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

                        AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
                          FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 25, 2015

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 114-7

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    ___________

                              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    93-885 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 SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.          ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL                    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ERIC SWALWELL, California
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia

                                C O N T E N T S

                               February 25, 2015

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

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
      Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    14

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    15
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Discussion.......................................................    40

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.    74

                       AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
                          FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
    Technology will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee at any time. And we welcome you all
    to this hearing.
        The subject of the hearing is ``An Overview of the
    Department of Energy's Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2016.''
    I will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the
    Ranking Member.
        The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology focuses on
    the future. Our jurisdiction includes scientific research,
    development, and demonstration that makes possible America's
    technological innovations and industrial competitiveness.
        Today, we will examine the science and energy research,
    development, and demonstration activities of the Department of
    Energy. This includes the Office of Science, which conducts
    critical research in high-energy physics, advanced scientific
    computing, biological and environmental research, nuclear
    physics, fusion energy sciences, and basic energy sciences, as
    well as applied energy research and development in fossil,
    nuclear, and renewable energy. These areas comprise
    approximately 1/3 of the DOE's budget, or over $10 billion in
    the President's fiscal year 2016 proposal.
        DOE is the largest federal supporter of basic research and
    development and sponsors 47 percent of federal basic research
    in the physical sciences. The Department's science and energy
    research is conducted at over 300 sites nationwide, including
    our 17 national labs. Over 31,000 scientific researchers take
    advantage of DOE user facilities each year.
        However, the President's budget proposal appears to ignore
    the fiscal realities and constraints facing the nation. The DOE
    request proposes an overall increase of $2.5 billion, or more
    than nine percent, for the Department in Fiscal Year 2016 for a
    total of $30 billion. With this request, the Administration
    continues to prioritize short-term, expensive commercialization
    activities and energy subsidies that result in the government
    picking winners and losers in the energy technology
    marketplace.
        The Administration claims to be a proponent of a balanced,
    all-of-the-above energy strategy. While I applaud the requested
    increased investment in basic scientific research and
    development, I am concerned that the President's true
    priorities in this budget lie elsewhere. For example, the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy receives an
    increase of $809 million, or 42 percent. In comparison, the
    budgets for fossil and nuclear energy research and development
    remain stagnant. The President's budget does not call for the
    most effective or efficient use of taxpayer dollars nor does it
    support a balanced, all-of-the-above energy strategy.
        That said, I want to thank our witness, Secretary Moniz,
    for joining us today. While we may disagree on spending and
    research priorities, we do share an appreciation for the vital
    role DOE has in maintaining American leadership in scientific
    discovery and technological achievement.
        The robust partnership between DOE scientists, academia,
    and the private sector has produced innovative breakthroughs in
    research as diverse as supercomputing, genomics, and nuclear
    science. It has helped us create the most reliable, affordable,
    and secure domestic energy portfolio in the world. But we
    cannot afford to let Department of Energy research exist in a
    vacuum. We must do more to provide American entrepreneurs the
    opportunity to collaborate with DOE researchers and to take
    technology developed in the laboratory and apply it to their
    designs.
        America's energy future is increasingly shaped by federal
    regulations. We must ensure that the Department of Energy
    provides technical expertise on the necessary energy
    infrastructure, the readiness of new energy technology for
    commercial deployment, and the impact new regulations have on
    the security and reliability of our electric grid. Sound
    science must be the guide, not politics.
        Nowhere is this more apparent than with the Keystone
    pipeline and Yucca Mountain, where the science has consistently
    pointed to the safety of the projects, but politics drives
    endless delays, sometimes even a veto. Just yesterday, the
    President vetoed a bipartisan Keystone pipeline bill that an
    overwhelming majority of Americans rightfully support.
        Finally, it is our responsibility in Congress to ensure
    American tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. While
    funding every research project seems like a worthy goal, it is
    simply unsustainable. We will have to make tough choices about
    how to best use our limited resources. As we shape the future
    of the Department of Energy, our priority must be to emphasize
    basic energy research and development, not to impose expensive
    and often inefficient technology on the American people.
    Instead, the Administration should invest in breakthrough
    discoveries from basic research that will continue to provide
    the foundation for private sector development across the energy
    spectrum. This will create jobs and grow our economy, which I
    think is a goal we all share.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
                              Chairman Lamar Smith

        The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology focuses on the
    future. Our jurisdiction includes scientific research, development, and
    demonstration that makes possible America's technological innovations
    and industrial competitiveness.
        Today we will examine the science and energy research, development
    and demonstration activities of the Department of Energy (DOE).
        This includes the Office of Science, which conducts critical
    research in high energy physics, advanced scientific computing,
    biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy
    sciences, and basic energy sciences, as well as applied energy research
    and development in fossil, nuclear and renewable energy. These areas
    comprise approximately one-third of the DOE's budget, or over 10
    billion dollars in the president's fiscal year 2016 proposal.
        DOE is the largest federal supporter of basic research and
    development and sponsors 47 percent of federal basic research in the
    physical sciences. The Department's science and energy research is
    conducted at over 300 sites nationwide, including our 17 National Labs.
    Over 31,000 scientific researchers take advantage of DOE user
    facilities each year.
        However, the president's budget proposal appears to ignore the
    fiscal realities and constraints facing the nation. The DOE request
    proposes an overall increase of $2.5 billion, or more than 9 percent,
    for the Department in Fiscal Year 2016 for a total of $30 billion.
        With this request, the administration continues to prioritize
    short-term, expensive commercialization activities and energy subsidies
    that result in the government picking winners and losers in the energy
    technology marketplace.
        This administration claims to be a proponent of a balanced, all-of-
    the-above energy strategy. While I applaud the requested increased
    investment in basic scientific research and development, I am concerned
    that the president's true priorities in this budget lie elsewhere. For
    example, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy receives
    an increase of $809 million, or 42 percent. In comparison, the budgets
    for Fossil and Nuclear energy research and development remain stagnant.
        The President's budget does not call for the most effective or
    efficient use of taxpayer dollars nor does it support a balanced, all-
    of-the-above energy strategy.
        That said, I want to thank our witness, Secretary Moniz, for
    joining us today. While we may disagree on spending and research
    priorities, we do share an appreciation for the vital role DOE has in
    maintaining American leadership in scientific discovery and
    technological achievement.
        The robust partnership between DOE scientists, academia, and the
    private sector has produced innovative breakthroughs in research as
    diverse as supercomputing, genomics, and nuclear science. It has helped
    us create the most reliable, affordable, and secure domestic energy
    portfolio in the world.
        But we cannot afford to let Department of Energy research exist in
    a vacuum. We must do more to provide American entrepreneurs the
    opportunity to collaborate with DOE researchers and to take technology
    developed in the laboratory and apply it to their designs.
        America's energy future is increasingly shaped by federal
    regulations. We must ensure that the Department of Energy provides
    technical expertise on the necessary energy infrastructure, the
    readiness of new energy technology for commercial deployment, and the
    impact new regulations have on the security and reliability of our
    electric grid. Sound science must be the guide, not politics.
        Nowhere is this more apparent than with the Keystone XL pipeline
    and Yucca Mountain, where the science has consistently pointed to the
    safety of the projects, but politics drives endless delays, or
    sometimes even a veto. Just yesterday, the president vetoed a
    bipartisan Keystone XL pipeline bill that an overwhelming majority of
    Americans rightfully support.
        Finally, it is our responsibility in Congress to ensure American
    tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. While funding every
    research project seems like a worthy goal, it is simply unsustainable.
        We will have to make tough choices about how to best use our
    limited resources. As we shape the future of the Department of Energy,
    our priority must be to emphasize basic energy research and
    development, not to impose expensive and often inefficient technology
    on the American people.
        Instead, the administration should invest in breakthrough
    discoveries from basic research that will continue to provide the
    foundation for private sector development across the energy spectrum.
    This will create jobs and grow our economy, which is a goal I think we
    all share.
        Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement. And
    the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, is now
    recognized for hers.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for holding this hearing. I would like to thank Secretary
    Moniz for being here today to discuss the proposed DOE budget
    and for his continued service to our nation.
        Let me start by reminding my colleagues that we have seen
    how government-supported research can pay off. When it comes to
    energy development, DOE-supported research was key to
    development of high-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants,
    nuclear reactors, and the directional drilling and hydraulic
    fracturing technologies and techniques that have led to the
    shale gas boom of today. But we should remember that those
    achievements required decades of federal investment, the
    overwhelming majority of which were focused on fossil energy
    and the first generations of nuclear power reactors.
        I continue to support research to make today's technologies
    safer, cleaner, and more efficient, but we also have to find
    the greatest value for our investment of taxpayers' dollars.
    The reality today is that the emerging energy technology
    sectors can most benefit from government support. That is where
    the priorities set by DOE's fiscal year 2016 budget request
    come into play.
        I am pleased with much of the Department's budget request
    for science and energy research this year. If adopted, the DOE
    Office of Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, ARPA-E, the Office of Electricity, and
    Nuclear Energy would all receive much-needed boosts, to advance
    the development of fundamental science and clean energy
    technologies that will be vital to our national security, our
    economy, and the environment in decades to come. For example,
    the Geothermal and Marine Energy Research programs would
    establish important new test sites to help advance next-
    generation renewable energy technologies, and the Department's
    important Advanced Manufacturing Program that would expand
    considerably.
        I am also pleased to see that under the Secretary's
    leadership, the Department is clearly making progress in
    coordinating several critical research areas that cut across
    its various programs, including the Water-Energy Nexus, which I
    personally am very concerned about, advanced computing and
    modernization of our woefully outdated electric grid.
        However, I do have concerns with a few areas of the
    Department's proposed budget. The Advanced Reactor Program
    within the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Fusion Energy
    Program within the Office of Science would both receive sizable
    cuts, some of it in Mr. Smith's district, as an aside, under
    the proposed DOE budget. Over the long-term, both of these
    types of advanced technologies have potential to play a major
    role in enabling a vibrant low-carbon economy. So I hope we can
    discuss this further and see if perhaps these funding levels
    should be reconsidered.
        In addition, while I certainly appreciate seeing the
    Department place a stronger emphasis on addressing the
    environmental impacts of developing our coal and natural gas
    resources, I would like to learn more about how the significant
    shifts you proposed to the fossil energy research budget will
    affect these efforts.
        All that said, I believe that the Department has proposed a
    serious request worthy of our careful consideration and I look
    forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues
    across the aisle, to address any remaining concerns we have and
    to ensure that you have the direction, tools, and the resources
    you need to help secure our nation's energy future. Thank you,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
                      Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson

