    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 2, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-123

             [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                  ______________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    20-223 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2016
    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            GENE GREEN, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     LOIS CAPPS, California
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     4
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                                    Witness

    Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy.................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
        Answers to submitted questions \1\...........................    99

                               Submitted Material

    Report to Congress, ``National Nuclear Security Administration
      Comments on the Final Report of the Congressional Advisory
      Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise,''
      May 2015, submitted by Mr. Whitfield...........................    92
    Amicus Curiae, Case No. 15-1363, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
      District of Columbia Circuit, February 23, 2016, \2\ submitted
      by Mr. Pompeo

    ----------
    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
      is available at  http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
      20160302/104593/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-MonizE-20160302-SD086.pdf.
    \2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
      is available at  http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
      20160302/104593/HHRG-114-IF03-20160302-SD033.pdf.

                THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus,
    Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers,
    Mullin, Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko,
    Capps, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Yarmuth, Loebsack, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson,
    Legislative Clerk; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director;
    Leighton Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; Patrick Currier, Senior
    Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel,
    Energy and Power; A.T. Johnson, Senior Policy Advisor; Ben
    Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney,
    Professional Staff Member, Energy and Power; Mary Neumayr,
    Senior Energy Counsel; Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate;
    Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy;
    Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional
    Staff Member; Andy Zach, Counsel, Energy and the Environment;
    Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll,
    Democratic Staff Director; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior
    Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and the Environment; Josh
    Lewis, Democratic EPA Detailee; John Marshall, Democratic
    Policy Coordinator; Matt Schumacher, Democratic Press
    Assistant; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of
    Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; and Tuley
    Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment Policy Advisor.
        Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call this hearing to order.
        Of course, today we are having a hearing on the Department
    of Energy's fiscal year 2017 budget. We are delighted that
    Secretary Moniz is here with us today to, I guess I will say,
    defend the budget because we do have some differences of
    opinion.
        But, at this time, I would like to recognize myself 5
    minutes for an opening statement. And, Mr. Secretary, we are
    delighted you are here. And we enjoy working with you even
    though, as I said, we do have some significant differences on
    some of the policies.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        My concerns about prior years' budgets are repeated in this
    year's budget. I take serious issue with the nearly 10 percent
    increase in overall funding level requests. And I personally
    still question the direction DOE is taking on energy policy. I
    should note that there are issues that we certainly agree with
    DOE, at least in principle, and there is much in the agency's
    Quadrennial Energy Review that I think we all support. We all
    agree on the need to modernize, and protect the Nation's energy
    infrastructure and the need to have a well-trained and
    diversified energy workforce with the skills that energy
    markets will demand in years to come.
        We all recognize the importance of a more integrated North
    American energy system, and the benefits of engaging in energy
    diplomacy, and conducting ourselves like the energy superpower
    really that we have become. We agree on taking steps to improve
    energy efficiency and accountability, especially in regard to
    the Federal Government's own use of energy, as well as the
    functioning of DOE itself. And most of us agree on the agency's
    commitment to research and development.
        But on many areas, and the direction, in which this agency
    is taking with its energy policy, I personally, respectfully,
    disagree. Most significantly, this budget continues to reflect
    the President's priority to treat climate change as the number
    one issue facing America and is DOE's overriding concern.
        One of DOE's stated priorities, in the fiscal year 2017
    budget request, is to support ongoing implementation of the
    President's climate action plan. We see this in the programs
    that have received proposed budget increases, like the $2.9
    billion, for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy, a 40 percent increase. A 63 percent increase for wind
    energy, a 22 percent increase for corporate support, at the
    same time, a reduction of nuclear R&D by 23 percent, a
    reduction in nuclear technology by 20 percent.
        And I might add that the administration has chosen to make
    climate an agency priority without any statutory authority from
    Congress directing DOE to focus on global warming. As part of
    the Paris Agreement, a nonbinding agreement, Obama and 19 other
    countries launched a program known as Mission Innovation in
    order to accelerate global energy innovation by doubling the
    amount of our taxpayer dollars in clean energy R&D over the
    next 5 years. And so the things included in Mission Innovation
    we have used before, but there is a 21 percent increase in the
    budget request.
        The budget also evidences a misguided perspective on the
    proper role of Government in energy policy. A cleaner, more
    advanced and efficient energy system can be achieved through
    primarily private sector innovation and markets, supported by
    Government-backed research and development, not a top-down,
    Government-mandated approach. Yet, almost everywhere in this
    budget, we see DOE trying to expand its role and impose its own
    preferences on the private sector. And I might say that I
    personally take responsibility, I went back and looked at,
    certainly it is not all up to me, but since 2009, there has
    been a 35 percent increase in budget requests from DOE.
        During that same time, household median income has gone
    down by 2 percent since the President has been in office. So
    that reflects really what is happening in Government. We keep
    getting all these requests for increases. And, yet, the
    American people, they, their household income actually is
    decreasing. And I take responsibility for it because here I am,
    chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, we should be
    working closer with the appropriators. Because the
    appropriators seem to just keep following down, giving more
    money. And, yet, we should be, as a committee, pressing them on
    what we think. We have as much jurisdiction over energy as
    certainly the appropriators do. They appropriate the money.
        But I personally, this year, am going to try to have more
    interchange with them, exchange of ideas, dialogue with them to
    give them our very strong views on where we think the President
    is wrong on his priorities for DOE. With that, at this time, I
    would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Rush, for a 5-minute opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

        Today is our final Department of Energy budget hearing for
    the Obama administration. We are always delighted to have
    Secretary Moniz here and look forward to his remarks.
        My concerns about prior years' budgets are repeated in this
    year's budget. I take serious issue with the nearly 10 percent
    boost in overall funding levels and I still question the
    direction DOE is taking on energy policy.
        I should note that there are issues that we can agree with
    DOE, at least in principle, and there is much in the agency's
    Quadrennial Energy Review that I think we all can support. We
    all agree on the need to modernize and protect the Nation's
    energy infrastructure and the need to have a well-trained and
    diversified energy workforce with the skills that energy
    markets will demand in the years ahead. We all recognize the
    importance of a more integrated North American energy system
    and the benefits of engaging in energy diplomacy and conducting
    ourselves like the energy superpower we have become. We agree
    on taking steps to improve energy efficiency and
    accountability, especially as regards the Federal Government's
    own use of energy as well as the functioning of DOE itself. And
    most of us agree on the agency's commitment to research and
    development.
        But on many areas and the direction in which this agency is
    taking with its energy policy, I respectfully disagree. Most
    significantly, this budget continues to reflect the President's
    priority and treat climate change as DOE's overriding concern.
    One of DOE's stated priorities in the FY 2017 budget request is
    to ``support ongoing implementation of the President's Climate
    Action Plan.'' We see this in the programs that have received
    proposed budget increases, like the $2.1 billion for the Office
    of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as well as those
    facing cuts, such as the 43 percent cut in the Office of Fossil
    Energy.
        In fact, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy is slated to get more funds than the Offices of Nuclear,
    Fossil, Electricity, and ARPA--E combined. Within the budget's
    largest new program, the 21st Century Clean Transportation plan
    makes climate concerns the primary factor in transportation
    policy by inserting a new tax on oil that will raise gas prices
    by about 25 cents per gallon. This action alone speaks volumes
    about how badly off track this administration has gotten on
    energy policy. And I might add that the administration has
    chosen to make climate an agency priority without any statutory
    authority actually directing DOE to focus on global warming. As
    part of the Paris agreement, Obama and 19 other countries
    launched a program known as ``Mission Innovation'' in order to
    accelerate global green energy innovation by doubling the
    amount of our taxpayer dollars in clean energy R&D over the
    next 5 years.
        The problem with this climate myopia is that it comes at
    the expense of other priorities that DOE should be more focused
    upon, like ensuring plentiful and affordable supplies of
    domestic energy, including fossil fuels. To me this runs
    counter to the very purpose for which the agency was created.
    Indeed, the Obama DOE's antipathy towards fossil fuels
    represents the first time the agency has so actively opposed an
    affordable domestic energy source.
        Access to affordable and reliable energy is key to
    stimulating economic growth and strengthening our global
    competitiveness and it should be a priority for this agency. In
    contrast, putting climate first increases energy costs,
    restrains growth, destroys jobs, and reduces household spending
    power, especially low-income households.
        The budget also evidences a misguided perspective on the
    proper role of Government in energy policy. A cleaner, more
    advanced and efficient energy system can be achieved through
    private sector innovation and markets, supported by Government-
    backed research and development--not a top-down, Government-
    mandated approach. Yet almost everywhere in this budget we see
    DOE trying to expand its role and impose its own preferences on
    the private sector.
        DOE's high budget request is bad enough, but the energy
    policy it would pay for is even worse. We can do much better in
    this budget, but we must prioritize affordable energy, economic
    growth, and jobs.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
    holding today's hearing on DOE's fiscal year 2017 budget
    request. And, as always, Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to
    welcome to this subcommittee Secretary Moniz, who I like to
    refer to as our superstar Secretary. Mr. Secretary, your legacy
    at the Department of Energy is unsurpassed, in my opinion, as
    you have left your mark on a wide range of critically important
    issues, from your outstanding contribution in negotiating the
    Iran Nuclear Deal, to reopening the agency so that it can more
    effectively address the challenges of the present and the
    future.
        There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Secretary, that you have
    set the gold standard as Energy Secretary in terms of your
    effectiveness and forward-looking policies. And I, for one,
    will evaluate future heads of the agency by the great legacy
    that you have established. Mr. Chairman, before Secretary Moniz
    took over the reins of the Department, there were millions of
    Americas who had no idea of what the Department of Energy even
    did, and many more who mistakenly believed the agency's
    policies had little to no impact on their lives. And I am proud
    to have been able to partner with the Secretary and his agency
    on a number of important initiatives that will affect the lives
    of many American families for years, if not decades, to come.
        Mr. Chairman, following a private meeting in my office some
    years ago, rather than giving the customary lip service, and go
    on conducting his business as usual, Secretary Moniz went back
    to the agency and created the Minorities in Energy Initiative.
    Mr. Chairman, this single most important initiative, which was
    designed to increase DOE's outreach, engagement, and access for
    minority communities, recently celebrated its second-year
    anniversary, with Minorities in Energy ambassadors from all
    across the country, representing all sectors of the energy
    industry and beyond.
        I am proud to inform the Secretary that on this past
    Monday, with the help and support of Chairman Whitfield,
    Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, and many others of my
    colleagues on this subcommittee, the House just passed the 21st
    Century Workforce legislation which, among other important
    priorities, Mr. Secretary, would also codify the Minorities in
    Energy Initiative.
        Mr. Chairman, I must also commend Secretary Moniz for
    significantly expanding the Minority Internship Program at the
    Department, from only 50 candidates a few years ago, to over
    100 interns who participated this past summer. This important
    program provides young men and young women with invaluable
    exposure, networking opportunities, and critical work
    experience that can be parlayed into important career
    opportunities down the line.
        Mr. Chairman, I also look forward to engaging the Secretary
    on the important work that we both have been intimately
    involved in regarding opening up the National Research
    Laboratories and all of their resources to all segments of the
    American population. Secretary Moniz and I have both expressed
    our desire to see these labs become more diverse in terms of
    their leadership, their hiring practices, their contracting,
    and vending opportunities, as well as, providing internships
    and outreach programs to 10 to 12 schools and minority-serving
    higher education institutions.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing about the
    progress that has been made in these areas. And with that, I
    yield back the balance of my time. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton,
    for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz,
    welcome back. Let me first say how much I truly have
    appreciated your efforts as Secretary to come before this
    committee and work with us on both sides of the aisle. Never
    been one to shy away from coming up to the Hill, engaging us,
    even when we might disagree. I credit you and your staff with
    the great work that you have done, particularly with the
    Quadrennial Energy Review, which helped shape our bipartisan
    approach to energy legislation in this Congress.
        While some of the provisions we worked on together were
    enacted as part of and energy security title in the highway
    bill, I still am hopeful that similar legislation can and will
    get through the Senate, perhaps as early as tomorrow, so that
    we can get a conference negotiation underway.
        We look forward, Chairman Murkowski and myself, to working
    with you on an incredible new era of abundance, as it is
    important that our policies reflect these 21st century
    realities. We should be promoting and embracing our resources
    to keep energy affordable for folks in Michigan and across the
    country. I will take note that the President's budget takes a
    slightly different approach, particularly as it relates to the
    gas tax as it impacts the most vulnerable. However, our
    abundance on coal, oil, and natural gas, along with nuclear,
    hydro, and renewables does put us in charge of our energy
    destiny and makes the future of affordable and reliable energy
    an achievable one for the country.
        The biggest threat to this bright future is no longer OPEC
    or any other outside menace. It is, instead, the misguided
    policies that sometimes pick winners and losers. And,
    unfortunately, we see much of that in this budget. One area in
    which I am interested in learning more about is the
    administration's recent commitments to double Government-wide
    research and development over the next 5 years as part of the
    Mission Innovation.
        Continued breakthroughs in the way that we produce,
    transmit, and consume energy are needed in order to meet 21st
    century threats, be it from cyber, severe weather, physical
    attacks on our infrastructure. Many in the private sector are
    leaping at the challenge, including Bill Gates, and some of our
    leading innovators and entrepreneurs as part of the
    breakthrough coalition. And the recent announcements and
    financial commitments appear to be very promising. And I look
    forward to hearing from you on that.
        Congress, however, will need more information before
    responding to the budget requests as to how limited DOE
    research dollars will work to augment the commitments made by
    the private sector. In a challenging budget environment, we
    will need to ensure there is no duplication. And the
    transparency, competitiveness, and impacts of consumer costs
    and reliability are front and center and that the technologies
    and pathways considered are truly resource neutral.
        As always, I know you and your staff will continue to be
    ready to assist us, to work with us. And I look forward to your
    testimony. And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Secretary Moniz, welcome back. Let me first say how much I
    have appreciated your efforts as Secretary to come before this
    committee and work with us on both sides of the aisle. You have
    never been one to shy away from coming up to the Hill and
    engaging us, even when we may disagree. I credit you and your
    staff and the work you have done, in particular with the
    Quadrennial Energy Review, which helped shape our bipartisan
    approach to energy legislation this Congress.
        While some of the provisions we worked on together were
    enacted as part of an energy security title in the highway
    bill, I am still hopeful that similar legislation can, and
    will, get through the Senate so we can get conference
    negotiations underway. We are in the midst of an incredible new
    era of abundance, and it is important our policies reflect
    these 21st century realities.
        As I mentioned, there are inevitably areas where we won't
    quite see eye to eye, and the president's budget is one of
    them. We should be promoting and embracing our resources to
    keep energy affordable for folks in Michigan and across the
    country. But the president's budget takes a different approach,
    working to sideline and assail various sources of energy no
    matter their abundance or importance on family budgets.
        In particular, the proposed new 21st Century Clean
    Transportation System is a prime example. This program, to be
    funded by a new tax that would raise gasoline prices, would
    subject our transportation system to a host of costly new
    climate hoops that put climate concerns first and affordability
    last.
        This and other Washington-based programs in the budget miss
    a critical point--America's energy success is not due to the
    decisions of bureaucrats in Washington but to energy
    entrepreneurs across the country. DOE is at its best when it
    facilitates free markets, opens up competition, and allows
    innovators to innovate, not when it tries to micromanage them.
    Yet the budget has the potential to ratchet up the level of
    centralized control.
