[Senate Hearing 114-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Cochran, Murkowski, Graham,
Lankford, Feinstein, Murray, Udall, and Shaheen.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ, PH.D., SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY FRANKLIN ORR, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND
ENERGY
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development will please come to order. This afternoon we are
having a hearing to review the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request for the Department of Energy. Senator Feinstein
and I will each have an opening statement. I will then
recognize each senator for up to five minutes for an opening
statement, alternating between the majority and the minority.
And then we will turn to Secretary Moniz. Secretary Orr is here
to answer questions relating to fusion science, not because
Secretary Moniz does not know anything about it, but because he
does. So under our brilliant rules, we do not get to ask him.
I am going to make one adjustment if it is necessary.
Senator Feinstein has an unavoidable conflict at about 3:15,
and I want to make sure that, she as well as I get to hear
Secretary Moniz's testimony, and that she gets to make her
opening statement and to ask her questions. So I may have
gotten out of order a little bit with the Senators, and I am
sure Senator Murray will be fine with--well, Senator Feinstein
has to leave at 3:15, and I wanted to give her a little--I want
to make sure she gets the chance to ask her questions before
she leaves.
Our witnesses today include Dr. Moniz and Dr. Orr. We are
here today to review the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the Department of Energy, an Agency with three
critical missions: nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management. This is the subcommittee's fourth and
final hearing this year on the President's budget request, and
I look forward to hearing what the Secretary has to say.
The Department's budget request for 2016 is about $30.5
billion. This is an increase of about $2.5 billion over the
amount Congress appropriated last year. Governing is about
setting priorities, and given our fiscal constraints,
especially on non-defense spending, we are going to have to
make some tough decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded.
The President's entire discretionary budget request this
year exceeds the Budget Control Act's spending caps by about
$74 billion. This is not realistic. In fact, if we were to
fully fund just the Department of Energy's budget request of
$30.5 billion, our subcommittee would need almost the entire
increase available, about $3 billion, in both defense and non-
defense for fiscal year 2016 under the Budget Control Act
spending caps.
The real driver of our Federal debt is out of control
mandatory spending on entitlement programs. I plan to work with
our Republican majority, and I hope the President and Senate
Democrats who share the same concerns, to make the tough
choices so we can pass a real plan to fix the long-term debt,
while supporting other important priorities like national
defense, national labs, and medical research.
That is why we are holding this hearing, to give the
Secretary an opportunity to talk about the Department of
Energy's most urgent priorities so Senator Feinstein and I and
the other committee members can begin to put together our
appropriations bill over the next several weeks.
I am going to focus my attention on four areas: number one,
doubling basic energy research; two, reducing Federal spending
on mature technologies; three, leading the world in advanced
scientific computing; and four, solving the stalemate over what
to do with our country's nuclear waste. Just a few comments
about each of those areas.
I believe doubling basic energy research is one of the most
important things we can do. It is hard to think of any
important technological advance in the sciences--physics, and
biology in any event--since World War II that has not involved
at least some form of government-sponsored research, whether it
is the development of unconventional gas or the work being done
to develop small modular reactors. That is why it is so
important to double the more than $5 billion the U.S.
Department of Energy spends on basic energy research. That was
the goal set out in the America COMPETES legislation which
passed under President Bush with bipartisan support. That grew
out of the Rising Above-the-Gathering Storm report. The goal
was to double the Federal Government's investment in basic
research.
Two of the ways we have increased investment in basic
research are, one, our national lab system and, two, ARPA-E,
which Congress created as part of America COMPETES. The Office
of Sciences manages 10 of the 17 Department of Energy national
laboratories that are critical to our national competitiveness
and our way of life. They are home to the world's largest
collection of scientific user facilities operated by a single
organization, used by more than 31,000 researchers each year.
Since 2009, Congress has provided about $1 billion in
appropriations for ARPA-E, which has resulted in more than 400
projects. ARPA-E is successful because it stops funding
projects that do not meet their research milestones, and
funding is limited to 5 years.
The next priority is Federal spending on mature technology.
Washington has a bad habit of picking winners and losers and an
addiction to wasteful subsidies, and we need to end those
policies. The most conspicuous example of this is the wasteful
wind subsidy, which costs taxpayers about $6 billion every year
we extend it, enough to double basic energy research at the
Department of Energy.
President Obama's former Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, said
in 2011 that wind energy is a mature technology. There is a
place for limited, short-term subsidies to jump start
technologies, and I have supported some of those. But it is
long past time for wind to stand on its own in the market. The
subsidy for big wind has been renewed nine times since 1992. It
is so generous that wind producers can literally give their
electricity away in some markets and still make a profit. That
is called negative pricing, and it is distorting the market and
undercutting other forms of clean, reliable energy, such as
nuclear power.
The third area is leading the world in advanced scientific
computing. I got involved with super computing with Senator
Bingaman when I first became a Senator. At his direction, I
flew to Japan to see why they were first in the world and we
were not. I am glad to say that we have been with the Obama
Administration over the last several years. We see eye-to-eye
on the importance of these fast super computers, and I am glad
that because of a recent announcement, the Secretary was able
to make in the budget request that he includes that we will be
able to say that the world's fastest super computer would be,
again, in the United States by 2017.
Finally, I would like to discuss, and I will save most of
my comments for questions. The 25-year-old stalemate about what
we do about used fuel from nuclear reactors. I want to make
sure we have a strong future in this country for nuclear power.
It is essential, therefore, we have a permanent place to put
used nuclear fuel. The Federal Government is responsible for
disposing of that. It has failed in its responsibility even
though the rate payers have deposited billions to pay for it.
The government's failure to follow the law not only imperils
the future of nuclear power, it also results in wasting
billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
To help solve this stalemate, Senator Feinstein and I will
again include a pilot program for nuclear waste storage in the
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill as we have for the past 3
years when she was the chairman. We have also introduced
legislation yesterday with Senator Murkowski and Cantwell to
create both temporary and permanent storage sites for nuclear
waste. The new sites we are seeking to establish would not take
the place of Yucca Mountain. We have more than enough used fuel
to fill Yucca Mountain, but rather would complement it. Our
legislation is consistent with the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The Secretary served on
that commission.
I should note that Federal law designates one repository
for our country's used nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain. After
years of delay, Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the
solution to our nuclear waste stalemate. The regulatory
commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, recently completed
the safety evaluation report that said that Yucca ``met all of
the safety requirements through the period of geologic
stability.'' The Commission and the Environmental Protection
Agency defined that period as one million years. So to continue
to oppose Yucca Mountain because radiation concerns ignores
science as well as the law.
Secretary Moniz had an important announcement to make
yesterday on used nuclear fuel. I appreciate, and I know
Senator Feinstein appreciates, his putting a priority on the
subject. We are going to need your help, Mr. Secretary, to set
priorities and make tough funding decisions for the Department
this year.
With that, I would recognize Senator Feinstein for an
opening statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander
We're here today to review the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the Department of Energy, a Federal agency with three
critical missions: nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management.
This is the subcommittee's fourth and final hearing this year on
the President's budget request, and I look forward to hearing what
Secretary Moniz has to say about the department's priorities.
The Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year 2016 is
about $30.5 billion. This is an increase of about $2.5 billion over the
amount Congress appropriated last year.
Governing is about setting priorities, and given our current fiscal
constraints--especially on non-defense spending--we are going to have
to make some tough decisions this year to make sure the highest
priorities are funded.
The President's entire discretionary budget request this year
exceeds the Budget Control Act spending caps by about $74 billion. This
is not realistic.
In fact, if we were to fully fund just the Department of Energy's
budget request of $30.5 billion, our subcommittee would need almost the
entire increase available--about $3 billion--in both defense and non-
defense for fiscal year 2016 under the Budget Control Act's spending
caps.
The real driver of our Federal debt is out-of-control mandatory
spending on entitlement programs.
I plan to work with our Republican majority--and, I hope, the
President and Senate Democrats who share the same concerns--to make
tough choices so we can pass a real plan to fix the debt while
supporting other priorities like national defense and national labs and
medical research.
And that is why we are holding this hearing: to give Secretary
Moniz an opportunity to talk about the Department of Energy's most
urgent priorities, so Senator Feinstein and I can make informed
decisions as we begin to put together the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill over the next several weeks.
Today, I'd like to focus my questions on four main areas, all with
an eye toward setting priorities:
1. Doubling basic energy research;
2. Reducing Federal spending on mature technologies;
3. Leading the world in advanced scientific computing; and
4. Solving the stalemate over what to do with our country's nuclear
waste
doubling basic energy research
Doubling basic energy research is one of the most important things
we can do to unleash our free enterprise system to help provide the
clean, cheap, reliable energy we need to power our 21st-century
economy.
It's hard to think of an important technological advance since
World War II that has not involved at least some form of government-
sponsored research. Take, for example, our latest energy boom: natural
gas.
The development of unconventional gas was enabled in part by 3D
mapping at Sandia National Lab in New Mexico and the Department of
Energy's large-scale demonstration project. Then our free enterprise
system, and our tradition of private ownership of mineral rights,
capitalized on the basic energy research.
Another example is the work being done to develop small modular
reactors, which would allow nuclear power to be produced with less
capital investment and to be accessible in more places.
That's why it's so important that we work to double the more than
$5 billion the U.S. Department of Energy spends on basic energy
research. We set out on this goal with America COMPETES, legislation
that was first passed under President Bush with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
America COMPETES grew out of the ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' report on American competitiveness, written by Norm Augustine.
The goal was to double the Federal Government's investment in basic
research, including math, the physical sciences and engineering.
Two of the ways we have increased investment in basic energy
research is through our national laboratory system and the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which Congress created as
part of America COMPETES to fund transformational energy technology
projects.
The Office of Science manages 10 of the 17 Department of Energy
national laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee. These national laboratories are critical to our Nation's
competitiveness and our way of life.
The laboratories are also home to the world's largest collection of
scientific user facilities operated by a single organization, used by
more than 31,000 researchers each year.
Since 2009 Congress has provided about $1 billion in appropriations
for ARPA-E, which has resulted in more than 400 projects. ARPA-E is
successful because it stops funding projects that don't meet their
research milestones and funding is limited to 5 years.
reducing federal spending on mature technologies
That brings me to the next priority I'd like to discuss, which is
to reduce Federal spending on mature technologies. Washington has a bad
habit of picking winners and losers, and an addiction to wasteful
subsidies of all kinds--we need to end these policies.
The most conspicuous example of this addiction is the wasteful wind
subsidy--which costs taxpayers about $6 billion every year we extend
it, enough to double basic energy research at the Department of Energy.
President Obama's former Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, said in
2011 that wind energy is a ``mature technology.''
There is a place for limited, short-term subsidies to jumpstart new
technologies, but it is long past time for wind to stand on its own in
the marketplace.
The subsidy for Big Wind has been renewed 9 times since 1992 and is
so generous that in some markets, wind producers can literally give
their electricity away and still make a profit.
This is called ``negative pricing'' and it shows that the wind
subsidy isn't just wasting money that could go toward other
priorities--it's distorting the market and undercutting other forms of
clean, reliable energy like nuclear power.
leading the world in advanced scientific computing
Supercomputing is critical to our economic competitiveness and a
secure energy future.
The United States faces a choice between falling further behind
competitors like China, or advancing technology that can make the
United States safer and more competitive in a global, 21st-century
economy.
In November of last year, I was glad to announce with you,
Secretary Moniz, that by 2017 the world's fastest supercomputer would
again be in the United States, and that it would again be at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
That computer will be called Summit, and it will help researchers
better understand materials, nuclear power, and new energy
breakthroughs. I am glad to have your support for this initiative, and
I appreciate that the President's budget request includes funding to
make Summit ready for users by 2018 and also for the next generation of
supercomputers.
Funding this next generation, known as exascale, is essential to
U.S. national security, competitiveness in science and technology and
to enable our free enterprise system to create the good-paying jobs of
the future.
Supercomputing has helped maintain our nuclear stockpile, allowed
manufacturers to make better products and save money and even allowed
scientists to map the human heart at one beat per second.
solving the nuclear waste stalemate
I'd also like to discuss solving the 25-year-old stalemate about
what to do with used fuel from our nuclear reactors, to ensure that
nuclear power has a strong future in this country.
Federal law makes the government responsible for disposing of used
nuclear fuel. Yet the government has failed in this responsibility,
even though ratepayers have deposited billions into the Nuclear Waste
Fund to pay for it.
The government's failure to follow the law not only imperils the
future of nuclear power in our country, but it also results in wasting
billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to settle lawsuits by
utilities, who are stuck with the used fuel until the government takes
it.
To help solve this stalemate, Senator Feinstein and I will again
include a pilot program for nuclear waste storage in the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, as we have for the past 3 years.
We also introduced bipartisan legislation yesterday with Senator
Lisa Murkowski and Senator Maria Cantwell to create both temporary and
permanent storage sites for nuclear waste.
The new sites we are seeking to establish would not take the place
of Yucca Mountain--we have more than enough used fuel to fill Yucca
Mountain to its legal capacity--but rather would complement it.
Our legislation is consistent with the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, and is the result of many
meetings with experts like Secretary Moniz, who served on the Blue
Ribbon Commission.
I should note that Federal law designates one repository for our
country's used nuclear fuel, Yucca Mountain. After years of delay, I
want to be clear: Yucca Mountain can and should be part of the solution
to our nuclear waste stalemate.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently completed the Safety
Evaluation Report that said Yucca Mountain met all of the safety
requirements through ``the period of geologic stability.'' The
commission and the Environmental Protection Agency define the ``period
of geologic stability'' as 1 million years.
To continue to oppose Yucca Mountain because of radiation concerns
is to ignore science--as well as the law.
Secretary Moniz, we are going to need your help to set priorities
and make tough funding decisions for the department this year, and I
look forward to your testimony.
With that, I would recognize Senator Feinstein to make her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
agree with virtually all of your statement. And it is really a
pleasure for me to work with you over these many years, and I
think we have gotten some things done. I will put my written
remarks in the record if I may. And I just want to say that I
am delighted that we have finally introduced a waste policy act
bill for our country, which has no waste policy that we know
of, and which at the price of about $20 billion a year
registers debt because we are unable to carry out our mission.
And I understand we will owe about $20 billion by 2020. So this
is a step along the way.
And I want to point out that it is voluntary. If we have
learned anything it is that these facilities have to have the
approval of their community and their State. And so, the bill
we have submitted essentially achieves that, and also has the
Congress approving it as well. So it has been a long work in
progress.
We have had the pleasure of meeting with two Secretaries,
Secretary Chu and Secretary Moniz, with the Blue Ribbon
Commission, with virtually a number of other people. We have
discussed among ourselves different mechanisms. And, the four
of us have always come to agreement, and one more time we have
come to agreement in a bill that has now been introduced. And
hopefully Senator Murkowski will schedule it and have a
hearing, and it can move ahead. I view that as a very important
legislative endeavor.
The rest of my--I would rather save my time for the
questions if I may, and thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Here is
how we will proceed. I will ask Senator Murray to her opening
statement, and then we will go Secretary Moniz for his
testimony. Then we will go to Senator Feinstein for her
questions so that she has a chance to offer them before she
needs to leave.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will just save
my time for questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray. I might just
say that I am a fortunate chairman because the ranking members
that I work with are both here today, and I really appreciate
my ability to work with both of these senators. They are
direct. They are easy to work with. They state their positions,
and they look for results. So it makes my work here much more
useful.
Secretary Moniz, welcome. We look forward to your
testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. ERNEST J. MONIZ
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I might say
that I enjoy working with all three of you as well. Ranking
Member Feinstein, Senator Murray, I am pleased to be here to
discuss our fiscal year 2016 budget request of $29.9 billion.
As you know, the Department is entrusted with a diverse
portfolio. It includes advancing the all-of-the-above energy
strategy, providing a good part of the backbone of basic
research in the physical sciences in this country, ensuring
nuclear security, and cleaning up the Cold War environmental
contamination. The request represents an increase, as you said,
of $2 and a half billion, or nine percent, above the fiscal
year 2015 appropriations level, and we feel supports a balanced
portfolio within those mission areas.
In funding for nuclear security activities, including NNSA
and defense-related environmental cleanup, that totals almost
$19 billion. Nearly 2/3 of our budget is in the defense line.
The non-defense line--science, energy, and other activities--
about $10.9 billion.
Let me just summarize a few highlights so that we can move
on to our discussion. First, in science and energy, that fiscal
year 2016 request is $5.3 billion for science, a 5 percent
increase. Among other things, we are very committed to continue
building and upgrading and operating our national research
infrastructure to really stay at the cutting edge of light
sources, super computer, neutron sources, and other large-scale
facilities that we make available to the national community.
As one highlight, just last month we completed--celebrated
the completion ahead of schedule and within budget of the
brightest light source in the world, the National Synchrotron
Light Source II at Brookhaven, and we have a number of other
upgrades at other places coming along. We have also
commissioned major facilities at Jefferson Lab and at
Princeton. We are now building a second generation light source
at SLAC, and the rare isotope beam facility at Michigan State.
So I just want to emphasize that it is a pattern of advancing
these important facilities for our user community.
The energy portfolio is about $5.38 billion in the
proposal. Over the past year we have seen accomplishments
across our all-of-the-above energy technology portfolio. We
have actually--we have sequestered now over nine million metric
tons of CO2 in DOE-sponsored projects. Two
cellulosic ethanol facilities that were partially supported by
DOE grants and loan guarantees have begun operating. We issued
last year 10 final appliance efficiency standards, which all
together will reduce CO2 emissions by over 435
million metric tons and save consumers about $80 billion
through 2030.
Advanced manufacturing is a key priority, and the budget
provides about $400 million to fully fund, and it is 5 years of
funding, of two new clean energy manufacturing institutes while
continuing funding for four institutes. Just last month we
announced the Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Advanced
Composites, which I think you are familiar with, Mr. Chairman.
This technology has the potential to revolutionize advanced
manufacturing with implications reaching from better wind
turbines to more efficient vehicles.
The budget increases our investments in sustainable
transportation, including $40 billion for technologies to
double freight truck efficiency by 2020. Also $253 million for
advancing the Electric Vehicle Everywhere Initiative to promote
that technology. In fossil energy, we will continue development
of carbon capture utilization and storage for coal plants, and
note this was done in concert with the new tax credits that are
proposed in the Administration's Power Plus Initiative for
carbon sequestration.