        Thank you, Chairman Smith for holding this hearing. I would also
    like to thank Secretary Moniz for being here today to discuss the
    proposed DOE budget and for his continued service to our nation.
        Let me start by reminding my colleagues that we have seen how
    government-supported research can pay off when it comes to energy
    development. DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-
    efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, nuclear reactors, and the
    directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies and
    techniques that have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should
    remember that those achievements required decades of federal
    investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil
    energy and the first generations of nuclear power reactors. I continue
    to support research to make today's technologies safer, cleaner, and
    more efficient, but we also have to find the greatest value for our
    investment of taxpayer dollars. The reality today is that the emerging
    energy technology sectors that can most benefit from government
    support. That is where the priorities set by DOE's Fiscal Year 2016
    budget request come into play.
        I am pleased with much of the Department's budget request for
    science and energy research this year. If adopted, the DOE Office of
    Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, ARPA-E,
    the Office of Electricity, and Nuclear Energy would all receive much-
    needed boosts to advance the development of fundamental science and
    clean energy technologies that will be vital to our national security,
    our economy, and the environment in the decades to come. For example,
    the geothermal and marine energy research programs would establish
    important new test sites to help advance next generation renewable
    energy technologies, and the Department's important advanced
    manufacturing program would expand considerably. I am also pleased to
    see that, under the Secretary's leadership, the Department is clearly
    making progress in coordinating several critical research areas that
    cut across its various programs, including the energy-water nexus--
    which I personally am very concerned about, advanced computing, and
    modernization of our woefully outdated electric grid.
        However, I do have concerns with a few areas of the Department's
    proposed budget. The advanced reactor program within the Office of
    Nuclear Energy and the fusion energy program within the Office of
    Science would both receive sizable cuts under the proposed DOE budget.
    Over the long term, both of these types of advanced technologies have
    the potential to play a major role in enabling a vibrant low-carbon
    economy, so I hope we can discuss this further and see if, perhaps,
    these funding levels should be reconsidered. In addition, while I
    certainly appreciate seeing the Department place a stronger emphasis on
    addressing the environmental impacts of developing our coal and natural
    gas resources, I would like to learn more about how the significant
    shifts you've proposed within the Fossil Energy research budget will
    affect these efforts.
        All that said, I believe that what the Department has proposed a
    serious request and worthy of our careful consideration. I look forward
    to working with you, Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues across the aisle,
    to address any remaining concerns we have and to ensure that you have
    the direction, tools, and resources you need to help secure our
    nation's energy future.
        With that I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        Our witness today is Hon. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the
    Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was
    the head of the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology where he was a faculty member since
    1973.
        Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the
    Department of Energy where he oversaw the Department's Science
    and Energy Programs. From 1995 to 1997 he served as the
    Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
        Dr. Moniz brings both impressive academic credentials and
    practical skills to a very demanding job. Dr. Moniz received a
    bachelor of science degree in physics from Boston College and a
    doctorate in theoretical physics from Stanford University.
        Before I conclude, I would like to recognize--they aren't
    here today but I am going to recognize them in their absence--
    Alamo Heights High School in my home district of San Antonio
    Texas who recently won their regional competition for the 2015
    National Science Bowl. DOE's Office of Science's National
    Science Bowl is one of the most distinguished science academic
    competitions in the United States for students, and I
    congratulate the students at Alamo Heights High School and I
    wish them the best as they prepare to travel to Washington,
    D.C., for the national finals at the end of April. These
    competitions inspire students to work hard and help shape
    America's future innovators.
        And, Mr. Secretary, I hope you don't mind my adding that to
    your introduction this morning. And with that, we will
    recognize Secretary Moniz for five minutes or longer, however
    much time he would like to present his testimony. And we
    welcome you today.

