we independently validate that there is a
more efficient path forward to dispose of excess weapons plutonium. The
MOX project has not been terminated.
Question. When do you plan to send the program direction letter to
the site?
Answer. A letter of direction was provided to the contractor on
April 30, 2014 directing MOX Services to continue
construction through September 2014 in accordance with the fiscal year
2014 execution plan they had previously submitted.
john macwilliams
Question. During our multiple meetings on MOX, you and
John MacWilliams both stated that after studying the alternatives you
chose MOX as the preferred path forward. John MacWilliams
also communicated this to the contractors late last year. What changed
during the budget process that led DOE to put the program in cold
standby?
Answer. It became clear during the analysis of plutonium
disposition options that given the continuing cost increases and other
contributing challenges, the MOX fuel approach will be
significantly more expensive than anticipated. Given a life cycle cost
estimate for the program of approximately $30 billion, we determined
that it would be best to pause and to look at our options.
plutonium agreement with south carolina
Question. Is there any way for the government to comply with the
terms of 50 USC 2566 which mandate a metric ton of plutonium leave
South Carolina by January 2016? Specifically under existing
authorities, how can DOE remove a ton of plutonium from SC by the date
required in the statute? Where would it be stored?
Answer. We understand our commitments under the current
legislation, and we will look to ensure compliance with the law. The
Department will submit a report to Congress on options for removing an
amount of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials from the
State of South Carolina equal to the amount of defense plutonium or
defense plutonium materials transferred to the State of South Carolina
after April 15, 2002.
u.s.-russia plutonium management and disposition agreement
Question. The President's budget states that the Administration
``is committed to the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement'' yet it puts the only disposition path for plutonium in
``cold standby.'' These statements seem to conflict. How do you
reconcile them?
Answer. The Administration recognizes the importance of and remains
fully committed to the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement (PMDA), whereby each side commits to verifiably dispose of at
least 34 MT of weapon-grade plutonium. The PMDA specifically provides
authority to the Parties to agree on any disposition methods that are
not already provided for in the agreement. Therefore, a decision to
place the MOX facility in cold standby in no way diminishes
the U.S. commitment to the PMDA.
Question. Will the budget request require the U.S. to renegotiate
that agreement with Russia?
Answer. No. Article III, paragraph 1 of the PMDA reads:
``Disposition shall be by irradiation of disposition plutonium as fuel
in nuclear reactors or any other methods that may be agreed by the
parties in writing.'' Therefore, the Parties already have the authority
to consider and agree on other disposition methods.
Question. Is now the best time to start renegotiating a
nonproliferation agreement with Russia?
Answer. Since the PMDA already gives the parties the right to agree
on other disposition methods, incorporation of a non-irradiation
disposition method would not require renegotiation of the agreement.
Question. What concessions do you expect Russian's will ask for if
the U.S. pushes to renegotiate the PMDA?
Answer. Russia has indicated that it remains committed to the PMDA
and to its program.
negotiations with russia
Question. Regarding negotiations with Russia, On April 4, Anne
Harrington testified before the House that, ``we had an unexpectedly
sympathetic reaction'' when discussing the challenges of
MOX. Can you give greater context to this comment?
Answer. In the context of budget considerations for the U.S.
disposition program, Russian interlocutors made reference to the period
in 2006-2007 when cost considerations on their side led them to propose
a change in their disposition program to concentrate on options that
would be much more closely aligned with their own planned nuclear
energy program, and by analogy appeared to be indicating a sympathetic
reaction to U.S. budgetary constraints. Russia had conceded the point
that disposing of plutonium is a costly effort.
Question. When did this conversation take place?
Answer.