        Our domestic abundance of coal, oil, and natural gas, along
    with nuclear, hydro, and renewables, puts us in charge of our
    energy destiny and makes a future of affordable and reliable
    energy an achievable one for this Nation. The biggest threat to
    this bright future is no longer OPEC or any other outside
    menace. It is misguided policies that seek to to pick winners
    and losers, and unfortunately we see much of that continue in
    this proposed budget.
        One area in which I am interested in learning more about is
    the administration's recent commitments to double Government-
    wide research and development over the next 5 years, as part of
    Mission Innovation. Continued breakthroughs in the way we
    produce, transmit, and consume energy are needed in order to
    meet 21st century threats, be it from cyber, severe weather, or
    physical attacks on infrastructure. Many in the private sector
    are leaping at the challenge, including Bill Gates and some of
    our leading innovators and entrepreneurs as part of the
    Breakthrough Coalition, and the recent announcements and
    financial commitments appear to be very promising.
        Congress, however, will need more information before
    responding to the budget requests on how limited DOE research
    dollars will work to augment the commitments made by the
    private sector. In this challenging budget environment, we will
    need to ensure there is no duplication, and that transparency,
    competiveness, and impacts on consumer cost and reliability are
    front and center, and that the technologies and pathways
    considered are truly resource neutral.
        As always, I know you and your staff will be ready to
    assist and work with us, and I look forward to your testimony.

        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chairman recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone,
    for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also
    welcome Secretary Moniz back to the committee this morning. Our
    Nation faces many challenges as we work to lead the global
    coalition of countries committed to addressing the threat of
    climate change. The Department of Energy is at the forefront of
    these efforts here in the United States. And I commend your
    achievements as Secretary that are helping to make our country
    a global leader in combatting climate change.
        In December, over 190 countries came together to address
    the common goal of limiting carbon emissions, a threat to all
    nations. Accelerating clean energy innovation is essential to
    achieving the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures
    to below 2 degrees Celsius. Thanks in part to your continued
    leadership, we are now on a pathway to a safer, healthier
    planet for future generations, while creating an enormous
    opportunity for economic growth.
        The fiscal year 2017 Department of Energy budget proposal
    requests $32.5 billion for the agency, which represents a $2.9
    billion increase from the 2016 enacted level. And this is a 10
    percent increase over 2016 levels and represents a significant
    investment in your agency.
        The bulk of this increase will support Mission Innovation,
    an initiative launched by the administration in conjunction
    with the Paris Climate Agreement. Mission Innovation would
    double research and development in clean energy technology for
    5 years. And the bulk of this significant initiative will be
    led by the Department of Energy. In order to meet the
    aggressive goals outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement, our
    country must be seriously dedicated to investment in clean
    energy technologies. And to that end, Mission Innovation will
    mark a significant investment in our economy, our environment,
    and public health.
        I support this budget request because it provides the
    Department of Energy with the tools necessary to catapult our
    country to the forefront of 20th century clean energy
    innovation. These robust increases in funding for the agency
    are critical to achieving our long-term climate objectives.
    Mission Innovation also holds the promise of creating an
    economic opportunity for our country on the scale of the Apollo
    Program.
        There are some requests in this budget that are of specific
    interest to my State and district. In particular, I strongly
    support the $110 billion in the request to support a new
    competition to establish 10 regional clean energy innovation
    partnerships around the country. Our country has many hubs of
    energy research and industry knowledge that can greatly
    contribute to furthering our clean energy future.
        In New Jersey, we have leading academic research
    institutions, like the Rutgers Energy Institute and Princeton
    University. A number of renewable, or major renewable energy
    companies, are headquartered in our State. And we are home to
    the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a DOE facility, doing
    cutting-edge research on fusion energy. I know that New Jersey
    would be uniquely qualified to host one of these 10 regional
    partnerships.
        I continue to support funding for the Northeast Gasoline
    Supply Reserve and, again, commend the Secretary for taking
    action to create this important stockpile of gasoline in the
    Northeast. As many know, when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012,
    access to gasoline was severally limited in the aftermath of
    the storm, causing major problems in the region, impacting
    homeowners, businesses, and emergency personnel. And I am
    pleased that we learned this hard lesson and put in place a
    plan to make the region more resilient when another storm
    strikes.
        All in all, the critical investments in clean energy
    included in the budget proposal will put our country on the
    right track to meet our carbon reduction goals and protect our
    environment and public health. It sets the stage for renewable
    energy innovations that will bolster America's clean energy
    economy. Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your leadership in
    this area, particularly during the negotiations that led to the
    landmark climate accord in December.
        And I look forward to working with you on these exciting
    new initiatives, to take action on climate change, and expand
    our clean energy economy. Thank you again. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'd like to welcome Secretary Moniz back to the committee
    this morning. Our Nation faces many challenges as we work to
    lead the global coalition of countries committed to addressing
    the threat of climate change. The Department of Energy is at
    the forefront of these efforts here in the United States, and I
    commend your achievements as Secretary that are helping to make
    our country a global leader in combating climate change.
        In December, over 190 countries came together to address
    the common goal of limiting carbon emissions--a threat to all
    nations. Accelerating clean energy innovation is essential to
    achieving the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures
    to below 2 degrees Celsius. Thanks, in part, to your continued
    leadership, we are now on a pathway to a safer, healthier
    planet for future generations while creating an enormous
    opportunity for economic growth.
        The fiscal year 2017 Department of Energy budget proposal
    requests $32.5 billion for the agency, which represents a $2.9
    billion increase from the 2016 enacted level. This is a 10
    percent increase over 2016 levels and represents a significant
    investment in your agency.
        The bulk of this increase will support ``Mission
    Innovation,'' an initiative launched by the administration in
    conjunction with the Paris Climate Agreement. Mission
    Innovation would double research and development in clean
    energy technologies over 5 years--and the bulk of this
    significant initiative will be led by the Department of Energy.
    In order to meet the aggressive goals outlined in the Paris
    Climate Agreement, our country must be seriously dedicated to
    investment in clean energy technologies. To that end, Mission
    Innovation will mark a significant investment in our economy,
    our environment and public health.
        I support this budget request because it provides the
    Department of Energy with the tools necessary to catapult our
    country to the forefront of 21st century clean energy
    innovation. These robust increases in funding for the agency
    are critical to achieving our long-term climate objectives.
    Mission Innovation also holds the promise of creating an
    economic opportunity for our country on the scale of the Apollo
    program.
        There are some requests in this budget that are of specific
    interest to my State and district. In particular, I strongly
    support the $110 million in the request to support a new
    competition to establish ten Regional Clean Energy Innovation
    Partnerships around the country. Our country has many hubs of
    energy research and industry knowledge that can greatly
    contribute to furthering our clean energy future. In New
    Jersey, we have leading academic research institutions like the
    Rutgers Energy Institute and Princeton University. A number of
    major renewable energy companies are headquartered in our
    State, and we are home to the Princeton Plasma Physics
    Laboratory, a DOE facility doing cutting edge research on
    fusion energy. I know that New Jersey would be uniquely
    qualified to host one of these ten regional partnerships.
        I continue to support funding for the Northeast Gasoline
    Supply Reserve and again commend the Secretary for taking
    action to create this important stockpile of gasoline in the
    Northeast. As many know, when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012,
    access to gasoline was severely limited in the aftermath of the
    storm, causing major problems in the region impacting
    homeowners, businesses and emergency personnel. I'm pleased
    that we have learned this hard lesson and put in place a plan
    to make the region more resilient when another storm strikes.
        All in all, the critical investments in clean energy
    included in this budget proposal will put our country on the
    right track to meet our carbon reduction goals and protect our
    environment and public health. It sets the stage for renewable
    energy innovations that will bolster America's clean energy
    economy. Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your leadership in
    this area, particularly during the negotiations that led to the
    landmark climate accord in December. I look forward to working
    with you on these exciting new initiatives to take action on
    climate change and expand our clean energy economy.
        Thank you. I yield back my time.

        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. And that
    concludes the opening statements.
        And so, Mr. Secretary, once again, we are delighted you are
    here. We look forward to your testimony and appreciate your
    providing answers to questions that we will be asking.
        Sir, you are recognized for an opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Chairmen Upton and Whitfield, Ranking
    Members Pallone and Rush, and members of the subcommittee. I
    really appreciate the opportunity to be back with you again to
    discuss the budget.
        Mr. Whitfield. Is your microphone on?
        Mr. Moniz. It says it is on. Closer? Then I can't read. OK.
    The fiscal year 2017 budget request, as you said, totals $32.5
    billion, up from the $29.6 billion in the fiscal year 2016
    appropriation. However, I want to break it up into 2 pieces.
        The request for annual appropriations is $30.2 billion, an
    increase of $.6 billion or 2 percent above the fiscal year 2016
    enacted appropriation. In fact, both the National Security and
    the domestic appropriations requests are for 2 percent
    increases. And certainly this is part of the President's budget
    that satisfies the budget caps. Now, this is supplemented by a
    request totaling $2.3 billion in new mandatory spending
    authority. It includes $750 million for R&D within that, and
    $674 million for uranium enrichment D&D to which I will return.
        Just briefly turning to the major mission areas, the first,
    Building the Future Through Science and Energy, this total is
    $11.3 billion in discretionary funding and $1.6 in new
    mandatory. The principal driver for our science and energy
    budget increase is Mission Innovation. And I will return to
    this in more detail.
        The second general mission area, ensuring nuclear security,
    the fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National Nuclear
    Security Administration is for a 3 percent increase, supporting
    our broad programmatic objectives of maintaining the stockpile
    without testing now and well into the future, reducing the
    threat of nuclear proliferation, including support for
    implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and
    proposing a major shift in our plutonium disposition strategy.
    And, finally, supporting the safe and reliable operation of our
    nuclear Navy.
        Our third major mission area is organizing, managing, and
    modernizing the Department to better achieve its enduring
    missions. The fiscal year 2017 budget request provides $6.8
    billion for these activities, including $6.1 for the Office of
    Environmental Management. That includes $5.45 in appropriations
    and $674 million in mandatory spending from the USEC Fund.
        The $1.6 billion USEC Fund is an existing, not new,
    mandatory spending account. And our proposal is in keeping with
    the spirit of the current authorization that revenues from the
    beneficiaries of past uranium enrichment services, rather than
    taxpayers at large, be used to pay the cost of D&D of the now
    shuttered facilities. And, indeed, Congress recognized in 2000
    the applicability of the USEC Fund to Portsmouth and Paducah
    D&D.
        The USEC Fund is, in fact, one of three funds that total
    nearly $5 billion that can be used in this manner. Finally, in
    this introduction, I want to acknowledge that underpinning all
    of these priorities is stewardship of the Department as a
    science and technology powerhouse for the American people, the
    American economy, with an unparalleled network of 17 national
    laboratories harnessing innovation to successfully address
    national security, boost manufacturing competitiveness,
    mitigate and adapt to climate change, and enhance energy
    security. And we are working very hard to strengthen the
    strategic relationship between the Department and our national
    laboratory network.
        I will also mention that starting last year, we highlighted
    cross-cutting R&D initiatives in the budget. Among these, in
    this year's request, our largest increases are for grid
    modernization and for the energy-water nexus initiative. The
    supporting budget details are provided in the 40-page statement
    for the record that I asked be inserted into the record. And I
    will use the rest of my time to describe Mission Innovation in
    a bit more detail.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget includes an increase of 21
    percent for clean energy R&D, in the discretionary accounts,
    supporting the U.S. Mission Innovation pledge. Mission
    Innovation is an unprecedented global initiative by 20
    countries that have pledged to seek to double, public clean
    energy, research and development over 5 years. The countries
    represent over 80 percent of global Government investment in
    clean energy R&D. So this initiative entails a highly leveraged
    situation for increasing R&D.
        Mission Innovation is long overdue. In 2010, the American
    Energy Innovation Council, a group comprised of CEOs of major
    American companies from multiple sectors, recommended that the
    Government triple its investment in clean energy R&D. The
    council made three key points: Innovation is the essence of
    America's strength, public investment is critical to generating
    the discoveries and inventions that form the basis of
    disruptive energy technologies, and, third, the cost of RD&D
    are tiny compared with the benefits.
        The pledge to seek to double the level of Government
    investment over 5 years is ambitious but needed. As was
    mentioned, Bill Gates, who was a leader of the AEIC, has
    recently met with a number of Members of Congress and has
    reiterated the need for greatly increased Government-sponsored
    energy R&D. The objective is to greatly expand the suite of
    investable opportunities, so opportunities for the investment
    sector, in clean energy to support economic growth and
    competitiveness, energy security, clean and affordable energy
    access, and enabling us and others to meet our environmental
    goals.
        I want to emphasize the scope of Mission Innovation. It
    spans the entire innovation cycle, from the earliest stage of
    invention, through initial demonstration, with a weighting
    towards the earlier stages. It includes all clean energy
    technologies, renewables, efficiency, nuclear, coal with carbon
    capture, and enablers, such as the 21st century grid.
        It is complemented by another leveraging opportunity, the
    Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a parallel initiative, launched
    simultaneously, spearheaded by Bill Gates, including 28
    investors from 10 countries, putting billions of dollars on the
    table, to invest in the new technologies originating from the
    expanded innovation pipeline in the Mission Innovation
    countries.
        These investors are prepared to be unusually risk tolerant,
    patient in getting their returns--they talk as long as 20 years
    in the energy business--and are prepared to take the most
    promising technologies end to end, of past values of debt, all
    the way to the marketplace.
        I would just single out what was already mentioned, the
    $110 million to establish regional clean energy innovation
    partnerships as not-for-profit consortia, competitively
    selected, to manage regional clean energy R&D programs focused
    on the energy needs, policies, resources, and markets of
    different regions of our country. The program design and
    portfolio composition for each partnership will be based on our
    regional priorities and set regionally. As research portfolio
    managers, not performers, the partnerships will link the
    resources and capabilities across universities, industry,
    innovators, investors, and other regional leaders to accelerate
    the innovation process and, frankly, to help develop the
    innovation ecosystems in different regions.
        This approach tracks recommendations from the National
    Research Council's ``Rising to the Challenge,'' which noted
    that until very recently U.S. Federal agencies have done little
    to support State and regional innovation cluster initiatives
    and recommended that, quote, regional innovation cluster
    initiatives by State and local organizations should be assessed
    and, where appropriate, be provided with greater funding and
    expanded geographically.
        I will just conclude in saying the Mission Innovation
    budget proposal also supports increased investments in
    successful, ongoing innovation programs, such as ARPA-E, Energy
    Frontier Research Centers, Advanced Manufacturing Centers,
    Bioenergy Centers, Advanced Transportation Technologies,
    Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies, Next Generation Carbon
    Capture Technologies, and more.
        With that, I will conclude my summary. I thank the
    subcommittee for its interest and support of our programs and
    look forward to our discussion. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that statement.
    And at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. A special welcome, Mr.
    Secretary, on the anniversary of Texas Independence Day.
        Mr. Moniz. And post primary day.
        Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. As you all know, I work for over
    800,000 people, Texans, in the still-exploding suburbs of
    Houston. When they heard about President Obama's proposal to
    put a tax of $10 on a barrel of American crude oil, they all
    said what the heck, what is he thinking? This is insane.
        Now, a good friend and neighbor in the business said if we
    impose a tax on somebody, let's impose a tax on Saudi Arabia,
    OPEC, Iran, Russia. I have to know your role in this decision.
    Were you personally consulted before that proposal was
    announced?
        Mr. Moniz. I am not free to discuss, you know, internal
    administration discussions.