                 TESTIMONY OF ERNEST MONIZ, SECRETARY,

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Secretary Moniz. Well, thank you, Chairman Smith and
    Ranking Member Johnson and all Members of the Committee. I
    certainly, by the way, never mind an advertisement for the
    National Science Bowl and look forward to working with the
    Committee.
        If I may, I would also like to introduce behind me Under
    Secretary for Science and Energy, Franklin Orr, who is here,
    just to say that he was confirmed in December in the lame duck
    and he is someone I urge you to get to know as the new Under
    Secretary looking at the integration of our energy and science
    programs.
        So, again, I am pleased to be here and to discuss our
    fiscal year 2016 $29.9 billion request, as the Chairman
    mentioned, a roughly nine percent increase from the current
    level.
        As you know, again, we have a diverse portfolio from all-
    of-the-above energy strategy to the backbone for basic research
    in the physical sciences, ensuring nuclear security, and
    cleaning up the Cold War environmental mess. Clearly, the
    science and energy programs are those of principal interest
    today. As to the energy mission, again, I do want to emphasize
    that we are committed to the all-of-the-above approach, and I
    am sure we will discuss that in more detail.
        If I look at the science arena fiscal year 2016, $5.34
    billion request, or a five percent increase, we are continuing
    to build this nation's research infrastructure, the cutting-
    edge of light sources, supercomputers, neutron sources, other
    facilities the Chairman already mentioned serving 31,000
    scientists across the country. I will just note that only a few
    weeks ago I was able to cut the ribbon at Brookhaven, now the
    world's brightest light source came in on budget and under
    schedule by 6 months. We have commissioned major facilities
    coming on this year, a 12 GeV upgrade at the Jefferson lab in
    Virginia, a fusion experiment at Princeton, and now with this
    budget we will be building the next x-ray laser at SLAC and a
    rare isotope beam facility at Michigan state, for example. I
    want to emphasize that no matter what the budget is, we have to
    keep moving to the front tier with these facilities to serve
    our national research community.
        And in the energy arena, $5.38 billion, or 8.27 percent
    increase, and we have seen a number of accomplishments. This
    year we will hit 10 million tons of CO2
    sequestration, for example. Last year, through our assistance,
    first two commercial-scale cellulosic biofuels facilities came
    online in Iowa and in Kansas. We moved forward on efficiency
    standards last year that cumulatively to 2030 will reduce
    carbon dioxide emissions by over 435 million tons and save
    consumers an estimated $78 billion in energy costs.
        Advance manufacturing, as the Ranking Member mentioned, is
    a key priority moving forward with manufacturing institutes. We
    all know that manufacturing has been a great story for our
    country in the last years. Energy developments have been a big
    part of that so I believe, as has been our focus on this, and I
    can come back and describe some extraordinarily interesting
    development there. The budget includes things like going to
    SuperTruck, doubling heavy vehicle Class A truck efficiencies,
    for example, and a strong focus on continuing the dramatic
    progress in electric vehicles.
        We will continue our program with carbon capture
    utilization and sequestration but I want to emphasize here
    that, in addition to the technology push and demonstrations,
    that this will go hand-in-hand with the tax credits proposed
    this year by the Administration, including $2 billion credit
    subsidy for carbon capture and sequestration infrastructure and
    an additional tax credit for carbon that is sequestered.
        ARPA-E, we request an increase from 280 to $325 million. We
    are approaching now the 5th anniversary--next month will be the
    5th anniversary of the first signed contract and we have always
    said, you know, that is kind of time frame that we need to see
    the outcomes of these programs and we are seeing those
    outcomes. We are seeing 30 companies formed, we are seeing
    another 37 that have attracted support from other federal
    agencies, we are seeing these products actually getting into
    the marketplace. So this is a great success. And just this
    week, the American Energy Innovation Council composed of major
    CEOs in our country repeated their call of several years ago
    that ARPA-E deserves a billion a year, so I think in that
    context you can agree we have a very modest request with our
    $45 million increase proposed.
        Crosscutting Electricity Grid Initiative, $356 million. I
    want to emphasize that we will soon, and I hope within weeks,
    be able to come out and talk with you about our Quadrennial
    Energy Review focusing on energy infrastructure revitalization
    needs. This grid initiative frankly is part of that thrust, as
    are other proposals that will be coming out in the QER and are
    reflected already in our fiscal year 2016 budget such as two
    new state grant programs we propose for a total of $63 million
    going to the States for reliability planning and energy
    assurance planning.
        I will just say a word because it is not the main focus,
    but to complete the picture, in nuclear security we propose
    $11.6 billion for NNSA, a ten percent increase. I will just say
    that this will, we are confident, allow us to continue our safe
    and reliable stockpile without testing. It will allow us to
    continue to secure materials that we need to have secured
    globally as we did last year, and it will continue our nuclear
    Navy towards being able to deploy the next generation aircraft
    carrier and the next generation strategic submarine fleet
    beyond the Ohio class.
        And finally, management and performance, the biggest budget
    item there was our Environmental Management Program. We have
    proposed $5.8 billion. It is essentially constant with the
    appropriation although an increase from our traditional request
    there, and that is very important for advancing our very high-
    priority projects.
        And I will just end by saying in the management arena, in
    addition to the Environmental Management Program, we have also,
    for example, revamped our whole approach to project management
    taking an enterprise-wide approach. I would be happy to
    describe that in more detail. I believe that this will continue
    our progress in getting control over major projects. I do note
    that we are off the high-risk list for all of the science
    projects and for all of the other projects up to $750 million.
    Now, we are going to get the last five or six off that list and
    I believe we are making progress. And again, that is something
    I would be happy to discuss now or later with the Committee.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, that ends my opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Moniz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And I will recognize myself for questions.
        And I would like to ask you a series of questions about the
    Keystone pipeline. Let me acknowledge at the outset, though,
    that we all know the State Department, because of the pipeline
    being an international one in crossing countries' boundaries,
    that the State Department has jurisdiction or has decision-
    making powers over that particular pipeline. But I know that
    the Department of Energy has been involved as well. The
    pipeline has been under consideration now for more than six
    years. The President vetoed the bill that was passed by the
    House and the Senate yesterday and, quite frankly, and this is
    just my opinion, we saw three days after the Senate voted to
    approve the pipeline a letter sent from the EPA to the
    Secretary of State raising additional questions. The timing of
    that letter, coming as it did after the vote by the Senate,
    raises all kinds of suspicions, and frankly makes me wonder if
    the President didn't run out of reasons to veto it and was
    trying to conjure one. You don't need to respond to that. That
    is just my personal opinion.
        But I would like to ask you some questions that I think you
    can answer. I know there are some questions you cannot, for
    instance, you couldn't answer questions about the content of
    conversations or the details of any advice you might have given
    either the State Department or the President, but my questions
    I think will help us, and, as I say, I think they are questions
    you can answer.
        And the first question is this: Did you contribute to the
    State Department's report? And as you know, the State
    Department found that there was little environmental impact and
    it would not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions if
    the pipeline were built. Without asking you what you
    contributed, did you contribute to the State Department report?
        Secretary Moniz. As is our custom, the Department provides
    technical assistance when solicited by--actually by any agency
    on energy-relevant activities.
        Chairman Smith. Right. And in that case, did you contribute
    in any way to the EPA's letter to the State Department?
        Secretary Moniz. I don't believe we did, no.
        Chairman Smith. So they did not consult you before the
    letter was written?
        Secretary Moniz. To my knowledge. We can----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --check that.
        Chairman Smith. Did the White House ask you for your
    opinion on the Keystone Pipeline? And when I say White House, I
    distinguish White House from the State Department.
        Secretary Moniz. No, we have had no--certainly no formal
    request in that sense, but as you say or suggest, clearly we
    did submit comments to the Department of State.
        Chairman Smith. Right. And do you have any knowledge that
    the White House asked to the EPA to write a letter to the
    Secretary of State?
        Secretary Moniz. No, sir, I have no----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --knowledge about that.
        Chairman Smith. And in the report that the State Department
    produced finding little environmental impact, they did consider
    the volatility of prices, and yet that was the subject of the
    letter that the EPA wrote to the Secretary of State. Let me
    think how to ask this next question. Are you convinced that the
    State Department did take into consideration the volatility of
    prices when it came out with its report saying that there would
    be little environmental impact?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, just to clarify, of course the State
    Department has not yet acted with regard to environmental
    impact statement. Again, I cannot be authoritative on what they
    did or didn't do but I would say that when it was done of
    course, it was a different price environment for oil. And
    without--as you suggested, without getting into our comments in
    a deliberative process, I can say that our comments did, let's
    say, update on various factors in terms of current oil markets.
        Chairman Smith. Right. And speaking of current oil market,
    is it your understanding that most of the time when prices go
    down that production oftentimes goes down as well?
        Secretary Moniz. With some time lag that happens because we
    know capital expenditures are typically down, say, 30, 35
    percent right now----
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --in the low-price environment.
        Chairman Smith. Right. I say that because the letter from
    the EPA to the State Department mentioned volatility of prices
    as a reason to take another look and suggested that that would
    actually increase environmental impact.
        The letter ignored two things. It ignored the fact that the
    State Department had found little environmental impact and it
    ignored the fact that, as prices go down, production sometimes
    decreases and therefore, whatever environmental impact there
    would have been would be diminished by lower prices, not
    increased. And so the letter from the EPA seemed to be off the
    tracks for a couple of reasons.
        And again, you don't have to agree with me on that. That is
    simply my conclusion, but I am very suspicious of the letter
    that the EPA wrote. It doesn't seem to have any real grounds or
    any real basis or any new issues that are raised, and----
        Secretary Moniz. It----
        Chairman Smith. But do you have a comment on that?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, if I may comment, first of all, the
    EIA projection for our domestic oil production in 2015 is that
    it will be higher than in 2014.
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. So the CAPEX reductions are more future
    and that in turn will depend upon what actually happens.
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. In fact, the prices have come up, as you
    know, since it happened----
        Chairman Smith. Right----
        Secretary Moniz. --already have come up $10 or so.
        Chairman Smith. Right, and the point is----
        Secretary Moniz. And so----
        Chairman Smith. --they are going to----
        Secretary Moniz. And the other thing, if I may say, is the
    other factor of course is that, as the prices come down, first
    of all, it is a boon to our consumers----
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --across the country and perhaps in other
    places, again, without going into too many things, the lower
    global oil price, may have an effect in terms of helping the
    European economy, which has been extremely soft of course----
        Chairman Smith. And, as you say, the consumer benefits. My
    point was only that is taking the volatility of prices into
    consideration, well, the State Department had already done
    that, so again, the EPA letter didn't raise any new issues, and
    that is just my take on the letter.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, the State Department issue had just
    kind of not in a deep way talked about--I forget exactly. I
    think they commented on what would happen if the price went
    down into $75----
        Chairman Smith. Right. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --or something like that and----
        Chairman Smith. Totally----
        Secretary Moniz. --which is still high compared to where we
    are today.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And my time is
    way over.
        The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for
    her time.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Moniz, something I think that my colleagues and I
    on both sides of the aisle can agree on is the critical link
    between energy and water. As you probably know, last year I
    introduced bipartisan legislation with my good friend and
    former Chairman of this Committee Ralph Hall to help address
    this issue, so I am very interested that in your budget request
    this is highlighted over and over again as a Department-wide
    priority. Can you provide a general overview to the Committee
    on the Department's efforts in this area, including the
    activities of the Energy and Water Tech Team you established?
        And the second question is where do you see the potential
    for the biggest payoff for this research in this area?
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson. Well,
    first of all, because I was very pleased to discuss the energy-
    water developments with you a year ago, and appreciate your
    leadership in this area. So, as you know, other Members of the
    Committee may not be aware that last year we published, and we
    have posted a significant report--I think it is about 150
    pages--in terms of a detailed technical analysis about the
    issues of the energy-water nexus. These are becoming
    increasingly important.
        It is also clear that there are major responsibilities in
    that area, water, and other departments and we do coordinate,
    but there are some areas where we think the energy implications
    really have a strong focus. For example, in answer to your
    question, one of the focuses is on the use of what you might
    call nontraditional waters in energy systems. That would
    include, for example, the use of flow-back waters in other
    ways. That is just one example.
        Another example is in lower energy water utilities, for
    example. We have quite a bit of energy used in terms of
    conveyance, for example, of water. Desalinization is another
    example. So these are the areas that we proposed a $38 billion
    crosscutting budget for that. Those are examples of the
    technology areas that we will explore.
        I may add one other very important point I think, and that
    is we have a number of collaborations with international
    partners, and one of them is through the Clean Energy
    Ministerial, for example, involves about 20 countries, and
    others are more bilateral like China, for example. So they
    are--let's say with China, we have a Clean Energy Research
    Center collaboration. We provide $10 million a year. That is
    matched threefold for a $40 million issue. Our money is spent
    on American researchers for collaborative projects. But my
    point is that in all of these venues when we say how about if
    we add the energy-water nexus to our collaborative focus, it is
    100 percent yes, very important. So this is a global issue. We
    had our domestic issues but it is also a global issue in terms
    of the energy-water nexus.
        Ms. Johnson. How will these investments impact the
    resilience of our nation's energy infrastructure?
        Secretary Moniz. Again, very, very important. We do have a
    report that we can look at in terms of--not surprisingly, for
    example, much of our critical energy infrastructure is in
    coastal regions. That is one clear example. And as we are
    seeing with global warming, with warming of our oceans, we are
    seeing dramatically increased storm surges. That is just one
    example of how the energy-water nexus and our energy
    infrastructure are tightly linked.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Very quickly, many times we talk about picking winners and