When: April 5, 2013
Participants: DOE/NNSA (Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Fissile Materials
Disposition Peter Hanlon), and
Russian Official (Vladimir Kuchinov,
Advisor to Rosatom Director General)
Discussion: Briefly discussed the fiscal year
2014 budget request and the
beginning of the U.S. analysis of
plutonium disposition options.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: April 9, 2013
Participants: DOE (Deputy Secretary Poneman) and
Russian Officials (Nikolai Spassky,
Deputy Director General, Rosatom
State Corporation for Atomic Energy
of the Russian Federation)
Discussion: Discussed with Russian officials the
fiscal year 2014 budget request and
the beginning of the U.S. analysis
of plutonium disposition options.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: April 25, 2013
Participants: DOE/NNSA (Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Fissile Materials
Disposition Peter Hanlon), and
Russian Official (Vladimir Kuchinov,
Advisor to Rosatom Director General)
Discussion: Discussed with Russian officials the
nature of the U.S. analysis of its
plutonium disposition options in
light of the fiscal year 2014 budget
request.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: December 5, 2013
Participants: DOE (Deputy Secretary Poneman) and
Russian Officials (Nikolai Spassky,
Deputy Director General, Rosatom
State Corporation for Atomic Energy
of the Russian Federation)
Discussion: Brief call regarding the meeting on
December 10, 2013.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: December 10, 2013
Participants: DOE (Secretary Moniz and Deputy
Secretary Poneman) and Russian
Officials (Rosatom Director General
Kiriyenko and Ambassador Kislyak of
the Russian Federation to the United
States)
Discussion: Provided an update on the ongoing
U.S. analysis of plutonium
disposition options.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: December 18, 2013
Participants: DOE/NNSA (Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Fissile Materials
Disposition Peter Hanlon), and
Russian Official (Vladimir Kuchinov,
Advisor to Rosatom Director General)
Discussion: Updated Russian officials on the
status of the U.S. analysis of
plutonium disposition options.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: March 3, 2014
Participants: DOE (Secretary Moniz) and Russian
Officials (Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak,
Ambassador of the Russian Federation
to the United States)
Discussion: Brief call to update Russian
officials on the status of the U.S.
plutonium disposition program.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When: March 11, 2014
Participants: DOE/NNSA (Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Fissile Materials
Disposition Peter Hanlon), and
Russian Official (Vladimir Kuchinov,
Advisor to Rosatom Director General)
Discussion: Briefly discussed the fiscal year
2015 budget request for U.S.
plutonium disposition program and
updated status of the U.S. analysis
of disposition options.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Question. What conversations has our government had with the
Russians regarding MOX?
Answer. Please refer to the question above.
savannah river site plutonium
Question. What is the current disposition path for the 12.8 MT of
weapons grade plutonium already at the Savannah River Site?
Answer. Of the 12.8 MT, the planned disposition path for
approximately 7.8 MT is through the MOX fuel approach, some
of which is contingent on completing NEPA analysis. The preferred
alternative for the remaining material as identified in the July 2012
Draft Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement is
at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
Question. Does DOE plan to ship more plutonium to South Carolina
before the issues surrounding disposition are resolved?
Answer. As of January 1, 2014, the Department has suspended any
further transfers of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials
for processing at the MOX facility to South Carolina.
Question. What has DOE done since the budget was released to
continue negotiations with the contractors to bring down the cost of
the program?
Answer. We have had discussions with the contractor about ways to
reduce costs and intend to continue to do so.
japanese plutonium
Question. Recently, the New York Times reported that the
Administration is seeking to bring over 700 pounds of weapons grade
plutonium from Japan to the United States for disposition. Where does
the U.S. plan to store this material in the United States?
Answer. NNSA continuously looks to identify additional nuclear and
radiological materials that should be removed to eliminate the risk
that they could fall into the hands of terrorists. In all cases, NNSA
works with its foreign partners to identify the best disposition
pathway to eliminate material, and anticipates removing or
dispositioning approximately additional 1,100 kg of highly enriched
uranium (HEU) and plutonium through 2022.
DOE has yet to make final determination as to where the material
from Japan will be received and stored. Before a final determination is
made, DOE will follow all requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
Question. What is the disposition path for this material?
Answer. DOE has yet to make final determination as to where the
material from Japan will be received and stored.
Question. Under 50 U.S.C. 2566, can you send this material to SRS?
Answer. 50 U.S.C. 2566 applies only to defense plutonium materials
to be processed by the MOX facility. The material from Japan
has not been designated to be processed by the MOX facility.
Question. SC DHEC sent a letter to DOE requesting a waste
determination be completed on this plutonium prior to making plans to
ship the material to SC. Can you commit to honoring this request?
Answer. DOE will ensure that you and this committee are informed
when a final determination is made as to where the material from Japan
will be received and stored.