I would like to highlight our proposed increase in ARPA-E,
an increase of $45 million. We are now at the fifth anniversary
of the first ARPA-E grants, and now we can start talking about
the impressive successes in outcomes from that program,
including moving technologies to the marketplace.
And finally, the budget includes $63 million to initiate
two new programs of grants to States, one on reliability
planning and one on energy assurance planning. The forthcoming,
and it is forthcoming, quadrennial energy review will provide
supporting analyses for these initiatives.
Let me then turn briefly to national nuclear security. The
fiscal year 2016 budget allocates $11.6 billion to NNSA. The
budget supports a key objective to sustain the successful two-
decade now Scientific Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain
a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapon stockpile without
testing. The budget also includes funding increases to
modernize the stockpile through life extension programs and new
investments in the supporting infrastructure.
Last year in our nonproliferation programs, we removed or
disposed of almost 200 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear
materials out of six countries and expanded radiation detection
systems worldwide to prevent illicit trafficking of nuclear and
radiological materials. The budget includes $1.9 billion for
the Nonproliferation Office. The budget also includes
construction of the Mixed Oxide Project of Savannah River at
the same funding level as Congress appropriated in fiscal year
2015, while completing congressionally directed studies on
plutonium disposition costs and alternatives.
The budget also provides $1.4 billion for the Naval
Reactors Program to continue development of the Advanced Ohio
Class replacement reactor, support refueling of the land-based
prototype reactor, and expand design work for the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization project.
Finally, within our management and performance portfolio,
the largest element by far is the Environmental Management
Program. The fiscal year 2016 budget request is $5.8 billion,
essentially equal to the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. We
know significant challenges remain, but for perspective, DOE
has cleaned up over 85 percent of sites and 90 percent of the
land area.
The fiscal year 2015 appropriation provided a large one-
time funding increase to implement the recovery plan for the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Bringing this facility back on
line is a very high priority, and we believe we are on schedule
to resume operations in about a year. The fiscal year 2015
funding also enabled us to complete demolition of the K25
Facility at Oakridge.
The fiscal year 2016 budget allocates increased funding for
a phased approach for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant to
begin vitrifying low activity waste early next decade. We will
also operate the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at Idaho, and
complete construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility at
Savannah River. Finally, elsewhere within management and
performance, we continue to strengthen cross-program
coordination and to improve efficiency and effectiveness of
mission support functions.
That concludes my statement, and I look forward to our
discussion. Excuse my voice.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest J. Moniz
Chairmen Cochran and Alexander, Ranking Members Mikulski and
Feinstein, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of
Energy's (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2016. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss how the budget request advances the Department
of Energy's missions.
advancing nuclear security, science & energy, and environmental cleanup
DOE is entrusted with a broad and diverse portfolio across its
three major mission areas of nuclear security, science and energy, and
environmental management. The budget request for fiscal year 2016 for
the Department of Energy is $29.9 billion, $2.5 billion above fiscal
year 2015 enacted, to support our mission responsibilities and to
continue improving our management and performance in support of those
missions.
For nuclear security, the budget includes $12.6 billion, an
increase of $1.2 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level, to
support DOE's responsibilities of maintaining and modernizing, via life
extension programs, the nuclear deterrent without testing; controlling
and eliminating nuclear materials worldwide and providing nuclear and
radiological emergency response capabilities in an age of global
terrorism; and propelling our nuclear Navy.
For science and energy, the budget includes $10.7 billion, an
increase of $1.3 billion over the fiscal year 2015 enacted, to support
DOE's missions of enabling the transition to a clean energy future with
low-cost, all-of-the-above energy technologies; supporting a secure,
modern, and resilient energy infrastructure; and providing the backbone
for discovery and innovation, especially in the physical sciences, for
America's research community.
For environmental management, the budget includes $5.8 billion, to
support DOE's responsibility of cleaning up from the Cold War legacy of
nuclear weapons production.
Approximately $18.9 billion, or 63 percent of the Department's
budget request, is national security-related funding, including the
nuclear security and most of the environmental management programs. The
remaining 37 percent is for nondefense programs in energy, science, and
other programs such as building capabilities to respond to energy
disruptions, enhancing data collection and analysis in critical areas,
and supporting obligations for international cooperation in clean
energy and energy security.
science: leading edge research and world class research infrastructure
Starting with basic research, DOE's Office of Science is the
largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences,
supporting 22,000 researchers at 17 National Laboratories and more than
300 universities. Informed by the latest science advisory council
reports and recommendations, the fiscal year 2016 budget request
provides $5.34 billion for Science, $272 million above the fiscal year
2015 enacted level, to continue to lead basic research in the physical
sciences and develop and operate cutting-edge scientific user
facilities while strengthening the connection between advances in
fundamental science and technology innovation.
One of the signature aspects of our basic science research program
is the Department's support for the construction and operation of major
user facilities at the national laboratories that serve over 31,000
scientists and engineers each year on an open-access basis. We are
committed to staying at the cutting edge of light sources, super
computers, neutron sources, and other facilities essential to advancing
our mission. In the last year, for example, we completed the brightest
light source in the world, the National Synchrotron Light Source II at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, ahead of schedule and on budget. We are
at the commissioning phase of the 12 GeV Upgrade to the Continuous
Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National
Accelerator Facility, and the National Spherical Torus Experiment at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory intends to begin research this
summer after a significant upgrade.
Looking forward in the fiscal year 2016 budget, we continue
construction of critical, new user facilities while ensuring increased
investment in national laboratory infrastructure renewal to help
sustain America's scientific enterprise. The Request supports a major
upgrade of the Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC and construction of
the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University. In
addition, the budget provides approximately $2 billion to fund
operations of our 27 existing scientific user facilities.
These facilities investments and research grants funded by the
Office of Science will ensure that we continue to support discovery
science, as well as science that underpins future energy and other
technologies.
For example, using the current Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC,
scientists last year mapped for the first time the structure of a
protein within a living cell. This single example highlights the
tremendous benefits of our national laboratories in a broad range of
scientific and applied areas. In addition, the Office of Science
supports research at hundreds of universities in all 50 States through
competitive grants to advance our mission. For example, a university
group recently developed a new class of polymer-based flexible
electronics for solar cells and medical applications through DOE-funded
research.
High performance computing is a traditional area of strength and
responsibility for the Department of Energy that has been an important
component of U.S. leadership in science and technology more broadly.
The fiscal year 2016 budget grows our investment significantly to $273
million for a multi-year, joint Office of Science-National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) effort to achieve exascale computing--
computing platforms with 100 to 1000 times more computational power
than today's systems. This effort requires researchers and industry to
overcome a number of technical challenges, including energy and big
data management, as part of our push to develop enabling capabilities
for exascale computing. We recently announced the joint Collaboration
of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore (CORAL) to advance within
an order of magnitude of the exascale target within a few years. In
addition, the Office of Science is supporting the Computational Science
Graduate Fellowship program to support training in advanced scientific
computing. These investments will ensure continued U.S. leadership of
this critical capability in a very competitive global environment.
The budget provides funding at the fiscal year 2015 level for the
U.S. contributions to the ITER project, a major international fusion
facility currently under construction in France. ITER will be the
world's first magnetic confinement long-pulse, high-power burning
plasma experiment aimed at demonstrating the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion energy, and the request includes support for
important critical-path items.
We will continue in this budget to grow the Energy Frontier
Research Center (EFRC) program by initiating five new centers and
continuing support for existing Centers, for a total investment of $110
million in fiscal year 2016. This EFRC program is our flagship
investment in basic science that underpins future energy technologies.
With our budget request, we support Fermilab operations at a total
of $135 million for operations, which includes operations of the NOvA
neutrino experiment. We are also investing $20 million to move forward
planning and design for the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility at
Fermilab. Last year, the particle physics community came forward with a
visionary strategic plan for the High Energy Physics program, and our
budget request responds to their recommendations, specifically by
aiming to develop a strong international consortium for the next
generation of neutrino physics experiments.
energy
All-of-the-Above Energy Approach for a Clean Energy Economy
Preparing for the clean energy economy in order to address climate
change and energy security, principally through science and technology,
is an essential focus of the Department of Energy. The President's
Climate Action Plan is a guiding document for our efforts to mitigate
climate change risks through clean energy technologies. The
Administration remains committed to an all-of-the-above energy
approach, and we believe that we need to enable technologies across all
fuel sources to become competitors in a future clean energy
marketplace.
In the last year, we have seen important accomplishments across the
Department's technology portfolio that highlight our all-of-the-above
approach. We have geologically sequestered over 9 million metric tons
of CO2 through DOE-supported projects. Two commercial-scale cellulosic
ethanol facilities supported by DOE grants or loan guarantees have
commenced operations. We have commissioned one of the world's largest
battery storage systems at the Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project.
We have issued ten final appliance energy efficiency standards in
calendar year 2014, which altogether will help reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by over 435 million metric tons through 2030. Standards
enacted since 2009 are projected to avoid a cumulative total of 2.2
billion metric tons of carbon emissions through 2030. The Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has achieved 70 percent
of the SunShot goal of cost parity for utility scale solar energy.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy's (ARPA-E) grant
program has attracted more than $850 million in private follow-on
funding to 34 ARPA-E projects, with 30 ARPA-E teams forming new
companies.
EERE has launched the Frontier Observatory for Research in
Geothermal Energy (FORGE), a first-of-a-kind field laboratory to deploy
enhanced geothermal energy systems, and we have seen battery technology
improvements that are projected to reduce battery costs for electric
vehicles by 40 percent. The Office of Nuclear Energy has successfully
completed the first 5-year program at the Consortium for Advanced
Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) nuclear modeling Hub at Oak
Ridge and has initiated a second award for design and licensing support
of a small modular nuclear reactor with advanced safety features.
Consistent with an all-of-the-above energy strategy, the DOE Loan
Programs Office has issued loan guarantee solicitations for innovative
technologies in four areas, including $4 billion for renewable energy
and energy efficiency, $8 billion for fossil energy, $12 billion for
nuclear energy, and $16 billion for advanced vehicle technology
manufacturing.
Projects that this program has supported include one of the world's
largest wind farms; several of the world's largest solar generation and
thermal energy storage systems; Tesla Motors; and more than a dozen new
or retooled auto manufacturing plants. This program's accomplishments
include issuing loan guarantees for projects that avoided more than 6.1
million metric tons of carbon dioxide cumulatively in 2014, and for
companies that produced more than 2.1 million fuel-efficient vehicles
in 2014. We are moving aggressively in finding good projects to deploy
innovative energy technologies using the remaining $40 billion in loan
authority in the coming years.
Together, these accomplishments illustrate how DOE's programs
invest in an all-of-the-above spectrum of energy technologies, and the
fiscal year 2016 budget request continues forward on that strategy with
a $5.4 billion request for our applied energy programs.
Advanced manufacturing will continue to be a major focus of our
investments. We will continue to help support an American manufacturing
renaissance. The fiscal year 2016 budget fully funds two new clean
energy manufacturing innovation institutes and continues funding for
four institutes, as part of the larger National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation, including the advanced composites
manufacturing institute in Tennessee the President announced in
January. To support these institutes, the Request provides $196 million
out of a total request of $404 million for EERE's Advanced
Manufacturing program.
In energy efficiency, the Request invests $264 million, an increase
of $92 million, to develop and promote the adoption of technologies and
practices that, when fully deployed, would reduce U.S. building-related
energy use by 50 percent from the 2010 Annual Energy Outlook baseline.
It also provides $228 million, $35 million above fiscal year 2015, to
support competitively selected projects, training and technical
assistance, and residential energy efficiency retrofits to
approximately 33,000 low-income households nationwide.
The FEMP budget includes $15 million for the Federal Energy
Efficiency Fund which provides direct assistance to agencies for
investing in priority energy projects for efficiency and renewables. By
providing direct funding and leveraging cost sharing at other agencies,
the fund creates greater opportunities to develop Federal projects that
may not otherwise be implemented.
The Request increases our investments in sustainable
transportation, including $40 million for the SuperTruck II initiative
to develop and demonstrate technologies to double class 8 freight truck
efficiency by 2020 from a 2009 baseline. The Request also continues our
focus on electric vehicles by investing $253 million in the EV
Everywhere initiative, which aims to enable domestic production of
plug-in vehicles that are as affordable and convenient as gasoline
vehicles by 2022. By continuing to make progress in core component
technologies such as the dramatic reductions we are seeing in battery
and fuel cell costs, we are looking to achieve transformative
performance improvements for electric vehicles in the marketplace.
In biofuels, the budget continues our focus on drop-in fuels, which
can take advantage of existing infrastructure, and we will provide $45
million for the jointly funded USDA/DOD/DOE commercial scale
biorefineries program to produce military specification drop-in fuels.
We will also continue research and development efforts on supplying,
formatting, and converting cellulosic and algae-based feedstocks to
bio-based gasoline and diesel, with a $138 million investment in the
fiscal year 2016 Request.
The budget continues to support accelerated advances in renewable
energy. The SunShot Initiative has helped accelerate the reduction in
solar costs, and our request of $337 million, an increase of $104
million, aims to continue progress to achieve cost parity without
subsidies by 2020. For wind energy, the Request of $146 million, an
increase of $39 million, includes funding for year 5 of a 6 fiscal-year
Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration program supporting
three offshore wind projects on track to begin operation in 2017. Our
request of $96 million for geothermal energy, $41 million above fiscal
year 2015, implements the FORGE, an experimental facility aimed to
advance enhanced geothermal systems, and pursues new approaches to
hydrothermal development with a special focus on collaborative efforts
with the Office of Fossil Energy on subsurface science, technology and
engineering.
As we witness the transformation of our Nation's electric grid, the
Department continues to drive electric grid modernization and
resilience. In May 2014, with cost-share funding provided by the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), Southern
California Edison constructed and installed equipment for a prototype 8
megawatt/32 megawatt-hour battery storage plant for wind integration at
Tehachapi, CA. The Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project is positioned
to demonstrate the effectiveness of lithium-ion battery and smart
inverter technologies to improve grid performance and assist in the
integration of variable energy resources. In addition, we continue
improving the security of the Nation's energy infrastructure. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory announced in January 2015 the licensing of its
Hyperion software, which helps detect software that has been
maliciously altered. Today, more than 20 new technologies that OE
investments helped support are now being used to further advance the
resilience of the Nation's energy delivery systems.
In fossil energy, we will continue our across-the-board focus on
carbon capture and sequestration and improving the environmental
performance of natural gas development. In particular, the fiscal year
2016 budget includes funding to conduct initial R&D towards
demonstration of carbon capture and storage for natural gas plants.
While natural gas is an important bridge fuel, natural gas, as well as
coal, will need carbon capture and sequestration to compete in a future
clean energy economy.
And while the fiscal year 2016 budget does not request new
authority in these areas, the Department has $8 billion in loan
guarantee authority for advanced fossil technologies, as I mentioned
earlier, and the Department will continue to work with prospective
applicants. Through the President's budget request for the Treasury
Department, the Administration is also proposing a new, $2 billion
refundable investment tax credit, including support for the
infrastructure for carbon capture and sequestration, as well as a
sequestration credit for commercial carbon capture use and storage
(CCUS) deployment to allow for enhanced oil recovery or injection into
deep saline aquifers.
In the area of nuclear energy, the Request includes $62.5 million
to continue technical support for moving a small modular reactor to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing stage by the end of 2016, as a
step towards industry's demonstration of this important technology
early in the next decade. The Request includes $326 million to support
research and development on reactor aging issues, advanced reactor
concepts, and the fuel cycle. This request continues to support R&D on
nuclear fuel issues at the Idaho National Laboratory. It also supports
research on accident tolerant fuels and includes funding to continue
laying the groundwork for implementing the Administration's Strategy
for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste, including a consent-based approach to the siting of
storage and disposal facilities for nuclear waste. The Request also
focuses resources on maintaining operational readiness at the Idaho
National Laboratory, including $23.2 million for major power
distribution infrastructure refurbishments and $11.7 million for
critical security infrastructure investments.
The Request includes $325 million for ARPA-E, an increase of $45
million from fiscal year 2015, to continue to grow this important
program. The program, which received its first appropriation in 2009,
is now showing impressive results. It has over 400 projects to date,
and the first group of completed projects has led to 30 new companies,
of which five have been acquired by large strategic investors.
Altogether, 34 ARPA-E projects have attracted over $850 million in
follow-on funding.
Through ARPA-E, we will continue to invest in early-stage
innovation with the potential to lead to transformational energy
technologies.
For the loan programs, while the Request does not propose new
authority for the Title 17 or Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing loan programs, the fiscal year 2016 budget does include
$9 million for credit subsidy to support a new loan guarantee
solicitation for new clean energy projects on Tribal Lands.
In addition to the new loan program, the Request provides $20
million for the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, an
increase of $4 million, for its technical and financial assistance
programs, with increased emphasis on remote communities and the
National Strategy for the Arctic Region.
The Department's final fiscal year 2015 budget supported a new
workforce development effort for graduate and post-doctoral training in
three areas of specific mission need for the Department: high
performance computing in the Office of Science, advanced manufacturing
in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and subsurface
topics and project management in the Office of Environmental
Management. These DOE traineeships are modeled in part after other
Federal programs for university-led graduate traineeships and include
components that are uniquely focused on DOE mission workforce training
needs. Our fiscal year 2016 budget request proposes to add a fourth
traineeship on radiochemistry, supported by the Office of Nuclear
Energy, where we see a specific mission need.
Transforming Energy Systems, Investing in Resilient Energy
Infrastructure
In addition to the clean energy investments I just discussed, our
Nation's energy infrastructure is an area that needs--and is now
getting--more attention.
We have had several recent accomplishments relating to our energy
infrastructure. Following the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, the Office
of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability committed $500,000,
along with EERE, totaling $1 million for Sandia National Laboratories
to provide technical assistance to New Jersey Transit and the Board of
Public Utilities to assess NJ Transit's energy needs and help develop a
conceptual design of an advanced microgrid system that will avoid
disruptions and make it easier to get the power back on after a major
disaster.
Led by our Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, we have
also completed a nationwide public stakeholder process and analytical
work in support of the upcoming release of the first-ever Quadrennial
Energy Review (QER) of U.S. energy infrastructures.
The QER is a 4-year interagency process, with the first year
focusing on energy infrastructure--the transmission, storage, and
delivery of energy. We expect the first QER installment to be released
soon, and many of you may be interested in that document for its
systematic analysis of the breadth of challenges with our current
energy infrastructure. The QER will also include recommendations to
drive future program directions.