    losers. Should the Department support all research proposals in
    areas equally or should it prioritize investments based on
    where we can get the most value for our taxpayers' dollars?
        Secretary Moniz. No, we clearly have to emphasize priority
    areas and of course we think we do that in a thoughtful way.
    But then within those areas of course when it comes time to
    making awards, then we have to be open to competition to select
    those. And in some cases--I will give you an example--in, let's
    say, the--going back to ARPA-E, when we have our open
    solicitations, we end up being able to support the order of 1
    or two percent of the interest, so we have a big opportunity
    for more innovation support in this country.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his
    questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you.
        Secretary Moniz, interesting question, if you had to hazard
    a guess, would you say that a reduction in the funding of
    research in green energy or a reduction in the funding of
    climate change would have the most detrimental effect on
    national security?
        Secretary Moniz. They are very tightly linked in my view
    and I really can't distinguish between the two there.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. They are both central.
        Mr. Weber. So would an increase in funding research for
    nuclear energy waste storage, help us with national security?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, in the sense that it advances a very
    important source and a low-carbon source, yes, and in fact our
    budget request does have a significant increase for waste
    storage activities.
        Mr. Weber. Now, let's contrast those two. Having your
    druthers, increase in research on spent fuel storage for
    nuclear energy versus a reduction, for example, an increase in
    funding research for climate change, which of those two would
    you say is the most important to national security?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, in our budget we have made a
    set of priority choices within reasonable funding constraints,
    and obviously we think that it is a good balance and we have a
    substantial increase in the nuclear waste arena and we have a
    strong program in terms of our part of the Administration-wide
    Global Climate Change Research Group.
        Mr. Weber. Given the current world climate with a lot of
    terrorism going on, I guess you would probably agree it is kind
    of hard to power a tank with a solar panel, or a jet airplane?
        Secretary Moniz. Obviously there are different energy
    sources fit to different purpose. That is what a portfolio is
    all about. But I would stress of course that many different
    kinds of groups have supported the idea that climate change has
    enormous national security implications, and that includes many
    four-star--retired four-star generals and admirals. And I fully
    support that position.
        Mr. Weber. Sure. In terms of energy and nuclear research
    and having a strong, reliable, affordable energy source,
    nuclear energy will help that right now and we need a lot of
    good clean energy right now. Would that be your assessment?
        Secretary Moniz. We strongly support nuclear aas a part of
    the portfolio.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. And if I may add, Congressman Weber, that
    not only is having a stronger nuclear industry in this country
    important for clean energy, but it is also important for
    national security and that it gives us a stronger platform for
    advancing our nonproliferation goals.
        Mr. Weber. So I take it you are a supporter of Yucca
    Mountain?
        Secretary Moniz. No, I consistently have said, the
    Administration has said we don't think it is workable. This is
    based upon the fact that I think the evidence is very strong.
    As--the Blue Ribbon Commission pointed out that you need a
    consent-based process to get over the finish line.
        Mr. Weber. Are you familiar with how much money has been
    spent on Yucca Mountain and how much money is in reserve for
    Yucca Mountain?
        Secretary Moniz. I believe the total spent over the years
    is something like $15 billion, and the waste fund currently has
    32, $33 billion or something like that.
        Mr. Weber. Billion dollars, that is right.
        Secretary Moniz. Correct.
        Mr. Weber. What is the answer for nuclear waste energy
    storage if you are not a proponent of Yucca Mountain?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, the answer starts with
    consent-based processes. And there we have strongly supported
    the idea of moving to--at least starting with pilot-scale
    storage facilities and we need Congressional authorization for
    that, and of course I think you know in Texas there has been a
    recent proposal for a commercial storage facility, which is
    very interesting, and we look forward to talking with the
    supporters of that project.
        Mr. Weber. Are you familiar with the Waste Control
    Specialists in Andrews County, the low-level radiation storage
    facility?
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah, yeah, the WCS. Yeah, absolutely. And
    in fact, we have stored waste there.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah.
        Mr. Weber. How about LNG exports? You know, America's boom
    in shale gas exploration and production is allowing us to
    increase our supply and enhance our energy independence. We
    have the ability to export LNG gas to customers overseas. I
    have two LNG export facilities in my district. One has broken
    ground but the other is still lingering with the DOE after
    having filed its application in October 2012. Why has it taken
    such a long time for the DOE--why are they delaying these
    projects do you think?
        Secretary Moniz. First of all, let me clarify. We are not
    delaying these projects. Frankly, we have no projects right now
    to act upon because these projects have not had their EIS go
    through FERC. So we have approved several projects for 5.7 BCF
    per day. There are three under construction actually. The first
    will begin exports in roughly a year I expect, maybe a bit
    less, they say maybe into this year.
        But we have made it very clear that, especially with our
    revised process, that when we have the information that we need
    for a National Interest Determination, and that includes having
    the Environmental Impact Statement, which we don't do; that is
    done at FERC. When the last one came to us, we responded to
    that in less than 1 day. So when the EIS's are ready and we
    have all of the data that we need for a National Interest
    Determination, we have been very, very prompt.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, I am sorry but I am out of time. I
    am going to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Moniz. We would be happy to follow up with you on
    that if you would like.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized
    for her questions.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
        I want to follow up on the conversation around nuclear
    energy because my understanding is that we held a hearing on
    the future of nuclear energy back in December, and we heard
    from a number of witnesses about cutting edge nuclear reactors
    and technologies. So I was a little surprised that your budget
    includes a cut to the advanced reactor program by 25 percent so
    I want to ask about that.
        But I have mostly been really interested because I--you
    know, for the most part, if you hear me here on this Committee,
    I wear my environmental hat. I share the concerns of a lot of
    our communities about waste and storage, about access to--you
    know, to plutonium, et cetera, as we all do, but I have been
    hearing more about small nuclear reactors that--modular
    reactors that are not plutonium-dependent, which I think if
    there were some research in that area, it actually could
    potentially help us bridge this gap between the--you know, sort
    of the big opposition and the need for additional energy
    sources. And so I wonder if you could tell me about that and
    what the Department envisions in terms of ramping up the
    research in that area?
        Secretary Moniz. So, first of all, you are referring to
    small modular reactors. We think this is a very important
    direction, and in our budget we have proposed a modest increase
    from 54 to $62 million. There are two prime things in regard to
    SMRs. I should emphasize that the ones that are being pursued
    right now are based upon light water technology, so these are
    not revolutionary changes----
        Ms. Edwards. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --in reactor structure but there are some
    significant ones, without getting into details, integral
    reactors.
        We are supporting a company called NuScale that won a
    competition----
        Ms. Edwards. Um-hum.
        Secretary Moniz. --and they are expecting to go to the NRC
    for licensing at the end of 2016 and the hope is that they will
    have an operational reactor in, say, 2022, something like that.
        We are also supporting the move towards a siting of a
    second kind of small modular reactor, so we are advancing on
    that. And I think it is very important that we have one or
    preferably more operating in the first half of the next decade
    because that is when the utilities are going to have to start
    making big capital decisions for a next round of nuclear power.
    So that is one thing.
        With regard to research, there was a fiscal year 2015 one-
    time funding for some industry-led advanced reactors, so we
    think that this is actually going to be a healthy research
    budget. We have a strong focus on nuclear fuel issues,
    important for safety, and we just renewed our innovation hub
    based out of Oak Ridge, which is very successfully developing
    advanced computational tools for nuclear reactor design and
    safety.
        Ms. Edwards. And so what--part of what I am trying to
    understand--and I have to tell you I am really not there yet
    but I am curious. And part of what I want to understand is
    whether it is possible that there is--there are research
    dollars put into advancing technologies that take away the
    concern that we have about proliferation, that take away the
    concerns that we have about waste and disposal, and that take
    away concerns we have about being able to operate in places
    where you are essentially kind of off the grid. And if those
    things can be true or if that is part of the investigation, I
    think people like me might think a little bit differently of
    that nuclear technology.
        Secretary Moniz. First of all, in the budget there is an
    increase proposed for fuel cycle research and development,
    which is I think very relevant to your issue of plutonium----
        Ms. Edwards. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --management. Clearly, we want to minimize
    that. There are potentially very advanced fuel cycle
    technologies that can ``burn'' transuranics.
        Ms. Edwards. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. Those are to be--in my view, those are
    decades away from being credible commercial possibilities. I
    think it is very important to pursue them. I might just link
    that to our commitment to what is sometimes called interim
    storage of spent fuel from the point of view that I believe
    that is the most important next step for beginning to move the
    fuel. But importantly, if we have that for century scale, it
    also preserves our options for possible future advanced
    technologies of that type.
        Ms. Edwards. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for his
    questions.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, the federal government is currently facing
    an extreme budget constraint. In light of the current budgetary
    crisis, how should we prioritize energy research and
    development activities to maximize the impact on technology
    development and the overall energy system?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, clearly our Administration
    request we think does reflect an appropriate set of priorities.
    We do propose a substantial increase in our energy technology
    development. Again, it is convenient for me to refer to this
    week's American Energy Innovation Council report, again, very
    prominent--not energy CEOs; these are prominent CEOs from other
    sectors who repeated what was said in a National Academy
    reported 2005, what they said three, four or five years ago,
    that we are probably under-investing in energy technology
    overall by as much as a factor of three. That is their number.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Specifically though, please compare and
    contrast the value of basic and early-stage foundational
    research to late-stage deployment and commercialization
    activities.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, we think we have to work across the
    entire innovation chain. Because we are looking at the
    introduction of these new technologies at different timescales,
    some like in this decade, some in the next 10, 20 years, and
    then some way down the road, some of the nuclear thing I just
    mentioned, for example, way down the road. So those require
    work at the different parts of the innovation chain. So we have
    everything from, let's say, Energy Frontier Research Centers,
    which we think is an incredibly successful program on the basic
    research side for the enabling science for new energy
    technologies of the future all the way to things like our loan
    program, which are on the deployment side, which by the way is
    a program that is actually in the black and has really
    stimulated technology deployment that is pushing the technology
    envelope.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. The budget requests a 42.3 percent
    increase in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy. That is over $800 billion in new spending. This is an
    enormous increase in an office that focuses on late-stage
    commercial applications, not basic research in universities and
    national labs. By contrast, the budget for the Office of
    Science, which funds basic research, increases by only 5.4
    percent in the budget request. Are the Office of Science's
    basic research programs a lower priority for this
    Administration when compared with these renewable programs?
        Secretary Moniz. No. Our Office of Science request I think
    is a very strong one. As I said earlier, it fully supports, for
    example, our development of the major tools in our national
    laboratories that serve the entire research community. But in
    addition to the construction, it is a full operation budget. We
    estimate that it will fund 98 percent of the full operation of
    our entire suite of facilities. Partly that is because the
    Office of Science I think has done an outstanding job over the
    years in how it phases its projects so that as some projects
    are rolling off, others are coming in. And so with a, you know,
    five percent budget, for example, increase in this case, I
    think it meets those needs.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, right along those same lines, if we
    have a 42 percent increase, can you provide additional
    information on the goals the President hopes to accomplish with
    such a sizable increase to the program budget?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes. And let me if I may, make a couple of
    points. One is that the energy efficiency renewable energy
    budget I showed, first of all it can be thought of as really
    three budgets. There is an Energy Efficiency Program, a
    Renewable Energy Program, and a Sustainable Transportation
    Program, and they are not so different in their amounts, number
    one. Number two, we should remember that in that category, for
    example, take energy efficiency, let me highlight two parts.
    One is that is where we put the big focus on assisting advanced
    manufacturing for the future, things like 3-D printing, et
    cetera. Secondly, not in the R&D space we have a $230 million
    proposal with a substantial increase from I think $180 million
    for weatherization, so that is direct assistance to people with
    fewer resources obviously for weatherization. So, you know, I
    think we have to look at the different things that are
    happening there.
        Similarly, in fossil energy, for example, part of it is
    R&D, part of it is things like managing and upgrading the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So these are not all R&D programs.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Babin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
        And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
    recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Secretary Moniz, for coming back to the Committee and
    sharing your expertise on these important issues.
        This Committee has had many discussions about our nation's
    energy future. It is an important part of what we do.
        Well, the district I represent in Oregon is home to a
    variety of renewable energy companies that are helping lead the
    way to a clean energy economy. I am glad to see strong support
    for renewables in the President's budget.
        From solar manufacturers like SolarWorld and wind turbine
    companies like Iberdrola, Oregon companies are really leading
    the way to a renewable future and it is important for us to
    support those efforts.
        I mentioned SolarWorld. It is an important employer in the
    district. They make a high-quality solar panel and,
    unfortunately, there have been low-cost solar panels that have
    been flooding this country from China. It has made it difficult
    for the playing field to be level for companies like
    SolarWorld. And they have made some progress with trade cases.
        But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, in your written
    testimony when you talk about implementing the Department of
    Energy's strategic plan, you say ``in remaining committed to
    the all-of-the-above energy strategy, encouraging innovation,