______
Questions Submitted to Hon. Daniel B. Poneman
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
bonneville power administration
Question. Deputy Secretary Poneman, as you know I have been closely
following the Department of Energy and Bonneville Power
Administration's (BPA) actions since DOE's Inspector General first
reported findings of unlawful and discriminatory hiring practices
effecting veterans and others seeking employment at BPA in July 2013.
The failures in BPA's hiring system and its impacts on veterans are
simply unacceptable.
While I am encouraged by the steps that you and Administrator
Mainzer are taking to fix the problems within BPA's human resources
department, your priority should continue to be ensuring that all
veterans who were disenfranchised are made whole. To that end, please
provide me with an update on the ``get well-plan'' you announced in
October 2013. Specifically:
How is the work on reconstructing the more than 1,200 hiring cases
progressing? It was my understanding that it was your goal to complete
the reconstruction by September 30, 2014. Is the Department on track to
meet this goal?
Answer. The Department is making good progress toward the September
30 goal for completion of the reconstruction process. As of May 2, the
case reconstruction process is as follows:
--Total Cases--75 percent of all cases have been reconstructed
--Delegated Examining cases (jobs that were open to the public)--74
percent complete
--Merit Promotion cases (jobs that were open only to current Federal
employees and those with a special status allowing them to
apply)--82 percent complete
--BID List (blue collar positions open to current BPA employees
only)--100 percent complete
--Ninety-nine priority placements (applicants entitled to a job
offer) have been identified. From these, 24 veterans have
accepted job offers and 43 more offers are in process. There
have been 32 offers declined. See the attached charts for
reference.
Question. How many illegal hires have you found in the
reconstruction process? Of these, how many impacted veterans?
Answer. BPA's reconstruction is to determine whether it fully
followed Federal hiring practices in each case. So far in the
reconstruction process, BPA has identified, through 34 separate hiring
cases, 99 disadvantaged veterans who warrant priority placement. These
priority placements have resulted from 24 veterans accepting job
offers.
Question. How many disenfranchised individuals were offered and in
turn placed in a job at BPA?
Answer. BPA has completed 24 priority hires to date and has 43 in
process. Another 32 impacted veterans have declined job offers.
Question. Does DOE expect to complete all necessary placements
within the available openings BPA currently has?
Answer. Yes.
Question. At the same time, it is also important that you educate
and train BPA's human resources department in order to make sure this
never happens again. How is the education and training of human
resources department employees--managers included--on Federal hiring
regulations and practices progressing? When will this process be
completed and what metrics will be use to determine that BPA can again
make hiring decisions on its own, without the oversight of the
Department?
Answer. BPA has made significant progress towards regaining full
Human Resources (HR) authority. The BPA ``Get Well'' Plan was signed by
BPA on February 6, 2014. Key activities necessary to regain HR
authority, as outlined within the BPA ``Get Well'' Plan, are being
accomplished on time or ahead of schedule. BPA has worked in a
collaborative and proactive manner with the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) to facilitate
the restoration of full HR authority necessary for it to operate
independently and in a manner that is in accordance with applicable
legal, regulatory, and Departmental policy requirements. BPA has
regained provisional authority to conduct labor relations activity,
conduct its internal bid list process, and process personnel actions.
Additionally, BPA's Human Capital Management (HCM) staff has
completed all required Office of Personnel Management training and
regained their individual delegated examining certification. BPA is
migrating to the Department's ``Hiring Manager'' HR IT recruitment
system to ensure consistency with the rest of the Department's
recruiting efforts.
Question. Finally, the ``get well-plan'' included a 6 month review
for the new BPA-DOE human capital and BPA-DOE general counsel reporting
arrangements. April marks 6 months under the ``get well-plan.'' Have
these reviews taken place? If so, I ask that you explain the
Department's next steps with regard to these reporting arrangements and
whether sufficient progress has been made to end these reporting
arrangements. If not, I ask that these reviews take place as soon as
possible. I note that in a November 8, 2013 letter to Secretary Moniz
signed by 23 members of the Northwest Delegation, including myself, we
made a request that ``in the event that this reporting relationship is
still in effect after 6 months, we request that DOE explain to the
Northwest Congressional delegation in writing why this arrangement is
still in place.''
