[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE'S
MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND
ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 9, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-90
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-537 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOE BARTON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois SCOTT H. PETERS, California
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio GENE GREEN, Texas
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma Massachusetts
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
TIM WALBERG, Michigan officio)
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Witnesses
Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy..... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 193
Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy......................................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 266
Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of
Energy......................................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 278
Frank Klotz, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and
Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 280
Thomas Zacharia, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory......... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Donald Levy, Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor
Emeritus, University of Chicago and Co-Chair, Panel to Track
and Assess Governance and Management Reforms in the Nuclear
Security Enterprise............................................ 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Sarah Ladislaw, Director, Energy and National Security Program,
Center for Strategic And International Studies................. 100
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Steve Wasserman, Director, Lilly Research Laboratories
Collaborative Access Team, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne
National Laboratory, on behalf of the Society for Science at
User Research Facilities....................................... 112
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Dan Reicher, Executive Director, Stanford University Steyer-
Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance and Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution.......................................... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Rich Powell, Executive Director, Clearpath Foundation............ 158
Prepared statement........................................... 160
Submitted Material
Statement of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, submitted by Mr. Upton................................. 185
Statement of the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office,
submitted by Mr. Upton......................................... 188
DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE'S MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND
ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 in room
2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Upton, Olson, Barton, Shimkus,
Latta, Harper, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long,
Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg, Duncan,
Walden (ex officio), Rush, Peters, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes,
Welch, Tonko, Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Butterfield, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist,
Deputy Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Allie
Bury, Legislative Clerk, Energy Environment; Karen Christian,
General Counsel; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Wyatt
Ellertson, Professional Staff, Energy/Environment; Margaret
Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of
Outreach and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator,
Environment; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben
Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel,
Energy/Environment; Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant; Brandon
Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Mark Ratner, Policy
Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider,
Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, Energy; Madeline Vey,
Policy Coordinator, DCCP; Andy Zach, Senior Professional Staff
Member, Environment; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow;
Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy
Coordinator; Jon Monger, Minority Counsel; Alexander Ratner,
Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel;
Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach
and Member Services; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and
Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press
Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Happy New
Year.
Today's hearing begins this subcommittee's work in this
session to identify what steps we need to do to make sure that
DOE can address the national economic and energy security
challenges that are going to be confronting the Nation over the
coming number of decades.
Recent years, we have been updating certain agency programs
and authorities to shift DOE's mission focus more fully away
from the energy scarcity mind-set of its founding back in the
1970s. We have worked to position the agency more appropriately
toward the tremendous energy resources now available to our
country and the economic and geopolitical benefits of those
resources. We have sought to modernize the Department's
strategic petroleum reserve and its response capabilities, and
we have upgraded DOE's emergency preparedness for energy supply
distributions and its authorities to protect critical
infrastructure from physical as well as cyber attacks.
But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be
done. Growing nuclear weapons, threats, and tens of billions of
dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent underscores
the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and durable
governance and management of DOE's nuclear security missions.
So increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
energy systems propelled by the digital efficiencies of the
cyber age present new and growing risks. Getting ahead of these
risks requires secretarial leadership and coordinated attention
across the agency's many programs and operations. Modernizing
the Department of Energy means ensuring it has the appropriate
statutory authorities and sound management structures to meet
not only the challenges that we know about today, but what may
be coming over the horizon. It means ensuring agency leadership
can align with the Department's operations and resources to
meet those priorities, and it means ensuring the tremendous
scientific and technological assets of this agency are
effectively focused for the benefit of the long-term security
and prosperity of all Americans.
Our two panels today will help look at what is needed to
meet current and emerging challenges. We are going to hear from
the senior leadership of the Department on the first panel. And
with that, who once served this committee very well as its
staff director, is the deputy secretary for the Department. He
is essentially DOE's CEO. So I look forward to hearing his
plans for aligning the Department to meet the administration's
priorities and to discuss those priorities.
He is joined by three Department Under Secretaries
responsible for the bulk of its missions. Under Secretary of
Energy Mark Menezes, also a capable alumnus of this committee,
can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the
Department's work regarding all of our national energy policy
interests, and what more may be needed to enhance DOE's
emergency and cyber functions. General Frank Klotz, who heads
the Department's nuclear security enterprise, and with several
years under his belt at DOE, has important perspective on what
is needed for efficient and effective execution of the
Department's vital nuclear and nonproliferation programs and
related work across the DOE's enterprise. And finally, Under
Secretary of Science Paul Dabbar can help examine how best to
deploy and maintain the scientific and technological
capabilities at the national laboratory system and its
facilities offer to support the Department's missions. He also
has new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental
Management which oversees complicated environmental cleanup
projects that present a host of management challenges.