    create jobs, enable economic growth, and contribute to domestic
    manufacturing and net exports.'' So I would like you to address
    how the Department of Energy's budget will support domestic
    manufacturing of renewable energy products so that it is U.S.
    companies, not Chinese companies, that are building our clean
    energy future.
        And specifically, how does the Department's SunShot
    Initiative provide assistance to U.S. solar manufacturing
    companies and what percentage of the dollars are used for
    domestic manufacturers?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, of course, first of all, the entire
    amount is for domestic activity in manufacturing. And I might
    add that--just in starting that in addition to the funds that
    are explicitly labeled for solar like SunShot, there are other
    very important activities that are indirectly supporting this.
    For example, our very first manufacturing institute hub is on
    wide-bandgap semiconductors, power electronics. Power
    electronics are a very important part of a solar PV system, so
    those aren't even counted directly as solar that support the
    manufacturing future in this area.
        Indeed, the SunShot program, which works across the whole
    spectrum of requirements for solar systems actually has our
    most substantial increase proposed for what are sometimes
    called the balance of plant and soft costs, and this is because
    we have had so much success. DOE has helped with the private
    sector in reducing costs that our solar module costs are well
    below a dollar per watt and the Holy Grail has always been 50
    cents a watt. I believe we will meet that within two or three
    years domestically. So now, ironically, it is no longer the
    solar module that is driving the cost as it is things like the
    inverters and these other costs.
        So the SunShot program is across the board looking at that,
    as are our other manufacturing programs.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I would like to get maybe some
    more specific information about----
        Secretary Moniz. Be happy to.
        Ms. Bonamici. --the percentage of dollars----
        Secretary Moniz. We would be happy to, yeah.
        Ms. Bonamici. --that go to domestic companies but----
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah.
        Ms. Bonamici. One of the issues that we have talked about
    before, a technology that deserves further research and
    discussion is marine hydrokinetic energy. The waves off the
    coast of Oregon, for example, provide a large amount of
    potential energy, and I know that the DOE has estimated that 20
    percent of our nation's power by 2050 could come from
    hydrokinetic systems. So I know your agency supported the
    Pacific Marine Energy Center and the Northwest National Marine
    Energy Center for which we are grateful, but I remain concerned
    that the federal R&D funding for wave and other marine energy
    sources is not sufficiently supporting the development process
    for technology. Can you comment on the agency's work on wave
    energy and how this year's budget helps advance it to a place
    where can reach its full potential?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I believe that we have approximately
    $40 million for hydrokinetic activities and a smaller amount
    for other hydro activities. So hydrokinetic is nearly 2/3 I
    believe of the water energy budget. With the fiscal year 2016
    budget we will be moving towards supporting important open
    ocean demonstration projects, which we think is an important
    next step to take.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And I see my time is
    just about to expire. Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your testimony today. You
    talked about energy portfolio and I agree we need a reliable,
    diverse, and an economical domestic energy portfolio and
    domestic energy supply. And as we look at the spectrum of
    energy opportunities out there, we have to look for a balance
    among economics, diversity, reliability, and the domestic
    supply.
        So when we look at conventional fuels on one end of the
    spectrum to renewables and our alternative fuels on the other
    end of the spectrum, from an economic standpoint, the
    conventional fuels outperform the renewables and alternative
    fuels on the economic scale. So when we look at priorities and
    the climate that we are in today where we are seeing a decrease
    in pricing in conventional fuels, and you talked about
    priorities and investing in research.
        Let's look at a bigger picture in priorities in the whole
    energy spectrum. We invest a lot of money in this country for
    subsidies to make renewables and alternative fuels more
    competitive on the economic scale with conventional fuels, and
    as the price of conventional fuels gets lower, the cost of
    those subsidies to make the playing field level between
    renewables and alternative fuels and conventional fuels, it
    takes more subsidies and more cost to do that.
        So my question to you is wouldn't it makes sense to invest
    less to subsidize inefficient and uneconomical demonstration
    and production technologies and to rely more heavily on
    conventional fuel supplies while at the same time investing
    more in research so that in the future these renewables and
    alternative fuels would be more competitive with the
    conventional technologies?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, thank you. First of all, I keep
    repeating and saying that we are committed to the all-of-the-
    above strategy and I am happy to elaborate on that more, number
    one. And two is I would be happy to supply or suggest that you
    or your staff look at our website for a small publication
    called ``Revolution'' now that provides the facts on where we
    have come in terms of costs of things like wind, solar, LEDs,
    vehicle batteries; it is hard to keep up sometimes with the
    cost reductions of these areas. They are getting a very, very
    competitive.
        Third, we should understand that there are subsidies,
    direct or indirect, pretty much across the board. Certainly,
    there are some tax credits for renewables. We are proposing
    these tax approaches on carbon capture, sequestration. There
    are vehicles such as master limited partnerships which only
    apply to fossil areas and that provide favorable tax treatment.
    So there are a whole set of approaches that encourage
    everything from midstream fossil production to renewables and
    efficiency.
        Mr. Westerman. And I understand the costs are getting lower
    but they are still not as competitive as conventional fuels,
    and hopefully someday we will see those costs as low as
    conventional fuels. But in looking at your budget, you have got
    a significantly higher amount of research dollars for
    renewables than you do for conventional technologies.
        And also there is the FutureGen project where you have
    recently announced you are suspending the development
    activities and we have already spent $200 million on that
    project. That seems to me like it is moving away from, you
    know, a broad and diverse energy portfolio.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, in terms of the budget
    facts, the fiscal year 2015 renewable energy budget is $456
    million. The fossil energy R&D budget is $561 million. So it is
    actually a larger budget in the fossil.
        Secondly, if I look at the FutureGen, let me first of all
    say right off the bat that that was not a very fortunate
    result. I still believe that the technology of FutureGen,
    including oxy-combustion of coal and then sequestration in a
    saline aquifer is an area that we must explore. However,
    because they were delayed, there was litigation, there were
    various reasons, they were delayed and the hour of funding
    deadline is running out and there was no way that they could
    complete all the activities and so we had to stew with taxpayer
    dollars. We are going into structured closeout and we will
    protect what we can of that, including the IP for the
    technology and we do own pore space for future--hopefully
    future CO2 sequestration projects.
        Mr. Westerman. And so let me clarify, on the energy
    efficiency and renewable energy line item, it is significantly
    higher than the other item with those two combined.
        Secretary Moniz. But if I may again say that the EERE
    budget line is really three budgets. There is an Energy
    Efficiency Program, a Renewable Energy Program, which is quite
    different, and a Sustainable Transportation Program. And I can
    give you--the numbers are 642 for efficiency--fiscal year
    2015--456 for renewables, 602 for transportation. Nuclear
    energy is 833, fossil energy, only R&D is 561. So these are
    frankly basically comparable budgets.
        Mr. Westerman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized for
    questions.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In any part of the federal budget, the best indication of
    what we are spending this year is what we spent last year. The
    correlation is extremely high. What you are doing with the
    fiscal year 2016 request seems to be something fundamentally
    different. For instance, you are making increases as much as 84
    percent in your proposal for one area, decreases as much is ten
    percent in a different area. I see the numbers but what I don't
    see is the concepts. Tell me what is leading you to make the
    decisions that you are making here in these proposed amounts.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, I thank you for
    pointing out that, yeah, we do not do a peanut butter approach.
    We do a prioritization as we propose our budget. There are
    several factors. Of course we are looking as to where it is--
    where are we ripe in some sense for having breakthroughs from
    basic research to deployment? That is one feature.
        Secondly, we make no bones about it; we are clearly doing a
    prioritization within the all-of-the-above strategy for a low-
    carbon future even as we support areas in transportation and
    areas in--for example, in the budget that you brought forward
    for fiscal year 2016 we would start a natural gas plant
    sequestration approach because while natural gas is carbon
    light among fossil fuels, eventually we are going to need
    carbon capture there as well.
        We are doing crosscutting activities such as--I think this
    is really important--in our fossil energy budget this year is
    supercritical CO2 thermodynamic cycles, which can
    apply to fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants, geothermal plants,
    so across the board.
        So we have an extensive process. We use our national
    laboratories as part of our, you know, technology thinking in
    terms of how we prioritize and how we structure programs.
        If I may say another one that crosscuts is our subsurface
    science and technology where the theme is how do we manage the
    subsurface--fractures, permeability, et cetera--for everything
    from carbon sequestration to hydrocarbon production to
    engineered geothermal, et cetera? So that is the way we think
    this through. This is--I hope it reflects a thoughtful approach
    to our prioritization.
        Mr. Grayson. I think you have authority, at least limited
    authority to move money from one category to another. If so,
    how did you use that authority this past year?
        Secretary Moniz. I could not give you here a detailed
    accounting. We can supply that. But our authorities are fairly
    limited and frankly you won't be surprised if you sit where I
    sit I think there are often too many control points in the way
    the budget appropriation is put forward. But I would be happy
    to respond more--in a more detailed way if you would like.
        Mr. Grayson. All right. You mentioned that one of the
    motivators for this kind of proposed budget change is whether
    an area is ripe for breakthroughs. Can you give some examples
    of where you believe that there is a ripeness for breakthrough
    and where you are putting in or would like to put in more
    money?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, one place where we did have a strong
    emphasis already in the budget is in the manufacturing
    technologies, advanced manufacturing technologies that are very
    ripe. If I may give you one example there, 3-D printing.
        So first, we collaborated with the Department of Defense.
    We were the smaller investor, not surprisingly, in a 3-D
    manufacturing institute in Ohio but we also had more of a
    research-oriented 3-D printing facility at Oak Ridge. That
    facility in turn collaborated with a small startup auto company
    called Local Motors. You may have seen this last year. They
    printed the first car. And now, just two weeks ago at the ARPA-
    E Summit, that small company was there and they are talking
    about next year allowing you to go in, pick the car you want to
    have printed, and go back 12 hours later and pick it up. But
    that is kind of exciting and shows a great technology
    opportunity.
        If I go to basic research, a prime example I would say are
    the Energy Frontier Research Centers. We are funding now over
    30 of them. Unfortunately, that is down because initially the
    ARRA funding gave us a big leg up. With that gone now, we have
    gone down from 46 to 32 or 33. But those are having great
    impact. They again are looking at the basic science challenges
    for the next generation energy technologies, and we have strong
    support for those in the budget.
        Mr. Grayson. How fast did the car go?
        Secretary Moniz. I don't know but I believe it can take you
    at plenty----
        Mr. Weber. Let me tell you, it was nice and fast. I rode in
    it.
        Secretary Moniz. It--yeah, okay, good. It depends whether
    you choose the electric version or the internal combustion
    engine version.
        Mr. Grayson. Did you let Randy drive that car?
        Secretary Moniz. It wasn't my car.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grayson.
        The gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. Comstock, is recognized.
        Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am from Virginia so, you know, certainly our state is
    very involved with coal and I am very concerned often about the
    EPA regulations and how they are impacting us and, you know,
    universally, you know, hear concerns about that.
        So in light of some of the proposals there and the cutback
    in clean coal technology, I was wondering, are you working with
    EPA so that they aren't putting onerous burdens on, you know,
    coal companies depending on things that may or may not go
    forward and be invested in and happening? How can we coordinate
    this better so more science is being used from the Energy
    Department before the EPA is making their decisions? Because
    oftentimes, you know, then they are coming to us, they are
    coming to local governments. I know in some cases we had
    requirements that had to be killed at the local level or
    lawsuits and that requires a lot of economic displacement,
    anxiety. You know, how can we make sure they are coming to you
    first and having the science before they are making these
    onerous regulations?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, several things to say there. First
    of all, I want to make it clear that we are not backing away
    from our clean coal approaches. Again, we have explicit R&D
    programs there. We have still, despite the FutureGen--which was
    referred to earlier--activity, we still have a very strong
    portfolio of carbon capture and sequestration projects. We have
    an $8 billion loan guarantee solicitation for fossil projects
    that lower emissions, and we have, as I already alluded to--not
    at DOE but in the Administration--the proposal for tax credits
    for carbon capture and sequestration. So we have a very strong
    portfolio of programs supporting coal.
        With regard to your statement about the EPA regulation,
    proposed regulation, first off, let me say that we do do
    technical, you know, consultation with the EPA but, you know, I
    think there is sometimes a little apples and oranges. The
    projects that we advance from the Department of Energy not
    surprisingly are pushing the edge, so when we do a carbon
    capture utilization sequestration project, we are pushing, you
    know, 90 plus percent capture. If you look at the proposed EPA
    111(b) rule for new coal plants, if you build an ultra-
    supercritical plant, a very high-efficiency plant which exists,
    the EPA proposed rule requires only 30 percent capture. That is
    a much lower impact and in fact the impact is significantly
    lower than the numbers other often talked about because it is
    really a much smaller partial capture requirement.
        Mrs. Comstock. Okay. I want to submit a few more questions
    on that front----
        Secretary Moniz. Sure.
        Mrs. Comstock. --but I did want to ask another totally
    different area on fuel cell technology, and can you just give
    us a little bit of update on what is going on there, what are
    the expectations there going forward, and----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mrs. Comstock. --what particulars do you have----
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mrs. Comstock. --going on there?
        Secretary Moniz. Again, I have forgotten the exact number
    but we have a significant increase proposed in our fuel cell
    program. Fuel cells are another technology where the costs have
    been coming down very, very dramatically. I think the
    Department of Energy was certainly part of that. That is true,
    by the way, both for stationery and for mobile sources.
        And one indication of the success may be, you know,
    indirect but is that if you went last month to the Washington
    Auto Show, it was remarkable. There were four different
    companies that had fuel cell vehicles on the floor and
    including there is now commercially available a fuel cell car.
    It is not yet $20,000 but it is only--it is ``only'' $57,000
    for a really nice fuel-cell vehicle car. That is a dramatic
    cost reduction. In fact, right now, the way those costs are