        Mr. Olson. Were you involved, I am asking you, were you
    involved in this decision? Not what the discussions were, were
    you involved as our Secretary?
        Mr. Moniz. No, but, I mean, the processes that go on
    involving presidential decisions are confined in the
    administration.
        Mr. Olson. Was anyone at DOE involved in that decision,
    anyone at all?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, the same response applies, I am afraid.
        Mr. Olson. OK. I see reports that this will increase pipes
    that pump, the Obama working poor, of 1 quarter per gallon of
    gasoline, 1 quarter. How do you think this so-called hit will
    affect these people? Do you think it will be good, bad? Any
    idea what is going to happen to the American people if this tax
    increase if it happens?
        Mr. Moniz. I would just put this in the context, if I may,
    of the transportation bill discussions that took part at the
    end of last year. And, of course, it is very good that we got
    at least a transportation bill for some years. But just to note
    that I think we all recognize, and had many discussions with
    Chairman Upton that funding our transportation infrastructure
    is something that is always there. It is a structural issue we
    need to address. And given that there has not even been an
    inflation correction to the traditional support for that fund
    for a quarter century, all I am saying is we need some kind of
    structural solution which the Congress will have to re-address
    now in a few years.
        Mr. Olson. How does this tax impact our global competitive?
    Are we stronger or weaker with this tax on American crude oil?
    Any idea?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, again, the extent to which the result is a
    greatly strengthened infrastructure means that our whole
    economy will be able to function more efficiently. That was the
    whole motivation in the end for both security and economy for
    the highway fund in the first place.
        Mr. Olson. One further question: I have a slide comparing
    the budget to the applied energy programs, in this 2007 budget,
    compared to the 2006 enacted budget. There are 17 programs
    here. Fourteen have increased funds for 2017. Three have
    decreased funds.
        One with the decrease, is the fund for cybersecurity for
    our grid. It goes down from, let's see, it goes down from $62
    million to $46 million, a 26 percent decrease, this upcoming
    year. A few weeks ago, Israel, their administrator confirmed
    that a cyber attack had threatened their grid. This week, the
    first of this month, New York Times wrote an article confirming
    for the first time ever, in the world's history, a successful
    attack had been carried out, by cyber warfare, to shut down the
    power grid in Ukraine. It has happened.
        We know the Atlantic, Pacific can't protect us from these
    attacks. And, yet, you want to decrease funding for this
    necessary thing to keep the grid open, going, going, going. How
    can you justify cutting funds in this world environment of
    cyber attacks on grids?
        Mr. Moniz. In fact, our overall cyber program, I will have
    to get the numbers assembled, is going up. Cybersecurity is a
    huge focus area for us. It appears in multiple places both in
    our national security side and our grid side. Frankly, one of
    the first things I did when I came to the Department was
    establish a cross-cutting cyber council.
        Our Deputy Secretary chairs a group with the utilities that
    meets I think 3 times a year. Cybersecurity is a major focus.
    We have given security clearances to select members of that
    utility community to share information. We are doing multiple
    exercises with the community. So cyber is actually a major
    focus area. I think maybe we will have to organize a few pieces
    together. And we would be happy to come and talk with you.
        Mr. Olson. I hear your words through actions, on Page 38 of
    your budget document, the third line, you decrease
    cybersecurity by 26.6 percent. It is right there in your
    document. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
    time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr.
    Rush, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have
    many questions and few moments. So I would appreciate it if
    your staff would follow up with my office with specific details
    on some of the programs and initiatives that you and I have
    been engaged on.
        I would like for them to provide an update on the progress
    being made with the research labs in terms of their outreach
    and diversification initiatives. And I would like to see them
    focus on contracting and vending opportunities at the Argonne
    National Laboratory and at the Fermi National Laboratory, as
    well as any other labs you might, that you think might be
    significant.
        I also would like for you to forward information regarding
    diversity plans in terms of laboratory leadership, hiring
    practices, as well as providing internships and outreach
    programs to 10 and 12 schools and minority-serving higher
    education institutions.
        And, finally, I would like to get more information on the
    minority internship program so that I and others on this
    committee can ensure that this program is being continually
    strengthened well within the next administration, regardless of
    who might or might not be in the White House.
        Mr. Secretary, can you speak to the subcommittee on the
    importance of continuing the work of the MIE initiative,
    regardless of what administration is in office? And also what
    type of impact might the 21st Century Workforce Bill have on
    the many institutions with its focus on minorities, women,
    veterans, and displaced coal workers on the energy industry and
    on those targeted communities as well as on the U.S. economy as
    a whole?
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Actually, if I may, first,
    Mr. Olson, just note that I believe our cyber cross-cut total
    budget is $333 million proposed, which is an increase over
    fiscal year 2016. But we can provide that t.
        So if I may go back to the question, first of all, thank
    you, of course, for your constant support in all of our
    efforts. If I may mention a few things: Well, first of all,
    continuing the Minorities in Energy Program, I certainly hope
    that is something that the next administration does. I think we
    are gaining traction. I think it is absolutely critical. In
    fact, as you said, it is minorities in energy, women in energy.
    It is addressing the jobs opportunities and challenges we have.
    Veterans, displaced workers, like in coal country, these are
    all part of our focus area.
        Minorities in Energy, I think, is making great progress. In
    fact, today, as part of that, actually right now, this week, is
    My Brother's Keeper week at the laboratories. We have 11
    laboratories working on that. I might say the lab directors in
    terms of diversity have really stepped up. It took a little bit
    of a nudge, but they have really stepped up.
        Sixteen out of the seventeen physically attended a full
    workshop in terms of diversity, with professionals coming in to
    help, how to go there. And also we think very important is
    transparency. Some of the labs are posting their employee
    composition, women and minorities. Sometimes they don't look so
    good yet. Argonne, for example, is about 15 percent women and
    10 percent minorities. Berkeley is about double that in both
    categories. But I think this idea, this transparency means
    there is a real commitment to understand where we are and to
    improve it.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I only have a few minutes--a few
    seconds left. Would you address the relationship between the
    coal workers in Appalachia and the urban displaced and out-of-
    work workers in districts like mine? Because there seems to be
    a straight line between displaced coal workers in Appalachia
    and the south side of Chicago and other urban districts. How do
    you view that relationship?
        Mr. Moniz. I have to say, I don't know the numbers. I don't
    know quantitatively, although that is a very interesting
    question. But I can imagine, frankly, there has been a
    historical pattern of that type in terms of outflow, for
    example, to major urban centers like Chicago when there have
    been job losses, job challenges elsewhere.
        We are trying to address I would say on both sides, for
    example, in Chicago specifically, the work of Argonne
    Laboratory in opening up to minority contractors, et cetera, I
    think is important.
        In coal, the POWER Plus Plan has many, many components
    where we are trying to help. It is not only DOE, of course,
    this is administration-wide, Department of Labor, et cetera,
    providing training opportunities, looking at new economic
    opportunities. In fact, I would mention, and this is of direct
    relevance to Kentucky, for example, we formed 2 years ago a
    jobs strategy council because of the whole dynamic issue of
    jobs in the energy sector. We are proposing in the fiscal year
    2017 budget, that that become, very modestly funded, but become
    an office, a budget line to establish a function in the
    Department that is specifically looking at jobs and pulling it
    together.
        Mr. Rush. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
    Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, in
    2012 Congress passed the American Medical Isotope Production
    Act of 2012. And in testimony before this committee in 2009, as
    that legislation moved through the committee, the Department of
    Energy's representative projected domestic production
    facilities that DOE was funding could come online as early as
    2013. To date, we know that none of the projects DOE was
    funding have come online. And a number have been canceled.
        I am interested to know what is the status of domestic
    production facilities? And can you help us really move this
    forward?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes, particularly for the moly-99 issue, which
    is the important one, there are three programs that we are
    supporting with three different technologies. One of them,
    SHINE, is an accelerator that will use low enriched uranium.
    General Atomics is developing a technology. And a company
    called NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes is developing pathways
    through neutron capture, et cetera. The NorthStar schedule is
    to go to first production in October of this year. I think
    General Atomics is looking to 2018. And SHINE is looking to the
    beginning of 2019. So, over the next 3 years, we should have
    three different companies coming on with moly-99.
        Mr. Upton. Good. Good. Last week, our Subcommittee on
    Oversight took testimony that highlighted how critical Cabinet-
    level leadership, particularly through you, is for the success
    of DOE and particularly its nuclear security mission. So I know
    that our committee is going to continue to look carefully at
    what is necessary to ensure that the Department is managed to
    meet its nuclear weapons responsibility and structured to
    ensure that they are executed to their full potential. I just
    want an assurance from you that if it does require legislative
    change, if you come to that conclusion, will you be able to
    provide us the technical assistance to enable for you to get
    the job done?
        Mr. Moniz. I certainly will, absolutely. If I may just
    say----
        Mr. Upton. It should be an easy yes.
        Mr. Moniz. Excuse me?
        Mr. Upton. It should be an easy yes.
        Mr. Moniz. The answer is yes. Could I add to the yes?
        Mr. Upton. Yes, you can.
        Mr. Moniz. I just want to note that I would recommend that
    you might take a look at the letter I wrote to the Congress at
    the beginning of the Mies-Augustine report, where I spell out
    very, very clearly our posture with regard to the overarching
    recommendation of the Mies-Augustine report. And I think that
    gives you the flavor of the assistance that I would be happy to
    provide.
        Mr. Upton. Great. I think we put it into the record as
    well, so all members can see it.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Upton. Thanks, again, for being up here. And, again, as
    I talked to Chair Murkowski earlier in the week, we are
    encouraged that they may be able to finish that bill as early
    as tomorrow. And I look forward to working with you as we work
    on the conference to get it done.
        Mr. Moniz. And, again, I am happy to provide as much
    technical assistance as possible to both Chambers.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, last week, this committee's Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on two valuable
    reports by distinguished panels that examined DOE's labs and
    the Nuclear Security Enterprise. And, in particular, I found
    the findings of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the
    Governance of the National Security Enterprise, also known as
    the Augustine-Mies panel, to be quite sobering. Both the panel
    and the panel witnesses who testified before our committee
    reported that the National Nuclear Security Act, which created
    a separately organized National Nuclear Security Administration
    within DOE, had not worked as intended. And the panel also
    reported that this has led to a number of serious structural
    and cultural problems within the nuclear complex. The panel
    further concluded that if not addressed, the dysfunctional
    governance practices could put the entire Nuclear Security
    Enterprise at risk over the long term.
        Obviously, you are familiar with this. So, Mr. Secretary,
    the panel studied various approaches to fix the problems they
    found. After evaluating several governance models, the panel
    concluded that Congress should reintegrate NNSA into DOE,
    clarify confused authorities, and place the responsibility and
    accountability for the nuclear mission back on the shoulders of
    a qualified Secretary.
        Mr. Secretary, I know you are familiar with this
    recommendation. So let me just ask, do you support that
    recommendation? And why do you think the panel thought it was
    so important?
        Mr. Moniz. That is a very sophisticated question and
    challenging. I think the issue is that their primary
    recommendation, as you said, after evaluating different
    governance models, to look at the reintegration pathway, was,
    to be perfectly honest, the opposite of what many thought was
    going to be the recommendation. Upon looking at it, they found
    that there were two problems, which I think we are working to
    overcome, but, you know, in terms of the long term, it might
    need a congressional look. One is management inefficiencies.
    But probably most important is the role of a Cabinet member in
    representing that mission at the highest levels. And I do serve
    on the nuclear national security subgroup of the National
    Security Council, for example.
        So what they found was that I think an unintended
    consequence of the legislation is that, to be perfectly honest,
    the Armed Services Committees do not spend as much time, shall
    we say, with the Secretary anymore. So I think that is really
    the point. By the way, I should say the President has appointed
    four people, frankly--me; Deputy Secretary Sherwood-Randall;
    General Klotz, NNSA Administrator; and Madelyn Creedon, the
    Deputy, the four leadership positions--with substantial
    national security experience. But the question is, What is
    going to happen over time? And that is where I would certainly
    invite the discussion.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, I just want you to know that
    the committee intends to continue its bipartisan oversight into
    how we can make the Nuclear Enterprise function more effective
    and efficient. And we certainly intend to further examine the
    panel recommendations and hope to work closely with you to
    strengthen this critical national security endeavor.
        And I did want to thank you, you know, for all you have
    done as Secretary. I think your work on the nuclear
    negotiations with Iran, among other efforts, demonstrate how
    you are precisely the type of qualified Secretary that the
    Augustine-Mies panel discussed. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
    Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We are both getting old. We both
    have reading glasses now. It is good to have you.
        On Monday, Chairman Upton and I requested that the
    Government Accountability Office assess DOE's plan to resume
    consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application,
    including assuring DOE maintains the necessary infrastructure,
    contractors, personnel to assure that the Yucca Mountain
    project can resume. Do I have your commitment that the
    Department will cooperate in good faith with the GAO as they
    conduct this review?
        Mr. Moniz. We will always cooperate with Congress and the
    GAO.
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you commit that the Department will not
    take any unilateral actions that will set back the Yucca
    program further, including anything to alter the physical
    structure or by allowing contracts that support the Yucca
    Mountain project to lapse?
        Mr. Moniz. I don't know exactly the situation of that
    contract that you are referring to. I would have to get back to
    you for the record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Please do. Because, as you know, I monitor
    this as closely as I can.
        Mr. Moniz. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Shimkus. Now I want to move to boreholes for a second.
    You have strongly advocated for the development of boreholes to
    dispose of a small amount of DOE's inventory of defense nuclear
    waste. This initiative is concurrent to your initiative to
    develop a, quote-unquote, ``consent-based'' siting process,
    which, as you know, contradicts the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--
    contradicts, or it is not in compliance with. There is no
    provision for this in the current law.
        In January, you, DOE announced it was awarding a contract
    to drill a test borehole in North Dakota. I am sure you are
    aware that there has been substantial public pushback on that
    project. I would like to ask a couple of questions about
    boreholes and your proposal for consent-based siting. In the
    interest of time, if you can, you know, I would like a yes or
    no so I can get--there are only about four or five of them
    here.
        Are you aware of the Office of Nuclear Waste Negotiator
    that was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. I am aware of it.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are you aware that the negotiator made
    available funding to study the potential of interim storage
    nuclear waste storage facilities? They did----
        Mr. Moniz. Historically. Historically, to start with.
        Mr. Shimkus. Are you aware that in 1991--1991--county
    commissioners in Grant County, North Dakota, applied for these
    grants?
        Mr. Moniz. No, I was not aware of that.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. But they did. Are you aware that after
    applying for the DOE grants, all the county commissioners were
    recalled by their constituents?
        Mr. Moniz. Well----
        Mr. Shimkus. They were. Based on historical experience in
    North Dakota, why did you choose to even try to award a grant
    to a North Dakota-based team?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, obviously, I wasn't involved in the
    selection. But there was a competition. There were a number of
    proposals. And the scientific review team felt that this was
    scientifically a very good place. And, of course, we are now
    working in terms of another location that is appropriate.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, it is important because, as you probably
    know, yesterday the Pierce County commission in North Dakota
    unanimously rejected your borehole project. How does this now
    impact your deep borehole proposal?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, as I said, it is actually in the contract
    that if for any reason the site is unavailable, that we will
    have another site. And that work has been going on now since
    the initial problems----
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. Here is my problem. When I taught high
    school, the executive branch, per the Constitution, is designed
    to enforce the laws of the land. We do that telling kids that
    they have agencies and Secretaries that help enforce the law.