The electricity grid underpins many other infrastructures, and the
fiscal year 2016 budget Request includes $356 million, an increase of
$160 million, for a major crosscutting initiative led by the Office of
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to focus on the
modernization of the electricity grid. This initiative invests in
technology development, enhanced security, and modeling to enable the
electricity grid of the future. This initiative includes $10 million
for R&D to improve resilience of large-scale electricity transformers
and $14.5 million to transition to an integrated system at the
distribution level and develop a platform for market-based control
signals. In addition, the Request establishes a virtual collaborative
environment for conducting real-time advanced digital forensics
cybersecurity analysis, which can be used to analyze untested and
untrusted code, programs, and websites without allowing the software to
harm the host device.
The Request includes $15 million to develop advanced technologies
to detect and mitigate methane emissions from natural gas transmission,
distribution, and storage facilities, and $10 million to improve
methane leakage measurements.
We will focus new attention on State grants for energy assurance
and reliability, recognizing that many authorities and actions in this
area depend upon the States. The fiscal year 2016 Request includes
$35.5 million to provide grants to State, tribal, and local governments
to update energy assurance plans to address infrastructure resilience,
as well as $27.5 million that is part of the Grid Modernization
crosscutting initiative to provide competitive grants to States and
multi-State entities to address electricity reliability.
Finally, while we move toward implementation of recommendations on
the first installment of the QER on infrastructure, DOE will move
forward on future installments of the 4-year QER. The budget includes
$35 million for the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis to
provide integrated energy systems analysis and follow-on QER support
activities.
In addition to the longstanding major mission areas of nuclear
security, science and energy, and environmental cleanup, emergency
response is an important mission for the Department. While we have had
an ongoing responsibility for nuclear and radiological incident
response, the Department has intensified its efforts for energy
infrastructure emergency response, working with FEMA. Our budget
proposes an increase from $6 million to $14 million for Infrastructure
Security and Energy Restoration, the lead program for these responses.
While the budget for this emerging responsibility is relatively small,
it is an increasingly important focus.
Enhancing Collective Energy Security
The Department's work in energy security is modest in budget
requirements but greatly important for the Nation. Particularly given
the events in Europe and Ukraine, we have an increased global focus on
collective energy security--energy security for the United States and
its allies.
In the last year, we worked with the G-7 and the European
Commission to achieve a G-7 Leaders Agreement on a new collective
energy security framework. Led by our Office of International Affairs,
we also worked directly with Ukraine to provided technical support in
developing its first ever energy emergency management plan, especially
for the winter. In December, we also signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with Canada and Mexico to initiate improved coordination
of North American energy data. Led by DOE's Energy Information
Administration (EIA), this will help us develop stronger active
collaboration moving forward.
To continue on this progress for collective energy security, the
fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $24 million for the Office of
International Affairs. While the funding level is not large compared
with other parts of the Department, the Office of International Affairs
is taking on increased responsibility, as I just highlighted, and
funding at this level is needed to fulfill its important mission and
strengthen international energy technology, information and analytical
collaborations.
Similarly, the budget increases investment in the EIA to $131
million, in order to fill gaps in current energy data, including
transportation of oil by rail and integrating energy data with Canada
and Mexico. The EIA recently initiated a data reporting program on oil
and natural gas production trends by region, and the requested increase
is needed to continue with this and other improvements in our data
collection, analysis, and reporting.
Last year, the Department also completed a 5 million barrel test
sale for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to look at
infrastructure challenges resulting in large part from pipelines now
flowing in opposite directions from when the SPR was originally
established. Through the test sale, we found challenges confronting the
SPR's distribution system, and the fiscal year 2016 budget proposes an
increase of $57 million above fiscal year 2015 for the SPR to begin
addressing the operational readiness issues found through the test sale
to enhance distribution flexibility and reliability and to begin to
address the existing backlog of deferred maintenance projects.
Strategic Partnerships with National Laboratories to Advance DOE
Missions
The Department is continuing its focus on building the strategic
partnership with the National Laboratories. DOE is a science and
technology agency, and our efforts across all of our mission areas are
heavily grounded in science and technology. The National Labs are a
major core asset in executing our missions, and strengthening our
partnerships is critical to our success.
We are doing that in a variety of ways. For example, DOE is
engaging the laboratories very early on in our program planning. The
National Laboratories Ideas Summit helped shape fiscal year 2016 budget
initiatives and was instrumental in forming a special consortium of 14
National Laboratories arranged to implement the crosscutting grid
modernization research.
We also have begun using the National Laboratories' expertise in
science and technologies in some of our major challenges outside of the
science and energy arena. When faced with what looked like major
problems with the cost and schedule of the Uranium Processing Facility
(UPF) at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, or the major
problem we had at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), we engaged
Laboratory leadership to help reformulate our approach to those issues.
In those two examples, Oak Ridge National Laboratory led the Red Team
review and restructuring of UPF, and the Savannah River National
Laboratory led the forensics effort to investigate the cause of the
failure of the waste canister at WIPP.
The Laboratory Operations Board (LOB), a body that we put in place
in 2013, performed the first-ever uniform assessment of general purpose
infrastructure at all Laboratories and NNSA plants. That has led to
identifying over $100 million in the fiscal year 2016 budget in new
investments for priority general purpose infrastructure projects guided
by LOB assessments, while also avoiding an increase in deferred
maintenance.
Finally, we have developed new strategies to strengthen
institutional capability of the National Laboratory system based on
advice from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB).
Enhancing Impact: Crosscutting Initiatives in Key Technology Areas
The fiscal year 2016 budget expands the crosscutting initiatives
introduced in the fiscal year 2015 budget designed to advance key
technology areas that have multiple energy resource applications. Each
crosscut reflects an integrated plan of work to optimize programmatic
objectives by efficiently allocating resources. Through deliberate and
enterprise-wide planning and coordination of these research efforts,
the crosscutting initiatives will help bolster DOE's efforts to
institutionalize enhanced program management and coordination across
program offices, while accelerating progress on key national
priorities.
The programs and budgets within the three mission areas include
over $1.2 billion in crosscutting R&D across six initiatives focusing
on: electricity grid modernization, subsurface technology and
engineering, supercritical carbon dioxide technology, energy-water
nexus, exascale computing, and cybersecurity. These initiatives are the
product of a concerted coordination effort among all three DOE Under
Secretariats and program offices across the Department in close
collaboration with the National Laboratories.
The fiscal year 2016 budget continues to build on the five
crosscutting initiatives established in fiscal year 2015. The Exascale
Computing initiative invests to make progress toward a thousand-fold
improvement over current high performance computers. Grid Modernization
supports technology development, enhanced security, and stakeholder
support to enable evolution to the grid of the future. The Subsurface
Engineering initiative invests in new wellbore systems, seismic
research, and other areas supporting a wide variety of energy sources.
The Supercritical Carbon Dioxide initiative establishes a 10 MWe-scale
pilot Supercritical Transformational Electric Power facility aiming to
increase the efficiency of power generation, and the Cybersecurity
crosscutting initiative strengthens cybersecurity across DOE's Federal
and laboratory sites, and improves cybersecurity for the Nation's
electric, oil, and gas sectors.
The fiscal year 2016 budget also proposes one new crosscutting
initiative, the Energy-Water Nexus. This initiative recognizes that the
Nation's energy system uses large quantities of water, and the Nation's
water system uses large quantities of energy, and that DOE's
coordinated science and technology efforts can contribute to the
Nation's transition to more resilient energy-water systems.
nuclear security
The fiscal year 2016 budget request provides $12.6 billion for the
NNSA, an increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2015, to carry out
our missions for the nuclear deterrent, nuclear nonproliferation
programs, and propulsion for the nuclear Navy.
Effective Stewardship of the Nuclear Deterrent
The Request includes $8.8 billion for Weapons Activities, $667
million above fiscal year 2015, to maintain a safe and effective
nuclear deterrent while continuing to reduce the size of the active
stockpile.
In pursuit of this mission, we have recently achieved a number of
major accomplishments. We have, first and foremost, had another year of
science-based certification of the stockpile as safe, secure, and
effective without nuclear testing. It is important to remember the
remarkable story that a science research program has enabled the
paradigm to shift since nuclear testing ceased to allow us to
consistently certify the stockpile as safe and reliable without
testing, even as it shrinks.
In the major life extension programs, we have now passed the
halfway mark in Life Extension Program (LEP) for the W76-1 warheads for
the Navy, and our fiscal year 2016 budget request of $244 million will
keep us on track to complete the program in 2019. We have conducted
successful first integration testing of the B61-12 LEP for the Air
Force on or ahead of schedule, and the Request of $643 million supports
delivery of the First Production Unit in 2020. By the end of fiscal
year 2024, completion of the B61-12 LEP will shrink the number of
active and inactive weapons, reduce the mass of nuclear material used
in these weapons, and allow us to retire the B83, the last U.S. megaton
class weapon. Our Request of $220 million for the W88 ALT 370 supports
delivery of the First Production Unit with conventional high explosives
refresh by fiscal year 2020.
This budget supports the Nuclear Weapons Council decision to
accelerate a new cruise missile capability, and the selection of the
W80 as the warhead for the Air Force's Long Range Stand-Off system
(LRSO). The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $195 million to
accelerate the program by 2 years, to be completed in 2025, in order to
meet military requirements.
We have begun operations in the new Kansas City Responsive
Infrastructure Manufacturing and Sourcing (KCRIMS) facility with half
the footprint and an improved operating environment compared to the old
environment. And at the National Ignition Facility, we have
significantly increased the shot rate and achieved impressive advances
in experimental results in closer alignment with modeling predictions.
As I mentioned earlier, we have used strategic partnerships with
the National Laboratories to rethink some of our challenging projects.
As a result of the Red Team review of the Uranium Processing Facility
at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, led by the Director
of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a similar review of the
Chemistry and Metallurgical Research Replacement Facility (CMRR)
capability at Los Alamos National Laboratory, we are developing a
disciplined modular approach for both sites that will remove risks
early in the process and build to a more rigorous budget and schedule.
This rigorous process will be an important and recurring project
management theme at the NNSA and across the Department of Energy--in
particular, at the Office of Environmental Management.
Controlling and Eliminating Nuclear Materials Worldwide
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $1.9 billion for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, $325 million above fiscal year 2015,
to continue the critical missions of securing or eliminating nuclear
and radiological materials worldwide, countering illicit trafficking of
these materials, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapon
technologies and expertise, and ensuring that the U.S. remains ready to
respond to high consequence nuclear and radiological incidents at home
or abroad, and applying technical and policy solutions to solve
nonproliferation and arms control challenges around the world. The
Request is a $101 million, or 5 percent, increase from the comparable
fiscal year 2015 enacted level after adjusting for a budget structure
change moving counterterrorism efforts from the Weapons Activities
appropriation to the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation appropriation.
We have completed the removal or disposal of a total of 190
kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material, through bilateral agreements,
and trilateral agreements with Russia and countries with material of
Russian origin. Despite a difficult relationship at the moment, we are
continuing to work with Russia to repatriate weapons-usable material to
the United States or Russia.
In 2014, we obtained a pledge from Japan at the 2014 Nuclear
Security Summit in The Hague to remove and dispose of all highly-
enriched uranium and separated plutonium from the Fast Critical
Assembly in Japan. We also helped prevent the illicit trafficking of
nuclear and radiological materials, technology and expertise by
installing 37 fixed and 22 mobile radiation detection systems
worldwide.
The fiscal year 2016 budget request reorganizes the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation program into four business lines: Global Material
Security; Materials Management and Minimization; Nonproliferation and
Arms Control; and Nonproliferation Research and Development. We have
also strengthened Counterterrorism and Emergency Response by
consolidating these efforts with Nuclear Nonproliferation programs in
one account. Together, these reorganizations create a clearer set of
business lines for the nonproliferation programs and represent the full
continuum of our nonproliferation efforts as we prevent, counter, and
respond to global threats.
In fiscal year 2015, the Congress appropriated $345 million to
continue construction of the mixed-oxide (MOX) project at Savannah
River. The fiscal year 2016 budget includes $345 million, which is the
current services projection from the fiscal year 2015 enacted level,
while we complete congressionally-directed studies on plutonium
disposition costs and alternatives.
Advancing Navy Nuclear Propulsion
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $1.4 billion for Naval
Reactors, $142 million above fiscal year 2015, to support the Navy
fleet and maintain progress on current efforts to refuel the land-based
research and training reactor. The Request increases funding for Naval
Reactor's core objective of ensuring the safe and reliable operation of
the Nation's nuclear fleet (73 submarines and 10 aircraft carriers),
constituting over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
The Naval Reactors programs achieved some significant
accomplishments this year. In 2014, we began integrated testing of the
lead A1B reactor plant of the next-generation FORD-class aircraft
carrier and provided technical resolution support for the nuclear fleet
which steamed over 2 million miles.
The fiscal year 2016 budget provides $187 million to continue
development of the advanced Ohio-Class Replacement Reactor, and $133
million to initiate refueling of the Land-based Prototype reactor. We
also provide $86 million to continue construction of the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization Project.
cleaning up the cold war nuclear weapons legacy
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $5.8 billion for
Environmental Management, $43 million below the fiscal year 2015
enacted level, to position DOE to meet the Nation's Manhattan Project
and Cold War legacy responsibilities. DOE is responsible for the
cleanup of millions of gallons of liquid radioactive waste, thousands
of tons of used nuclear fuel and special nuclear material, disposition
of large volumes of transuranic and mixed/low-level waste, huge
quantities of contaminated soil and water, and deactivation and
decommissioning of thousands of excess facilities.
I will discuss in a moment the difficult challenges we face with
some of our remaining Environmental Management projects. But I would
like to start by pointing out that when the program started, there were
107 sites to be closed, and we have cleaned up all but 16 sites. To be
sure, the remaining sites are not the simplest to remediate; however,
we started with over 3,000 square miles to remediate, and we're down to
only 300 square miles. And so, by some metrics, we have cleaned 90
percent of our total footprint. However, it will be decades before we
finish the most difficult remaining sites.
Though we are down to some of the most difficult sites, progress is
steady. Last year, we completed demolition of the K-25 facility at Oak
Ridge, the largest demolition project DOE has ever undertaken. We have
converted 15 million pounds of liquid waste into solid glass at the
Defense Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River, enabling closure
of six high level waste storage tanks.
We have put forward and are beginning to implement an alternative
phased approach to completing the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP).
We have cleaned up 479 square miles of the 586 square mile area at
Hanford, including 90 percent of the River Corridor.
Going forward in fiscal year 2016, recovery of the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is one of our high priorities. The fiscal
year 2016 budget includes $248 million to implement the WIPP recovery
plan, leading to initial resumption of waste emplacement in the first
quarter of calendar year 2016. The fiscal year 2016 budget will also
support continued operations of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit at
Idaho and work towards closing the tanks.
With $1.4 billion for the Office of River Protection, we will move
forward on our phased approach to begin vitrifying low activity waste
early next decade. The budget moves forward with construction of the
Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant,
including design of a new pretreatment system required for our phased
approach. We will also continue technical issue resolution at the site,
and we will bring the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) at Hanford, once
the highest risk nuclear facility at Hanford, down to slab-on-grade by
the end of fiscal year 2016.
Finally, we will continue construction and prepare for
commissioning of the Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River,
which is on schedule to complete construction by December 2016.
management and performance: improving efficiency and effectiveness
Building on the Department's fiscal year 2015 emphasis on
management and performance, the fiscal year 2016 budget moves forward
on initiatives that continue to identify and institutionalize
improvements across the DOE enterprise.
In the Department's efforts to improve management and performance,
we have adopted project management reforms, including strengthening the
Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) from an ad hoc
process into an institutionalized regular process for situational
awareness on project progress and issues, as they arise. ESAAB will be
supported directly by a Project Management Risk Committee, which brings
together DOE experts for a continuous look at the risk profile of major
projects and issues. We have also taken steps to improve the project
peer review process and institutionalize other project management
reforms.
We have also continually worked to improve management, increase
efficiency, and support diversity on a number of fronts. We have
recruited 30 high-level Ambassadors from industry, academia, and
nonprofits to increase participation of minorities in energy. We have
resolved hiring issues at the Bonneville Power Administration,
providing additional Human Resources training and restoring hiring
authority. The Department's management and operating contractors have
reduced pension plan liability by $100 million through lump sum
buyouts. Our management and operating contractors have also established
Health Reimbursement Accounts at 13 sites for their medical-eligible
retirees, reducing long term financial statement liability by $2.8
billion.
Going forward, the budget includes $25 million for the Office of
the Human Capital Officer to implement a new Human Resources service
delivery model to streamline our HR model and eventually consolidate 17
current service centers to five key delivery centers. We will also
implement a new Energy Jobs Council to improve calculation of energy
jobs data and strengthen technical support for State workforce
development programs. We will also continue to strengthen Departmental
cybersecurity programs, part of the Cybersecurity crosscutting
initiative, through an enterprise-wide cyber council established in
2013 for securing personal data, our nuclear security data, and the
privately-owned energy infrastructure.
advancing the president's vision: implementing doe's strategic plan
In conclusion, we have much to do to advance the President's vision
and implement DOE's Strategic Plan.
We will continue implementing the President's Climate Action Plan,
to reduce emissions at home and around the globe.
We remain committed to our all-of-the-above energy strategy, to
encourage innovation, create jobs, enable economic growth, and
contribute to domestic manufacturing and net exports.
We must maintain leadership in basic research in the physical
sciences--and increasingly in the life sciences, develop the next
generation of computation technology, and develop and maintain world-
class scientific user facilities.
We will continue to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
weapons stockpile in the absence of testing, and manage the
infrastructure needed to meet national security requirements.
We must continue to reduce the global nuclear terrorism threat
through measures to identify, control, and eliminate nuclear weapons
worldwide.
We will address the legal and moral imperative of cleaning up
legacy waste to protect human health and the environment.
We will strengthen DOE and its national missions through cross-
cutting initiatives that leverage the science, technology, and
engineering capabilities across programs and National Laboratory
partners.
And we will continually improve DOE effectiveness and efficiency
through project management reform and constant attention to maintaining
a safe and secure workplace.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. While you
recover there, I will say to Senators Lankford and Cochran, we
are going to call on Senator Feinstein first and give her an
opportunity to ask her questions since she has an Intelligence
Committee-related commitment and will leave early. Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
very much appreciate this privilege. I wanted to--oh, good.