Answer. The 6 month review occurred on April 24, 2014, and a copy
of the memorandum which DOE and BPA officials (including Administrator
Elliot Mainzer) developed for the Deputy Secretary was provided to your
office when finalized.
The reporting relationship of BPA HR to CHCO will be reevaluated
when full HR operating authority is returned to BPA. With respect to
the reporting relationship between the BPA General Counsel and the
Department's General Counsel (DOE GC), on November 12, 2013, DOE GC
sent a letter to the BPA Acting Administrator memorializing the
reporting and communications structure for the BPA General Counsel that
they had discussed and agreed upon. BPA's General Counsel retired in
March 2014, and an Acting General Counsel has recently been designated.
The existing reporting relationship between the BPA General Counsel and
DOE GC is expected to remain in place until a permanent BPA General
Counsel is put in place, with a reevaluation likely to occur after an
appropriate transition period.
office of science
Question. National scientific user facilities like the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory and Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement Facility located at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory in Washington State play a central role in the U.S. research
ecosystem by providing thousands of scientists access to unique
instruments, expertise, and facilities. As State and Federal budgets
endure ongoing downward pressure in the coming years, the importance of
user facilities will continue to grow as they are shared resources
available to the entire scientific community.
How does the fiscal year 2015 budget request ensure that scientific
user facilities will have the resources they need to serve the
scientific community and maintain U.S. global leadership in science and
technology innovation?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Office of
Science provides the resources to successfully deliver our highest
priority investments in new and upgraded user facilities while
continuing to serve today's mission needs. In this way we can sustain
U.S. leadership in our areas of highest priority without skewing the
balance among research, facility construction, and facility operations.
The request for Advanced Scientific Computing Research sustains
U.S. leadership status in applied mathematics and computer sciences
research, in high-performance computing (HPC) for science and
engineering and in networking R&D. The request includes a substantial
investment in ``capable'' exascale R&D to position the U.S. for
sustained leadership in HPC, extending capability significantly beyond
today's petascale computers to address the next generation of
scientific, engineering, and large-data problems. The goal of the
exascale computing effort in Science is to provide the forefront
computing resources needed to meet and advance the Department's science
missions into the foreseeable future, as well as providing vital tools
for scientific and technological development, economic growth, and
national security to maintain U.S. leadership, which may over time,
erode.
In Basic Energy Sciences (BES), the U.S. has world leading status
in materials chemistry, catalysis, and condensed matter and material
physics. However, the rest of the world is catching up fast, in a
number of areas including x-ray, neutron, and electron beam scattering,
and aspects of materials science and chemistry. The budget request
includes a research activity in computational materials science to
overcome the need to pay for access to foreign software; we not only
have no control over the source code, but also these codes are not
optimized to run on our massively parallel supercomputing user
facilities. The budget also invests in key upgrades to two x-ray light
sources, and provides support for optimal operations at the BES user
facilities, to advance U.S. leadership in those areas.
The request for Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
includes investments that will sustain U.S. global leadership in
synthetic biology for plants and microbes, plant and microbial
ecosystems, systems biology relevant to energy and the environment, and
cloud and aerosol observations. BER, in coordination with the
facilities and the research programs, conducts periodic reviews and
strategic planning to ensure user facility support is robust and
optimized.
The Fusion Energy Sciences budget request includes strong facility
operations and research programs at the DIII-D tokamak user facility
and the newly upgraded National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) user
facility; these major facilities are keys to continuing U.S. leadership
in magnetic confinement fusion. The request also supports operations at
the Materials in Extreme Conditions end station at the Linac Coherent
Light Source, which positions the U.S. to lead in certain key areas of
high energy-density physics. The request also sustains U.S. leadership
in measurement and detector science for monitoring what is happening
inside a fusion device, and theory, modeling, and high-performance
computing simulation to model plasmas under a variety of conditions.
The High Energy Physics request supports the operation of the
Fermilab accelerator complex to produce neutrino beams. Two new
neutrino experiments, NuMI Off-axis Neutrino Appearance (NOnA) and
Micro-Booster Neutrino Experiment (MicroBooNE), will take their first
full year of data in fiscal year 2015. The Cosmic Frontier program
features a number of leading current efforts and new world-class
initiatives, including the Dark Energy Survey which began operations in
September 2013 and is the largest astronomical survey dedicated to the
study of dark energy and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which is
now under construction, will continue U.S. leadership in this area in
the coming decade. At the Energy Frontier, U.S. research groups
continue to play leading roles at the Large Hadron Collider, both in
research and in planning for accelerator and detector upgrades.