    It is unfortunate that you have been part of an administration
    that is not enforcing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And it is
    subverting the intent of the law. And it is particularly
    troubling in that this, quote-unquote, ``consent-based''
    process, which you use to discourage, attack, obfuscate the
    long-term location of Yucca Mountain and use a State-based
    discussion where you now talk about boreholes, you try to ram
    it through county-based organizations without even a State-
    based discussion. So the Department of Energy continues to
    hypocritically move to obfuscate, delay, break the law. And I
    wish, for the sake of the republic, that the administration
    would abide by the law.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Moniz. Chairman, may I respond? It is a very important
    point.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
        Mr. Moniz. First of all, as we have said before, we are
    following the law. But I want to specifically address----
        Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman--you are not following the law.
    The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is pretty clear: There is no
    authority for interim storage or interim sites.
        Mr. Moniz. And that is why we don't have the interim
    storage site.
        Mr. Shimkus. The Nuclear Policy Act is a conjunction of
    both spent fuel and defense waste. There is no bifurcation of
    where nuclear waste goes.
        Mr. Moniz. Well, may I just focus on the----
        Mr. Shimkus. If you are going to spend additional time,
    then I will spend additional time.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. You granted the Secretary's request to respond.
    So I think we should allow him to respond.
        Mr. Shimkus. Would my colleague yield?
        Mr. Rush. No. I want to----
        Mr. Shimkus. Your questions were about wouldn't--the
    administration following the law on minority hiring. And we
    have an administration that is not following the law from a
    different administration. It is hypocritical. And it is wrong.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, will we allow Mr. Secretary to
    answer the question and to respond to the question? That is the
    reason why you granted him the time. So please allow him to
    respond without any interference from any member of the
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Whitfield. Well, let me just say that I think Mr.
    Shimkus raised an important point. I know there is legal action
    on this as well.
        Mr. Secretary has asked for an opportunity to respond, so I
    will grant him that opportunity.
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will just respond narrowly to the North Dakota borehole.
    That's all I was responding to. I want to emphasize that the
    statement that this somehow is not consistent with a consent-
    based approach does not apply. This is not a nuclear facility.
    This is a scientific experiment which clearly may have,
    depending upon results and where analysis goes, may have
    implications as a useful high-level waste disposal approach. It
    also may be useful for engineered geothermal systems. This is a
    science experiment. It did not have any consent-based process.
    And we never do that for grants for science experiments. So it
    is apples and oranges.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California,
    Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for coming to see us, Mr. Secretary.
        I share my colleague from Illinois' concern about the
    nuclear waste lack of progress and the urgency to move forward
    on that. Are you still required to recuse yourself from
    questions on fusion?
        Mr. Moniz. No.
        Mr. McNerney. Good. Well, the superconductor technology
    advancements have presumably increased the progress of fusion.
    Could you talk about where we are with that fusion research? Is
    there any sort of timeframe where we can expect to see good
    results and maybe commercialization?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, we are still, certainly in terms of the
    large tokamak approaches, we are still quite some ways away.
    The ITER project, which is at a critical point--we need to have
    a report to Congress on May 2--it has new leadership, by the
    way, which has really, I think, improved dramatically the
    project. But even with their new plan, they are talking about
    first plasma at the earliest in 2025, but deuterium-tritium
    only into the 2030s. So that is just even to begin on the big
    ITER experiment. Domestically, we are continuing the work at
    Princeton and in San Diego. The MIT program shuts down this
    fiscal year, which accounts for some of the decrease in the
    budget.
        Now, what is interesting is how in nuclear, both fission
    and fusion, there is a lot of innovation going on in the
    private sector, including in California. I cannot guess when
    this might become commercially feasible. But there is a lot of
    both building major demonstrations, like ITER, like what is
    going on in Germany, Princeton, California, but also with novel
    concepts.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I am eternally optimistic----
        Mr. Moniz. I am sorry, and another thing is our ARPA-E
    program, which takes risky technologies, also issued grants
    last year to novel fusion ideas that would operate in some
    intermediate density range, which we can come and discuss with
    you if you would like.
        Mr. McNerney. I would like to ask you about the DOE's
    effort to expand work on the water-to-energy nexus. What are
    the Department's priorities in that regard? And I am developing
    legislation sort of parallel to that, so I am kind of
    interested in this subject.
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. Well, this is one of--our two biggest
    increases, I said earlier, for our crosscutting activities are
    grid modernization and energy-water. The energy-water, we are
    proposing roughly a tripling of the budget. We think the more
    you look at it, the more important it becomes. And it would be
    very wide-ranging, everything from competing for a new
    desalination hub to research and system analysis for things
    like wastewater treatment and the like. So it would be a pretty
    comprehensive program. The last thing I will just say on that
    is I don't know if this will materialize, but just 2 weeks ago,
    when Minister Steinitz was here from Israel, where they are
    very advanced in managing water, we are talking about the
    possibility of strong collaboration there.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, we should collaborate as well in our
    offices.
        Mr. Moniz. Great.
        Mr. McNerney. I want to talk about carbon capture and
    sequestration. The technology has had some setbacks. I think
    one of the projects canceled. But, in my opinion, the coal
    industry, mining, coal burning in the future is going to depend
    on some sort of carbon capture and sequestration. Do you share
    that view that the future of the coal industry depends upon a
    good carbon capture and sequestration?
        Mr. Moniz. Absolutely. And I would note some good news,
    actually. There are three major projects, a megaton of
    CO2 per year scale, one that we have helped support
    in the United States. One is in Texas. It is Air Products. So
    these are industrial facilities. That has been operating for 3
    years. The second one in Illinois, ADM, that probably will
    start within a month. And third is a coal project, coal power
    plant in Texas, again, Petra Nova, which will start probably in
    a year or so, maybe a bit less. So those are all going forward.
        Also, I want to emphasize: In the budget, we also propose
    new smallish scale pilot plants to look at novel technologies
    like oxy combustion and chemical looping. And we also are
    reproposing to the Congress what would ultimately be about a $5
    billion set of tax incentives for carbon capture and
    sequestration.
        Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
    Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, good to have you back before us in the
    committee. Mr. Secretary, in order to develop the next
    generation of advanced nuclear technologies, private industry,
    the Department of Energy nuclear research activities, and the
    NRC have all aligned efforts to research, demonstrate, and
    license advanced nuclear technologies. I am drafting
    legislation to examine the nexus between DOE's nuclear research
    programs and the NRC's licensing capabilities, and earlier this
    week, my office sent over the discussion draft. And I look
    forward to your department reviewing it with technical
    comments. I would like to ask, how is DOE communicating with
    NRC to provide a pathway for your research activities to be
    carried through the NRC's licensing process?
        Mr. Moniz. First of all, of course, we would be delighted
    to help with assistance on your draft. With the NRC, there are
    several things. One is, I should say, this is not advanced--and
    this is not for novel reactors, but we have from the beginning
    had NRC directly engaged in our nuclear simulation hub at Oak
    Ridge, because in the end, the products of that will be very
    important for licensing of at least evolutionary new
    technologies. In terms of alternatives, we have a workshop
    coming up--I believe coming up, or maybe it already happened--
    with NRC in terms of more advanced non-light water reactor
    technologies. We are funding two companies, company-led
    consortia: one to develop pebble bed reactors and one to
    develop molten salt reactors. We are in very strong
    communication with NRC, because I think you put your finger on
    something that is critically important. If they are not
    involved early on in the work, then the regulatory process
    could go on much, much longer.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        And if I could kind of switch over to cybersecurity,
    because as you know, here on the committee we have had multiple
    hearings, especially when we are talking about how the
    infrastructure could be affected by cyber attacks. I served on
    a couple different cybersecurity task forces. And what is the
    Department's strategy for addressing potential cybersecurity
    challenges presented by existing and future grid and energy
    infrastructure technologies? And one of the things also I would
    like to ask is, because I am looking at it on your budget, it
    shows a decrease from about $62 million to $46 million this
    year for cybersecurity for energy delivery systems. So you had
    a decrease. And so our concern is we want to make sure that we
    are beefing up. And I know, across not only my district or the
    State of Ohio but across the country, there is always that
    great concern as to what is happening on the cyber side because
    of how vulnerable we could be to an attack.
        Mr. Moniz. That is one budget line. As I said earlier, if
    you actually look at our cyber cross-cut, I have to say, it is
    not a major increase, but we do have an increase proposed for
    our cyber cross-cut. We are working in the technology space,
    but we are also carrying out a number of other activities with
    the energy infrastructure people, with the heads of utilities.
        Mr. Latta. Could you just kind of go into detail what that
    might be, what some of those might be that you are working on?
        Mr. Moniz. Perhaps we could come by and have some people
    come to your office and describe that in detail. But, for
    example, the Deputy Secretary, again, convenes regularly a
    group specifically on energy infrastructure protection. Cyber
    is a big part of that. I can say it involves people like Tom
    Kuhn, the head of EEI. On the private utility side, the chair
    of that now is Tom Fanning, the head of Southern Company. And
    there are quite a few others. And they are engaged in table top
    exercises that we run. Because they have been given some
    clearances, they are briefed on some cyber attacks and what are
    best practices to try to avoid that. The fact is, I mean, you
    know, cross your fingers, obviously, the intensity of cyber
    attacks on U.S. energy infrastructure is certainly increasing
    year by year. So far, we have not had a major hit. But we have
    seen in other parts of the world, there have been some pretty
    serious cyber hits. And so we are always looking into those.
    Frankly, we had a team in Ukraine after their incident,
    analyzing that and sharing that with our utility leaders, for
    example.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Moniz. We could say more in a different context.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Good to see you, Mr. Secretary, as always. Thanks for
    taking the time to come and testify today. I do want to add my
    thanks for your work on the Iran deal. I thought that was
    really wonderful on your part, all the effort you put in. I
    want to focus a little bit on renewable energy today. As you
    might imagine, I am from Iowa, got some thoughts about that. As
    you know, recent data from the U.S. Information Administration
    showed that Iowa now is the first and the only State in the
    Nation to generate more than 30 percent of its energy from wind
    power. Last year, we hit 31 percent. I am very proud of that.
    Something I bring up quite often in these fora. It is great
    news, not only for my home State but, of course, for the
    Nation's renewable energy sector. When we invest, I think we
    can all agree, when we invest in renewable energy, like solar
    and wind, we do lower our dependence on foreign oil, and we
    rein in CO2 emission. In fact, last week, your
    agency released a report stating that the wind production tax
    credit, which I am thankful we got extended for 5 years----
        Mr. Moniz. We are, too.
        Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. And solar investment credit, the
    investment tax credit, will drive a net increase of 48 to 53
    gigawatts of energy from renewable sources by 2020. And these
    investments not only do help to produce clean energy, more
    clean energy, but they also help to produce thousands of jobs.
    And I was happy to push as hard as I could for both of those
    tax credits. We got 5 years for each, as you know.
        You also know that my State is a leader on biofuels. You
    are very aware of that. And along with your agency's bioenergy
    technology program, which develops and advances America's
    energy future, it has positively affected I think our domestic
    energy sources. And I thank you for all the great work you have
    done there. I also note that U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    under the leadership of Tom Vilsack, our former Governor, has
    already made investments in terms of infrastructure through the
    biofuels infrastructure program.
        But I am going to introduce a bill later today to help
    Americans have a greater choice at the pump. And that has
    already been done to some extent through the BIP program, and I
    am very appreciative of what USDA has done on that front. But I
    think we have got to go further. My bill is the REFUEL Act,
    Renewable Fuel Utilization, Expansion and Leadership Act. And
    it will create new and retrofit existing infrastructure,
    including pumps for biofuels and hydrogen, tanks, piping, and
    electric vehicle chargers. Too often, I think we have got
    infrastructure constraints out there. I know a lot of this has
    to do with USDA, not necessarily with DOE, but it is something
    that I still want to bring up, make sure that folks know that
    this act I think is going to help bridge the divide by making
    important investments in the infrastructure needed to provide
    consumers with choices at the pump. I am going to come back to
    that.
        But I first want to ask you--because that will be my second
    question, if you see any more opportunities on the part of the
    administration to advance the infrastructure aspect of this.
    But the first question has to do with the budget of DOE in
    terms of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that
    the President has requested $156 million for the wind energy
    program. And I support that fully, as you might imagine. But,
    last year, roughly $4 million was set aside for distributed
    wind energy, something that we really don't talk that much
    about. We talk about the big projects, projects that
    MidAmerican Energy is doing, for example, in Iowa. But this
    type of wind energy I think is particularly important to my
    constituents and throughout the country. And I am curious to
    know if you plan to invest more in distributed wind, and if so,
    what are you hoping to achieve with the greater investment?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, thank you, and by the way, I will be in
    Iowa in the beginning of May.
        Mr. Loebsack. Fantastic.
        Mr. Moniz. That will be great.
        There are many directions in wind that remain very, very
    interesting for development. I will come to the distributed,
    but I would also note that a report last year noted how really
    pushing to higher hub heights could be a major--open up major
    resources. Of course, there is the offshore wind that we are
    still working to try to get costs down. There are really more
    unusual options, like ARPA-E funded something called a flying
    wind turbine, which would go to a thousand feet. But
    distributed wind, I completely agree with you, has been kind of
    sometimes lost in the shuffle. And I think part of it is also
    one is not never quite clear what one is talking about with
    distributed wind.
        Mr. Loebsack. I understand.
        Mr. Moniz. Should it be defined in terms of scale of the
    wind, or is it just where it happens? It could be a large wind
    turbine that happens to be close to the load. So I think it is
    pretty complicated. I believe this year, in fiscal year 2017,
    we do continue distributed wind. It is at a modest scale; it is
    $4.5 million or something like that, but something we would be
    happy to discuss more with you.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. I do appreciate that. I have run
    out of time, but I will submit another question for the record
    having to do with infrastructure.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Secretary, just to get started on a series of
    questions, but the first one----
        Mr. Moniz. I am having a hard time hearing you.
        Mr. McKinley. First question, just a yes or no, if you
    could, before I get into a little bit more meat. With the NETL
    facility, now that the CRENEL Commission has made a
    recommendation that we go from a GOGO to a GOCO, do you support
    their final decision, or are you going to maintain it as
    Government-owned, Government-operated?
        Mr. Moniz. No. I have answered that in the past, and the
    answer is the same, that we will continue with the GOGO
    arrangement.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. That gives some assurance to
    everyone. The earlier statement from Chairman Whitfield that he
    was concerned about the direction of the Department, DOE--and I
    share that, because I think that the focus has been trying to
    force the existing coal-fired powerplants to add carbon capture
    and storage as an after-market retrofit, even though virtually
    every nation on the globe has turned their backs on CCS. Yes,
    they will do it in research, but they are not going to force it
    like we are. So it seems that DOE is really hell-bent on
    pushing CCS. Even China and India, for example, they are not
    forcing CCS on their facilities, but rather, they are, as you
    know--I assume you know--they are building new high-efficiency
    coal-fired powerplants instead of CCS.
        We recognize that energy efficiency is the best short-term
    solution to our emission controls, and CCS is a long-term
    solution to this. And the President has said, as recently as
    back in February, the carbon capture is just really expensive
    right now. So I don't understand why DOE continues to chase
    this rabbit, I think the wrong rabbit, of pushing CCS on our
    utilities when they should be encouraging high-efficiency
    facilities.