Just a word to the distinguished chairman of the Energy
Committee, both Senator Alexander and I mentioned that we had
completed our joint effort at a nuclear waste policy act, and
have worked with you and two former Democratic members, or
ranking members, or chairs--Senator Bingaman and Senator Wyden,
Senator Landrieu, and now Senator Cantwell. Senator Cantwell
has gone on the bill, and my understanding is that our chairman
has introduced it this morning on behalf of the four of us, and
we are hopeful that you will see fit to have an early hearing
so that we can possibly develop a nuclear waste policy for our
country.
INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you. Thank you very much,
Madam Senator.
I wanted to ask a question about--here we go--ITER. It is
behind schedule and over budget. In 2005, DOE's preliminary
cost estimate for United States contributions to ITER was
$1.122 billion, with completion in 2013. The current estimate
is $4.1 billion with completion in 2034 and '35. As we all
know, an independent cost review found that the costs could be
as high as $6.5 billion, and the date could slip further.
We discussed this at our last--during our last bill, and I
think both the chairman and I, we are seeing little benefit
from our participation in ITER. I do not believe that fusion
will be developed during my lifetime, and perhaps not the
lifetime of the younger members of this body. And it is
building a facility in another country that we may never see
benefits from. So I have some question about continuing this,
and particularly continuing it at the amount that it is
budgeted to be.
Dr. Orr or Secretary Moniz, I would love to have your
reaction and comment to those statements.
Secretary Moniz. I will have to defer to Secretary Orr, I
am afraid.
Mr. Orr. So, yes, it is my job to try to answer a
complicated question. The numbers you saw, of course, are
correct as we know them. The project has encountered some
serious delays, and there have been some management issues
raised as well. The current state of play is that there is a
new director-general who has been named, Bernard Bigot. He was
confirmed in early March. He has put together a plan that
would, if accepted fully by all the members, correct the
management issues that have been raised in the external
reviews. We think that the plan includes the right elements,
but obviously there is work to be done to implement that. The
next steps include building a realistic timeline for completion
of the project and a realistic budget. And we will, of course,
be watching very carefully as all of that develops.
As you know, we are committed to 9 percent of the project
costs, and the spending proposed for next year is consistent
with what we think the rate that the project can absorb that
funding. And I would also note that about 80 percent of that
funding that we commit actually goes to make the parts, the
equipment that we are committed to supply to the project, and
so, therefore, it is actually spent in this country.
Senator Feinstein. Well, it sounds to me like we have spent
a billion--$1.22 billion just now in getting ready to get a
project put together.
Mr. Orr. Yes, it is fair to say, I think, that the design
of the project in the early stages was not far along as it
needed to be to provide realistic cost estimates, and that is
being corrected now. That work has actually--the design work
has gone on, but now, of course, they have to implement it.
DEPARTMENT STAFF PARTICIPATION
Senator Feinstein. Yes, I guess this is a problem that I
certainly have is that you spend a billion, $1.22, and you do
not really have a project yet. My conclusion is, Mr. Chairman,
we ought to take another look at it, but I will move along.
The GAO has been working with DOE staff to review current
practices and share advice and best practices based on their
experience. GAO reports that in several instances, DOE staff
have been unresponsive or unhelpful. The GAO noted that
regarding reports on cost estimating and analysis of project
alternatives--here is a quote--``DOE's unspecified open-ended
date for responding to many of these recommendations may have
indicated a lack of urgency or concern about the need to
implement these recommendations.''
Mr. Secretary, can you instill a sense of urgency in your
staff to change the management culture and move it to
participating in this in an active way?
Secretary Moniz. I will certainly look into this. We have
made a point, in fact, of trying to speed up our responses. I
hope those of you here in Congress have noticed that the
responses have been--the time lag for response has been
decreased dramatically. We have done that with the DNFSB. I
will now look into the GAO as well.
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE PROJECT
Senator Feinstein. Okay. And the last question is about the
American Centrifuge Project, and I do not like to ask this, but
I am going to. It was recently announced that Dan Poneman will
become the new CEO of Centrus, the company formerly known as
USEC. He served as Deputy Secretary of Energy from 2009 to
2014, serving under both Secretary Chu and yourself. He was
heavily involved in decisions to keep USEC afloat, particularly
when that is just what was being done. It was not meeting its
goals or timetables as I understand it.
I understand that there are restrictions on Mr. Poneman
relative to his contact with DOE for the balance of this
Administration, but this seems to ignore his potential
influence with career bureaucrats. And I am really less
concerned about the optics for Mr. Poneman than I am the
Department's. And given Mr. Poneman's direct role at DOE in
advancing USEC, how can anyone fully trust a DOE or contractor
decision which benefits Centrus?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I can assure you, first of all, that
we did make sure that Mr. Poneman had a refresher course on the
restrictions. We have also made sure to distribute those
guidelines to those in the Department. We will certainly try to
adhere absolutely to that wall as called for in those
restrictions. We will be having to make--as you infer, we will
be having to make some difficult decisions going forward. You
mentioned the ACP, for example. That is an area combining our
enrichment and tritium studies. We will be coming back to the
Congress soon, and that will cause implications for what is the
future of that project. But I can assure you that we will be
having no content----
Senator Feinstein. Is USEC able to perform adequately at
this point?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I cannot get into the company's
because I do not know the company's overall posture. But I
would say on the ACP, as you know, we took that away from them
and actually through Oak Ridge we are managing this project.
But in the meantime, the former USEC employees who ran those
machines are the ones that we need to hire to keep the machines
running until we make a decision.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I will now
continue a round of questioning, and I will take five minutes,
and then go to Senator Murray, and then we will continue.
Mr. Secretary, I want to focus during this time on used
nuclear fuel. We have got Senator Murkowski here, who is the
chairman of the Energy Committee. Senator Feinstein is still
here. Senator Murray I know is interested in used nuclear fuel
because of the Hanford situation. Federal law says Yucca is--I
am going to ask you a large question and then just ask you to--
and then I am going to listen.
Yucca is the current repository. I fully support the
current licensing process, but Yucca's legal capacity is 70,000
metric tons of used fuel. We have already more than that, so we
have more than enough used fuel sitting safely at sites around
the country, more than enough to fill up Yucca Mountain. So the
conclusion we have come to is that whether you are for or
against Yucca Mountain--I am for it--we need new repositories.
We also have a small amount of used nuclear fuel from the
Navy reactors and submarines, and we have canisters of high-
level waste from the Manhattan Project. And you made an
announcement yesterday about defense and commercial fuel, which
is relevant to this. So it is clear we need new and temporary
and permanent storage sites.
So in addition to Yucca Mountain, we have the idea of the
pilot program, which comes from the Commission on which you
serve. Senator Feinstein and I will include that in the Energy
and Water bill. There is the legislation that we introduced
yesterday together for a long-term solution, also based in
large part upon the President Commission's recommendations.
That is two.
Another option that may be available is a private
consolidated storage site like the one recently proposed by a
group from West Texas, who have indicated their interest in
filing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an
application. What they have said is that they might build a
private site in units of 10,000, maybe 5,000 tons, but up to
40,000. So the site would be able to hold about half as much as
Yucca Mountain could if it were open. There is $36 billion of
money we have collected from electric bills of Americans to pay
for all of this. The Department of Education is supposed to be
taking titles.
So I am trying to get in my mind of these various proposals
which one is likely to come on first. I know Senator Feinstein,
for example, would like to get used fuel out of California from
closed plants to somewhere else. There are seven other sites
like that around the country.
So here are my questions. How realistic is the possibility
of an additional private repository? Do you think the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission needs any authority to license private
sites like the one proposed in Texas? Would you need any new
authority for the Department of Energy to be able to store used
fuel at a private facility assuming you are taking title and
storing it there? And will you work with the subcommittee to
give us technical advice on whatever we might do in the
appropriations bill that would keep this option on track if it
is a real option?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
completely agree with the inference that you made that we need
a comprehensive approach to both spent fuel and to defense
fuel, and we need to look at storage facilities, repositories,
and in the context of yesterday's announcement on defense
waste, potentially even other geological disposal pathways.
In terms of the timing, I think it is pretty clear, and the
Administration policy document of January 2013 reinforces the
Blue Ribbon Commission report. And I think your legislation
that moves towards a pilot scale storage facility is probably
the thing that we could bring on the fastest, 6 to 8 years
perhaps. Now, we had always been envisioning that in the
context of a Federal facility that the Blue Ribbon Commission
did and Administration policy did. I think this new dynamic by
the announcement out of Texas that you referred to is extremely
interesting, and we want--first of all, we want to learn about
that.
With regard to authorities, I think I am not in the best
position to talk about NRC, although NRC has worked in some
similar areas before. But with regard to our own authorities, I
would say that I do not quite know yet what those authorities
would be, but I can certainly imagine that, especially for a
private sector facility, that a certain clarification that
might come out of the legislative process could be quite
desirable. And we are certainly happy to work as often as you
would like in terms of discussing the technical aspects of
this.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you for that. My time is up,
but we would, I think speaking for Senator Feinstein and
myself--and I will let Senator Murkowski speak for herself--we
would be interested in working on that in the next 3 or 4 weeks
to see, (A) what might appropriately be included in the
appropriations bill, if anything; and (B) what might need to
come before Senator Murkowski's committee with the whole
objective, if it is--it sounds to me like you believe the
private facility could be a realistic option. Then given our
desire to find a place to put used nuclear fuel, we need to
know what else do we need to do to put you in a position to
move that option along.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Senator Murray.
HANFORD RICHLAND
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, in your testimony you said that it will be
decades before DOE finishes cleanup at most of our difficult
nuclear waste sites. The prospect of another 20, or 30, or 40
years passing before the Federal Government completes this
critical work at the Hanford site in Central Washington and
other sites throughout the Nation is pretty unacceptable.
And it strikes me that year after year Congress receives
budget requests that fail to meet the necessary investments to
fulfill the Federal Government's legal and moral obligations
here. And I am really concerned that the Administration has
once again cut Hanford Richland Operations by nearly $100
million just like last year. Tell us how the Administration is
going to meet its legal commitments under the Tri-Party
Agreement at this significantly reduced funding level.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. First, of course, I
would like to talk about the entire Hanford site where we have
a net $100 million increase in the budget, but admittedly
Richland is down $100 million, and essentially the WTP is up
for us to move that forward.
On the Richland side, I would note that we have made
considerable progress opening up a good portion of the river
corridor and with the budget as proposed. And the EM budget
proposal is $200 million above last year's proposal to the
Congress, but about equal in appropriation. But going back to
Richland, we will still--I believe we are going to finish the
plutonium finishing plant down at this lab. But we will
continue to clean up the groundwater in the central plateau. We
will continue to make progress along the corridor. So I think
it is a strong program. Obviously the best, you know,
optimizing within our overall program.
Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate that, but there are
several high-risk projects close to the city of Richland, close
to the Columbia River, and Energy Northwest that remain. I am
really concerned the fiscal year 2016 budget request would
hamper this cleanup. And in the case of the 324 building and
the 61810 burial grounds, they would be stopped, or mothballed,
or kicked down the road. Those are projects that are well
underway, and we have spent $209 million on them combined. And
it seems to me that DOE is now trying to pull the plug on them,
which creates a safety risk, a cleanup delay, cost increases,
and missing those Tri-Party Agreement milestones.
The budget request that you gave cites technical challenges
when rationalizing the cuts to those projects, but no one has
been able to pinpoint for me what these technical challenges
are. So what is holding you back from continuing to make
progress on those projects?
Secretary Moniz. What I would suggest is maybe the best
thing is if we come in and talk with you or your staff as you
prefer and try to work through the whole program.
Senator Murray. Well, I mean, our subcommittee fought to
provide $45 million in additional funding for those projects
last year. And why has DOE not used that money to forward these
really critical projects.
Secretary Moniz. Again, let me look into in more detail,
Senator, and get back to you, and see what we can do to advance
those.
Senator Murray. Well, I would like that part of the public
record as well, so I think it is really important for this
committee to understand it. And I would hope that we can answer
in writing as well so that we can have that as part of the
record.
Secretary Moniz. We would be happy to. Thank you.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Murray. Okay. And let me just mention one final
issue. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed its Safety
Evaluation Report earlier this year and found that it would be
safe to operate Yucca Mountain as its nuclear waste repository,
confirming what more than 30 years of independent studies have
found. While the fiscal year 2016 requests no funding to
restart the adjudication process with the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel, should Congress provide such funding, I
really urge you, Mr. Secretary, to follow the congressional
intent as directed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and defend
DOE's Yucca Mountain license application as an active, engaged
participate in those proceedings.
Secretary Moniz. Do you want a response or not?
Senator Murray. I am hoping you just nodded.
Secretary Moniz. Sorry.
Senator Murray. I hope you just nodded. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Moniz. May I just note, Senator, that we do have
about $17 million of unobligated carryover funds and additional
obligated carryover funds. So right now, we have no request
from the NRC, and we think that in a contingency we have the
funds to cover any work that would be needed.
Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator
Lankford.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
gentlemen. Questions about the LNG (liquefied natural gas)
exports. I know that DOE has a new process on that working with
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), now putting FERC
first in line and all that. I want to know how that is going at
this point, and if any additional legislation is needed to help
expedite the process and to make sure that is a consistent
process?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator. Let me first say that
I would not phrase as it having put FERC first in line in the
sense that FERC was always in the line in terms of needing to
do the EIS. What we did is to say that when projects are ready,
which is being interpreted as having gone through the EIS
process, that we will then have enough information for our
public interest determination, and then we will act.
Senator Lankford. Right. So how is that going?
Secretary Moniz. On our side it is going quite well. In the
last turnaround from the EIS at FERC, we responded literally
within a day actually. So I think once that information is
available on environmental impact, I think we are being pretty
expeditious.
Senator Lankford. Is there a need for additional
legislation to put timelines on some of the permitting at this
point, or where do you stand on that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as we have said consistently, I
think we are executing very expeditiously. I understand that
Congress has some desire to provide some certainty over some
years, and with reasonable timing we could work with that. But
I think we are already responding quite well.
AGENCY DUPLICATIONS
Senator Lankford. Just the geopolitical issues that we face
right now with the export of LNG, you are extremely aware of as
well, and some sort of certainty to our allies and other
individuals that are interested in picking up that fuel is
extremely important right now based on a lot of our
negotiations.
Let me ask a couple of things on some agency duplications
and just how you manage these and how they work together. I
want to note the lanes of this. DOE has an Office of
International Affairs. The State Department has a Bureau of
Energy Resources. The DOE has the Indian Energy Policy and
Program Division. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a Division
of Energy and Mineral Development. How is that going as far as
making sure that we have clear lanes of responsibility so we do
not have overlap and duplication? Obviously we have--both those
things we are interested in as a committee, but we do not want
to fund them twice basically. There are other examples I can
bring to bear as well. How do you manage that overlap of
programmatic definitions and cooperation where you need it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. First of all, obviously number one is
we do have strong coordination. For example, the head of our
International Office and the head of the State DNR typically
meet once a----
Senator Lankford. Are those unique lanes of responsibility
or do you feel like they are overlap?
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. And then clearly having
different lanes of responsibility. Much of our responsibility
ends up being driven by our underlying technical energy
technology expertise. So, for example, if one takes China,
there we have the clean energy research center we put in some
funds, China matches, industry matches all of that. Our funds
are spent on American scientists and engineers. It is a very
technology driven program. That would be a DOE activity as
opposed to some of the more, let us call it, geopolitical
responsibilities at State.
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Senator Lankford. Okay. Let me ask you about a couple of
other grants that are sitting out there. You had mentioned
cellulosic and some of the advances in cellulosic ethanol. Did
you mention that there are a couple of companies that are
coming on board that are producing at this point that you are
doing grants for, or is it some of the research and
development?
Secretary Moniz. It is certainly R&D as well, but, no, we
also provided some grants to do some cost sharing to get
commercial scale activities going. In fact, in the last year
one in Iowa and one in Kansas will be producing about 25
million gallons of cellulosic.
Senator Lankford. Did we have grant money involved in the
QER facility in Mississippi that went bankrupt last year? The
largest cellulosic producer in the country closed in November
of 2014 after multiple years of trying to make the technology
work. What I am trying to figure out is if we are doing new
grants to new cellulosic companies, have we learned the lesson
of the cellulosic companies that already started, could not
make it go, and closed?
Secretary Moniz. Well, in general, I think we are having
very, very rigorous processes in our portfolio management,
strong risk management approaches. And I think our portfolios
are performing well overall.
Senator Lankford. Sure, I understand that. Do you know if
we had Federal dollars involved in the QER facility?
Secretary Moniz. I do not know that. We could respond for
the record.
Senator Lankford. It was the largest producer of cellulosic
ethanol in the country when it closed. Obviously we are
producing under a million gallons total in the entire country,
and it was the largest of those.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. We will look at that. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you. I will yield back.
Senator Alexander. Senator Udall is next. While Senator
Feinstein is still here, I am going to ask Senator Murkowski as
chairman of the authorizing committee if she has anything she
wants to say before Senator Feinstein leaves, or if you have to
leave early. I want to make sure you have a chance to ask your
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I do not want to preempt my
colleague on the other side, but I do want to make the
commitment to you, Mr. Chairman, and to your ranking member on
this subcommittee that as we move forward with this legislation
that we have worked so cooperatively on, that I really do hope
that we have full cooperation and participation from the
Secretary and from his team in identifying how we can truly
move this forward. So if it is something where we need to
understand a little bit more about what this private entity may
offer and what needs to be done to facilitate that, if that is
the best way to go. Know that I, too, am interested in
advancing legislation that will begin to make a difference as
we deal with our nuclear waste.
So I do not have a specific question to the Secretary
because quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, mine would have just
mirrored yours exactly in terms of now that we have this
legislation out there, what is the best way to proceed from the
Secretary's perspective. So I got that answer from him.
Senator Alexander. Well, thank you, and we will come back
to you then.
Senator Feinstein. May I add one thing?
Senator Alexander. Sure, of course.
Senator Feinstein. Is it necessary for anything for him to
proceed? Could he unilaterally approve a Texas facility I think
is a question worth asking.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Well, the application will be before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission----
Secretary Moniz. NRC.
Senator Feinstein. But who would make the application?