In Nuclear Physics, the U.S. is a world leader in hadron physics
because of our work at the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
Facility (CEBAF) and the research on polarized proton collisions at the
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). No other machines in the world
have these capabilities. Completion of the 12 GeV upgrade project at
CEBAF is necessary for maintaining world leadership in this scientific
thrust, and the budget request fully supports that project. The U.S. is
a world leader in nuclear structure and astrophysics research through
experiments at the Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS). In
addition, the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), which is entering
its peak construction phase under this budget request, will position
the U.S. to become the international leader in nuclear structure and
astrophysics.
nuclear energy
Question. Small Modular Reactors (SMR) have a role to play in our
Nation's all of the above energy strategy by offering size, cost and
safety advantages. The Department is working on two cooperative
agreements with industry partners to support deployment of this
technology, one being in partnership with Energy Northwest of my home
State. Is DOE on track to have both cooperative agreements in place by
the end of the current fiscal year, fiscal year 2014?
Answer. The Department completed negotiations on and bilaterally
signed a cooperative agreement with the Babcock and Wilcox mPower
America team in April 2013, and signed a second cooperative agreement
with NuScale Power, LLC, in May 2014.
Question. Given the funding included in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request for SMR Licensing Technical Support, it is clear the Department
is committed to the development and potential deployment of this
technology. How can SMR technologies assist in meeting our national
energy security and climate change goals? Also, please explain how the
SMR program--which focuses on design certification and licensing
activities--will help move this technology forward?
Answer. Under the current Administration's ``all of the above''
energy strategy, nuclear power is considered a key component of
domestic energy production in that it provides baseload power with
nearly zero greenhouse gas emissions. The Department believes that SMR
technologies have economic, deployment, and size advantages that could
enable the technology to replace a number of retiring coal plants
displacing the carbon emissions of those plants. In addition, many
SMRs, due to their size and load-following capabilities may be an
effective generating technology for use with other clean energy
technologies (including wind and solar) on a distributed electricity
grid and market, where daily load adjustments are necessary. The
Department believes that fleet-level deployment of SMRs, displacing a
portion of existing fossil generation, can provide safe, clean, and
affordable energy to meet the Nation's economic, energy security and
environmental goals.
The SMR Licensing Technical Support (LTS) program supports first-
of-a-kind costs associated with design certification and licensing
activities for SMR designs through cost-shared arrangements with
industry partners (industry contributions are a minimum of 50 percent
of the cost). A standardized design certification for a reactor
technology and a combined operating license approval by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is a pre-requisite for plant construction.
Industry currently estimates that efforts to design, certify, and
license a SMR could cost on the order of $700 million--$1 billion. The
SMR LTS is intended to help selected first mover U.S. vendors take the
first step toward completing their designs and achieving the licenses
required to commercialize these products.
national nuclear security administration
Question. Secretary Moniz, President Obama has reiterated on a
number of occasions the importance of combatting the nuclear threat
with nonproliferation activities being a vital element. However, the
fiscal year 2015 budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration continues a troubling trend of declining budgets for the
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account in favor of increases for the
Weapons Activities and Naval Reactors accounts.
I am concerned that given our budget constraints we will continue
to see declining budgets for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
activities in favor of Weapons Activities. What is the Department's
plan to ensure that important nonproliferation activities are
continued?
Answer. The Administration and DOE/NNSA remain committed to our
nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear modernization objectives,
consistent with the President's vision of reducing nuclear dangers and
our reliance on nuclear weapons. As a demonstration of our continued
commitment to nuclear security as a priority, the fiscal year 2015
budget request provides funding to continue remaining high-priority
nuclear and radiological threat reduction efforts, following completion
of the accelerated four-year effort activities. For example, we plan to
remove an additional 125 kilograms of HEU and plutonium from high
priority countries; protect an additional 105 buildings with high-
activity radioactive sources; and initiate some important new
activities in the Middle East.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, and we thank you
for being here, and the hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Chairman Feinstein.
Mr. Poneman. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., Wednesday, April 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]