        Now, just some quick examples. Our two most efficient
    powerplants in America--Turk in Arkansas and Longview in West
    Virginia; one an ultra-supercritical and the other one being
    just an advanced supercritical--they are built at half--at
    half--the cost of Kemper. So it just kind of makes me think
    about--it feels like DOE is trying to retrofit pushing in a
    $50,000 engine into an old car instead of just buying a new
    car. It is just simply we keep trying to make people retrofit,
    because you put up so many roadblocks, other people in the
    administration, in building new coal-fired powerplants.
        So shouldn't the DOE switch its priorities? Or what would
    be the problem with switching its priorities so that we would
    be more focused on the high-efficiency, low-carbon-emitting,
    advanced supercritical and advanced supercritical plants across
    this country? Are we missing something? Why aren't we doing the
    one that is more immediate that we can get some success with?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, first of all, of course, I completely
    agree with your focus on energy efficiency as critical. That is
    a given. And by the way, I would say that, with India, you are
    certainly correct; India is not pursuing CCS. But China
    actually is.
        Mr. McKinley. I just came back from China in October, and
    the NEA in China said they are not going to promote CCS. We had
    that very clear in our meetings with him. They said it is too
    expensive; they are not going to do it.
        Mr. Moniz. Well, I will be there in a couple weeks, and I
    will check in. The last time we met with them, which was
    recently, they said the opposite. OK.
        Whatever the case, in terms of our program, obviously,
    look, our main focus at DOE is in the kind of the technology
    development and RDD&D with the long-term view, preparing
    options for the future. We don't make, in the end, the
    marketplace choices.
        Mr. McKinley. Could we not be developing with fluidized bed
    combustion using calcium oxide as an additive in the formula?
    That is a very economical solution that other people are
    looking at. It is one with fluidized bed; you can use some
    pretty low-grade coal. That is one of the things that China
    said they were considering using it because they don't have the
    same quality coal that we have here in America. Now, I am
    running out of time on this.
        Could I just make sure that I ask at the very end, could we
    get you to come to Longview and see the tremendous efficiency
    that is operating there without CCS, and how effective they
    have been able to do that at half the cost of a CCS facility?
    Would you be willing to go?
        Mr. Moniz. I am sorry; where is Longview?
        Mr. McKinley. Three and a half hours away.
        Mr. Moniz. No, is it in West Virginia?
        Mr. McKinley. Yes, it is. Maybe when you and I get to NETL
    again----
        Mr. Moniz. What I have said is, I would definitely like to
    get to West Virginia.
        Mr. McKinley. It is within a stone's throw of NETL facility
    that we could go to----
        Mr. Moniz. Congressman, I would like to go to West
    Virginia, and we will work on the itinerary.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Moniz. But I would just add, if I may, I won't go into
    detail, but we do have a bunch of R&D going on that is quite
    relevant to higher efficiency coal plants: supercritical
    CO2 cycles, advanced materials that you need to go
    to higher temperatures and the like. We can discuss that.
        Mr. McKinley. I am told from the people there it is sort of
    a drop in the bucket. It is more window dressing than sincere.
    So you and I can have more of a conversation.
        Mr. Moniz. We can discuss that. But we have a substantial
    increase in the supercritical CO2
        cycle, for example.
        Mr. Olson [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
    Castor, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is good to have you here.
        Could you please provide the committee with an overview and
    your outlook on how we are doing on reducing carbon pollution?
    How are we doing here in the United States? What are our
    challenges and opportunities? And after the Paris agreement,
    give us a short sketch of the world community and whether or
    not you have seen countries begin to implement their
    commitments.
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. Well, overall, if you look over the last
    years, we are doing quite well in CO2. This last
    year, we did have a little bit of an increase. Low oil prices
    had something of an effect. But, overall, we would say we are
    still on track for being about 17 percent lower CO2
    in 2020 relative to 2005, which was the first target for us to
    hit. So that is going on, but it will mean continuing to push.
    In fact, following on Mr. McKinley's question, certainly on the
    demand side, the efficiency side will be absolutely critical
    for maintaining the momentum.
        Internationally, I think if you look at the major emitters,
    of course, the EU as a whole is making tremendous progress.
    China is the largest individual emitter, and they are making
    progress as well. And, of course, they have also announced--we
    will see what the implementation plan is--but they have
    announced a cap-and-trade system to put into place, actually I
    think later on this year or maybe next year.
        So I think countries are taking this quite seriously. In
    fact, I would argue that the progress made in Paris was enabled
    by things like the U.S.-China announcement. But they had impact
    only because both countries were actually walking the talk.
        Ms. Castor. And I understand here in the U.S. that, even
    with the hiccup on the Clean Power Plan at the Supreme Court,
    still, utilities overall and States and communities are moving
    toward the carbon reduction goals in any event because they
    know it is critical to the future of our country. Is that your
    understanding, too, that the markets are changing; the market
    for clean energy innovative solutions is growing at this time?
        Mr. Moniz. Absolutely. Again, I would just reiterate what
    you implied, the Supreme Court ruling was simply a stay; it was
    not a judgment, obviously, on the plan. And we feel pretty
    confident about it. But independent of that, it is not uniform,
    but many States and utilities are continuing with their
    planning for implementation because, frankly--and look, much of
    industry is acting already in the conviction that there will be
    increasing constraints on carbon emissions. In fact, for years,
    some of the major companies have included that in their capital
    planning because, you know, they commit capital for a long
    time. What they would like to get is some assurances, some
    stability, and then--they know how to run a successful business
    if you just give them the rules.
        Ms. Castor. Right. Sometimes there is a disconnect between
    what happens here on Capitol Hill and what is really happening
    out in the business world and locally, too. But I want to
    compliment you for what you have proposed to do in the upcoming
    budget. On Mission Innovation, you have launched this--after
    the landmark global agreement in Paris, you proposed double
    funding for Government-wide clean energy R&D over the next 5
    years. Your agency is set to be the leader in this effort. And
    I look forward to working with you to make this a reality. I
    was pleased to see robust funding for this initiative in the
    budget request.
        Talk to us a little bit more about what you envision for
    Mission Innovation and how this is going to benefit all facets
    of our energy economy.
        Mr. Moniz. Well, maybe the best thing is just to use an
    example of the kind of thing that we have in mind here. And I
    will use ARPA-E--and by the way, for all the members, the ARPA-
    E summit is going on an as we speak out at the Gaylord Nelson
    Convention Center. And I invite all of you to go out there and
    see really neat technologies. But we just announced the new
    performance results of ARPA-E. And of the first roughly 200
    projects that were funded, roughly a quarter have received
    $1.25 billion of private sector funding. Another quarter has
    received follow-on Government funding and not only from DOE but
    DOD. Thirty-six companies have been formed. There are 9 or 10
    products out there already in the marketplace in a program that
    has only been operating essentially 5 years.
        The last round of proposals, the so-called open call in
    2015, was very successful in terms of the projects funded. The
    trouble was it was just barely over 2 percent of the
    applicants. We are leaving a lot of innovation on the table.
    And so with the formation of these clean markets--and again,
    look, one can argue for or against, however you wish, the Paris
    agreement. But the fact is essentially every country in the
    world committed to going towards lower carbon. And that means
    the already growing clean energy marketplace is only going to
    take off even faster. And we should stay at the head of the
    train and continue our innovation tradition and capture the
    benefits of it domestically and globally.
        Ms. Castor. I agree. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to your
    country and for being here. I appreciate it.
        I just want to kind of briefly talk about something, and
    then I want to get into LNG a little bit more. Included in the
    budget are plans to finalize DOE's multiyear program plan for
    grid modernization, which will create an integrated R&D program
    that will help ensure the future grid will deliver reliable,
    affordable, secure, resilient, and clean electricity to
    consumers. What specific kind of projects will be undertaken in
    this program do you foresee?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, I should note that a major piece of it--
    not all of it--but a major piece of it is also a lab consortium
    that came together to outline a program. There will be
    technology component R&D. We have a lot of stuff still to do.
    We have very large-scale power electronics, for example,
    managing grid flows in a new, smarter way. There will be the
    integration of information technology, particularly on
    distribution systems, including going behind the meter. But
    another kind of effort will be a real focus on doing, partly
    through large-scale modeling and simulation, system designs and
    trying to find the ways of working with that such that it helps
    also the ISOs, the State regulators, et cetera, in terms of
    building that new grid. I might add, if I may, that resilience
    is also critical. And some of the utilities are already making
    tremendous progress.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And then, just very briefly, what is kind of
    your timing to launch and finalize? And then what opportunities
    for State and local municipalities will there be in
    participating? And are there going to be funding opportunities
    that you foresee?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, it is already going. So fiscal year 2016,
    we have launched it. We have asked for a significant increase
    in fiscal year 2017. As I say, we want to, especially on the
    systems side--I mean, as far as the technology goes, those will
    be competitive----
        Mr. Kinzinger. And then what about like local
    municipalities and States to participate?
        Mr. Moniz. So I think, right now, our focus has been more
    at the State level and things like the ISOs who manage,
    obviously, the system. But if there are good ideas as to how we
    can effectively bring in localities, that would be great.
    Frankly, the urban challenge is so great for the economy, for
    the environment, and the integration with things like electric
    vehicles.
        Mr. Kinzinger. All right. Thank you.
        I am going to switch subjects. LNG exports and crude oil
    exports put the U.S. well aligned to help the energy security
    of our allies in Europe and Asia. What steps are being taken to
    increase global access to reliable and affordable energy from
    us? And then also maybe when you are looking into Europe, for
    instance, and, frankly, that Russia has a grip on Eastern
    Europe and Europe, what are we doing to kind of help Europe
    develop their own energy as well as our exports?
        Mr. Moniz. A lot of questions there.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes.
        Mr. Moniz. First of all, in terms of LNG exports, as you
    well know, last Wednesday, a week ago today, the first ship
    left the United States. Kind of a major milestone in our gas
    revolution.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Great.
        Mr. Moniz. So, right now, there are several other
    facilities being built. We have licensed for non-free-trade-
    agreement countries now 10.8 BCF per day. And we just finished
    the public comment period on the economic analysis of going up
    to 20 BCF per day. So we are now analyzing those comments. So
    that is going forward.
        On the oil side, well, OK, oil exports are now going. And I
    have been consistently saying that at least for the foreseeable
    future this would have a relatively small impact. I see nothing
    so far to change that. It is a question of market structures
    and market prices.
        As far as Europe goes, if I might say, and we would be
    happy to come by and talk about this more, already going back
    to May of 2014, we worked in the G-7 context plus the EU to
    establish kind of a template of what are the new energy
    security principles of the 21st century? We are working with
    them. The European Commission put out an energy security plan
    that very much follows that set of principles. So we continue
    that. There is in the FAST Act a requirement that DOE, working
    with State, come back to the Congress with an energy security
    report. We are working on that. And, specifically, we continue
    our work with Ukraine in terms of helping them with their
    integrated energy planning.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. I only have 20 seconds, so I
    won't ask my next question, but I will just make the statement
    that it is very appreciated. You know, I see our energy as a
    very important part of our national defense structure, of our
    soft power, which prevents the use of hard power in many cases,
    and a very important part of posturing against the Russians and
    strengthening our NATO allies. So to the extent that you can
    continue to partner with that in development in terms of
    utilizing our blessed resources that we have would be very
    appreciated. So I appreciate you being here again, and thanks
    for your service.
        And I will yield back.
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        And sorry my phone was so loud.
        At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
    California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and your
    presence here.
        As you well know, climate change is real. The effects are
    real, and the time to act is now. Communities across the
    country and around the world are already facing the
    consequences. And it is going to take great leadership and
    political will to do what is necessary to act decisively to
    change this troubling trajectory.
        This past December, almost all the world's countries came
    together to forge a path forward to respond to this fact. At
    the heart of this need is the requirement that we recognize the
    dangers associated with a business-as-usual approach to our
    energy landscape and embrace and implement the renewable energy
    technologies as quickly and broadly as possible. I was glad you
    spoke to this in your opening remarks.
        This need is twofold. First, we need to rapidly expand on
    the implementation of existing green technologies, such as
    solar power, increased energy efficiency, but we also need to
    invest in developing new technologies that will help us
    transition to renewable energy sources. This is important, of
    course, for the environment, but also it really is a boost to
    our economy with the good-paying jobs that it can create.
        But in order to lead in green tech innovation, we must
    actively support our researchers, scientists, startups, and
    investors. For example, the universities in my district have
    been integrally involved in research into developing green
    technologies. And you mentioned the Energy Frontier Research
    Centers designed by DOE in 2009. And UC Santa Barbara in my
    district was one of the first to apply and receive this boost.
    Since then, the center has made significant advances in key
    energy technologies, like photovoltaics and LEDs. Similarly,
    Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo has recently been awarded a DOE
    grant to conduct research into energy-generating offshore wave
    technology as part of the CalWave project.
        So, Secretary Moniz, Mission Innovation, you have described
    it as a landmark commitment to dramatically accelerate public
    and private global clean energy innovation. Will you just give
    an example or two of how--I know you have already done so, but
    expand on that a bit--how this will help develop technologies
    required to move us toward a greener future? Specifically, I
    think how we can incentivize. To me, it is so much about our
    universities and research institutions.
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you. And maybe I will start by apologizing
    that yesterday we stole from your district Mike Witherell to
    become the director of the Berkeley Laboratories.
        Mrs. Capps. I know you did.
        Mr. Moniz. Mission Innovation, again, obviously, it is
    going to be a very broad approach to energy technologies. But
    some of the high points, I think--well, for one, I have to say
    that I think the regional innovation partnerships are really
    important. They will lead to portfolio diversification and I
    think help build innovation ecosystems more broadly in the
    country.
        If you go to specific areas, one of the focal points is
    certainly on the EFRCs, we want to expand that program. It has
    been a great success. The ARPA-E, here I would note: I
    mentioned early on in the discussion that the budget has a
    fairly modest discretionary increase, 2 percent, although with
    a priority attached to Mission Innovation, but also some
    mandatory requests. I say that now if we turn to ARPA-E, the
    request for ARPA-E is for a 20-percent increase in
    discretionary funding to $350 million. I think the track
    record, I said earlier, more than justifies that. But it also
    suggests $150 million of mandatory so that ARPA-E could also
    take on some different dimensions. In terms of some projects,
    for example, one of the advantages of mandatory funding is that
    it can give more certainty about a long-term commitment. And
    that is something that could be taken in this case. There could
    be scale up to more systems integration of different
    technologies. So I think we have thought this through in ways
    that are complementary. But then, of course, I mean, the
    specific technologies, frankly, across the board, we will look
    to get more innovation. Again, as I said earlier, there is a
    lot of innovation that we are leaving on the table.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        My second question, Mr. Chairman, was going to be to ask
    you to elaborate even more on ARPA-E, but you have already done
    so. If you want to submit anything more for the record. I am so
    taken by the significance of ARPA-E to our national security.
    The more we become energy independent as a Nation, the better
    it is for the world and, certainly, for our place in the world.
    But thank you again.
        Mr. Moniz. In fact, if I may just add--I am sorry, Mr.
    Chairman, but just add, if you go out to the Gaylord Nelson
    Center and see these technologies--I was there yesterday--and
    you see everything from novel renewables to an incredible small
    compact methane detector that can be used in hydrocarbon
    production and other settings. It is really great stuff.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. Capps. Maybe he is suggesting a field trip for the
    committee.
        Mr. Whitfield. Mrs. Capps, you lead that field trip, and
    maybe we can get it going out there.
        Mr. Moniz. After lunch.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much.