Senator Alexander. They would make the application, but
there are some--but, Senator Feinstein, there are some
questions that probably need to be understood and resolved
about--I think the NRC is ready to act on an application should
it receive it. I think there are some questions that need to be
resolved about whether the Department of Education is prepared
and whether there are some things that we need to do make sure
that they might be able to do it in a more rapid way. Is that a
fair way to say it?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I think it is, Mr. Chairman, and I
would add to that that part of it will depend upon things that
I just do not know.
Senator Alexander. Right.
Secretary Moniz. For example, what would be the business
model, and that might influence what kind of authorizations are
required.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Well, we will go to Senator Udall,
and then we will come back to you, Senator Murkowski. If you
have to leave, let us know, and we will work you in.
Senator Murkowski. If I can go after Senator Udall, that is
perfect. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Okay. Is that all right, Senator
Cochran? Thank you, Senator. I feel like a ringmaster here.
Thank you, Tom, for your patience, and we will go to Senator
Udall, then Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Cochran if that
is all right with Senator Cochran. Senator Udall.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Alexander. You are the
ringmaster, and you are doing a very good job of it, and that
is great. Secretary Moniz, wonderful to have you here and Dr.
Orr, and appreciate very much your staff and how they have been
working to ensure positive discussions with the State of New
Mexico on the State's fines for the accident that occurred at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), and that Los Alamos
was involved in. And I am hopeful that those discussions are
going well.
But I just want to reiterate my view that the State of New
Mexico has a regulatory role, and I think you understand this
very well. This was something I fought hard for as New Mexico's
attorney general. We actually won a lawsuit against the
Department of Energy at the time. So I just want to take this
opportunity to remind you as discussions continue, that this is
a unique situation. You are dealing with the only State in the
Union that has ever accepted a nuclear waste facility, and I am
hopeful that a constructive dialogue over the State of New
Mexico's fines for the Department can continue along that line.
Now, can you talk to us a little bit about working
constructively to make sure this happens rather than heading
into a litigation track, which could take many, many years I
think, and are you committed to working with us to try to get
that situation resolved?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate your
interest and support in this area to the extent possible. Let
me say that, yes, we very much would like to be able to resolve
this with the governor, with the New Mexico Environmental
Department, the discussions. Obviously I cannot go into the
details here since they are part of a resolution pathway we
hope, but we are very committed, and we are very encouraged
that the discussions are going on at a very professional level.
And I am hopeful we will be able to resolve this to the benefit
of all the citizens of New Mexico and the Department.
Senator Udall. Yes. No, that would be great. And as you
know, the Accident Investigation Board report is expected to be
released soon. Do you have any idea when that would be released
on the accident?
Secretary Moniz. I believe we are in the weeks time scale,
I believe. I can go check on that. The technical evaluation was
already presented to me.
Senator Udall. Okay, good. And as you know, that
contamination with the facility has been shut down. And so, I
think it is very important that we see it be reopened safely,
and I underline the ``safely.'' And so, I am hoping that we
take that cautious approach to make sure that workers are not
at risk. And will you commit to ensuring DOE does not repeat
these mistakes again and expose workers to unsafe situations as
well as radioactivity?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I can assure you that we are doing
all that we can in that dimension. First of all, at the very
beginning, frankly I insisted that we not set schedules before
we understood what the issues were for safety because otherwise
safety could be compromised. Now we feel comfortable in terms
of how the actions are going. We have a plan in terms of
sealing off the two panels, and we have a plan for looking at
all the other barrels that have some of the elements that have
been identified as the cause of the thermal reaction. So we
need to keep going as fast as we can to make sure that all of
those other barrels are safe. Every indication is they are. We
have done a lot of work on them already in terms of putting
into safe conditions.
B-61
Senator Udall. Yes, and thank you for that work. And just a
final question here on the B-61. I know you have made that a
priority in the budget, but do you worry that the threat of
sequestration might hurt our modernization in terms of the
stockpile in the nuclear enterprise?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely, and, in fact, DOD and DOE, for
our different but complementary responsibilities for nuclear
security, have both said that sequestration caps will make it
very, very difficult. Frankly, if the budget that we have
requested in concert with the DOD and the Nuclear Weapons
Council is reduced substantially, I think there is no doubt
that we will have to work with DOD to push out military
capabilities that they very much want.
In fact, in this budget, the B-61, we would try to probably
hold that, but then the cruise missile, for example, would
almost certainly have to get pushed out substantially, as we
have already pushed out other parts of the stockpile
refurbishment.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman
Alexander. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall. Senator
Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary,
welcome before the committee.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I feel like I have got a second bite at
the apple because you were before the Energy Committee not too
many weeks ago, and I did have an opportunity to ask questions.
I would ask you, I did submit a series of questions for the
record. We still have not received responses on that, so if you
could have someone to check on the status.
Secretary Moniz. I will check.
Senator Murkowski. And we had also hoped to have a hearing
actually tomorrow, Thursday, on the QER and the release of
that. And we had hoped--we figured that we were going to be
setting this well enough in advance, so we have rescheduled
that for the 28th of April. Are we going to be good with our
timing so that you think we can proceed with that? We will have
had a chance to look at that QER that is going to be before the
Congress.
Secretary Moniz. I think we will be good with that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, good.
Secretary Moniz. You will have time to review it in advance
as well.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we are looking for it with great
anticipation----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
ARCTIC ENERGY SUMMIT
Senator Murkowski [continued]. As you and I have discussed.
We are hopeful that there will be a useful framework as we work
on our energy legislation, so we will look forward to that. At
the Energy Committee hearing, I did ask you about the Arctic
priorities contained within the Energy Department's budget, and
I am continuing to advocate on these issues that you know I
believe have great significance and priority.
We have an Arctic Energy Summit that is to be scheduled. It
is scheduled already. It is going to be in Fairbanks from
September 28th through the 30th. I do not know if you or your
staff have been notified of this, but as I have invited you to
Alaska to review our renewable energy resources, I would also
invite you to attend that summit or perhaps a designee if that
would be appropriate. I think it will be timely, and, again, an
issue that you have and I have discussion on.
Secretary Moniz. I will certainly look into my schedule,
but certainly I can assure you we will have senior
representation.
NATIONAL LABS
Senator Murkowski. Great, I appreciate that. Let me move to
our national labs. In recent weeks we have seen both this
congressionally directed commission to review the effectiveness
of our national energy labs as well as the Task Force on
National Labs highlight the level of bureaucracy that exists
between the Department and the labs. That is something that I
think most of us realize we did not need a report or a
Commission to determine that. We know that it is an issue.
Where do we go from here with that? What do we do with
these latest recommendations to ensure that we do have just a
greater connect or synchronization here?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think we are making progress, and
I think that was acknowledged in the reports, but there is more
to do. I think the major overarching critique is that the
system has become too transactional as opposed to kind of
outcome oriented. And we have--frankly from day one I created
the Laboratory Policy Council and the Laboratory Operations
Board to address these issues, the bringing of--I would say
kind of restoring a more strategic relationship between the
Department and the labs. And I think we are getting some
traction, but we have to keep at it and sustain it. That is on
the strategic plane.
But then one comes to the operational level, we have two
task forces, one working and one just about to be charged,
which address these transactional issues. So one is a task
force headed by the head of the Office of Science looking at
what are the streamlining actions we can take on the M&O
contracting approach, and they will be reporting reasonably
soon. And our management and procurement people are all
involved in that, and so I am hoping for some interesting steps
that we can take quickly.
But then we are about to form another group, which is more
the ``revolutionary group,'' which is going to take one
particular site, which has some simplicities in its management
structures, governance structure, with regard to some of the
other laboratories. And at least in that case look to do a
pilot program for perhaps tweaking the very structure of the
M&O contract to help get around some of those transactional
issues.
Senator Murkowski. Well, it has long been a problem, so I
hope that this revolutionary approach pans out.
Secretary Moniz. That was in quotes.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES MANUFACTURING DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. I understood it, and I put it in quotes
as well. I want you to notice. Very briefly on this last
question. This is the 48th consecutive month that the ATVM
Direct Loan Program has been unable or unwilling to finalize a
new direct loan for an auto maker or a component supplier. So
it really begs the question in terms of why we would continue
to have this program on the books, why we would continue to
have taxpayer support there.
I have been critical of this program I think you know, and
have questioned the need and the justification for a direct
loan program for auto makers and these component suppliers. So
know that this is something that I am looking at. I do not know
how many applications you actually have that have been
submitted to DOE, and whether or not you are even considering
making a yes/no decision coming up. But you look at that
program in 48 months, and there has not been a loan made. It
does cause you to question why we are engaged in this.
Secretary Moniz. I certainly understand the question. Let
me just say that I think we have restructured not only the
ATVM, but the loan programs as a whole. And on the ATVM
Program, I think it was about a year ago when I and Peter
Davidson went out to make it clear that for one thing,
component suppliers were certainly eligible as they face
retooling challenges for the highly efficient vehicles that we
need by 2025. And secondly, that the program--that ATVM Program
had some problems in terms of its dealing with the applicants.
I believe we have cleaned that up, and we are getting a lot of
interest. We have an interesting proposal stream, and I think
you will see some outputs pretty soon.
Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
allowing me a little extra time. I want to note we have a group
of young Alaskans that are part of the Close Up Program that
have been watching this. I told them that while nuclear waste
is not necessarily something that we are worried about in
Alaska right now, these are national problems, these are
national issues, and these kids are getting a firsthand look at
it.
Senator Alexander. Well, and they are getting a chance to
see the chairman of the Senate's Energy Committee, which is
very important to Alaska, who is also a member of this
committee. So we welcome them. We are glad they are here. Thank
you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, sir.
Senator Alexander. And thanks to Senator Cochran, who is
chairman of our whole committee, for deferring to other
Senators. And we will call on him now, then we will go to
Senator Shaheen.
SPENT FUEL STORAGE
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
was looking through the notes that I have been given by my
staff before the hearing, and we had been advised that there
was serious consideration given to placing in some Mississippi
reservoirs a repository for nuclear waste. Those who are
worried about that from a public safety point of view are
opposed to even, you know, talking about it, much less seeing
it happen because of fears, the fears of the unknown in large
part, but there may be reasons why they are justified. Could
you give us a status report here or submitted for the record,
whatever your choice is? I would like to know something about
the status now, and maybe something a little more elaborate to
put in the record.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I was aware--I think it was about a year ago when some
Mississippi community expressed in a storage facility and
others expressed lack of interest. But more generally, in our
fiscal year 2016 budget request we have about $30 million
requested to start a consent-based process to reach out to
communities, and States, and regions to see about potential
interest or interest in potentially hosting a storage facility,
above ground storage if you like, or potentially a repository.
So we will be--let me be very clear. We do not have the
authority to actually implement, to build a storage facility
without congressional action, but we can move on these early
stages and deal with communities, provide information, and see
if they would like to then be a part of a process going
forward.
Senator Cochran. Have you developed any sort of schedule in
terms of when you expect to make a decision as to what you
would recommend?
Secretary Moniz. No, I am afraid that is probably too
unclear at the moment, but we would like to move out in this
calendar year for sure with this outreach to communities. It is
not only about storage and repositories. It is also about
transportation issues, et cetera. So we would really like to
start laying the groundwork for what will be a set of consent-
based facilities for managing nuclear waste.
Senator Cochran. Is there contained in the budget request
that has been submitted by the Department any request for
funding for anything, any activities?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the $30 million that I just
mentioned just for this kind of initial planning and reaching
out to communities. So that is the near term thing, and we
envision having some town hall meetings, et cetera.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Senator
Shaheen.
THERMAL BIOMASS
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Moniz and Dr. Orr for being here this afternoon, and
for your service to the country. Secretary Moniz, I read with
great interest the President's recent executive order planning
for Federal sustainability in the next decade. I was pleased to
see that it recognizes thermal power as one of the ways in
which the Federal Government can address its energy needs. And
as I know you know, because you are from the northeast, we use
a great deal of home heating oil in the northeast. New
Hampshire has the second highest percentage of homes using home
heating oil. And one of the exciting things about thermal
biomass is that it offers an alternative for homes and
businesses in New Hampshire, and also contributes to our timber
economy in the State.
And I have had a chance to visit the White Mountain
National Forest supervisor's office in Campton, New Hampshire
where they have installed a 90 percent efficient gasification
pellet boiler system. That has been very beneficial to them.
And so, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the
potential that you see in thermal biomass and what the role of
DOE can be in promoting that or encouraging its use, not just
across the Federal Government, but in other ways that are
beneficial to homeowners like in New Hampshire.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Well, thermal biomass, of
course, it tends to be regional in terms of its attractiveness.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Secretary Moniz. And certainly in New England there is a
long history of doing it in industry--the paper industry, et
cetera, forestry. Then there is a second dimension comes in to
co-firing, for example, in parts of the country with, for
example, coal plants. One way of addressing CO2
emissions is by co-firing. In fact, some even would say that
with enough biomass co-firing and capture, one could even have
negative CO2 emissions. So that is a very
interesting development.
And then as you refer to the developments in terms of
pellets in pellet stoves is also something that actually has a
non-trivial potential if it were fully exploited. But these are
all interesting areas with----
Senator Shaheen. What do you mean by a non-trivial
potential?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think in the sense of
participating--I mean, producing essentially heat, oil,
electricity at a significant level, not 50 percent of
electricity or heat, but not, .5 percent either. So somewhere
in between.
Senator Shaheen. And can you talk about the role of the
Department of Energy in encouraging, looking at the use of
thermal biomass throughout the Federal Government and what kind
of an alternative it might provide, and what other
opportunities there are for DOE to help educate people about
those opportunities?
Secretary Moniz. I think there are some programs that have
gone on in terms of also helping support pilot semi-commercial
scale projects, especially with wood biomass. But I have to say
perhaps we should go back and look at the question, whether we
need to take a more coherent view of that, and carry out some
of the educational activities that you said. I do not know,
Lin, if you want to add anything.
Mr. Orr. I do not have anything to add.
Secretary Moniz. Okay, thank you. We will do that.
SMART MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES
Senator Shaheen. That would be great. I would encourage you
to do that. I know that there is legislation that has
authorized but has never been appropriated money to encourage
some districting through biomass. So let me now switch to smart
manufacturing, again manufacturing, and the re-emergence of a
strong manufacturing based in this country is very critical to
our economy. And one of the concepts that seems to be most
promising to encourage manufacturing is the concept of smart
manufacturing, the encouragement of new technologies to help
with that.
Can you discuss what the potential is for deploying smart
manufacturing technologies and what DOE's role might be in
that?
Secretary Moniz. Certainly. The smart manufacturing is one
of a number of kind of enablers of a next generation of
manufacturing. Certainly one of the--in terms of DOE, a
specific initiative is that of establishing these national
manufacturing initiatives. And we have done so while we worked
with DOD to establish a pilot in Ohio for 3-D printing. But,
again, for example, our Oak Ridge Laboratory, for the chairman,
he knows very well. Our Oak Ridge laboratory, for example,
working with a small, private company printed the first car
using that technology. We then established another one on wide
band gap semi-conductors, another on composite materials. And
now we are in the process of running a competition for one on
smart manufacturing, integration of sensors, controls, real
time modeling, et cetera. And we think these kinds of
technologies, if we propagate them, and that is why these
institutes are really alliances of a number of academic
institutions and companies that we have to get this technology
out, not only to the very biggest companies, but to the mid-
size companies so that they can compete.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator
Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for your service. From my two cents worth, I think
you are doing a very good job.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
SEQUESTRATION
Senator Graham. I hope that does not hurt you with the
White House. But in 30 seconds--you may have already done
this--can you tell us what sequestration will do to your
Department if we do not find a replacement for these cuts?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, sequestration would be very, very
harmful. I think we would see a repeat of what we saw a few
years ago. And earlier we discussed it particularly in terms of
on the defense side, that our Stockpile Stewards Plan simply
could not be executed to meet military capabilities on the
schedule as desired.
On our civilian side as well, I should say, because it was
also said earlier that we are way under investing in clean
energy technology. So it is on both sides, certainly on the
stockpile side, that we have discussed before. It blows the
schedule.
Senator Graham. And the bottom line is that our nuclear
deterrent would be compromised.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. We could not meet the dates that DOD
is looking at to meet their military requirements.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Senator Graham. I am not so sure that is a message we want
to send any potential enemy of the country. My favorite topic,
and I am sure yours, MOX (Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility). So just for the record, the
MOX Program is an agreement between Russia and the
United States to dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons grade
plutonium. It started back in the 90s, right?
Secretary Moniz. Each.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Graham. That is equivalent to 17,000 warheads
someone told me. Is that about right?
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Graham. That is a lot of weapons material. And the
goal is to take that off the market forever and turn it into
commercial grade fuel here, the MOX Program.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Take a sword and turning into a plowshare.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. In 2010, we signed an amendment to the
agreement with the Russians where we pledged to use
MOX as the disposition path.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Senator Graham. Taking weapons grade plutonium, blending it
down to create commercial grade fuel that would supply our
reactors. So at the end of the day we are about 60 percent
complete, is that right?
Secretary Moniz. On the MOX fabrication
facility. There are other facilities as well.
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Senator Graham. Okay. So we have had a funding problem. I
want to reduce costs. There are some studies being done as an
alternative to MOX. When can we expect those studies
to be submitted to the committee or to the Congress?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the first study is due April 15th,
and we are hoping to meet that date.
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
Senator Graham. Okay, thank you. And I just want to thank
you for helping us the best you can to lower costs. But as the
Chairman knows, this is a very big deal for South Carolina. We
have agreed to be a partner with the Federal Government, to be
the site that would accept the 34 metric tons of weapons-grade
plutonium, and build and utilize the technology that would turn
it from a sword to a plowshare.
I do appreciate the President's budget this year. It is
better than last, and I know we have got some out-year costs
that we have got to deal with, so I really appreciate your
effort to work with us. And I do not believe there is a viable
alternative that is cheaper or practical, so thank you very,
very much.
In terms of the future of nuclear power in this country,
how would you evaluate the future of nuclear power in this
country, and particularly on the waste side dealing with
nuclear waste? What do you see happening in the coming years?
Secretary Moniz. Well, with regard to the future of nuclear
power plants, first of all, I would just mention I think it is
very important how the plants in Georgia and South Carolina end
up coming in--with regard to budget and schedule, there have
been some problems, but we will see how that ends up. Another
direction, small modular reactors could be very interesting as
well on the----
Senator Graham. Are you open-minded to that concept of
small modular reactors?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Yes, it makes perfect sense.