    going, again, the fuel cell costs are coming down.
        We have to manage the hydrogen fueling infrastructure,
    however. And right now, it is really only in California where
    one sees that to a certain extent, although the companies are
    looking to collaborate to do the same thing next in the
    Northeast. But fueling infrastructure, hydrogen fueling
    infrastructure is something we really have to think about how
    that goes forward.
        Mrs. Comstock. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mrs. Comstock.
        The gentlewoman Ms. Esty is recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary
    Moniz, for your presence here and answering our abundant
    questions.
        I wanted to return a little bit to the advanced
    manufacturing institutes. That is something that is of enormous
    interest in my State of Connecticut, which has a tradition
    there. I just saw a small toy company last week that is using
    3-D printing for American-made toys that meet safety standards,
    so there is exciting work being done.
        Can you expand a little bit on what you have learned so far
    from the four institutes that are out there, what these two
    additional ones are looking to--if that is looking to augment
    the program overall or if they are specific around clean energy
    that you are hoping to find more information on?
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Well, first of all, there are
    only two that are actually established, the wide-bandgap
    semiconductors and the composite materials. That was just
    announced in January. It is not even set up yet actually. There
    is actually only one that is functioning right now. We are in
    the process of making an award hopefully not too far down the
    road on a smart manufacturing one and we have a fourth where we
    are going through the process of deciding, you know, what is
    the area, consultations, et cetera, what will be the focus
    area. And then we propose two more. So that is one point.
        Secondly, given where we are, frankly, the outcomes are not
    yet evident because we only have one that has been operating
    now for less than a year. But if I make an analogy, again, I
    take ARPA-E, that in 2009 with ARRA funding, that program got
    kick-started, and as I said earlier, now five years later we
    can now judge outcomes. And we didn't sit around without
    investing more in that as we went forward. It is very
    important; we have got to stay on top of it to identify
    problems early on if we need and make midcourse corrections if
    needed. With ARPA-E, fortunately, it has been kind of clear
    sailing. As I said, now with the five-year mark, we are seeing
    very--you know, I think very impressive outcomes. We predict
    the same for the manufacturing institutes.
        Ms. Esty. And just very briefly because I have got a couple
    of other questions, you talked about the measurement. There is
    both the question of how you judge the metrics and over what
    time period because if you are looking at more basic research,
    obviously you need a longer time frame in order to judge that.
    So for something like these manufacturing institutes, how do
    you handle that sort of connection between basic research
    taking longer and trying to decide when you apply those
    metrics----
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Ms. Esty. --for success?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, so I think here we will see some
    metrics that are--we can look at it much earlier. For example,
    one component of these will in a certain sense be technology
    transfer to small- and intermediate-sized companies. That is
    something we should be able to see within a couple of years
    there. So again, if I take the 3-D printing--I gave an example;
    I won't repeat it--on the printed car that is an example where
    we are seeing amazingly rapid effects, and that was in
    collaboration with our Oak Ridge laboratory, I mentioned the
    little car company but I didn't say there is also supply chain.
    For example, the printers were developed in Cincinnati, et
    cetera.
        Ms. Esty. And changing gears, can you talk a little bit
    more about the security of the grid, reliability and
    resilience? We have had a number of hearings here. I am also on
    the Transportation Committee, a great concern there. Looking
    at--you know, you have a relatively small budget allocated for
    this. Can you explain, you know, what role you think you play
    at the grid level? I know you are looking at distributed
    generation and obviously the battery technology that permits
    more distributed generation will be important for resilience
    and reliability. But if you can talk about how you made those
    decisions and what we should be looking for, cybersecurity, the
    attacks on the grid in California.
        Secretary Moniz. So the grid modernization proposal, first
    of all, is $356 million, and I said that will be further
    amplified or justified if you like in the Quadrennial Energy
    Review coming out. We approach this by looking at the spectrum
    of threats. To address resilience or energy assurance, we look
    at extreme weather of which we expect to see more, including, I
    mentioned the storm surges with warmer waters, et cetera. Cyber
    threats, physical threats--I think you were alluding to the
    California incident, for example--we look at geomagnetic
    storms, which have impacted our grids. It is kind of a low
    probability, high-risk issue. So we are looking at that
    resilience in many ways. One way is that we have supported and
    will support now the integrated--to capture the value through
    data integration and fusion of the kinds of new data that we
    are collecting and supporting, phase data, et cetera. That is
    one example.
        I could go on with more on that and would be happy to do
    so, but just given the time, let me switch and say but in
    addition to those kinds of significant budgetary requirements
    to develop the technology base, the modeling base, the system
    integration base, all the way from the high-voltage grid to the
    distribution system, but in addition there are other activities
    we have, very important, that are not budgetary items. For
    example, we run--the Deputy Secretary chairs a group of utility
    CEOs who meet regularly, quarterly, specifically on cyber
    threats to the system and we have taken steps such as
    selectively giving security clearances, for example, to some of
    those to be able obviously to share very sensitive data.
        So it is kind of a full spectrum approach. This is very
    serious. The attacks are just increasing in frequency and we
    are very, very mindful of our responsibilities there.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Moniz. We could give a more--in a different
    setting a more detailed briefing.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
        The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us.
        Hanford is in my district and like many people in the rest
    of the country, we were very proud to be able to contribute to
    winning World War II, winning the Cold War, but as we move
    forward with these exciting new technologies that we have
    talked about this morning, it is very important for us not to
    forget the federal government's obligation and responsibility
    to clean up the legacy of those efforts and I am pleased to
    hear your comments along those lines earlier in your statement.
        But having said that, I am concerned about the potential
    impacts of the Administration's proposed $100 million cut to
    the Richland Operations Office, particularly on cleanup work
    along the river corridor. Delays to this work--and I have seen
    this firsthand--would result in a higher total project cost,
    missed milestones, and loss of cleanup momentum.
        The budget, I believe, cites technical reasons for the
    delays to the Columbia River Corridor cleanup. Could you
    explain those technical reasons why work can't continue,
    particularly at the 324 Building, as well as at the 618-10
    site, and barring any technical reasons, is the Department of
    Energy committed to continuing this work in fiscal year 2015
    with funding appropriated for this purpose and in fiscal year
    2016 in order to meet existing legal milestones along the river
    corridor?
        Secretary Moniz. So, first of all, let me just say that in
    Hanford, with the Tri-Cities, it really is a very important and
    has been a very important community for the Department of
    Energy for a long time and it is our responsibility to respond
    to the cleanup challenge. I might add to that as an aside and
    also to the science opportunities, for example, like the
    Pacific Northwest laboratory, which today is celebrating its
    50th anniversary. Maybe you will be there at the celebration.
        Mr. Newhouse. I hope to see you there.
        Secretary Moniz. Okay. I will see you there.
        So going back to the cleanup, as you well know--and I do
    want to start out by emphasizing that, you know, within a
    pretty constrained budget the overall site budget will be going
    up $100 million in our proposal as we advance with the WTP
    project where our aim is to be able to start vitrifying at
    least the low-activity waste very early in the next decade like
    2021, 2022.
        In terms of the Richland budget, first of all, again, as
    you know, we have made very substantial progress on the river
    corridor cleanup and in fact are providing now access to a
    substantial part of that corridor. Secondly, with the Richland
    budget, we will certainly be continuing aggressively with
    things like the groundwater pumping and, you know, chromium
    treatment, et cetera. We also are making tremendous progress.
    For example, it wasn't long ago that the highest risk facility
    was viewed as the plutonium finishing plant and we are getting
    that down to grade. So I think overall the site will have an
    increased budget and I think we will make very, very creditable
    progress in both parts of the program.
        Mr. Newhouse. So that gives me a good segue into my next
    question, the WTP, the vitrification plant. Certainly, the
    intention is for that classified waste to go to a repository,
    permanent repository. Yucca Mountain has been in sights for
    many years. Could you tell me the scientific reasoning why
    Hanford's waste cannot go to Yucca Mountain? And if so, how
    does the Administration's budget request propose to deal with
    the waste and by what deadline?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, that is actually a very interesting
    question for a reason I will come to. First of all,
    scientifically there has long been the statement that civilian-
    spent fuel and high-level waste such as that from Hanford can
    certainly go to the same geological repository. That has been
    the assumption all along and we are working on three different
    geologies for geological repository within the framework, as I
    said earlier, but we just don't think the Yucca Mountain is a
    workable solution. We just need to have a consent-based
    approach. So we are working on that.
        But let me note as well something that has not been reached
    for a full decision yet and that is that at the recommendation
    of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Department carried out and
    we have posted on our website back in October/November a
    technical report on the issue of whether the high-level defense
    waste should be treated separately from commercial spent fuel.
    There are a variety of reasons for that. The report details
    them. Among them is the fact that the high-level waste has
    many, many different forms and might have specialized
    approaches.
        One which is in our fiscal year 2016 budget is to advance
    not with nuclear waste yet but to advance what is called a deep
    borehole demonstration project. That ultimately could be very
    interesting for Hanford because about 1/3 of the activity at
    the site are cesium and strontium capsules, which are very
    small in diameter and could be very well suited perhaps for
    much earlier disposal through a borehole approach. I don't
    know. We have to drill--we have to do the demonstration
    project, do the science, which is what we want to do in 2016.
    So that is another interesting direction which could be very
    material for Hanford. I would be--we would the happy to discuss
    them or with you if you would like.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. I have got more questions but
    thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have gone over my time.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
        The gentleman from Virginia Mr. Beyer is recognized.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, I have three questions for you.
        First, I am very impressed by your Ph.D. in theoretical
    physics from Stanford. You are my hero.
        Secretary Moniz. I used to be a practicing physicist.
        Mr. Beyer. But in the budget request the Fusion Energy
    Program is the only Office of Science program that really gets
    a cut. And I understand part of this is the closeout of the
    Alcator C-Mod program at MIT, but if fusion is still the Holy
    Grail for economic growth, for climate, minimal impact and the
    like, why cut now?
        Secretary Moniz. Sir, that is the one area from which I am
    recused. However, my colleague Under Secretary Orr is prepared
    to answer that question.
        Mr. Orr. So the fusion research program of course continues
    to be an important one for us. It is a long-term program. It is
    one that requires us to understand the science of dense plasmas
    of materials that can lead eventually to fusion. It is a tough
    enough problem that a measured approach is appropriate for
    that. We have a domestic program that involves now three
    facilities, Princeton, one in San Diego, and the facility that
    is just finishing up at MIT. And it also includes an
    international component, the international reactor ITER in
    France. And so the budget that you have proposed for this year
    is balanced across those commitments.
        Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, when the EPA rolled out the new power plant
    limits, it cited carbon capture to storage as the best system
    for emissions reductions for the coal-fired power plants. I
    want to point out in the budget that we have presented that you
    have a 32.5 percent increase in the budget for carbon capture,
    8.8 percent increase for carbon storage, 93 percent increase
    for crosscutting supercritical CO2 technologies, so
    it seems to me that this is not a war on coal but rather a very
    significant commitment to clean coal.
        Secretary Moniz. Absolutely. And basically we have a
    multipronged approach for having coal be a significant
    contributor, even in a low-carbon world.
        Mr. Beyer. Also I would like to point out that in the
    reading it pointed out that FutureGen is shutting down because
    the $500 million in private-sector money that was supposed to
    come didn't--never materialized unlike so many of the other
    renewable technologies where the private-sector money has come
    forward. But what is next for us with CCS?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, we will be coming
    online with additional projects. For example, we have broken
    ground in Texas on the PetroNova project. for example. We are
    already sequestering carbon in Texas for a refinery operation,
    for example, a cement operation. We will be seeing an ethanol
    plant CCS project starting up in Illinois with the deep saline
    aquifer.
        Oh, and by the way, I should really mention as well across
    the border in Canada the Boundary Dam project is functioning
    with coal and post-combustion capture.
        Another thing we often forget about, by the way--this is
    not in the future but if I may go to the past because we
    forget--in North Dakota there is the Great Plains gasification
    plant that has been gasifying coal lignite for a long time. It
    is kind of not told a lot but they have sent 20 megatons of
    CO2 across the border to Canada for use in enhanced
    oil recovery. So there is a lot going on, there is going to be
    a lot more going on in demonstration project but also in some
    basic research to look for breakthrough carbon capture
    technologies that can lower costs.
        Mr. Beyer. Let me ask you one more question, please.
        My friends in the energy field have been telling me for
    years that the great challenge is storage. You have the power
    plants, for example, come online in big step increments and
    offline that way rather than smoothly and efficiently. If there
    is only $21 million in the budget for energy storage, which in
    the $29.9 billion budget is 6/100ths of one percent or 1 in
    every $1,500, why not more for storage?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I think I will not be able to give
    you a total, a sum here but we will get back to you with it.
    But the point is storage, battery technologies, microhydro pump
    storage, there is storage distributed around many, many parts
    of the budget, so it may not be quite as apparent and maybe we
    should do a--maybe we should do actually a little table of that
    that brings together all those pieces. But in fact we are
    increasing our emphasis on storage both utility-scale storage
    to things like, in our hydro budget, an increase for microhydro
    pump storage.
        Today, by far the biggest energy storage in our grid is
    pump storage and it is big. But it is big only in very select
    locations where you have the right opportunity. So things like
    micropump storage could be much more ubiquitous. That is just
    one example in addition to the battery work that is going on.
        I might say on battery work also, especially if I go to
    automotive batteries, the cost reductions there again have been
    very, very impressive. We are now at the place where, with mass
    production of today's technologies, we are below $300 a
    kilowatt hour. We were at 600 not long ago. Our goal remains
    $125 by the end of the decade. We have got to push but it is a
    big drop.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
        Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Massie. Secretary Moniz, in this Committee we often
    discuss how to leverage the DOE and the labs there to
    accelerate technological development both for private companies
    and for the good of society. In one area of technology we have
    seen some stagnation and that is in nuclear energy. We are sort
    of stuck in one reactor design right now. Is there a way that
    you could use the labs at the DOE to allow these new types of
    reactors, at least prototypes of them, to be built? Because
    right now they have to go through a licensing process that sort
    of crimps the line. The venture capitalists don't want to
    invest in something that is going to take a ten-year licensing
    process. Is there a way that we could use the labs that you
    have to authorize, host, and oversee privately funded prototype
    reactors?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I would say in my view not really.
    There is discussion, for example, of using, say, small modular
    reactors deployed at DOE sites or government sites like the
    TVA, for example, Idaho, other places. But frankly, at least my
    view is that we really need NRC licensing to have the
    confidence of the public in terms of the safety of these
    reactors, and I would love to discuss this longer. You put your
    finger on a very important issue. The entire experience base
    really of the NRC has been in light water reactor technology.
    It is one reason why the initial small modular reactors being
    advanced are light water reactor technologies. And the question
    is how do we get beyond that to molten salt reactors, fast
    reactors, et cetera? And I think the only way in the end is to
    make investments I think through the appropriations process for
    having NRC now be able to build up an experience base for
    alternative technologies because it is kind of a chicken-and-
    egg problem otherwise.
        Mr. Massie. We are stuck where we are and I am afraid that
    the----
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah.
        Mr. Massie. --other countries are going to leap-frog us in
    this if we don't figure out a way to solve that chicken-and-egg
    problem.
        Secretary Moniz. And we are seeing a little bit of that
    already.
        Mr. Massie. Yeah, unfortunately.
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah.
        Mr. Massie. You mentioned that 20 megatons of CO2
    had been transferred to Canada to extract oil. Was that in a
    pipeline?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Massie. So we will need more of these pipelines if we
    use CO2 and transfer it for other projects?
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah. We actually have--I forget the exact
    number--we may have like 1,000 miles of CO2 pipeline
    already. That is mostly to transport natural CO2 to
    enhanced oil recovery sites. We are actually using now about 60
    megatons of CO2 per year for enhanced oil recovery.
        Mr. Massie. Are you worried that we will have as much
    trouble from this Administration in getting pipelines for
    CO2 as we have for tar sands?
        Secretary Moniz. The CO2 pipelines typically
    right now are pretty reasonably short runs. For example, the
    Kemper project in Mississippi built a 60-mile CO2
    pipeline for EOR.
        Mr. Massie. So you are not advocating----
        Secretary Moniz. Texas has a lot of CO2
    pipelines.
        Mr. Massie. So you think it would be fairly easy to get
    these approved?
        Secretary Moniz. I would never say anything is fairly easy
    but----
        Mr. Massie. Okay. Well, I hope it----
        Secretary Moniz. --they are typically not--they are
    certainly not international issues.
        Mr. Massie. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. May I, if I can just say----
        Mr. Massie. Didn't the CO2 go from the United
    States----
        Secretary Moniz. --for the future----
        Mr. Massie. --to Canada?
        Secretary Moniz. Say that again.
        Mr. Massie. The CO2 that you talked about, the
    20 megatons, did it go from the United States to Canada?
        Secretary Moniz. Yeah, from North Dakota to Canada.
        Mr. Massie. Is that not an international pipeline?
        Secretary Moniz. That is. I am saying for----
        Mr. Massie. Okay. All right.
        Secretary Moniz. --future build-out----
        Mr. Massie. I answered the question for you then.
        Secretary Moniz. Future build-out is a different issue.
        Mr. Massie. So is it true that a plant that uses carbon
    capture, fossil fuel plant that uses carbon capture versus one
    that doesn't has to consume more fuel per kilowatt hour?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, if you--certainly if you look at
    post-combustion capture, obviously it is always cheaper to not
    capture.
        Mr. Massie. But it is going to consume----
        Secretary Moniz. But----
        Mr. Massie. --more fossil fuels----
        Secretary Moniz. Well, yes, so not----
        Mr. Massie. --if you capture, correct?
        Secretary Moniz. So you can do it either way, yes. Yes.
        Mr. Massie. Okay. So how much more will it cost to run one
    of these and what will that do to the price of electricity for
    consumers since it is going to consume----
        Secretary Moniz. The----
        Mr. Massie. You concede it consumes more fuel to run it.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, but the----
        Mr. Massie. So it is less efficient?
        Secretary Moniz. If you use the plant's energy to do the
    capture, then it will be less efficient; that is clear, right?
        Mr. Massie. All the designs that I have seen, I mean unless
    there is a free source of energy, it is going to consume
    energy--
        Secretary Moniz. Well, no----
        Mr. Massie. --and cost more, correct? Does it cost more?
    Can you give me a yes-or-no answer?
        Secretary Moniz. Let me--I am sorry. I have to--if you are
    talking about post-combustion capture, that logic is clear.
        Mr. Massie. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. If you go to a different technology like
    gasification, it could be a different issue in principle, not
    in practice today but in principle. So clearly capturing carbon
    is more expensive than not capturing carbon in a post-
    combustion world, but the comparison is that cost, let's say,
    in a low-carbon world compared to other low-carbon
    technologies. And as I said earlier, if you look at the
    proposed 111(b) rule, it only requires, if you build an
    efficient plant, ultra-supercritical, it is only a 30 percent
    capture.
        Mr. Massie. For the record, my question was how much more
    expensive is it to run one of these theoretical carbon capture
    plants compared to today's existing science----
        Secretary Moniz. With a----
        Mr. Massie. --and what is the effect on consumer price of
    electricity?
        Secretary Moniz. With a 30 percent capture it is--I don't
    know the exact dollar; I will get back to you--but it is
    probably couple cents.
        Mr. Massie. Per kilowatt hour?
        Secretary Moniz. Per kilowatt hour.
        Mr. Massie. With--so----
        Secretary Moniz. But that is to be compared with
    alternative technologies, and so, you know--I mean I think that
    is the comparison you have to make.
        Mr. Massie. So a couple cents is like at least 30 percent
    more.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, no, the average retail price is
    about 11 cents----
        Mr. Massie. Okay, 20 percent.
        Secretary Moniz. --in the United States.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you. I yield back. Right.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Massie.
        The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Grayson, I appreciate the opportunity to serve on this
    Committee so thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you.
        I am running between two committee hearings. The other
    committee hearing is with Chairwoman Janet Yellen on the
    Humphrey-Hawkins, you know, ``what is happening in the
    economy'' kind of discussion with her, and she starts off with
    this year's monetary report so I am going to come at it from an
    economic perspective. You have been getting lots of science
    questions and kilowatt hour questions.
        I want to start with something where Mr. Westerman was
    asking you, about the decline in the price of oil and its
    effect as you see it as the Secretary of the Energy Department
    on your overall kind of portfolio, renewables, efficiency,
    fossil fuels, nuclear, et cetera. We saw in the '80s--and I
    will just tee it up this way--we saw in the '80s when the
    Saudis dropped it from $30 to $10, really a decimation of the
    energy sector, renewables and fossil fuels particularly for
    about 15 or 20 years.
        We have now gone from $107 down to about $50 for a variety
    of reasons. And you may expand on those, you know, more
    production, less use, whatever, how do you see that playing out
    in terms of the economy? Because in Colorado in the '80s and
    the early '90s when that happened, it hurt us pretty good, both
    starting with the energy sector and then it flowed out to
    retail, real estate, banking.
        And so I am just going to throw that to you, sir, and ask
    for your--you know, your thoughts.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, we always start with
    the point that overall it is very good for the overall national
    economy, for consumers. Indeed, EIA projects just the lower
    gasoline prices as translating to about $750 per year for the
    average household. So we have that.
        Now, clearly, when we go to the producing areas, there is
    obviously lower prices. The--nevertheless, the EIA does project
    higher production in 2015 than in 2014, but the amount of
    increase is projected to be, you know, dampened clearly. And if
    the prices were to stay, you know, in the 40s, then presumably
    in 2016 one might see some little--some roll-off, although even
    then the EIA does not project, you know, major roll-off.
        We also know that the prices tend to be somewhat volatile
    and at the Department of Energy--to go to that part of the
    question, the Department of Energy, it frankly does not change
    our R&D portfolio. Our job is to enable the whole range of
    energy options to be developed to drive costs down so that the
    marketplace in five years, in ten years, in twnty years, in
    thirty years will have a set of options.
        Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So following up on that, what
    have you seen in terms of the cost of wind energy, solar
    energy, whatever other kinds of renewables, alternatives in
    terms of their ability just again within the market to
    withstand this kind of a drop or to provide energy sources at
    competitive rates compared to fossil fuels with this price
    drop?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly if you take solar, we have
    seen no real drop in the deployment at this stage. There may be
    issues down the road with, you know, tax credits issues, how
    taxes are handled, but so far the cost reduction of solar has
    been so dramatic that we are seeing just substantial--very,
    very substantial deployment.
        I was saying earlier that the cost of a solar module is now
    significantly lower than a dollar a watt and I expect that we
    will reach the Holy Grail of 50 cents a watt within 2, 3 years.
        Mr. Perlmutter. What about wind?
        Secretary Moniz. Wind has also come down dramatically.
    Mainly the issue of--you know, we are getting larger turbines,
    the longer blades, much more efficient in terms of capturing
    the wind resource. And of course we are working--in terms of
    the R&D side, our D&D, we are also now pushing hard into areas
    like offshore wind where the resource is dramatic. And then
    there are very substantial--I mean like ARPA-E is also
    supported and it has now gone out to Google, you know, tethered
    wind----
        Mr. Perlmutter. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --kites and this kind of a thing. So there
    are some pretty interesting, novel concepts but just taking
    land-based wind, cost reduction has clearly put wind into a
    very competitive range, you know, for good wind sites.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. [Presiding] okay. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Always good to have you here to
    discuss the important work of the Department of Energy, so
    thank you for your work.
        I also had a very good meeting a couple of weeks ago with
    Under Secretary Orr. We had a very good discussion. As you
    probably guessed, we did talk about DOE's commitment to P5 as
    it relates to Fermilab in my district. I do think we are in a
    position as a nation to take a leadership role on an
    international facility, and I really do hope to see that
    happen.
        Government-wide I am glad the President's budget does
    increase R&D but I still see it as a problem that has been
    ongoing with this Administration's choice to value applied R&D
    over basic scientific research. Why does the President's budget
    propose a five percent increase to applied R&D while only
    giving a 3.5 percent increase to basic research?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, as I said earlier, in terms of the
    Office of Science budget, because the Office of Science has
    done a very good job in terms of how it stages its major
    facilities in particular, and so if you look at the budget
    request, we continue to have robust development of new
    capabilities, we support the Long-Baseline Neutrino facility at
    Fermilab, and the budget also proposes like a 98 percent full
    operation budget of our facilities. So we think it is going to
    be a very, very strong budget and certainly support the
    national user community quite well.
        Mr. Hultgren. Again, my concern is--I am grateful that R&D
    is increasing but I still feel like there is misapplied
    priorities where we are pushing applied research more than
    basic research at a time where budgets are still difficult. And
    so to me that just gets back to a fundamental concern.
        Let me get on to something else because I want to cover a
    couple different questions. What more can DOE do to be making
    it easier to transition technology out of the labs? Now that
    Ellen Williams is confirmed at ARPA-E, can you tell how you
    intend to use the new Office of Technology Transitions?
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you, and thank you for your interest
    anad leadership in that area.
        So as you said, Ellen Williams has now taken up the ARPA-E
    reigns but she has left us with a great plan which we are
    implementing, so we have established the Office of Technology
    Transitions. A very capable person, Jetta Wong, who has run
    that kind of a program in EERE is at least our acting director
    of that office and Technology Transfer Coordinator. But also
    very importantly we have followed now I would say the letter of
    the 2005 directive to establish a Technology Commercialization
    Fund. So we will be in fiscal year 2016 taking 0.9 percent of
    the applied energy R&D budget into a technology--Energy
    Technology Commercialization Fund that will be operated by the
    Office of Technology Transitions as a cost-shared competitive
    program for labs and companies to transition technologies.
        Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Thank you.
        Let me switch topics in my last minute-and-a-half or so
    that I have got. I would like to discuss, as many others have,
    nuclear power, which certainly is important to my State.
    Illinois is the nation's largest producer of nuclear energy. Do
    you recognize the need to keep the existing fleet competitive?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, I am very concerned about that and in
    particular in the context of low carbon.
        Mr. Hultgren. Let me put out some questions and then if you
    can respond to any of these that you are able to in time. Why
    then has the Administration requested a nuclear tax via the
    Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund?
    Has the fund been exhausted? How much remains in that fund? And
    why are you requesting this tax now given the amount of plants
    currently at risk? And finally, how does the Administration
    expect the United States to meet international climate goals if
    our nuclear fleets continue to face early retirements?
        Secretary Moniz. A lot of questions.
        Mr. Hultgren. A lot there, I know.
        Secretary Moniz. I think the UED&D fund, I am not entirely
    sure but I think there is something like 3 or $4 billion I
    think in that fund. I can check that--
        Mr. Hultgren. That would be great----
        Secretary Moniz. --precisely--
        Mr. Hultgren. --if you can let us know, and maybe if we
    could follow up with----
        Secretary Moniz. And--
        Mr. Hultgren. --questions on this.
        Secretary Moniz. Okay. All right. Fine.
        Mr. Hultgren. Let me just ask you real quick, as far as
    nuclear fleets continue to face early retirement, is that a
    concern of yours? How does that--how do we mix these I think
    competing facts?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes. In fact I have convened brainstorming
    sessions on this issue of current nuclear fleet retirements.
    One of the issues is it turns out we don't--at the federal
    level we don't have a lot of levers there so we are convening
    discussions. The--in fact, in Illinois, as you know very well,
    there is very active consideration at the state level as to how
    one can value what I would say is the diversification of supply
    and the baseload nature, the capacity value of nuclear plants.
    But, again, it is really at the state level as opposed to
    federal.
        Mr. Hultgren. Again, my time is up. Thank you for being
    here. Thank you again for your voiced support of LBNE and the
    work that is going on there. I think it is so important for us
    and really a chance for us to lead again on an important
    project in the world, so thank you for your help on that.
        Secretary Moniz. And if I may add an anecdote that when I