        Let me start, Mr. Secretary, in saying you were here a
    previous time and indicated, after hearing a number of us from
    coal country talk about the problems that we were having, that
    your team was willing to work with us. They sat down with us.
    They even come to my district. Very much appreciate it. And we
    have a symposium that we are working on to have some of your
    folks come in and talk to the people who are in the industry in
    the district to figure out where we go in the future. So I
    greatly appreciate that. I appreciate you have already
    commented on my favorite, chemical looping, and other
    technologies that are out there.
        In regard to the R&D, the Mission Innovation initiative
    that was launched by the administration in November to try to
    accomplish global clean energy innovation is working with a
    number of countries, China, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and
    Germany, who also recognize that coal is an important part of
    their electric generation into the future, and they share our
    northern hemisphere air with us. And I am just wondering what
    we can do because they are looking at coal long term. How do
    you intend to work within the initiative to develop cleaner
    coal technologies domestically so that then we can support
    international efforts to do the same? Be brief, because I got
    lots of questions.
        Mr. Moniz. First of all, Congressman, I want to thank you
    for hosting our people to go to your district and following
    through on that. That is the way we like to work with the
    Members whenever possible.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you. You are one of the few who has
    followed through when they have said something in the committee
    about helping or at least looking at the problem.
        Mr. Moniz. We try.
        Mr. Griffith. Look, I recognize that and commend you for it
    and appreciate it.
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you.
        In terms of developing the coal technologies, again, I do
    want to emphasize something that we have said before, that in
    the budget there are many, many different ways--it is not just
    the fossil energy R&D program. But in the fossil energy R&D
    program, we have, I think, basically streamlined in terms of
    the very large CCUS demos and now, in 2017, focused on
    developing these more advanced technologies, which could be big
    breakthroughs. So that is number one.
        But we have things in science. We have things in ARPA-E.
    And we have things, like incentives, like the $5 billion tax
    incentive that is being proposed for carbon capture and
    sequestration.
        Mr. Griffith. I do appreciate that, and I will come back to
    that in a minute.
        I am also concerned, Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of
    the EPA, has said that she is still going to move forward with
    expending taxpayer resources, despite the Supreme Court's
    recent ruling staying implementation of the Clean Power Plan.
    Is DOE following the letter and spirit of the stay request and
    stopping any coordination on the State level when it comes to
    compliance with the Clean Power Plan?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, again, of course, again, as we said
    earlier, the Supreme Court action was a stay; it was not a
    judgment. We have ongoing work with States. It is longstanding.
    We give grants to States, the State energy offices. We do
    technical assistance to State energy offices. We established a
    program with labor unions to provide them technical assistance
    in terms of how State implementation plans could maximize job
    creation, something that, again, could be of interest to you.
    So we continue those kinds of activities.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. Can you tell me how many
    carbon capture and storage commercial-scale power projects are
    up and running today?
        Mr. Moniz. Up and running? Well, there is Boundary Dam in
    Canada. There are a variety of industrial facilities that have
    CCUS here and globally. There is one operating in the United
    States; one about to operate; and Petra Nova in probably less
    than a year, as a coal powerplant in Texas with enhanced oil
    recovery.
        Mr. Griffith. All right. Because talking about Boundary
    Dam, my understanding is that the project----
        Mr. Moniz. I should have said Kemper is coming as well.
        Mr. Griffith. OK. But my understanding is Boundary Dam is
    currently the only operating post-combustion capture system in
    the world. And the EPA relied on that to make its determination
    that CCS is adequately demonstrated for commercial power
    production. But I am reading all these articles that say they
    are only hitting about 40 percent of where they thought they
    would be. I am just wondering if you can say, is that accurate
    to your understanding? Are they doing better than hitting about
    40 percent of what they projected?
        Mr. Moniz. I think, frankly, it is not different from many
    other of these technologies where we are pushing forward where
    it takes engineering know-how. I mean, forget carbon capture--
    when the first integrated gasification coal plant started
    operating in Florida, for example, and the same experience was
    in other--in Spain and elsewhere, that IGCC plant, it took 3
    years to reach its operating because you are learning, you are
    breaking it in. And so I think this is nothing unusual.
        Mr. Griffith. I think----
        Mr. Moniz. The same is true, by the way, for CSP plants.
        Mr. Griffith. I would just say that, while you would expect
    some, 40 percent seems awfully low. And I think it may take
    them a little bit longer than 3 years.
        Mr. Moniz. I could come and show you the IGCC histories, no
    carbon capture, just IGCC, and you will see maybe it is on
    track.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I can't tell you how much confidence you
    give me in the Department of Energy's role in the environment
    portfolio, all of these innovations. And I think your positive
    impact in so many ways around the country is probably unrivaled
    in terms of someone serving in your capacity. So I want to
    thank you for that. I just get excited listening to all the
    things that you are working on and proposing, because I do
    think it puts----
        Mr. Moniz. It is a great department.
        Mr. Sarbanes. You are on the cutting edge. I think you are
    having a field day. So I did want to talk about I noticed in
    the budget that you proposed consolidating the Department's
    efforts in a new Office of Energy Jobs Development. I wanted to
    speak about that for a moment. And that office is going to do a
    number of things: manage the collection of energy jobs data,
    which is critical, and then issue an annual report on our
    progress there; coordinate the ongoing energy workforce
    development activities across the Department and in this
    amazing network of National Labs that you alluded to; and,
    thirdly, provide technical advice and support to States and
    localities to advance energy workforce training and economic
    development.
        And we have already seen examples of that in Baltimore. And
    I want to support the DOE's investment in these sorts of
    activities. In particular, the clean energy sector has
    tremendous potential, as you know, to be the next big growth
    industry that can spur the economy. We have an amazing
    partnership that has come together in Baltimore recently that
    has begun to be developed between the Department of Energy,
    that is providing its expertise and technical assistance, the
    City of Baltimore, the Maryland Clean Energy Center, and a
    variety of nonprofits to create a sustainable low-income solar
    installation workforce training initiative, which would
    accelerate home weatherization, the deployment of solar energy,
    with a focus on low-income housing in the City of Baltimore,
    train underemployed or unemployed community members to step up
    into these job opportunities as part of an energy industry
    workforce, and then secure full-time employment for trainees
    within the growing energy industry in Maryland. In that sense,
    this project or initiative really models the kinds of things
    that you are already doing across the country and can increase
    efforts around the country in a like manner.
        So can you just give me some of your thoughts? Because,
    obviously, the Department views this as a priority and just a
    basic economic development initiative, particularly one that
    can focus on some hard-hit and neglected economic areas around
    the country. It offers great promise.
        Mr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congressman. And also thank you
    for your personal engagement in the Baltimore solar initiative.
    Also, Congressman Cummings and Senator Cardin, as well. But you
    have been particularly deeply engaged, which we appreciate. So
    the Baltimore initiative was, I think, as you say, a good
    model. We are working with the local institutions, Morgan State
    University being just one of them. And the idea is here, for
    the members, is to try to integrate solar deployment with the
    weatherization of homes for higher efficiency in low-income
    areas. And, obviously, Baltimore has had its challenges over
    the last year.
        So I would like to use that to go to your opening statement
    about establishing the Energy Jobs Development Office. About 2
    years ago, we brought in I think two outstanding individuals.
    And they were prime movers for the Baltimore thing. But they
    have done a terrific job on jobs broadly. You mentioned data.
    It is very hard to get data on what energy jobs are. So we have
    been working with the Department of Labor to do this, as you
    say, in an annual report. And that is a foundation for
    understanding not only what is happening, but what can we do to
    make it better? So that is just one example. So I do ask the
    Congress to allow us to have a separate budget line, rather
    than passing a tin cup around, to have this jobs focus. I just
    mention, the last thing I will say is, again, you have raised
    it, is in this case of the solar, it would be great to link
    that then to training local citizens to do things like solar
    installation. In November, this country passed 208,000 direct
    jobs in solar alone. And on the installation side, you are
    certainly talking north of $20 an hour for an installer. Get
    some training. We will do a community college program to do
    that. I think this is what we have to do in more urban areas.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. We look forward to working
    with you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
    Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. Before I
    get into my questions, I would like to engage in a topic that
    you and I have had a conversation about many times before. And
    I would be remiss if I didn't highlight my disappointment with
    your Department's recent decision to withdraw support for the
    American Centrifuge Project down in Piketon, Ohio. I think this
    is a very seriously flawed decision. I believe that by allowing
    the ACP to shutter operations, we are essentially seriously
    further hindering our ability to readily provide domestically
    enriched uranium for national security purposes.
        And one of my biggest concerns is the contradictory nature
    of the decision in light of the very report that your
    Department produced upon which the decision was made, because
    one of the viable options in that report that was discounted
    was discounted because of the loss of the workforce from a
    previous facility. And I worry about how this loss of this
    uniquely skilled workforce is going to play out over time, and
    how that could be detrimental when DOE eventually decides, once
    again, that we need to build out our domestic uranium
    enrichment capability. That workforce is not going to sit there
    and wait. Those people have got to find jobs somewhere, and
    they are not going to be sitting idly by.
        So I just wanted to reiterate one more time, Mr. Secretary,
    that I believe that is a very flawed decision. And I hope you
    will take that under consideration. And if there is any way to
    reverse it, you certainly have my support, and I believe many
    of my colleagues as well.
        Mr. Moniz. Should I comment?
        Mr. Johnson. Certainly.
        Mr. Moniz. I won't go through the entire decision process,
    but just to note that, first of all, the program continues.
    Unfortunately, for the Portsmouth side--and it is not nice, I
    am not happy about it--but the spinning of the existing old
    centrifuges has stopped. But key skills will be sustained. But
    the real issue is that we do need--I have been totally
    consistent and agree with you--at some point for sure we need a
    national security enrichment train. And, right now, the ACP is
    the only candidate at the moment for sure. And the Portsmouth
    facility remains uniquely suited and designed to house that
    national security train. The thing is it costs billions of
    dollars, which have not been made available at the moment. And
    with the long----
        Mr. Johnson. If I could interrupt you, Mr. Secretary, they
    have been made available, because Congress continues to fund
    that project. How can you say they are not available?
        Mr. Moniz. Billions of dollars to build a new national
    security train. That is the issue.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I don't think I grasp that.
        Mr. Moniz. I would be happy to get together with you and do
    it again.
        Mr. Johnson. We will take that offline, because that is a
    new one that I am not familiar with. Because the cascade is
    there now. And the cost to change that cascade to an
    operational one seems to me would be a lot cheaper than
    starting from scratch.
        Mr. Moniz. No, but the problem is that--well, again, we
    should maybe go offline. But that cascade will not be part of a
    national security train. We can discuss that.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Let's talk about it. Now, another USEC-
    related question, you said that Congress gave DOE authority in
    2000 to use the USEC funds, which is the American Centrifuge
    Project, for the D&D cleanup. But from 2000 through 2015 or
    2016, that was never proposed. Why now would the budget propose
    using the D&D--or the USEC funds to fund the D&D? Just a
    clarification.
        Mr. Moniz. There were proposals in 2000 to use the USEC
    fund. They, in the end, were not approved to use the fund. And
    in the intervening period, of course, the utilities then
    stopped paying into the UE D&D fund. Congress has essentially
    chosen to appropriate out of discretionary funds. We are
    suggesting that it is time, when we have $5 billion in three
    funds, we think it is time to go back and to think about what
    might be, frankly, also a kind of a stable way potentially of
    addressing this. One of the differences to when the utility
    payments were ceased upon agreement was that the full cost of
    the D&D was not known. Now we see about a $22 billion to go on
    UE D&D. So it is a big number. And there is about $5 billion in
    those three uranium funds today in the Treasury. And by the
    way, one of the ironies, we would say, is that interest is
    charged. So they sit in the Treasury. Interest is charged. The
    amounts keep growing. We are just proposing maybe it is time to
    start using those.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. We will talk offline. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank my two colleagues for their courtesy in
    letting me speak today.
        Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here. It is always a
    pleasure to have you here in front of our committee. And I want
    you to know how much I appreciated your visit last year to
    Pittsburgh. And you didn't get a chance to tour the NETL, so I
    want to invite you to come back as soon as possible so that you
    and I can visit the NETL in Pittsburgh and the incredible
    workforce that is down there.
        Let me ask you a question. This is the first DOE budget to
    distinguish or delineate between the NETL's infrastructure
    program versus the research and operations program. Can you
    explain this distinction in a little greater detail and the
    reason why you have decided to structure the budget this way?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, one of the principal reasons is that the
    outstanding relatively new director of NETL urged us to do it
    this way. And I think she is right. Previously, the budget was
    kind of--it was hard to figure out what it was. A piece of it
    was in the CCS line. A piece of it was in program
    administration. And now I think this gives greater transparency
    because, of course, as you well know, NETL has got two very
    different functions: one is the R&D, and one largely is kind of
    a contract manager, not only for FE but for other programs as
    well. This gives kind of identity to the research program. And
    we remain very interested in strengthening it. In fact, there
    is an increase this year particularly to, finally, I think,
    address the supercomputer needs at NETL.
        Mr. Doyle. So, as far as the impacts on the workforce and
    the organizational structure at NETL, you are saying this just
    helps distinguish funding lines for program management versus
    R&D?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. Correct. And, in fact, there has been an
    increase in the R&D.
        Mr. Doyle. I certainly support increased funding for the
    NETL that is featured in the budget. But I am a little
    concerned that the request seems to represent an overall
    decrease in funding for fossil energy R&D and so, specifically,
    a significant decrease in funding for CCS and advanced power
    systems at NETL. Can you explain a little bit the reasoning for
    this decrease?
        Mr. Moniz. See, part of that is the--we can call it
    restructuring, but it is the, frankly, the termination of some
    of the large demonstration projects that could not reach
    financial close. And so those funds have been redirected to
    supporting now what I would call more R&D as opposed to the
    demonstration projects. So that is where the pilot projects,
    for example, for chemical looping, which NETL is actually
    working on right now--they have a smallish facility--and
    oxycombustion and the like, so I think this actually
    strengthens what I would call more of the basic R&D program.
        Mr. Doyle. So, also, in the budget, you are basically
    adding natural gas carbon capture under the carbon capture
    heading that was previously reserved for coal-related research.
        Mr. Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Doyle. Could you just expand a little bit on your
    thought process for that?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, so that is a relatively small amount of
    funding--I forget the exact number, maybe $15-million-
    something--to go into the design of what could then be a
    natural gas carbon capture demonstration of some undetermined
    scale at the moment.
        Because the reasoning is quite simple. Clearly, carbon
    capture with coal, whether it is direct as we are now doing or
    some of the new approaches, is important. But, also, with
    natural gas. We have a long view in terms of our technology
    development. And, right now, gas, one can argue, has been
    contributing to lower carbon emissions, but if we are going to
    practically decarbonize the electricity sector, ultimately
    natural gas would have to have carbon capture as well.
        So this is the early stages of design.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes.
        And, finally, I was pleased to see the administration's
    initiative to increase investment and research dollars in clean
    transportation systems. Can you explain how, under the 21st
    Century Clean Transportation Plan, stakeholders like our
    universities or companies in the area can work with the
    administration?
        Mr. Moniz. Oh, I think there would be substantial calls for
    proposals to do that. The proposal in that plan is for $500
    million additional in transportation. So it would be very, very
    broad-based. And that is quite separate from the
    infrastructure, the fuels infrastructure issues. It is really
    R&D on those areas. So, certainly, if I am issuing that, there
    will be plenty of chances for the universities to----
        Mr. Doyle. Great. Thank you. And let's get a date to go
    down to NETL in Pittsburgh.