Secretary Moniz. I am very enthusiastic that we find out
what the cost is, et cetera. They have very attractive
features.
Senator Graham. I agree.
Secretary Moniz. On the waste side, well, we discussed it a
little bit earlier, and I would say that we think we have to
move out on three fronts. It used to be two perhaps, and
yesterday it became three. The one is we should be moving
towards interim storage, and especially a pilot project, as
soon as we can. We discussed earlier that may have the flavor
now of being a private as opposed to Federal. We are open to
discussion on that.
We are continuing to push for the science based on ultimate
geologies. We will need probably multiple repositories
eventually for civilian spent fuel, especially if the fleet
grows.
Senator Graham. And would you encourage it to grow? Would
we be smart as a Nation to increase our nuclear power
production capabilities?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as you know, I am very committed to
a low carbon future. And today, of course, nuclear----
Senator Graham. You cannot get there without nuclear.
Secretary Moniz. Nuclear is the biggest contributor today.
And, of course, if we do not have nuclear in the future, it
certainly makes it a lot harder to get there. And finally as we
announced yesterday, the President has authorized us to start
planning for a separate disposal track for defense waste, which
we think is a very, very good move for a whole variety of
reasons.
And I might just add in pursuing that, clearly a small
repository would be needed, but there may even be alternative
geological pathways, like the bore holes, so it gives us more
flexibility. And I think the whole system will move ahead
sooner in this approach.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you for your service. Dr. Orr,
thank you for your contributions to our country. And I look
forward to working with the Department. I think you are doing a
good job, and we have got some challenges, but I look forward
to working with you and the committee.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Graham. Dr. Moniz, I
know you have somewhere to go. I will ask a few more questions
of you. Following up on Senator Graham's comment, are you
concerned--the Center for Strategic and International Studies
reported that perhaps as many as 25 of our 99 reactors might
close by 2020. And in talking with utility executives, I am a
little surprised that a number of them are not planning at the
moment on asking for renewal of their licenses from 60 to 80
years. How many reactors do you think we will have in the
United States 10 years from now?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think--I do not want to speculate
on the number. I think that CSIS number is probably rather on
the high side. But we do know that there are certainly another
handful or so at risk over these next years, depending on the
outcome of various regulatory structures, et cetera.
This question of 60 versus 80 years, I would just note that
if reactors go to 60 years, let us just say 60 years, then the
large wave of retirements would be starting around 2030. That
next decade would see a lot of retirements. And that is why if
you run that movie back and ask about capital planning
decisions, et cetera, at utilities, et cetera, having options
understood in that 2025 or so timeframe is really critical. And
that applies to the experience with building Gen 3 plus large
plants. It also applies to the small modular reactors, and that
is why our program on the SMRs has been really geared to trying
to get something operating in the first half of the next decade
so that it is there in time for this critical decision period
potentially.
SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS
Senator Alexander. Well, I will give you credit for being a
consistent supporter of the small reactor research and support
for certification and licensing activities, even though we have
been disappointed with one of the grants, which was not your
fault. The Department has selected new scale power for the
Second Technical Support Award Program, and your budget
supports that. Are you at a point yet where some of the money
this next year would be used to help pick a site? Do you know a
site yet for the new scale project?
Secretary Moniz. No, we do not, but I believe they have
announced the intent to file at NRC at the end of next year.
Senator Alexander. So what will happen in the next year?
What is the status of the Small Reactor Program? Where are we?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the status is for them to complete
all of the design engineering work to the place where they can
apply to NRC. Being a light water-based reactor, we hope that
that could then go, which is where NRC, of course, has immense
experience, we hope that that could go reasonably quickly and
still hit something like a deployment date of, you know, 2022,
2023.
Senator Alexander. Are small reactors an option you think
will be important for the United States as it seeks to provide
more carbon-free base load electricity generation?
Secretary Moniz. It certainly could be. I think it is going
to depend upon the cost performance. But if the cost
performance is good, I see significant potential because it
certainly makes a much more attractive financing approach.
WIND
Senator Alexander. There are a variety of obstacles to
nuclear plants. The cost of regulation is one. The low cost of
natural gas is another. A third, according to some of the
utilities, is the big wind production tax credit in markets
which are not regulated. In some markets, the production tax
credit now in its 22nd or 23rd year is so rich for the
developers that they can actually pay the utility to take their
electricity so the developers still make a profit. And this has
the effect, according to the utilities, of what they call
negative pricing, and it is one more pressure--it undermines
their ability to operate other kinds of base load activities
like coal or nuclear power.
So the bottom line of that is one contributing aspect in
some markets of the difficulty of economically operating a
nuclear plant, much less building a new one, is the high
subsidy for wind, allowing it to undercut nuclear. Secretary
Chu in 2011 in response to my question said that wind was a
mature technology. It costs us about $6 billion a year every
time we renew that big production tax credit. I would like to
be spending the $6 billion on energy research instead of a
subsidy that 22 years ago jump started technology. Usually we
measure maturity in terms of age.
If Secretary Chu, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, said a
few years ago that wind power is a mature technology, would you
not agree that today it must be an even more mature technology?
Secretary Moniz. I do not follow the logic.
Senator Alexander. Well, if I am older than you are, and we
go 3 more years, am I not likely to be mature if I am older? If
wind was mature in 2011----
Secretary Moniz. The clock runs, I agree.
Senator Alexander. If wind was mature in 2011, is it not
even more mature today?
Secretary Moniz. But I would just note that--okay. I do not
know exactly what Secretary Chu was--how he was referring to--
--
Senator Alexander. I asked him the question is it a mature
technology. He said yes. That was 2011. Do you think it is a
mature technology?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I would say the technology continues
to evolve in very important ways. It certainly is not at its
asymptotic performance, if you like. The continued increase in
turbine size and blade size, et cetera, the ability to work at
lower wind speeds, these are all critical developments that are
still going on.
Senator Alexander. Well, in 22 years, should wind not be
standing on its own, especially if it is undercutting nuclear
power? I mean, wind is 4 percent of our electricity after
billions of dollars. Nuclear is 20 percent, but 60 percent of
our carbon-free electricity. Why would we want to have any sort
of policy that would undercut our ability to produce carbon-
free electricity that is base load, like wind, like nuclear?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I would say the Administration
clearly supports the PTC, and the tax credit also helps
incentivize not just the deployment of the same technologies,
but of these evolving technologies that are very important in
terms of efficiency, costs, and being able to work in a greater
variety of wind speeds, for example.
Senator Alexander. If you had $6 billion, would you rather
spend it each year on subsidizing a 22-year-old mature
technology or $6 billion of energy research?
Secretary Moniz. I think I would have to think about that.
MERCURY TREATMENT FACILITY
Senator Alexander. I hope you and the Administration will.
Let me switch to a more local concern since I have got you
captured here all by myself. Mercury containment is the highest
environmental priority in and around Oak Ridge in Tennessee due
to releases into the East Fort Poplar Creek, which runs through
the City of Oak Ridge. You have been attentive to that, and I
want to thank you for that. It is very important as we move
from concern about radiation, which is not completely gone, but
to begin to pay attention to the mercury contamination.
I believe your budget request includes some funding to
begin testing technologies to stabilize the mercury in the
soil. We are going to need to build a new mercury treatment
facility, which will be able to capture a majority of the
mercury before it can escape into the environment. When does
the Department project that the mercury treatment facility will
be started and completed?
Secretary Moniz. I had the impression it was in the next
couple of years, but I will have to get back to you on that,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Could you get back to me on that?
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Senator Alexander. That is the most important new priority.
Secretary Moniz. I am sorry, I misspoke. 2022 is apparently
the target date.
Senator Alexander. For?
Secretary Moniz. For completion and operation.
Senator Alexander. 2022 is the target date for completion
of the mercury treatment facility. Has it started yet?
Secretary Moniz. I think it is going to start next year. It
is in the project engineering phase right now.
Senator Alexander. Design phase?
Secretary Moniz. Design phase, yes. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for that information. There is
a big increase in the Department's budget request for cleanup.
There is a big increase in the Department's request, but there
is a decrease in the request for cleanup. In Oak Ridge, funding
is down $65 million. Do you suspect that that is likely to
produce layoffs of workers who are involved in the cleanup, and
if it were to do that, would you not agree that it is wasteful
and inefficient to have to lay people off and then rehire them
again?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I do not know all the specifics, but
I know that certainly part of it is in things like the funding
requirements for, you know, contract and post-retirement issues
in terms of what is the contribution there. But certainly we
would not like to see any significant force reduction, but I
will have to look in more detail at the analysis of that.
EXASCALE SUPER COMPUTING
Senator Alexander. Would you take a look at that cleanup?
That is extremely important to us. Moving on to another--an
area where the Administration and the Congress have seen eye-
to-eye is in Exascale super computing, and I want to thank you
for the priority you placed on that. Give me a little update on
this super computer we call Exascale. What is the first step
toward developing it, and how much do you estimate it will
cost, and when can we expect it will be billed?
Secretary Moniz. First of all, let me note that there is an
intermediate step towards Exascale, which is the so-called
CORAL computing initiative. In fact, Oak Ridge will be the
first site for that. That will get up into probably the $150
petaflop region, and that would be in 2017, 2018 timeframe.
Senator Alexander. This was the announcement you made just
recently.
Secretary Moniz. About a month ago or so. Yes, that is
right. And Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Argonne are the three in
that CORAL initiative. The Exascale target date is maybe 8
years from now or so. A lot of work to do. The estimated
cumulative costs will be $2 to $3 billion. We actually have a
report from my Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, which we
will be happy to supply to you, which is an analysis of this,
and that is kind of the scale. And I think this year it is $325
million or so, and times eight or 10, you get into that region.
So it is a major effort.
I should emphasize that going to this scale, it is not
about the flops. It is about just managing huge data, so this
is really big data to be managed. There are energy management
issues. We have got to reduce the energy consumption by a
significant factor to make this practical. Many, many
challenges, but I think we have got to be out there in front.
Senator Alexander. Well, I believe you said it is not just
who has the biggest computer. It is also who has the personnel
to operate such.
Secretary Moniz. Right, because how you operate the
computer is very, very challenging.
SPALLATION NEUTRON SOURCE
Senator Alexander. Moving on the Spallation Neutron Source
at Oak Ridge, it is a one of a kind tool to discover how
materials and biology work. It is the world's most powerful
pulse neutron scattering facility. There are plans for a second
target station at the Spallation Neutron Source. When does the
Department plan to begin work on the second target station, and
how much funding could be used this year to begin work on such
a facility?
Secretary Moniz. The Spallation Neutron Source, first of
all, I just want to reinforce what you said. I mean, it is a
real gem and a very, very critical facility for our science.
There have been some issues, as you probably know, with the
current target station, but I think we are confident that those
issues will get resolved.
The second station, which I think would be more oriented
towards coal neutrons, is in the queue, but it has to be
prioritized now among other BES projects. So I have no fixed
date that I know of.
CLEAN LINE
Senator Alexander. One other question on wind. There is an
outfit called the Clean Line Energy Wind Project trying to sell
wind from Oklahoma to the Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA has
projected that by 2020, it will be about 40 nuclear, so that is
completely clean. About 10 percent hydro. That is completely
clean. That is 50 percent. Its new plants are natural gas. That
is pretty clean, much less emissions. TVA has got an emphasis
on efficiency.
Why does it make sense to buy from 700 miles away when you
can operate nuclear plants, clean up coal plants and gas
plants, and use hydro power? Is that not an example of carrying
things too far? And I know that at least one State, Arkansas,
has objected to the project. Does the Department plan to
override Arkansas's objection, and will you allow eminent
domain authority to be used for new transmission lines, which
will have to be stretched, I guess, from Oklahoma to Tennessee
to bring that wind power to the TVA?
Secretary Moniz. Well, that is the question of the Section
1222 authorities in terms of interstate transmission lines.
That project is now in the EIS phase, so we have to see what
the environmental impact statement is, and then move forward to
a decision. As you say, yes, it will cross Arkansas from
Oklahoma to Tennessee.
BASIC ENERGY RESEARCH
Senator Alexander. My last question is one in an area where
we agree. The Administration and the Congress over the last few
years have agreed on the importance of basic science funding.
The Congress enacted the America COMPETES legislation a few
years ago with strong bipartisan support, and President Bush's
support. President Obama has continued that. We have talked
about ARPA-E, which came out of the America COMPETES
recommendation. I have said in statement I would like to double
energy research. I have said a good place to get it would be to
take it away from the wind tax credit. But do you have any
comment to make, and the last question I will have for you,
about the importance of increasing basic science funding for
energy research in the United States and the advantages of it
to our country's future?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I certainly agree with you
completely that; (A) it is critical, and (B) we are under-
funding the American Energy Innovation Council already several
years ago. That is the council composed of a bunch of rather
recognizable CEOs, not directly in the energy business, that
made that point. They actually suggested a factor of three
rather than a factor of two in terms of the funding. That has
been repeated by others, by PCAST. There is actually some
simple arithmetic that tells you that this is kind of the scale
that we should be thinking about.
So I think the outcomes of that would be enormous. I think
I have every reason to believe that we have a lot of additional
creative and innovative capability in our country to fruitfully
use that kind of funding, as you said, the doubling perhaps of
energy. I think it would be a leader, taking us into a low
carbon future with technology costs just continuing to drop,
drop, drop, coming down. It would give us great export
potential. I think it is just a winner across the board. I
totally agree with you.
Senator Alexander. Well, Dr. Moniz, Dr. Orr, thank you both
for coming. I would say, Dr. Moniz, I want to thank you for
yourself in the Cabinet. That is not always an easy job, but
you come to it very well prepared because of your previous
service in Washington and your experience at MIT. And I think
both of us--those of us on the Democratic and Republican side
here--both appreciate your skill and the fact that you work
hard to stay in touch in with Congress. So we will look forward
to working with you in most areas to help create an environment
where you can succeed, and we will look for your help on a
whole variety of issues that we have discussed today, including
technical advice on nuclear waste, which, as you can see, now
has a pretty good head of steam----
Secretary Moniz. It sure does.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. On this committee and the
authorizing committee, so we need to take advantage of that
opportunity. So thank you for being here.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time if they would like. The subcommittee requests
all responses to questions for the record be responded--be
provided within 30 days of receipt.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. I applaud the Department of Energy's (DOE) work on the
Grid Modernization Initiative, a critically important task for our
Nation's security and economic strength. As such, Congress has
previously funded the development of an industry-scale electric grid
test bed. While I believe there is a continued need for such a facility
to test additions to our electric grid and keep the grid secure, it
seems prudent to examine whether such a facility already exists. Do you
know of existing grid facilities that could serve in this capacity?
If such a facility does already exist, would the Department
continue to require the development of a new facility? If so, what is
the justification for duplicating limited Federal resources instead of
partnering with existing facilities?
Separate from building a new facility, how does the Department plan
to approach partnerships with any such facility for the testing and
development of electric grid security going forward?
Answer. The Grid Modernization Initiative (GMI) is working to
coordinate resources across the national laboratory complex and the
Nation. A consortium of national laboratories is proposing an
integrated network of test facilities across the laboratories, with
connections to university and industry test facilities to perform
coordinated testing that links testing assets across the Nation. The
GMI is not proposing construction of new facilities. Rather, this
effort reduces duplication, takes advantage of existing capabilities,
and ensures that our resources are directed in coordination toward the
multiple issues surrounding grid modernization. These issues include
advanced control systems performance and protection, cybersecurity,
resilience to natural disasters, new models and design platforms, and
device integration and testing.
Congress has funded (directly and indirectly) several facilities
across the DOE complex targeted at grid modernization activities. These
include:
--The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) partnership with
Clemson, Duke Energy, and others.
--The Energy System Integration Facility (ESIF) at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for system testing of
renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
--Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) Energy
Infrastructure Operations Center and Electricity Infrastructure
Cybersecurity and Resilience Center for grid operations tools
development and cyber security research and response support.
--Idaho National Laboratory's (INL) extensive hardware testing and
distribution feeder test loop for supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) testing and evaluation for security issues.
--Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) extensive transmission cable
testing, power electronics testing labs, and the CURENT Center
for grid control research.
Universities and utilities expected to be linked into the national
laboratory testing network include Southern California Edison, Pacific
Gas and Electric, American Electric Power, Bonneville Power
Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Clemson, Florida State,
North Carolina State, Washington State, Arizona State, and others.
One goal of the GMI is to leverage these existing capabilities and
link sites to expand overall capabilities to avoid duplication across
the Nation.
To that end, rather than duplicating existing test bed
capabilities, four national laboratories (PNNL, NREL, INL, and ORNL)
have been coordinating the testing of advanced distribution circuits.
DOE and other organizations, including the Electric Power Research
Institute, the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are considering
techniques that expand the virtual connection of these distributed
testing environments. In that way for example, renewable energy
generation assets at NREL could feed realistic signatures and behavior
to a control system test bed at PNNL, and cyber security threats could
be introduced to both systems under test from a third test bed resource
in Texas.
Newer capabilities at SRNL and NREL can test integrated
distribution systems up to 10MW in size, creating unique opportunity
for system simulation.
Robust information sharing and the resulting improvement in
situational awareness have always been a key goal in the energy
sector's Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity.\1\
Several milestones are focused on tools and capabilities that will
expedite the discovery, analysis, reporting, sharing, and mitigation of
cyber threats. These milestones were identified by industry with
concurrence from DOE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
Energy%20Delivery%20Systems%20Cybersecurity%20
Roadmap_finalweb.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieving information sharing and communication is the first of six
goals identified in DOE's Energy Sector Specific Plan as part of the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan: establish robust situational
awareness within the energy sector through timely, reliable, and secure
information exchange among trusted public and private sector security
partners.
We envision a robust, resilient energy infrastructure in which
business and service continuity is maintained through secure and
reliable information sharing, effective risk management programs,
coordinated response capabilities, and trusted relationships between
public and private partners at all levels of industry and government.
In its role as the Sector Specific Agency for Energy, DOE works
collaboratively with two energy Sector Coordinating Councils (SCCs),
one for electricity and one for oil and natural gas, and a Government
Coordinating Council with members from all levels of government
concerned with energy security. These coordinating councils represent
nearly all members of the energy community and are committed to working
closely with DOE and other government energy sector partners.