The second panel offers broader perspectives to help us
assess what more is needed to improve execution of the agency's
mission and to prepare for future challenges. We will hear from
distinguished leaders and scientists on what is necessary to
unleash the full benefits of the national lab system. We will
hear how to ensure appropriate oversight in management of
projects and programs in the national and nuclear security
space and across departmental activities. We will hear how
better to focus DOE's support of innovation and what our era of
the energy abundance means for DOE responsibilities, both here
and abroad.
Our testimony today will start a record to inform our
modernization efforts and to assist us as we prioritize what
program authorizations to tackle in this new session of the
Congress.
With that, I yield for an opening statement from my friend
and colleague, the ranking member of the energy subcommittee,
Mr. Rush, from the good State of Illinois.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today's hearing begins the subcommittee's work this session
to identify what steps Congress may take to be sure DOE can
address the national, economic, and energy security challenges
that will be confronting the Nation over the coming decades.
In recent years, we've been updating certain agency
programs and authorities to shift DOE's mission focus more
fully away from the energy scarcity mindset of its founding in
the 1970s.
We've worked to position the agency more appropriately
towards the tremendous energy resources now available to our
nation--and the economic and geopolitical benefits of those
resources. We've sought to modernize the department's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and its response capabilities. And we've
upgraded DOE's emergency preparedness for energy supply
disruptions and its authorities to protect critical
infrastructure from physical and cyber threats.
But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be
done. Growing nuclear weapons threats and the tens of billions
of dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent underscore
the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and durable
governance and management of DOE's nuclear security missions.
The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
energy systems, propelled by the digital efficiencies of the
cyber age, present new and growing risks. Getting ahead of
these risks requires Secretarial leadership and coordinated
attention across the agency's many programs and operations.
Modernizing the Department of Energy means ensuring it has
the appropriate statutory authorities and sound management
structure to meet not only the challenges we know about today,
but what may be coming over the horizon.
It means ensuring agency leadership can align the
department's operations and resources to meet priorities. It
means ensuring the tremendous scientific and technological
assets of this agency are effectively focused for the benefit
of the long-term security and prosperity of Americans.
Our two panels today will help us look at what is needed to
meet current and emerging challenges. We will hear from the
senior leadership of the Department on the first panel.
Dan Brouillette, who once served this Committee very well
as its staff director, is the Deputy Secretary for the
Department. He is essentially DOE's chief operating officer,
and so I look forward to hearing his plans for aligning the
department to meet the Administration's priorities, and to
discuss those priorities.
He is joined by the three Department Under Secretaries,
responsible for the bulk of its missions. Under Secretary of
Energy Mark Menezes, also a capable alumnus of this committee,
can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the
department's work regarding all our national energy policy
interests, and what more may be needed to enhance DOE's
emergency and cyber functions.
General Frank Klotz, who heads the Department's nuclear
security enterprise and, with several years under his belt at
DOE, has important perspective on what is needed for efficient
and effective execution of the Department's vital nuclear and
nonproliferation programs, and related work across DOE's
enterprise.
Finally, Under Secretary for Science Paul Dabbar, can help
examine how best to deploy and maintain the scientific and
technological capabilities the national laboratory system and
its facilities offer to support the Department's missions. He
also has new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental
Management--which oversees complicated environmental cleanup
projects that present a host of management challenges.
Our second panel offers broader perspectives to help us
assess what more is needed to improve execution of the agency's
missions and to prepare for future challenges.
We'll hear from distinguished leaders and scientists on
what is necessary to unleash the full benefits of the national
laboratory system. We'll hear how to ensure appropriate
oversight and management of projects and programs in the
national and nuclear security space and across departmental
activities.
We'll hear how better to focus DOE's support of innovation
and what our era of energy abundance means for DOE
responsibilities, here and abroad.
Our testimony today will start a record to inform our
modernization efforts and to assist us as we prioritize what
program authorizations to tackle in the upcoming session of
Congress.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing on modernizing the Department of Energy.