        Mr. Moniz. You got it.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
    Long, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary Moniz. It is always a pleasure to
    see you here and hear from you. You kind of brighten my day
    when you come in and talk to us, so thank you.
        One of the----
        Mr. Moniz. Uh-uh.
        Mr. Long [continuing]. New projects announced at the Paris
    climate conference is the Mission Innovation program. Now, I am
    taking my family down to Disney World later this month, and if
    I saw a ride there, Mission Innovation, it would not surprise
    me because that sounds like something you would ride at Disney
    World. But this involves the U.S. and 19 other countries. A key
    component of the program is the Breakthrough Energy Coalition,
    which is a group of international private capital investors.
        Could you expand on how this investment coalition is
    comprised and what the level of involvement is or cooperation
    between the Department of Energy and this breakthrough group?
        Mr. Moniz. Certainly. The 2 initiatives or coalitions, if
    you like, the 20 countries and the 28 investors from 10
    countries, they are independent. Now, there is communication.
    So they were formed in parallel, and the idea was, because they
    have the opportunity to feed off of each other, we increased
    the innovation pipeline, that gives more investment
    opportunities, and these investors declare, ``Well, yes, if you
    guys give us more opportunities, we are going to be there with
    billions of dollars to come and invest.''
        But I want to emphasize that, whatever information is
    generated, for example, it is possible that--we have talked
    about but have not yet nailed down--around June, early June, we
    should have this kind of more nailed down, the relationship. We
    may do some joint technology roadmaps, like what is the pathway
    to sunlight to fuels as a kind of a possible transformative
    thing.
        But if done--after all, we are a Government agency--such
    information would not be proprietary to those investors. That
    would be open to everybody to see the benefits of.
        Mr. Long. That was part of my next question, is do you have
    any concerns that these private investors are gaining an
    advantage or an upper hand through special treatment from the
    Department of Energy's clean energy program.
        Mr. Moniz. Oh, well, that is what I just addressed. No. So
    we have to make it sure that it is great but they don't have
    special access to information or to lab technologies, et
    cetera. We have to make this transparent. And we have done
    this, by the way----
        Mr. Long. So at what point is this available to the public,
    I mean, these findings or whatever you want to call it?
        Mr. Moniz. Whenever they are done. I mean, like, if it is a
    technology roadmap, when we have it----
        Mr. Long. So they are going to be private investors working
    with the Department of Energy to come up----
        Mr. Moniz. It could be, and with some others, talking
    about--so the idea is----
        Mr. Long. So you wouldn't feel that it would give them an
    advantage?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, the information would then have to be
    available to everyone as a public DOE report. And, no, so we
    are very sensitive to that, that----
        Mr. Long. So that is a no, I take it. You don't think that
    it would give them an advantage.
        I am just thinking that if they are involved from day one
    and the way things develop----
        Mr. Moniz. The only advantage would be--but it would not be
    exclusive to them--would be to have thought about this
    particular technology area. But others are thinking about it.
    In fact, the one I mentioned, we already have a hub doing it,
    with all the results published.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Long. You mention in your testimony that the budget
    request takes steps to implement recommendations from the first
    installment of the 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review.
        Which recommendations are you referring to in your report
    there? And what is the timeframe for implementing the
    recommendations from the QER?
        Mr. Moniz. For that, I should probably find my notes,
    because it is quite a long list in the FAST Act.
        There are issues of our being charged to do an energy
    security plan, for example, with State. There are issues about
    doing a study to bring to the Congress on the establishment of
    an electric power transformer reserve, for example. There is a
    really long list of issues, and we are working on all of them.
        Mr. Long. OK. Could you maybe summarize that or get me,
    like, bullet----
        Mr. Moniz. Sure.
        Mr. Long [continuing]. Points or something to give that to
    my staff? Because I do have----
        Mr. Moniz. If I can find it in my papers, I can give it to
    you now, actually.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. OK. Anyway, we will certainly get that to you.
        Mr. Long. We have 8 seconds till liftoff, so we had
    better--if you can get it to me later, I would appreciate it.
        And, like I said, it is a pleasure to have you in here.
    Thank you for being here.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back his 1 second.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
    Yarmuth, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, nice to see you here. Thank you for your
    responses and your presentation.
        I want to congratulate the committee chair, my colleague
    from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for holding this hearing and for
    allowing you to present the concepts and the priorities of the
    Department of Energy.
        And I cannot resist taking the opportunity to say that, as
    a member of the Budget Committee, I was astonished that the
    chairman of the Budget Committee, for the first time in 40
    years, did not allow the Director of the Office of Management
    and Budget to come to the Hill and present the administration's
    overall budget.
        And I think the usefulness of a hearing like this, in which
    we really do get into the plans and priorities of the
    Department, is something that could benefit the American people
    and the Congress, as well, if we were able to discuss the
    President's overall budget. So I wish that Chairman Price of
    the Budget Committee would reconsider that and allow such a
    presentation. And I will tell him how much I appreciated this
    hearing.
        One of the things that I think about a lot, Mr. Secretary,
    is that, at its optimum efficiency, Congress moves at 10 miles
    an hour, and we have a world that is moving at 100 miles an
    hour, and how are we able to make long-term policy that
    actually makes sense when things are changing so rapidly?
        And I think about, for instance, driverless cars and the
    work that Government is going to have to do very quickly to
    figure out how to accommodate that. So I can't imagine a field
    that this is more appropriate to discuss within than the energy
    field. And I know so many things have been happening and are
    happening.
        So I guess a broad question is, can you think of areas in
    which Congress really needs to start thinking about policy for
    things that are about to happen that we are totally unprepared
    for?
        Mr. Moniz. It is always hard to predict what you are
    unprepared for, but I certainly agree with you. Your clock
    speed statement is very apt, and the driverless cars are a
    terrific example. I think 2 years ago very few would have seen
    this coming at us so fast. And it raises huge numbers of policy
    issues, obviously, with liabilities and all kinds of issues.
        So I would just say there are two areas where I think--and
    they are actually in some sense linked--where I see enormous
    change happening, the kind of change that we didn't anticipate
    with the oil and gas revolution, say, 15 years ago.
        One is that, if you look at the entire electricity system--
    and, by the way, the second installment of our Quadrennial
    Energy Review--the first one was on infrastructure across the
    board. This one is on the electricity system end-to-end. And
    there are so many moving parts--on the high-voltage grid, on
    the distribution system, the integration of IT, energy storage
    suddenly coming to maturity in terms of costs.
        So there are the technology issues, but then how do we
    value the services; how do we value fuel diversity; how do we
    value storage in the system; how do we value when we have
    distributed generation and what it is doing not only in terms
    of supplying energy but in terms of, potentially, stability in
    the system, voltage stability, you know, you name it; how do we
    go, in this example, behind the meter into the consumer's place
    in terms of new services.
        As we do that and as we get more and more successful, or
    continuing our success, in terms of decreasing energy
    intensity, energy efficiency, et cetera, business models of
    utilities have to change. It is not going to be the same
    system.
        What does that mean for our regulatory system? I don't want
    to open Pandora's box. But, you know, we have a historical
    system built around States, and we have to work with it, but
    recognizing that it does not match the physical realities of
    the system as it emerges. So that is a big one to think
    through, that whole kind of system.
        Another one is, I think--and it is not unconnected--is the
    urban environment and potential transformation there, I mean
    energy-linked. Your driverless cars, for example, can be a big
    piece of that, right? A whole different ownership model, a
    whole different--the model is different.
        And, furthermore, if you speculate--and now I am going off
    into the wild blue yonder. But if you speculate about a city
    that has become practically all electric and quiet and clean,
    well, maybe you build your buildings in different ways.
        So I think those are two big issues where there are so many
    threads to pull together.
        Mr. Yarmuth. OK. I appreciate that answer very much. Thank
    you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, the Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you for being here again. I know we have spoken
    on several different occasions.
        And, you know, you come today asking for a significant
    increase at a time when we are still running deficits across
    the country. Can you just give me your number-one priority,
    what you would use the money for?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, the first point I would make is that,
    again, our discretionary request----
        Mr. Mullin. No. The number-one thing, what are you looking
    for, the number-one----
        Mr. Moniz. I want to make the point, it is 2 percent, and
    the President's budget is within the cap.
        Now, in terms of this budget and the number-one issue in
    terms of new direction is the Mission Innovation direction writ
    large----
        Mr. Mullin. Is that across the board, or is that just with
    renewables?
        Mr. Moniz. It is across the board.
        Mr. Mullin. Because the policy in the past that your
    administration has put forth, and your agency, isn't across the
    board. It is not equally yoked. It seems to have a tendency to
    lean towards renewables.
        And with that being said, I have another question for you.
    DOE is charged with setting effective and comprehensive
    national energy policy. Is that correct?
        Mr. Moniz. Sort of.
        Mr. Mullin. Sort of?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, only because----
        Mr. Mullin. I mean, I thought that was the reason why it
    was in existence to begin with.
        Mr. Moniz. No, no, no, the Energy Department, of course,
    has the major----
        Mr. Mullin. Well, it is not ``sort of.'' It is either
    ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Moniz [continuing]. Makes energy technology
    development. But my point simply is, as was evident in the
    Quadrennial Energy Review, energy is----
        Mr. Mullin. No, I am talking--I don't care about the energy
    review. I am talking about DOE is charged with setting
    effective and comprehensive national energy policy. Is that a
    yes or a no?
        Mr. Moniz. Energy touches many equities----
        Mr. Mullin. It is just a simple ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Moniz. I am trying to answer the question.
        Mr. Mullin. I don't need an explanation. I just need a
    ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Moniz. Because the answer is, then if you take
    something like the Quadrennial Energy Review----
        Mr. Mullin. Just a ``yes'' or ``no,'' sir.
        Mr. Moniz [continuing]. That is bringing together----
        Mr. Mullin. I am not asking for a long answer. I just want
    a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Moniz. I am giving you the shortest answer that is
    meaningful.
        Mr. Mullin. The shortest one would be ``yes'' or ``no.'' It
    is either a three-letter word or a two-letter word.
        Mr. Moniz. We play a central role in pulling----
        Mr. Mullin. Now, sir, I just want a simple ``yes'' or
    ``no.''
        Mr. Moniz [continuing]. Together the energy threads for a
    coherent energy policy.
        Mr. Mullin. So is that a----
        Mr. Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Mullin [continuing]. ``Yes''? Why didn't you just say
    that to begin with?
        Mr. Moniz. Because it needed a little bit of----
        Mr. Mullin. No, it didn't need anything else. All I needed
    was a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        So is part of that about the affordable and reliability of
    our energy policy?
        Mr. Moniz. Say it again. I am sorry.
        Mr. Mullin. Is part of that policy about the affordable and
    the reliability to our taxpayers, to the American people?
        Mr. Moniz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mullin. Then why are we allowing----
        Mr. Moniz. And security and environment.
        Mr. Mullin. Then why are we allowing the EPA to set agenda
    for DOE?
        Mr. Moniz. Those are environmental rules about air quality.
        Mr. Mullin. Clean Power Plan? Is that not going to affect
    affordable and reliability issues?
        Mr. Moniz. This goes back to the earlier answer, why it is
    more complicated than ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Mullin. No, it is not. What we are doing is you are
    allowing agencies to----
        Mr. Moniz. Environmental policy has historically always
    affected energy policy, as has, often, security policy and----
        Mr. Mullin. We all want to be good stewards, but what I
    have an issue with is when the EPA becomes able to set policy
    for the DOE and when DOE becomes a source of agenda-driven
    issues rather than really focusing on making sure that we have
    reliable and effective, efficient energy sources to the
    American people. And when we start looking at only one factor,
    such as green renewables, which is an agenda-driven policy, and
    we take a look away from what has driven this economy and our
    energy resilience, I have an issue with that.
        And we want the Department of Energy to be successful
    because we want America to be successful, but we don't want it
    to be agenda-driven. And we are allowing the EPA step all over
    your agenda or your policies by setting policies through the
    Clean Power--and I don't see any pushback from you or your
    agency saying, ``Wait, this is part of ours too. You are
    affecting us.'' Instead, you are just going along to get along.
        That is from my perspective. Now, if you can tell me
    something different, please let me know.
        Mr. Moniz. OK. So the EPA is putting out a clean air
    regulation. Our job in the energy sector, as it is in any
    sector that influences air quality, is to develop the ways to
    respond to what the regulations, the laws of the land are.
        Mr. Mullin. What if it affects the reliability of it?
        Mr. Moniz. Sorry?
        Mr. Mullin. What if it affects the reliability?
        I don't know who you keep looking to over there, but you
    and I are the ones talking here.
        So what if it affects the reliability of it?
        Mr. Moniz. The reliability is clearly an issue. Some of our
    analyses----
        Mr. Mullin. Do you not see the Clean Power Plan being a
    reliability issue if it goes into full effect?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, for example, we did an analysis around the
    natural gas system, and we found that there were not
    reliability risks.
        Mr. Mullin. That is very hard to believe.
        Mr. Moniz. We can show you the analysis.
        Mr. Mullin. I appreciate it.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Moniz. It is published.
        Mr. Whitfield. At this time, the Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        You know, taking up on Mr. Mullin's questions, there is
    required to be a change in the model if we are going to change
    our energy mix, if we are going to move to distributed
    generation. And those are extraordinary challenges that our
    utilities face.
        But that is an agenda that we have in Vermont. You know, we
    have utilities that are all in on trying to promote distributed
    generation, that are promoting solar, that are really strong on
    efficiency. And it is a complete departure from the old model
    that used to exist in the Vermont utilities of just promoting
    more usage of energy.
        And my question--one, I want to cite that. And, two, I
    notice in your budget there is a lot of emphasis on trying to
    facilitate activities such as distributed generation, renewable
    battery storage, and so on, and just give you a quick minute to
    comment on that.
        Mr. Moniz. I would say yes.
        Mr. Welch. All right.
        You know, the second thing, Mr. McKinley was asking about
    coal country and inviting you to West Virginia. I want to thank
    you for coming to Vermont. It was a very meaningful visit. Go
    to West Virginia. I went there with Mr. McKinley. He took me
    into a coal mine. And I want to focus attention on the parts of
    your budget that are going to help coal country out. Because
    whatever one thinks about coal, those coal workers have kept
    the lights on in this country for generations.
        And I want to just give you an opportunity to comment on
    the President's proposal with respect to money that can help
    the Appalachian fund. And a billion dollars is being proposed
    to come from the abandoned mine fund to help out in coal
    country.
        Mr. Moniz. Right. So, again, without repeating it, I just
    again want to emphasize that there are a huge number of pieces
    that affect coal in our budget, not just the fossil energy R&D
    budget.
        Among those, again, I will mention something that I think
    will be very important to put in are the tax credits that I
    mentioned earlier, but, very importantly, the Power Plus Plan,
    which is precisely the plan--it is administration-wide, it is
    not DOE, administration-wide, in terms of really helping
    communities in multiple ways, including what we can help with
    in terms of economic development but certainly retraining and
    other programs, of course weatherization, et cetera.
        This is part of why we have two offices that are critical
    here. One is the ED office, the economic development and
    diversity office, and then this jobs focus, this Jobs Strategy
    Council I formed. They have been in coal country. Well, they
    have visited Mr. Griffith, for example, and I think it was a--I
    heard from them, as well, that it was a very good visit. And we
    are trying very hard----
        Mr. Welch. I would encourage you to keep doing that because
    that is the one area where----
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Welch. And these coal workers are----
        Mr. Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Welch [continuing]. Wonderful people, and they----
        Mr. Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Welch [continuing]. Are getting hammered, and we have
    to help them.