DOE works closely with the DHS's National Infrastructure
Coordinating Center and National Cybersecurity Communications and
Integration Center to enhance the efficient and effectiveness of the
Government's work to secure the energy sector.
A centerpiece of DOE's efforts in information sharing is the
Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program (CRISP), which was
tested in 2013 and 2014 and is now expanding in partnership with the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the
Electricity Sector Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-ISAC).
This activity is rapidly expanding grid operator engagement in
information sharing both across industry and with appropriate Federal
entities. The ES-ISAC establishes situational awareness, incident
management, coordination, and communication capabilities within the
electricity sector through timely, reliable, and secure information
exchange. The ES-ISAC, in collaboration with DOE and the Electricity
SCC, serves as the primary security communications channel for the
electricity sector and enhances the ability of the sector to prepare
for and respond to cyber and physical threats, vulnerabilities, and
incidents.
Recent natural disasters have underscored the importance of having
a resilient oil and natural gas infrastructure and effective ways for
industry and government to communicate to address energy supply
disruptions. To this end, in 2013 I asked the National Petroleum
Council to give their advice through a study on Emergency Preparedness
for Natural Disasters. This study resulted in seven recommendations,
including leveraging the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
subject matter expertise within the DOE Emergency Response Team to
improve supply chain situational assessments and recommending DOE and
States establish routine education and training programs for key
government emergency response positions. This report was delivered in
December 2014 and the recommendations are currently being implemented.
I stand ready to work with all Members to develop practical
solutions to address and respond to energy infrastructure security
issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. Secretary Moniz, during the hearing I raised concerns
with the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request for Richland Operations at
Hanford, with a specific focus on the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11
burial ground projects. These cleanup projects are well underway and
are high risk projects located close to the City of Richland, Columbia
River, and Energy Northwest facility. As of January 2015, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has spent $61 million on the 324 Building
and this project is on track for completion of Phase 2 this summer. DOE
has spent $148 million on the 618-10 burial ground, which has resulted
in completing 75 percent of the trench cleanup and completing all
design preparations for cleanup of the vertical pipe units. And $8
million has been spent on the 618-11 burial ground.
I am disappointed that you were unable to explain the
Administration's proposed $97.2 million cut to the Richland Operations
budget, which would predominately come out of the River Corridor and
Other Cleanup Operations account through which these three projects are
funded. And I must point out that you failed to answer similar
questions on these cleanup projects posed by my colleagues Senator
Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, and Congresswoman Herrera Beutler.
Slowing or halting work on these projects poses a safety risk, delays
cleanup, increases costs, and results in missing Tri-Party Agreement
milestones.
The fiscal year 2016 Budget Request cites technical challenges when
rationalizing the cuts to the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds, however, no one has been able to pin-point for me what these
technical challenges are. Secretary Moniz, I again ask you to provide
me with an explanation as to what these technical challenges are and
what is holding you back from continuing to make progress on these
critical cleanup projects.
Answer. Completing cleanup at the Richland Operations Office is a
priority for the Department. There has been tremendous progress at
Richland, and our fiscal year 2016 budget request focuses on continuing
to make progress. Between now and the end of fiscal year 2016, we plan
to complete the design and mockup to ensure we know how to safely clean
up the 324 building, and complete trench work at the 618-10 burial
ground.
At 618-10, the technology to remediate vertical pipe units (VPU's)
has been successfully tested, but has not yet been deployed on actual
waste. DOE-RL believes this technology will be successful, but we must
increase our confidence that the technology will be successful when
used on actual waste.
Much of the waste in 618-11 is in a similar configuration; however,
618-11 also includes waste contained in caissons, which are underground
concrete vaults. The technology to remediate waste in caissons has not
been designed, tested or deployed. Additionally, 618-11 is adjacent to
an operating commercial nuclear power plant, and will require
additional controls to ensure the safety of plant workers.
Remediation of the highly radioactive soils under the 324 building
presents a number of technical challenges, including designing and
testing equipment to remotely excavate the extremely high dose rate
soils from under the building. The high dose presented by this waste
site will also affect any electronic equipment used in the process.
We share a similar goal of focusing on high-risk cleanup projects,
such as the Plutonium Finishing Plant and addressing the sludge in the
K Basin, while addressing technical challenges in other cleanup work.
Question. Secretary Moniz, the fiscal year 2015 Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act provided $45 million in
additional funding for the River Corridor and Other Cleanup Operations
account. This is additional funding that I fought to secure for DOE and
was designated for use by Richland Operations for the 324 Building and
618-10 and 11 burial grounds. Report language included in the Senate
Subcommittee mark for the fiscal year 2015 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill stated ``additional funding is provided for work
related to . . . cleanup of remaining 300 area waste sites,'' which
includes projects like the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds. Furthermore, during consideration of the fiscal year 2015
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill on the House floor
Chairman Simpson and Congressman Hastings clearly indicated that
additional funding included in the bill was intended for cleanup along
the Columbia River and for the River Corridor Closure project, which
again specifically includes the 324 Building and 618-10 and 11 burial
grounds.
It is my understanding that to date, DOE has not allocated the $45
million in funding towards these cleanup projects. Secretary Moniz, why
hasn't DOE used this funding to push forward on this critical cleanup
work? Furthermore, I ask that you provide in writing a detailed
explanation of how DOE intends to spend these funds in fiscal year
2015.
Answer. All funds have been allotted to the Richland Operations
Office (RL), and the funds provided for fiscal year 2015 activities
have been obligated to contracts consistent with the report language.
RL has worked with the River Corridor Remediation Contractor to refine
work planning for the remainder of fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year
2016. In fiscal year 2015, funding will enable RL to show progress in
the following areas:
--Continued remediation of the 618-10 burial ground, including drum
excavation in the trenches and installation of the Vertical
Pipe Unit (VPU) over-casings.
--Completion of the design for the remediation of the 300-296 waste
site under the 324 Building.
--Initiation of construction of mockup facility for remediation
efforts associated with the 300-296 waste site.
--Completion of disposition of 300 Area Surplus Facilities, excluding
the 324 Building.
--Completion of backfill of three deep-chromium contaminated waste
sites in the 100-D Area.
--Continued remediation of the balance of 100/300 Area waste sites to
include backfill and re-vegetation
--Continued operation and maintenance of Environmental Restoration
Disposal Facility (ERDF).
Question. Secretary Moniz, I appreciate the commitment DOE has
shown over the past year to protecting the Hanford workforce and
addressing the risks associated with chemical vapors in the tank farms.
We owe the men and women who work at Hanford the highest safety
standards.
On February 10, 2015, DOE released an implementation plan for the
``Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report'' (Report). The implementation
plan is a formal phased approach to addressing potential chemical vapor
exposures and the 47 recommendations within the Report. It is my
understanding that $20 million was committed in fiscal year 2015
funding and that the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request includes $41
million to support Phase 1 of the implementation plan, which would
complete 30 of the 47 recommendations in the Report. Phase 2 would
begin in fiscal year 2017, and specific actions would be determined by
what is learned in Phase 1.
Secretary Moniz, I commend the actions DOE has already taken and
urge you to ensure that DOE does not stop its work upon the completion
of Phase 1 of the implementation plan. In addition, I ask that you
continue to make funding the implementation plan a priority as you
develop the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request and renew my request that
you add a specific line item into the fiscal year 2017 Budget Request
for this purpose.
The completion of the ``Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report''
resulted in immediate changes by DOE's contractor in November 2014 to
increase protective equipment requirements for the tank farms. Since
then, employees must wear supplied-air respirators when work is
conducted in the single shell tank farms and under circumstances where
chemical vapors are anticipated or known to occur in the double shell
tank farms. Since these requirements have been in place, DOE has been
successful in reducing chemical vapor exposures for employees. However,
on April 2, 2015, five employees working in a double shell tank farm
experienced chemical vapor related smells and three of the five
experienced symptoms. It is my understanding that the employees were
not in supplied-air respirators because the double shell tank farm had
an active ventilation system and no waste disturbing activity was
occurring.
Secretary Moniz, given this most recent chemical vapor experience
in a double shell tank farm I encourage DOE to reevaluate the supplied-
air respirator requirements established in November 2014 and determine
whether mandatory supplied-air should be extended to double shell tank
farms.
Each year DOE works with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
establish small business prime contracting goals for the fiscal year.
Section 318 of the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act
made changes to allow DOE to count first tier subcontracts awarded by
Management and Operating contractors to small businesses toward this
annual small business contracting goal.
Secretary Moniz, has the Department used this new tool in setting
its small business prime contracting goals with SBA? If not, has SBA
prevented Section 318 from being implemented? Furthermore, I ask that
you provide in writing the small business prime contracting goal DOE
and SBA set for fiscal year 2014, fiscal year 2015, and fiscal year
2016.
Answer. This authority has not yet been used in setting the
Department's small business prime contracting goal. As this is a
monumental change to the small business contracting goaling process,
DOE continues to work with SBA to implement the new law. Section 318 of
the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act came into effect
through Public Law 113-76 on January 17, 2014. Subsequently, the
Department of Energy (DOE) recommended to the Small Business
Administration (SBA) that the DOE fiscal year 2014 small business goal
be adjusted upward to take into consideration the first-tier small
business subcontracts awarded by DOE's Management and Operating (M&O)
contractors, as reflected in statute.
In fiscal year 2014, SBA did not account for DOE's M&O contractors
in the way the statute intended. SBA has indicated that implementation
of this statute is complicated by the data systems used across the
Federal Government to collect information about subcontracts; the level
and type of data collected about subcontracts is not as detailed as
what is collected for prime contracts. DOE, SBA, and the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and
Budget collaborated to develop a plan to implement Section 318 in
fiscal year 2015. The plan will enable DOE to receive prime contracting
credit for its first tier small business subcontracts awarded by DOE's
M&O contractors while addressing SBA's concerns regarding DOE's
subcontract data quality and transparency. DOE expects to receive the
fiscal year 2016 small business goaling letter in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2016. The small business prime contract goal for DOE was
6.59 percent for fiscal year 2014 and 6 percent for fiscal year 2015.
Question. While I support Section 318, I remain concerned it will
not cover first tier subcontracts awarded by prime contractors working
on nuclear waste cleanup. In my home State of Washington, the prime
contractors at the Hanford site are committed to working with small
businesses. All of these prime contractors have small business
subcontracting goals ranging from 49 to 65 percent and all of them are
meeting these goals. Unfortunately, these first tier subcontracts are
not counted by DOE or SBA towards the prime contracting goals.
Secretary Moniz, I ask that you continue to work with me and SBA to
ensure prime contractors working on nuclear waste cleanup receive
proper recognition and consideration for their extensive work with
small businesses.
Answer. The Hanford prime contracts are not M&O contracts, which
are a DOE-specific type of contract used for long-term continuing
mission accomplishment, as opposed to the cleanup work performed under
the Hanford contracts that is aimed at completion of the cleanup. The
Hanford prime contractors thus are not covered by Section 318 of the
fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Hanford prime
contractors' small business subcontracts are taken into account in the
overall evaluation of DOE's support to small business because they will
continue to be counted toward the DOE's subcontract goal.
Question. Secretary Moniz, I understand that several major prime
contracts within the Office of Environmental Management are due for re-
competition or extension in the next few years. This includes the
following contracts at the Hanford site: River Corridor Closure
contract held by Washington Closure Hanford, the Plateau Remediation
Contract held by CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company, and the Tank
Farm Contract held by Washington River Protection Solutions. Knowing
the complexity of these cleanup projects and accompanying contracts,
what steps is DOE taking to prepare for such a sharp increase in
contract re-competitions, to ensure qualified contractors submit
proposals to DOE for consideration, and to minimize disruption in
cleanup work and to local communities?
Answer. On average, the acquisition process for large cleanup
contracts begins at least 2 years ahead of the date individual
contracts must be awarded. A key part of that acquisition planning and
process is early outreach to determine if industry is well positioned
to meet potential mission needs at particular sites and to encourage
qualified contractors to participate. Activities include industry days
and site tours that provide opportunities to see the location where
work will be performed and an ability to interface with potential
teaming members, and quarterly outreach sessions open to any industry
participants. EM will continue to work closely with sites and affected
communities as these procurements progress.
Question. Secretary Moniz, as you are aware, the Office of
Environmental Management has been without a confirmed Assistant
Secretary for almost 4 years. The Administration's nominee, Dr. Monica
Regalbuto, was approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on June 18, 2014 and by the Senate Armed Services Committee
on June 24, 2014 but the full Senate was unable to vote on her
confirmation before the end of the 113th Congress. With Dr. Regalbuto's
nomination being resubmitted to the Senate for consideration, Secretary
Moniz, I urge you to aggressively push her nomination forward with the
two committees of jurisdiction and Majority Leader McConnell.
National scientific user facilities like the Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
User Facility located at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in
Washington State play a central role in the U.S. research ecosystem by
providing scientists access to unique instruments, expertise, and
facilities. Each year approximately 750 scientists use the
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, while the Atmospheric
Radiation Measurement User Facility supports 900 users. As State and
Federal budgets endure continued downward pressure in the coming years,
the importance of user facilities will continue to grow as they are
shared resources available to the entire scientific community.
I am concerned that the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request proposes a
$2 million cut to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory and
an additional $2 million cut to the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
User Facility. Secretary Moniz, while these cuts seem small they could
have significant impacts to the availability of equipment and the
number of users that can take advantage of these important resources.
How does the fiscal year 2016 Budget Request continue to ensure that
scientific user facilities have the funding they need to serve the
scientific community and maintain U.S. global leadership in scientific
innovation?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2016 Budget Request supports a
balance of substantial investments in the Office of Science's research
programs, the operations of its existing 27 scientific user facilities,
and the construction of several new user facilities and major upgrades
to existing facilities. These user facilities are a major component of
our national research infrastructure, and were used by more than 32,000
users spanning more than 2,300 institutions in fiscal year 2014. Nearly
1,000 users affiliated with Washington State institutions used the
Office of Science user facilities in fiscal year 2014.
In formulating its budgets annually, the Office of Science
considers the long-range--5-to-10 year strategic planning processes,
aimed at identifying scientific leadership directions that demand
suites of instrumentation that are generally unavailable elsewhere. The
planning also evaluates facility construction needs, facility
efficiencies, and operations strategies in a variety of budget
scenarios. In fiscal year 2016, Environmental Molecular Sciences
Laboratory (EMSL) will address a more focused set of science challenges
that respond to needs of DOE biological and environmental research;
thus, research activity (and associated instrumentation) outside this
scope will be sunsetted and priority given to utilization of unique
observing technologies, such as the High Resolution Mass Accuracy
Capability (newly available in fiscal year 2016) and new capabilities
in the Radiological Annex and Quiet wing. In addition to supporting
EMSL at the level necessary to tackle identified biological and
environmental needs, we believe that the fiscal year 2016 Request
provides the resources for the Office of Science to successfully
deliver our highest priority investments in new and upgraded user
facilities while continuing to advance today's mission-driven research
objectives through our existing facilities.
Question. The Department of Energy, through the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA), plays an important role implementing the Columbia
River Treaty as a member of the U.S. Entity. Together with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Northwest Division, BPA engaged in a multi-year
process with domestic stakeholders throughout the Pacific Northwest to
reach a regional consensus to modernize the Columbia River Treaty. The
``Regional Recommendation for the Future of the Columbia River Treaty
after 2024'' was presented to the Administration and U.S. Department of
State in December 2013. Since then DOE, the Army Corps, and several
other Federal agencies have been participating in an Interagency Policy
Committee (IPC) process to determine the parameters for negotiations
with Canada based on the Regional Recommendation. Secretary Moniz, as a
participant in the IPC process, can you share the timeline for
formulating a consensus among the Federal partners on these parameters?
Furthermore, are there any specific issues preventing the Federal
partners from reaching consensus, completing the IPC process, and
beginning negotiations with Canada in 2015?
Answer. The Department of Energy shares your interest in the
Columbia River Treaty review. The Regional Recommendation for the
Future of the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 was negotiated by many
sovereigns and stakeholders over many years, and reflects a balance of
interests that the Department supports. My staff is working with the
U.S. Department of State, which has been designated as the lead agency
to coordinate and oversee the Federal interagency review process, to
assure that this significant Pacific Northwest matter is moving forward
and taking into consideration regional recommendations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Without the economy-wide investments in energy efficiency
made since 1973, it is estimated that today's economy would require 60
percent more energy that we currently consume. In fact, savings from
energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our
national energy bill by about $700 million. Many of these improvements
would not have been possible without the research, technical support
and market integration efforts from the energy efficiency programs at
DOE.
Still, there are large, cost-effective opportunities to increase
energy efficiency much further, which will cut energy bills, reduce
pollution and encourage economic growth. However, a variety of market
failures and market barriers contribute to keeping us from fully
realizing our energy efficiency potential. This includes: (1) Imperfect
information about available technologies in the marketplace and (2)
Split incentives like landlord-tenant relationships where a building
owner makes decisions about efficiency investments, but because she
doesn't pay the utility bill, there is no incentive to purchase more
efficient and cost-effective appliances.
DOE plays a vital role in helping leverage market forces and
overcoming these barriers. Can you discuss initiatives within EERE that
help with overcoming these types of market barriers when it comes to
achieving more national energy efficiency gains?
Answer. The Department of Energy plays an important role in helping
to reduce market barriers to the adoption of new technologies that are
market ready--such as a lack of reliable information and workforce
training gaps--through activities that include providing best practice
information, stakeholder outreach, sustaining and enhancing the clean
energy workforce, and providing reliable, objective data.
Select examples of activities within EERE that help with overcoming
market barriers include but are not limited to:
--Advanced Manufacturing Office. Combined heat and power (CHP) is a
proven approach to generate on-site electric power and useful
thermal energy efficiently from a single fuel source. Through
its Industrial Technical Assistance subprogram, the Advanced
Manufacturing Office (AMO) supports Combined Heat and Power
Technical Assistance Partnerships (CHP TAPs), which promote and
assist in transforming the market for CHP, waste heat to power,
and district energy with CHP technologies and concepts
throughout the U.S. Advanced Manufacturing's CHP efforts
support Executive Order 13624, which sets a national goal of
deploying 40 gigawatts of new, cost-effective industrial CHP in
the United States by the end of 2020. Through these
partnerships, the Department supports deployment of these
energy efficient technologies through a variety of services,
such as education and outreach that provide information on the
benefits and applications of CHP to State and local policy
makers, regulators, energy end-users, trade associations, and
others; and technical assistance to energy end-users and others
to help them consider whether CHP is a viable technical and
economic opportunity.