I also want to welcome all of the witnesses to this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, for constituents, such as those I represent,
one of the most pressing issues regarding DOE involves a matter
of ensuring that the agency is representative of all
communities, and that the needs of all citizens are being
addressed through its energy policy and initiatives including
the loan and grant programs as well as through engagement at
the national labs, and access to contracting and vendor
opportunities. Many of my constituents are constantly seeking
ways to break into what has essentially become an onerous, good
ol' boys network.
As you are aware of, Mr. Chairman, my office worked
extensively with former Secretary Moniz to establish the
minorities and energy initiative which was designed to help
foster increased minority participation in all sections of the
energy industry. And this initiative, Mr. Chairman, was
successful in beginning the process of raising awareness and
engagement between DOE, industry, and minority communities.
However, Secretary Perry did not seem to even be aware of the
program, and many of the activities that were established by
this initiative seemed to have tapered off.
Mr. Chairman, as we go through this process of modernizing
the Department, it is imperative that we examine the leadership
profile of the agency and work to ensure that there is
diversity at the top where most of the decisions and policies
are first enacted. We need more people of color in the top
echelons of the Department from the Secretary's office as well
as in the Office of Science, which directs billions of research
dollars to higher education institutions.
Mr. Chairman, we need more diversity of people, and so, on
the review boards, and the boards and counselors which are
responsible for making key decisions regarding the national
labs, among many other issues. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
these same national labs, we need more women and people of
color running these institutions so that decisions regarding
increased inclusion and diversity are made inherently, and not
simply as an afterthought or as a checklist, or as an empty
token act.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we need to ensure that the
senior executive staff, or SES, who play pivotal roles in
running the Department and making important decisions regarding
the agency's policies and priorities also include men and women
of color.
Mr. Chairman, it is easy to overlook the importance of
these issues if you are not among the groups that have been
historically excluded. But when we are using taxpayer dollars
to fund the labs or to dole out loans and grants to the same
schools, the same universities, or to provide millions of
dollars to contractors and vendors, then it must be incumbent
upon us, the policymakers here in Congress, to ensure that
everyone is given the same opportunity to share in the wealth
and to share in the resources.
So, Mr. Chairman, that said, I look forward to working with
Mr. Martin as well as other members of this subcommittee to
restructure the Department in a way that addresses the systemic
and institutional discrepancies that exist in the agency today.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
The chair will now recognize the chair of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, from Oregon.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to welcome our panelists here today. This is a really important
hearing for the committee, and it is a goal of this committee
to begin the process to modernize the Department of Energy, an
agency that was created in an era of scarcity. And we find
ourselves in an era of abundance but of new challenges
involving the environment and energy. And so we look forward to
your testimony today. In October, we heard directly from
Secretary Perry on his vision for the Department. Today, we
will hear from the top leaders of that Department on how the
Secretary's vision can be advanced and the role Congress is
being asked to play.
We also have a distinguished second panel. This panel
features important perspectives on Department of Energy's
various operations concerning the national labs, nuclear
oversight, research, and energy security challenges. So I
appreciate all of your participation today. It is also always a
pleasure to welcome back to the Energy and Commerce Committee
alumni, including both Deputy Director Brouillette and Under
Secretary Menezes, who served this committee with distinction.
Dan was staff director and Mark as the Energy and Environment
chief counsel. So we look forward to having you back. It is
always fun to question former members of the committee who
wrote questions for all of us to ask other witnesses in the
past.
I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the
Hanford site this last week. Thank you for doing that.
Secretary Perry was kind enough both to come out and visit
Hanford as well as take a look at McNary Dam, one of our great
hydro energy, noncarbon-emitting energy sources in the
northwest last year.
Hanford is just up the Columbia River from my home and
across from my district. And all of us in the Pacific Northwest
are deeply concerned about the cleanup, making sure it says on
schedule, on budget, and on time. I also want to recognize
Administrator Klotz's long service to our country, sir. General
Klotz has served in distinguished positions in both Republican
and Democratic administrations throughout his career, including
almost 4 years as NNSA administrator. So we are glad for your
service and your participation today.
While the domestic international energy posture is
substantially different from what it was when Congress
established the Department more than 40 years ago, the
importance of DOE's role in serving the national and the public
interest has only increased. We are reaping the benefits of
energy abundance. But legacy challenges remain, such as the
cleanup of Cold War sites and permanent disposal of nuclear
waste, which my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, has played an
incredibly important, strong, and dedicated role toward
achieving permanent and interim storage.