        Mr. Moniz. We completely agree. And, again, I would urge
    that the Congress look favorably, I hope, on our trying to
    convert that into a separate budget line, a little office.
    Frankly----
        Mr. Welch. Well, I would be glad to work with you and
    colleagues on doing that.
        Mr. Moniz. And that goes back to what Mr. Rush said
    earlier.
        Mr. Welch. Yes.
        Mr. Moniz. Because I think, if we do that, we have a better
    chance of trying to kind of get that planted in the Department
    of Energy as a function that will go on in the next
    administration.
        Mr. Welch. Well, thank you.
        I have 1 more minute. We have a plant, a nuclear plant,
    that is being decommissioned, and we are just stuck with the
    nuclear waste that is in dry-cask storage along the banks of
    the Connecticut River. It is really a problem. It is a problem
    for us. We are going to live with this for how long, we don't
    know.
        Yucca Mountain, none of us are particularly optimistic
    about its prospects. We have a bill in Congress, a bipartisan
    bill, where Texas wants to have an interim storage site.
    Vermont would be glad to provide some stuff to store. The
    administration's blue ribbon commission seems to be open to
    that.
        I know this is a difficult, delicate issue for you, but
    what about the prospects of having some interim storage site
    while whatever is going to happen with Yucca works itself out
    so that we don't have this waste literally right along the
    banks of the Connecticut River?
        Mr. Moniz. We have a request for information out right now
    to the public, following through on the consent-based approach
    to storage--pilot interim storage, big interim storage, and
    geological repositories for both civilian spent fuel and high-
    level waste.
        We are moving forward, to the extent that we can, in
    getting the interim storage advanced. We cannot without
    congressional authorization actually do a site.
        But the issue that has arisen with Texas about the
    possibility of a private site is one that we would support the
    Congress providing clarity on that as being an acceptable path
    forward because, ultimately, presumably, to work, that may at
    least require access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, and it would
    certainly require legislative action.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Secretary Moniz.
        And my time is up, and I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired.
        At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today.
        The original Advanced Research Projects Agency within DOE
    has been in existence for a few years now. Part of the mission
    of the program is to, quote, ``accelerate transformational
    energy technologies from concept to market,'' end quote.
        Has anything come to market yet since the program's
    inception 6 years ago? For example, has there been any wide-
    scale deployment of commercialized product that has resulted
    from the ARPA-E program?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes, sir. And, you know, this is a pretty short
    time for this kind of business, and already there are 36
    companies and, I don't know, 9 or 10 commercial products being
    sold. And they span quite a diversity of technologies.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, that is encouraging to hear.
        What metrics does DOE use to evaluate the success of these
    projects?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, I would like to talk about intermediate
    metrics and then the ultimate metrics.
        The ultimate metrics are that these technologies have
    indeed--that some number of them have indeed gone into the
    marketplace and have scaled some appreciable time. In the
    energy business, that is not a 5-year business.
        But the intermediate metrics, I would say, are very
    positive. I mentioned already the 36 companies and 9 or 10
    products, but, in addition, about a quarter of all of the
    projects that have been completed have attracted well over a
    billion dollars of private-sector funding. Another quarter of
    the projects, roughly, has attracted follow-on interest from
    the Department of Energy or other Government agencies, like
    DOD, for example.
        So when you take a program that is, by its nature, kind of
    pushing on the edge of the technology and roughly half of them
    after a 3-year project have got follow-on, including company
    creation, that is pretty good. If anything, it makes you worry,
    are we taking enough risk?
        Mr. Hudson. Well, when an ARPA-E funded project isn't
    resulting in progress or benefits, are there any protocols in
    place for ending that project?
        Mr. Moniz. Oh, yes. ARPA-E is a very different, by
    creation, a different structure. And you have active program
    managers who are very much close to the project--which is also,
    by the way, also receiving advice on tech to market. But if
    they are not working, then they just end. In fact, it has been
    said that, you know, in this kind of business, what you like is
    quick failure and long success.
        Mr. Hudson. Switching gears a little bit, you mentioned the
    first Quadrennial Energy Review. Can you tell me how much that
    first review cost?
        Mr. Moniz. To be honest, I don't have a precise number, but
    I would say a few million dollars out of our Energy Policy and
    Systems Analysis Office. Some of the work was done analytically
    in house, and then some of it was, you know, specific studies
    contracted outside.
        Mr. Hudson. Well, if you could get back to me with maybe
    more----
        Mr. Moniz. OK, we will try to--I am not sure we have
    actually kept a budget number in that way, but we will make an
    attempt at it.
        Mr. Hudson. OK. I appreciate that.
        But assuming the costs are generally what you are saying,
    would you say it has been valuable based on that cost?
        Mr. Moniz. Extremely. I think it has been a tremendous
    return. The action of this committee and this Congress in
    incorporating a tremendous number of the recommendations into
    legislation has been important. It has also being actively used
    in the current Senate legislation being developed right now.
    And, in addition, it has influenced significantly State energy
    offices. We have had many interactions.
        So we think this has been a great success, I think,
    verifying the idea that doing a deep, analytically driven
    document can really provide an excellent basis for discussions
    with the Congress and others.
        Mr. Hudson. OK.
        And you have said the second installment of QER will
    conduct a competence review of the Nation's electricity system.
    What was the agency's motivation for focusing solely on
    electricity for the second QER?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, the motivation was that, as we are looking
    to put together the pieces for ultimately bringing them all
    together, in the first QER, which looked at all the energy
    infrastructures, it kind of said, well, you know, the
    electricity infrastructure is kind of first among equals,
    because so many other infrastructures in energy, information
    technology and the like, depend upon electricity.
        So we think this is actually a core system. As I said
    earlier also in a response, it is also a system that is perhaps
    ripe for--well, it is going through some change and there may
    be a lot more coming as technology and new services drive the
    electricity system.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. And I will submit
    written questions to follow up on, just sort of what the
    timeframe for participation and when we expect that QER draft
    to come forward.
        Mr. Moniz. And I might add, the NC State hub on wide
    bandgap semiconductors is part of the technology for this new
    grid.
        Mr. Hudson. Great.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. All right.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
    York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And, Secretary Moniz, welcome. You have had quite a busy
    year since our last budget meeting. And to your credit, I want
    to thank and congratulate you on all you have done, ranging
    from the Iran nuclear outcome to Paris and the climate
    agreement and certainly embracing innovation. Your expertise
    and your leadership have been critical for our Nation, if not
    our planet's, future security and sustainability. So an awesome
    thanks.
        Mr. Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. Mr. Secretary, Mission Innovation is a critical
    aspect toward meeting the goals of COP21 agreement. There was
    consensus coming out of Paris that new technologies and energy
    innovation will be needed to enable the transition to a low-,
    if not zero-, carbon-emission future.
        And, by the way, I have to tell you I did a visit to the
    ARPA-E Innovation Summit. Tremendous leadership there. Thank
    you for the foresight, for the vision, and for the structuring
    of such a summit.
        Can you explain the United States and its financial
    commitment to the Mission Innovation initiative? And how much
    more investment would you believe is necessary to meet that 5-
    year goal?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, the commitment specifically, to choose the
    words carefully, was to seek to double the energy R&D over 5
    years, because, obviously, we have to work with the Congress to
    reach that. But the request this year, as you know, is 21
    percent in the discretionary funds, and that would be,
    obviously, a linear trajectory to doubling.
        And, again, I would just say, it may be semi-anecdotal, but
    every piece of evidence I have says we could get a lot more
    innovation with that increased investment.
        Mr. Tonko. I share, certainly, that belief. It is
    important.
        DOE's proposed fiscal year 2017 investment makes up more
    than three-quarters of the Government's Mission Innovation
    commitment, but it will really be a partnership amongst
    numerous agencies, the private sector, and other nations.
        Can you explain just how that investment will be broken
    down across multiple DOE offices and Federal agencies?
        Mr. Moniz. Well, I don't have the exact table for the
    Federal agencies right now, but the second-biggest amount is in
    the Department of Defense, where they actually have quite a bit
    of energy work going on, substantially less than DOE,
    obviously, but quite substantial. They have interest in and we
    partner with them already in things like advanced drop-in
    biofuels. So they would like to reduce their oil dependence,
    but they can't replace the engine, so they have to go to drop-
    in biofuel. So that is still a big challenge.
        They have lots of interest in things like microgrids for
    their stationary assets, for their facilities. And, of course,
    something that is not a major energy user on the scale of, you
    know, quads of energy but very important for our warfighters is
    the question of portable energy that the people on the front
    lines can use.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And there are some 19 other countries that have also made
    R&D commitments. What are the benefits of working with
    international investors? And what is the cooperative,
    collaborative research concept that you are hoping for here?
        Mr. Moniz. First of all, it is important to note that,
    among the countries, the 20 countries, there is no obligation,
    you know, to work together on projects. Every country makes its
    sovereign choice about managing its expanded portfolio. So the
    main thing here is that it gets a lot more innovation going.
        Now, I expect that there will be enhanced collaboration
    between countries that share a specific interest in a project.
    For example, with India, we have, you know, discussed in
    general terms that distributed generation may provide a great
    opportunity for much more collaboration with them on technology
    development. We both have distributed-generation needs; they
    are somewhat different. But that could be a logical one.
        Another one where we are already ramping up but, say, in
    our discussion with the Saudis, quite different, the issue of
    what are we going to do about HFC replacements, especially for
    warm climates, not only different operating fluids,
    potentially, but new thermodynamic cycles that are more
    adventurous, if you like, in the technology.
        So I think those will appear, but we have no obligation for
    enhanced international collaboration. We manage our portfolio.
    The investors are international. They will be looking for the
    best opportunities that come out of these innovation pipelines
    in any of the 20 countries. So the extent to which we push, we
    are also going to capture that investment.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I have used up my time. Let me again thank
    you for your leadership. It is awesome. And the benefits of
    your leadership are showing themselves through all of this.
        So, with that, I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
        And now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions
    since I waited until everyone else asked their questions first.
        Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here today.
    We really appreciate it.
        Reference was made to the nuclear waste problem. And I am
    not sure exactly how many nuclear power plants we have
    operating in the U.S. today. I think it is roughly 100 or----
        Mr. Moniz. Roughly 100.
        Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. Ninety-nine.
        Mr. Moniz. Ninety-nine, yes, right. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Whitfield. And this does not reflect on you, but, as a
    Nation, I think we have made some major blunders in the area of
    dealing with nuclear waste. I know the Nuclear Waste Fund,
    nuclear power plants have been contributing to that for some
    time. We have spent roughly--you can correct me if I am wrong,
    but we have spent roughly $12 billion or so on Yucca Mountain.
        When the day came for the Government to take possession of
    this waste and start moving it to Yucca Mountain, Yucca
    Mountain was not ready to take it, not certified. And so the
    nuclear power plants filed the lawsuit against the Federal
    Government and obtained a judgment against the Federal
    Government. I don't remember the exact amount of that judgment.
    I was told it was roughly $10 billion. But do you know the
    exact amount?
        Mr. Moniz. I don't know the exact up to now, but the
    projections have said it could reach $20 billion eventually.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, because it is ongoing, because they
    can't take--so roughly $20 billion.
        And now we are looking at maybe an interim site. And it is
    my understanding--and I think you confirmed this--that that
    interim site would never work unless Congress approves it. Is
    that your understanding?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
    we cannot establish an interim site without----
        Mr. Whitfield. Right. And so here we are kind of at a
    stalemate on that issue.
        Mr. Moniz. Yep.
        Mr. Whitfield. And then that brings up three other funds.
    On the Nuclear Waste Fund, the nuclear power plants are not
    paying into that fund as a result----
        Mr. Moniz. Correct.
        Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. Of the judgment.
        Mr. Moniz. That was suspended.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
        And the Government is paying them every year, I guess, a
    certain amount of money to satisfy this judgment. I don't know
    how much, but whatever it is. OK.
        So, on the other side, the D&D fund, the USEC fund, the
    uranium supply and enrichment fund activities. On the D&D fund,
    normally the money from the cleanup--Paducah, for example,
    comes from the D&D fund. And it is my understanding that the
    D&D fund is funded from the utility plants as a result of some
    legislation maybe that passed around 1992 or so and that that
    was suspended in 2007 roughly. So, since then, they have not
    paid into this fund.
        And how much is the Department of Energy spending each year
    to assist these communities in cleanup, total? Do you know
    exactly?
        Mr. Moniz. No, but I would guess it is--for the three
    sites, it is probably on the order of $500 million. But,
    obviously, we can add up the numbers.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes. I mean, I think Paducah is roughly $270
    million, $280 million.
        Mr. Moniz. Yes. I may be a bit low.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. And Portsmouth, of course, there is also the
    barter contribution----
        Mr. Whitfield. Right.
        Mr. Moniz [continuing]. Of about $150 million. If you don't
    count that, then we are probably around $500 million, I would
    guess.
        Mr. Whitfield. But, now, you all are proposing some
    mandatory funding and taking money out of the USEC fund which I
    guess has just been sitting there----
        Mr. Moniz. Accumulating interest.
        Mr. Whitfield. Oh, is that interest staying in the fund?
        Mr. Moniz. I believe so. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And in order to go to the mandatory
    funding, the way you all are suggesting, that would require
    legislation, as well. Is that correct?
        Mr. Moniz. Yes, we would need some authorization.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. I believe. I believe that is the case.
        Mr. Whitfield. All right.
        Mr. Moniz. I should check with the experts. But, also,
    there is also the question of offsets----
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Moniz [continuing]. Because of the budget cap.
        Mr. Whitfield. Right. Right.
        Now, OK, so--I wish we could talk a little bit more about
    that, but I only have, like, 20-some seconds left.
        Mr. Moniz. And I would just add, we did suggest a possible
    offset with the quarter-mil per kilowatt hour from the relevant
    utilities.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. OK.
        Now, this is really a parochial issue. This gets down to
    Paducah. On September 2, you all issued a request for
    information for the Paducah cleanup project. And it is my
    understanding that the contract will expire--the current
    contract expires in July 2017. And do you have any idea if you
    all expect to renew a contract by that time? Or can you give me
    a brief explanation of where you think you are?
        Mr. Moniz. I would certainly expect that. But why don't I
    nail that down and get back to you promptly.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. But, yes, our expectation is we are moving
    towards having a contract in place.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Moniz. But we certainly need continuity, obviously.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes. Yes.
        And then, in closing, I am going to editorialize for just a
    minute, just a pet peeve that I have, which does not relate to
    you. I hear so many people talk about we need to expand solar
    and wind to make us less dependent on foreign oil, which I have
    never exactly understood because wind and solar is about
    electricity and oil is about transportation.
        Mr. Moniz. I never said that.
        Mr. Whitfield. You didn't say that, but so many people say
    that, and so that is my editorial.
        So, having said that, I want to thank you very much for
    being with us. And we have been here almost 3 hours, so thank
    you for your patience. We look forward to working with you on
    the important agenda of the Department of Energy.
        And we will keep the record open for 10 days. I think
    various members said they--some of them had additional
    questions and so forth.
        And do we have anything for the record? OK.
        Mr. Rush, do you have anything?
        Mr. Rush. No, nothing.
        Mr. Whitfield. All right.
        Then, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much.
        And that concludes today's hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Moniz' response has been retained in committee files
    and also is available at  http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF03/20160302/104593/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-MonizE-20160302-
    SD086.pdf.

                                     [all]