    visited Fermilab a few months back, I was very pleased to have
    a researcher ask me to sign a paper I wrote in 1971--
        Mr. Hultgren. Wow.
        Secretary Moniz. --because they were using it in the
    analysis so--
        Mr. Hultgren. Very good.
        Secretary Moniz. --it was a great trip.
        Mr. Hultgren. Good, good. That is great. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman from Illinois yields back. Now
    another one of Illinois' fine gentlemen is recognized, Mr.
    Lipinski.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome back Secretary Moniz. It is good to see
    you again.
        Secretary Moniz. Good to see you.
        Mr. Lipinski. I always learn a tremendous amount when I
    talk to you and when you testify, so it is good to have you
    here.
        As you and this Committee know, improving technology
    transfer has been one of my top priorities in Congress, so I
    want to applaud you and the Department for some of the things
    you have done recently to improve the commercialization
    potential for DOE-funded research at our universities and
    national labs.
        First is the Office of Technology Transitions, which Mr.
    Hultgren just mentioned you had talked about, which was
    announced two weeks ago to fulfill Congressional requirements
    for a Technology Commercialization Fund. As you know, it has
    been a big interest of mine and it was one of the first matters
    we spoke about when we met in July of 2013, and I appreciated
    working with you and your staff to make this happen.
        Secretary Moniz. And again, I would like to add to you as
    well my thanks for your leadership and interest in this issue.
    You have obviously been very, very dedicated to it.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And the second item is the pilot
    for the Lab-Corp program based on NSF's Innovation Corps, also
    known as the I-Corps program. For labs like Argonne in my
    district with a good deal of use-inspired basic research such
    as the JCESR, initiatives on battery research, I think a
    program like Lab-Corp can really help by teaching researchers
    more about how the commercialization process works so that they
    can more easily identify what basic research problems need to
    be solved to build better batteries. And as you have talked
    about how important that that is.
        And one other thing that you had mentioned I want to thank
    you for is moving forward on the H-Prize for the competition on
    fueling infrastructure for hydrogen as a transportation fuel.
    The H-Price Act was--I believe it was the first bill that I got
    signed into law. It was about seven years ago, and I am happy
    that the Department is now using the H-Prize to help move us to
    a clean energy future. So I thank you for moving forward with
    that.
        So with all that out of the way I want to ask a couple
    questions on--in the time I have left on these three things
    that I have brought up. First on Lab-Corp, what do you see as
    the potential value of the program given that it is a pilot and
    what are you going to be looking for in terms of impacts when
    evaluating the effectiveness of the program at the labs?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, once again, thank you for your
    interest and leadership in this area.
        So the LabCorp, as you said, the pilot, I think it is a
    $2.5 million pilot as I recall modeled after the I-Corps. We
    have NREL as our coordinator and Argonne, Idaho, Pacific
    Northwest, Berkeley, and Livermore engaged. I believe this
    summer 15 teams will go through the LabCorp training program
    and the issue then is we will have to go back probably in a
    couple of years to see if the outcome is there that this cadre
    of researchers has in fact been able to pick up the game in
    terms of tech transfer. That is the outcome we are looking for.
        Mr. Lipinski. All right. On the Office of Technology
    Transitions and the Tech Commercialization Fund, what types of
    opportunities will the Office be looking to support and will
    they potentially include support for technology maturation
    activities at the labs?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, I think, you know, to be honest, the
    real program design still needs more development and we would
    be happy to work with you on that, but technology maturation is
    clearly important. We are looking for partnerships of the labs
    with industry, with the private sector to be able to mature and
    move out technologies. But again, to be honest, we still have
    some real program design to do there.
        Mr. Lipinski. Very well. I look forward to working with
    you----
        Secretary Moniz. Great.
        Mr. Lipinski. --on that. And the final one is I had
    mentioned the H-Prize and the competition now that the
    Department is working on. Could you tell me anything about
    where this is right--where exactly this is right now?
        Secretary Moniz. You know, other than our moving out on it,
    I really would have to get back to you following the hearing in
    terms of exact status. I just don't know that right now.
        Mr. Lipinski. Okay. Well, we will follow up on that on----
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Lipinski. --that one then.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Lipinski. So I thank you very much again for all your--
    the work that you have done and I think we are making great
    progress despite the--you know, the difficult budgetary times
    that we are in, so I thank you for----
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Lipinski. --what you do and I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, the research that you are doing on hydraulic
    fracking right now seems to be focused on the impact on water
    quality. Is the Department of Energy doing any research on
    improving fracking in the terms of making it more and more
    economically viable? As the price of oil has come down,
    obviously it gets to a price point where it is not viable. Is
    DOE trying to do anything to make it more economically viable?
        Secretary Moniz. Again, I will get back to you in detail
    but my understanding at the moment is that we are not, that
    that is principally in the private sector, and what we are
    looking at is mostly the minimization of environmental
    footprint. But of course that in turn would have--
        Mr. Palmer. But wait----
        Secretary Moniz. --economic consequences.
        Mr. Palmer. Wait on that. You are investing enormous
    amounts of money in trying to make renewable energy
    economically viable. You are the Department of Energy; you are
    not the EPA, so it would make sense to me that through the
    Department of Energy we would want to have maximum access to
    our energy resources because it helps our economy and improves
    our national security. So why wouldn't the Department of Energy
    be investing in supporting additional research and making
    fracking more economically viable?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I will look into that in
    detail but, you know, as we said earlier, the--I mean the
    Department has certainly over these last decades contributed
    substantially to developing the technology and now one has, you
    know, very large companies who are investing in that research.
    We wanted to add value with the government funding. So our--my
    view at least is right now focusing mainly on things like, for
    example, reuse of water that----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, let me--I want to stay on----
        Secretary Moniz. --it is all very important.
        Mr. Palmer. --this----
        Secretary Moniz. Okay.
        Mr. Palmer. --theme a little bit. Have we returned to the
    pre-BP spill levels for permitting in the Gulf Coast for oil
    exploration and extraction? Do you----
        Secretary Moniz. I don't know that. That is a Department of
    Interior issue and I just don't know that directly.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. The Department of Energy doesn't do the
    permitting?
        Secretary Moniz. No, we do not. No.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. Well, I will just say for the record that
    if we got back to the permitting level, it would add 190,000
    jobs if we cleared the backlog that existed at the time of the
    Deepwater Horizon. That would add another 400,000 and about $45
    billion to our gross domestic product.
        I want to switch to something else. There was an article in
    the L.A. Times back in December 2013, about 14 months ago, a
    little over 14 months ago that talked about our power grid and
    the fact that it is not designed for renewables, and that to
    get it up to grade by 2030 is going to cost us about a trillion
    dollars. Has the Department of Energy taken that into account
    in the headlong push toward renewables?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, indeed. We have a very, very large
    focus on the whole question of renewables integration. It is
    part of our grid modernization project. We will be saying more
    about that in our upcoming Quadrennial Energy Review probably
    in a few weeks, I hope at least in a few weeks. And I would
    also say that I am--I would perhaps question that--the scale of
    that resource.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, it came out of Caltech. I think they are
    a fairly reputable source.
        But the other thing is the fact that with renewables you
    don't have consistent energy output. If the wind--right now we
    are having to dump power because we don't have viable storage
    options and there is a huge debate over whether or not we can
    make that economically viable. But I want to ask you something
    else in the last few seconds that I have, and it appears that
    we plan to have 80 percent of our power, our energy resources
    coming from renewables within the next two or three decades.
    Does the Department of Energy have any plans for the fossil
    fuels resources that we have that I think represent an enormous
    economic resource for the country in terms of oil, natural gas,
    and coal?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly in terms of the power
    sector where oil does not play such a major role of course in
    the United States, but in terms of the power sector, all of
    these multibillion dollar investments and now proposed tax
    credits for coal very much for having coal--continue to have a
    major presence even with low carbon. Natural gas we see as a
    very important bridge to low carbon, and in fiscal year 2016 we
    are proposing to start carbon capture with gas as well. And
    then of course the nuclear renewables and efficiency.
    Efficiency of course is generally speaking also a fossil
    program if you like. It is about efficient use of fossil fuels.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
        And the gentleman from California Dr. Bera is recognized.
        Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
    Thank you to the Chairman and Ranking Member.
        I want to shift a little bit to the Department's
    collaboration with higher education, some of the funding
    research particularly in the area of ARPA-E as well. You know,
    my home institution is University of California Davis. It does
    a lot with the Department in the renewable space and recently
    has received some awards as well. I am just curious about the
    different details and the different roles that ARPA-E is
    playing in terms of collaboration with our institutions of
    higher education, some of the projects that you are working on.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, ARPA-E certainly makes awards to
    universities, to our labs, and to industry, so it is complete
    spectrum. It is not----
        Mr. Bera. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --only one or the other. In terms of
    specifics, well, if I go back to my previous life in
    particular, there have been strong projects in things like
    novel storage technologies. One of the very first round of
    awards, for example, was for something called liquid metal
    batteries that are now actually getting into the marketplace.
    That is an example. I mean there are so many diverse areas. For
    example, going back to the question earlier, high-strength ways
    of storing hydrogen, for example, with advanced materials
    research. That is an example. We could go on and on with
    different technologies.
        Mr. Bera. And, Secretary, in your experience when we make
    these investments in R&D and in advanced research, there is a
    return on that investment in terms of the new industries that
    are spawned and so forth. Is that----
        Secretary Moniz. Major amplification, yeah.
        Mr. Bera. Yeah. Absolutely. So in many ways when we look at
    our economic strength over the past decades and so forth and
    what puts us in--is this investment in innovation and this
    investment in, you know, challenging some of the issues that
    lay ahead of us, maybe not knowing how we are going to address,
    let's say, you know, carbon sequestration that is already in
    the atmosphere. We may not know how we were going to degrade
    that carbon, yet we do know part of the challenge is certainly
    capturing carbon that is being emitted today but we also--you
    know, I think when you were here last session of Congress
    talked about the enormous amount of carbon that is already
    trapped in our atmosphere and, you know, I would be curious if
    the Department is looking at and funding some of those
    technologies that--or some of the research that would help us
    think about how we degrade the carbon that is already there.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, well, there is work on that. The--of
    course today this issue of getting carbon directly out of the
    atmosphere is very expensive and there is a long, long way to
    go before having that be scalable. And, by the way, success
    there still then leaves you with of course the big
    sequestration issue if you get all of that carbon out of the
    atmosphere. So that is more in the long-term. I would say we do
    have a much stronger emphasis today on this question of
    capturing current anthropogenic emissions, especially from
    large point sources.
        Mr. Bera. So the focus is actually capturing it at the
    source right now----
        Secretary Moniz. Correct, because----
        Mr. Bera. --and then long-term----
        Secretary Moniz. --that is where the lower cost
    opportunities are for the near future.
        Mr. Bera. And I would certainly like us to know and start
    funding the research thinking about the longer-term
    sequestration issues.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, we have a lot of projects and
    sometimes what is called artificial photosynthesis----
        Mr. Bera. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. A Holy Grail would be to combine CO2
    out of the atmosphere, water, and light and produce a liquid
    fuel. So we have work ongoing on that.
        Mr. Bera. Absolutely. And again, understanding that right
    now it is not at scale because of the massive amounts of carbon
    that are there----
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Bera. --but, you know, that has never stopped us as
    Americans. I mean we understand that we may not know how to do
    it at a cost and price point today that allows us to do it, but
    again, if we challenge ourselves, if we use our innovation, you
    know, a decade from now, you know, you might have----
        Secretary Moniz. We have----
        Mr. Bera. --that breakthrough technology.
        Secretary Moniz. I completely agree. We have no bigger edge
    than our research----
        Mr. Bera. Absolutely.
        Secretary Moniz. --and innovation enterprise.
        Mr. Bera. Well, and let's certainly take advantage of that.
        Just following up on some of the questions that Mr.
    Lipinski had asked, my colleague from Illinois, on the Office
    of Technology Transfer and so forth, certainly an area that I
    am interested in, you know, particularly within our public
    universities, and recognizing that we have limited research
    dollars. You know, there is certainly the private sector
    institutions that want to partner with our academic
    universities. You know, I would be curious on an update some of
    the issues that this body--you would like us to focus on
    particularly in the space of technology transfer.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, the--first of all I might say
    historically that Congress played an enormous role in kick-
    starting this. Going back to Bayh-Dole, for example, absolutely
    central legislation to do this. And I might say I think in my
    view I see universities, because of the whole changing
    innovation system being if anything closer to the marketplace
    now, the value system I think has evolved to value those kinds
    of activities.
        So anyway--so I think we need to keep working together in
    terms of legislative approaches, incentives in some of our
    programs, DOE for sure but also NSF and NIH, and I think we are
    seeing a very interesting development in terms of being closer
    to the marketplace.
        Mr. Bera. Absolutely. Well, and again, you can count on
    this office if there are things that we can do in Congress to
    set that framework----
        Secretary Moniz. Great.
        Mr. Bera. --for a closer public-private partnership, that
    would be great. Thank you.
        Secretary Moniz. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Weber. Secretary Moniz, we thank you for your testimony
    and we thank the Members for their questions. The record will
    remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written
    questions from Members.
        Does the gentleman from Oklahoma have any questions?
        Mr. Lucas. No, sir. I just appreciate your magnificent
    chairmanship, sir.
        Mr. Weber. All right. Well, that----
        Mr. Hultgren. So say we all.
        Mr. Weber. --particularly will be recorded in the--without
    objection.
        Dr. Moniz, thank you.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Weber. This hearing is adjourned.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by The Honorable Ernest Moniz

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]