--Building Technologies Office. The Building Technologies Office
(BTO) pursues solutions identification and technology-to-market
initiatives through its Commercial Buildings Integration (CBI)
and Residential Buildings Integration (RBI) subprograms to help
reduce market barriers to widespread adoption of cost-effective
advanced building energy efficiency technologies and solutions.
Existing market barriers include high first cost, fragmented
market segments, lack of uniform data and data formats, and
insufficient availability of objective consumer information.
These contribute to the building trades' slow acceptance and
adoption of new technologies and practices. The CBI and RBI
subprograms' approach to reducing these barriers includes
partnerships with stakeholders to develop and share validated
data and best practices, improvement of building design and
audit tools, and the creation of reliable efficiency benchmarks
and databases to facilitate energy efficiency financing and to
define efficiency's value-add to consumers. The CBI and RBI
subprograms' efforts focus on developing, demonstrating, and
releasing a suite of cost-effective technologies,
specifications, tools, and solutions, as well as analyzing
their ability to deliver the intended energy savings.
--Federal Energy Management Program. Performance contracting includes
both Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility
Energy Service Contracts (UESC). ESPCs and UESCs allow the
Government to engage a third-party private sector energy
company to invest in needed energy projects and pay for the
investment through the energy, water, and operations and
maintenance (O&M) savings achieved over the life of the
contract. Federal ESPC and UESC projects can include energy and
water-efficiency improvements, renewable energy technologies,
renewable alternative fuel (biomass/landfill), combined heat
and power, advanced metering, and power management. These
projects must improve site or system-wide energy efficiency and
be life-cycle cost effective in order to guarantee the savings
needed to pay for the project. Using performance contracts also
provides agencies with access to private-sector expertise in
energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation, and
emissions reductions and can provide a mechanism for smart
project management that ensures building efficiency
improvements and new equipment without upfront capital costs.
--Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs. States face several
barriers in retrofitting their existing buildings to make them
more energy efficient, including the lack of requisite data to
track energy use in their buildings (imperfect information).
DOE's State Energy Program (SEP) has offered several
competitively awarded funding opportunities aimed at helping
States address market failures and market barriers, such as the
deployment of data management programs, promoting information
sharing to further the use of innovative financing mechanisms
such as energy savings performance contracting, and outreach
programs to decision makers. Since 2012, SEP has made 56
Competitive awards to 30 States in many of these areas,
developing model solutions, policies and programs that can be
replicated by other States and local government agencies.
Question. Can you discuss how EERE uses the Building Technologies
Program and Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) to help deploy
technologies once R&D in their respective economic sectors becomes
proven and ready for market?
Answer. The Department plays an important role in helping reduce
market barriers to the adoption of new technologies that are market
ready through activities that include providing best practice
information, stakeholder outreach, and providing reliable, objective
data.
Advanced Manufacturing
--The Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) orients activities in each
of its three subprograms to align with this investment
strategy. In the Advanced Manufacturing R&D Projects
subprogram, AMO takes into account down-stream R&D challenges
to better facilitate the ultimate transition of various
technologies into domestic industrial production facilities.
Facilities supported under the Advanced Manufacturing R&D
Facilities subprogram, such as Clean Energy Manufacturing
Innovation Institutes, are designed to both accelerate the
development and the implementation of cutting-edge energy
efficiency technologies applicable to energy-intensive and
energy-dependent industries and materials and technologies
broadly applicable to the manufacturing of clean energy
products. In addition, the AMO Industrial Technical Assistance
subprogram helps manufacturers utilize energy-saving, market-
ready technologies, such as combined heat and power, through
various activities, including market assessments, outreach and
information dissemination, and technical assistance.
Commercial Buildings Market Deployment
--The Building Technologies Office (BTO) has developed a model for
spurring market uptake of new technology through its High
Impact Technology (HIT) Initiative. The HIT is designed to
promote the voluntary uptake of emerging, cost-effective
energy-saving building technologies through partnerships with
the commercial buildings industry via the Better Buildings
Alliance, Federal leaders, regional non-profits, utilities, and
efficiency organizations. HIT technologies are high potential
technologies identified by DOE through scoring criteria based
on national energy saving potential, cost, technology
readiness, stakeholder interest, and help achieve the
Commercial Building Integration's (CBI) goals to promote
adoption and market uptake of energy efficiency technologies in
the commercial building sector. From there, CBI then designs
and conducts strategic deployment, dissemination and technical
assistance activities using stakeholder input regarding the
largest, most persistent barriers to adoption and can include
partnering with manufacturers to innovate based on demonstrated
industry demand, field testing, development of guides on how to
use or select of high-performing technologies, or cost-shared
technical assistance.
One example is the Lighting Energy Efficiency in Parking (LEEP)
Campaign, which BTO launched in 2012, building on several years
of BTO technology research, development, and demonstration and
the development of tools to drive high-efficiency lighting and
controls into the market. More than 100 organizations have
joined the campaign, and, with technical assistance from BTO,
have installed high-efficiency lighting or controls in over 445
million square feet of parking space. BTO's efforts to engage
market leaders to demonstrate high-efficiency lighting in
parking lots and structures has created momentum for further
market adoption.
Residential Buildings Market Deployment
--BTO's Building America Program advances technology deployment
through applied demonstration projects that cost-effectively
integrate innovative technologies and construction practices
into new and existing residential buildings systems, working
directly with builders and home improvement contractors.
Currently, the Building America Program is focusing on highly
efficient wall systems that minimize the transport of heat, low
load cooling equipment that effectively dehumidifies the home,
and proper ventilation levels for efficient homes. Building
America works directly with builders and contractors in the
market place to demonstrate the market viability of these
technologies. In addition, these innovative technologies and
building practices are highlighted in BTO's Building America
Solution Center, a web-based information source for these
technologies that contractors can access from the field.
BTO also deploys these innovations into the new homes market
through the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program, a voluntary
partnership program for builders, architects, utilities, energy
efficiency programs, lenders, and more. The DOE Zero Energy
Ready Home label signifies a whole new level of home
performance, with rigorous requirements that ensure outstanding
levels of energy savings, comfort, health, and durability. BTO
also works with EPA's ENERGY STAR New Homes Program to bring
these technologies to the marketplace. Many innovations
demonstrated by Building America have been included in codes
over the years.
Within the existing homes market, the Better Buildings Residential
Program (BBR) works with State and local energy efficiency
program partners to deploy proven whole-house and staged
upgrade solutions into our Nation's communities. Through the
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program and the Better
Buildings Residential Network, BTO utilizes market partnerships
and network effects to increase the deployment of energy
efficient, building science-based home performance improvement
opportunities among builders, contractors, and homeowners. Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) is a public-private
voluntary partnership which works with program partners to
promote and implement whole-house upgrade solutions for
improved, energy-efficient homes. The Better Buildings
Residential Network connects energy efficiency programs,
contractors, financial institutions, State and local
governments, nonprofits, and utilities to share best practices
and learn from one another.
Question. Another important component of DOE's work is ensuring
that relevant stakeholders in the business and advocacy communities
have the opportunity to engage with EERE to identify the right types of
R&D that DOE should be focusing on.
What processes are in place to ensure that the Building
Technologies and the Advanced Manufacturing Offices effectively target
and fund the type of technology research needed and wanted in the
private sector?
Answer. The Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) funds technologies
and processes that enable energy cost reduction and efficiency for the
Nation's most energy-intensive and energy-dependent industries, and
funds materials and enabling technologies with cross-cutting impact for
cost reduction and performance improvement broadly applicable to the
manufacturing of clean energy products. The Program identifies topical
thrusts within each of these two categories and uses them as organizing
priorities for existing and proposed technical work.
These thrusts are identified through extensive consultation with
private sector firms, non-profit, university and National Laboratory
partners through various forums, including technology analyses,
workshops, and by soliciting input from stakeholders through requests
for information prior to planning of the funding opportunity
announcements. Funded topics will be selected based on the
consideration of potential energy, environmental, and economic impacts,
as well as overall relevance to the private sector, including a topic's
additionality relative to existing public and private sector
investments, degree of technical uncertainty and risk associated with a
topic which limit potential private sector investment, whether
investment in a topic can be a catalyzing influence, and the
opportunity for long term impact of that topic on domestic
manufacturing.
Similarly, input from industry stakeholders is a critical component
of the Building Technology Office's (BTO) multi-year R&D and market
transformation strategy. BTO primarily seeks industry input through
three methods: Requests for Information (RFIs), which are delivered to
over 25,000 building energy efficiency stakeholders; Technology R&D
Roadmap Workshops; and events such as BTO's Annual Peer Review and
Merit Review, where independent experts provide robust, documented
feedback on BTO lab and FOA projects' alignment with our mission and
goals. Each major technology area that BTO works in--lighting, HVAC,
windows and building envelope, sensors and controls (in development)--
has a roadmap that guides and prioritizes our research over the coming
years. These roadmaps are developed with considerable input from
scientists, engineers, academia, and industry experts. Typically, we
invite these industry stakeholders to an all-day workshop that informs
the development of the roadmap, and will then seek their review
throughout its development. Similarly, the High Impact Technology
Catalyst, mentioned in response to Question #2, issues an RFI every
year to seek input from technology providers and technology end-users
(such as building owner/operators) on which technologies should be
considered for the Catalyst, and which market transformation methods
may prove the most effective.
Question. The success of the U.S. manufacturing base is vital to
our country's long-term economic well-being. Many of our domestic
companies, including those in New Hampshire, face real challenges when
it comes to remaining competitive in a global economy.
One of the most promising breakthroughs in helping companies deal
with these pressures is the concept of smart manufacturing. New
information and communications technologies (ICT) and supercomputing
simulations allow manufacturing companies to optimize their production
and supply networks by bringing together islands of information found
throughout the manufacturing chain in order to achieve significant
energy savings and increase productivity.
These types of technological innovations can help U.S. manufactures
become and remain cost effective, efficient, and sustainable. However,
there remain significant challenges to deploying these technologies
more widely.
In particular, how can DOE make sure that smart manufacturing tools
are made available to all manufacturing firms, particular small and
medium-sized companies who may have more limited technical and
financial resources?
Answer. While many Smart Manufacturing technology elements exist in
some form and level of maturity today, the scale of the required
industry collaboration and development needed for Smart Manufacturing
technology integration, open and interoperable platforms, and
widespread cost-effective adoption of these technologies is beyond the
scope of most individual private sector organizations, including small-
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). AMO supports the development of
innovative next generation manufacturing processes and production
technologies through the creation of collaborative communities with
shared research, development and demonstration (RD&D) infrastructure,
including Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, such as the
proposed Smart Manufacturing Institute. At the technical core of these
Institutes is shared RD&D infrastructure that contains equipment and
resources accessible to external parties for technology development
that would otherwise be cost prohibitive, particularly for SMEs. It is
expected that the Smart Manufacturing Institute will engage the
manufacturing community at all levels of the supply chain, including
large companies, potential end users, researchers, and SMEs involved in
critical development work and who will support the transition to
commercial applications, to ensure the Institute is focused on industry
relevant problems and increase likelihood of success.
Question. I was very pleased to see that the DOE released a Notice
of Intent (NOI) in December 2014 to propose its 3rd Nationwide Network
for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), the Clean Energy Smart
Manufacturing Innovation Institute. I also understand that the AMO
hosted an Industry Day workshop in February 2015 held in Atlanta, GA,
to provide an opportunity for potential proposers to understand the
concept, vision and technology needs for the potential smart
manufacturing Institute.
Undoubtedly, the announcement and recent workshop has created
excitement among manufacturers, academic institutions, national labs
and State and local governments, all of whom welcome real-time control
of energy, productivity and costs for manufacturing facilities and the
benefits these advancements will bring to the sector. I understand the
issuance of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the
Institute was expected in March 2015, but an official FOA from DOE has
not yet been issued.
My concern is that the delay of the issuance of the FOA coincides
with the Department of Defense's announcement of their NNMI, competing
for an overlapping resource base for non-Federal cost sharing. For
furthering our joint interests and priorities for making smart
manufacturing a common practice and asset throughout the U.S. and
driving transformational gains in energy productivity with overall
improved manufacturing performance, issuing the FOA quickly is
important for aligning resources and partners adequately.
What are DOE's plans for the issuance of the FOA to ensure strong
participation in the Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation
Institute?
Answer. DOE's Smart Manufacturing Institute funding opportunity
announcement (FOA) is planned for release in mid-2015. The DOE hosted
an Industry Day on the Clean Energy Manufacturing Innovation Institute
on Smart Manufacturing in February 2015, which allowed potential
proposers to hear presentations from government officials about the
framework for a potential Institute, specific technical topic areas of
interest, and anticipated proposal requirements. The Industry Day was
strongly attended, and the Department anticipates strong interest in
the Institute FOA.
Question. I was pleased to hear about your commitment to ensuring
that the benefits of thermal biomass will receive more focus within the
Department of Energy. As we discussed during the hearing, I read with
interest the President's recent Executive Order, ``Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade,'' and was pleased to see that it
recognizes the importance of thermal power by including it in the
Federal government's renewable energy procurement requirements. This is
of significant interest to me since I have long been a proponent of
thermal biomass.
What is DOE's role in assisting Federal agencies comply with the
new sustainability requirements pursuant to the President's recent
Executive Order ``Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next
Decade?''
Answer. The DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) works
with key individuals within agencies to improve the sustainability,
energy and water use of the Federal Government, which facilitates the
Government's ability to Lead by Example--encouraging establishment of
energy goals, facilitating innovative technologies and creating change
in the energy sphere. This mission helps serve the intent of the recent
Executive Order 13693, which is to maintain Federal leadership in
sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions. FEMP will
continue assisting agencies with proven strategies to achieve
sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. FEMP will be
expanding its support for thermal renewable energy through two major
types of assistance FEMP provides to agencies: technical assistance and
alternative financing. For technical assistance, FEMP is already
working with agencies to identify their largest energy-consuming
campuses and then using FEMP's national laboratory experts and software
screening tools to comprehensively analyze their most promising
renewable energy, clean energy and energy efficiency opportunities. In
financing these projects, agencies will now try to incorporate thermal
renewable energy into on-site project acquisitions, energy purchase
agreements with third-party developers, energy savings performance
contracts and utility energy service contracts. FEMP will continue to
advise agencies on the issues involved with all of these financing
options, and provide agencies access to qualified energy service
companies.
Question. Will DOE--through the Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP)--work with agencies on best practices for compliance? If so, how
can FEMP help ensure that thermal power options like biomass have a
viable opportunity to be used as a compliance option?
Answer. FEMP has and will continue to provide support for agencies
in meeting their clean energy goals, including both renewable electric
and thermal energy, as described in EO 13693. This support includes
project technical assistance, project procurement assistance, guidance
documents, training, and reporting. FEMP is responsible for tracking
progress towards the achievement of Federal clean energy goals, and as
such, advises agencies on how to report their renewable electric and
thermal energy data to ensure compliance with Federal laws and
requirements. FEMP will continue to help agencies identify existing and
new incentives and programs either the agency or developers can use to
reduce the cost of renewable energy and will continue to develop best
practices for compliance.
Question. You may recall that I sent a bipartisan letter to you and
EPA Administrator McCarthy regarding EPA's recently proposed regulation
to phase out certain hydrofluorocarbon substances having a relatively
high global warming potential under EPA's Significant New Alternatives
Policy Program, or ``SNAP'' program. Specifically, my concern relates
to the likely impact of the proposal on energy efficiency. As you know,
the proposal would require a change in the blowing agent used to make
several types of building insulations. As a result, the energy
efficiency gains provided by these products could be negatively
impacted because the alternatives are both less efficient and more
costly to manufacture, which would increase the price for consumers.
My interest is ensuring that the EPA's rule does not have
unintended consequences that results in achieving lower greenhouse gas
emission reductions than expected. Can you please tell me whether DOE
has reviewed the EPA proposal to identify how it may impact energy
efficiency in the insulation sector? Is there close coordination
between DOE and EPA on this rule?
Answer. DOE is aware of the concerns expressed by some parties
regarding SNAP rules and potential impacts upon energy efficiency. We
consulted with the EPA to ensure that they were aware of our
perspective on these issues. EPA has now issued their final rule in
this matter.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. Major issues--As you know, Delaware is an EPSCoR/IDeA
State, and the EPSCoR/IDeA programs have been beneficial for many
universities around the country. It has been brought to my attention
that there are some general concerns about how much the Department of
Energy is seeking for this program and how it is operating its EPSCoR
program in terms of the grant award process.
In fiscal year 2013, the 25 States and three territories eligible
for DOE EPSCoR received about 9 percent of all Office of Science
research award dollars. There are two individual non-EPSCoR States
that, on their own, were awarded more funding by the Office of Science
than all of the EPSCoR States combined. In fact, one of these non-
EPSCoR States' funding is more than double what half the States in the
Nation receive through the Office of Science. This year, your fiscal
year 2016 request once again keeps DOE EPSCoR flat while the EPSCoR
programs at the National Science Foundation and the IDeA program
National Institutes of Health continue to grow.
I am also concerned about how DOE EPSCoR handled last year's
Implementation Grant award process. The University of Delaware and two
other applicants were told in the fall that their proposals were being
held over for possible fiscal year 2015 funding consideration. The
University of Delaware was then informed, a few months later, that they
were no longer being considered for the award and that DOE EPSCoR would
only be considering funding of one additional proposal instead of all
three.
Can you explain why the DOE is not seeking additional funds for its
EPSCoR program while other agencies have continued to make larger
requests for their own programs? Can you also explain what happened
between the time when the University of Delaware was informed about
their potential award in the fall and subsequently when they were told
that they were no longer in consideration a few months later? As you
know, Congress provided $10 million last year for DOE EPSCoR, about
$1.5 million more than was requested. Why is only one award now being
made with those additional funds?
Answer. Year-to-year changes in the DOE Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) request are consistent on a
percentage basis with changes in the core research portfolio in Basic
Energy Sciences. The decision for declining the subject applications
was due to the consideration of the available budget and the desire to
have a future funding opportunity announcement with longer lead times.
The additional funding provided in fiscal year 2015 is being used to
minimize mortgages in future fiscal years of existing awards so as to
increase funding available for potential new awards under a future
funding opportunity announcement.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. Thank you for being here today. The
subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]