New risks have evolved, such as cybersecurity threats, the
electric grid, managing and overseeing the modernization of our
aging energy infrastructure.
So our responsibility is to ensure that a modernized
Department of Energy is fully prepared to meet these 21st
century challenges. So as we examine the DOE management and
mission priorities today, we should keep in mind the benefits
of the interconnected nature of the Department's missions.
These missions, national security, energy security,
environmental remediation, and mission enabling scientific
research across the DOE enterprise, can be difficult and
expensive to manage.
I am confident the team of professionals on our first panel
today are up to this task. This committee will work through the
remainder of this Congress and beyond to ensure the
Department's organization and missions are aligned with the
energy security challenges of the Nation and that we are nimble
enough to meet the challenges of tomorrow. At my direction, the
committee has been examining whether DOE resources are focused
on its core missions. Going forward, we will review certain DOE
authorizations--by the way, many of which expired a decade
ago--to ensure proper program alignment.
I believe in collaboration with the Department of Energy.
Many bipartisan good government policies can be implemented if
we work together. So I look forward to continuing a positive
working relationship.
The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted
throughout the DOE lab system is the foundation for new
technological advances. These advances enable us to remain an
international leader in innovation, security, and scientific
know-how. This is the fundamental question before us today: How
can we best harness the Department's enormous scientific,
technical, and world-class capabilities to enhance America's
national, economic, and energy security?
So I look forward to your testimony today and your response
to our questions, both this panel and the one that follows.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time. And thank you for your leadership on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning and welcome to this morning's hearing as we
continue our efforts to modernize the Department of Energy. In
October, we heard directly from Secretary Perry on his vision
for the department and today we will hear from his top
lieutenants as to how the secretary's vision will be advanced.
We also have a distinguished second panel, featuring
important perspectives on DOE's various operations concerning
the national labs, nuclear oversight, research and energy
security challenges. I appreciate all of our witnesses joining
us today.
It is always a pleasure to welcome Energy and Commerce
alumni back to the committee. Both Deputy Secretary Brouillette
and Under Secretary Menezes served this committee with
distinction--Dan as staff director and Mark as the Energy and
Environment Chief Counsel. I appreciate that you know how this
committee operates, and look forward to accomplishing much
together.
I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the
Hanford site last week, which I appreciate. Hanford is just up
the Columbia River from my Oregon district and all of us in the
Pacific Northwest have a great interest in seeing the cleanup
there completed. I would also like to recognize Administrator
Klotz's long service to our country. General Klotz has served
in distinguished positions in both Republican and Democrat
administrations throughout his career, including almost 4 years
as NNSA Administrator.
While the domestic and international energy posture is
substantially different from what it was when Congress
established the department over 40 years ago, the importance of
DOE's role in serving the national and public interest has
increased. We are reaping the benefits of energy abundance, but
legacy challenges remain, such as cleanup of Cold War sites and
permanent disposal of nuclear waste. New risks have evolved,
such as cyber security threats to the electric grid and
managing and overseeing the modernization of our aging energy
infrastructure. Our responsibility is to ensure a modernized
DOE is fully prepared to meet these 21st Century challenges.
As we examine the DOE management and mission priorities
today, we should keep in mind the benefits of the
interconnected nature of the department's missions. These
missions--national security, energy security, environmental
remediation, and mission-enabling scientific research-across
the DOE enterprise can be difficult and expensive to manage. I
am confident that the team of professionals on our first panel
today are up to this task. This committee will work through the
remainder of this Congress, and beyond, to ensure the
department's organization and missions are aligned with the
energy security challenges of today and are nimble enough to
meet the challenges of tomorrow.
At my direction, the committee has been examining whether
DOE resources are focused on its core missions. Going forward,
we will review certain DOE authorizations--many of which
expired over a decade ago--to ensure proper program alignment.
I believe, in collaboration with DOE, many bipartisan, good
government policies can be implemented. I look forward to a
positive working relationship.
The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted
throughout the DOE lab system is the foundation for new
technological advances. These advances enable us to remain an
international leader in innovation, security, and scientific
know how. This is the fundamental question before us today: how
can we best harness the department's enormous scientific,
technical, and world-class capabilities to enhance America's
national, economic, and energy security? I look forward to
hearing from all the witnesses today.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
The chair will now recognize the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, from New Jersey, 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we start a new year, it is nice to finally have a full
panel of agency witnesses before us. Last year, I was
repeatedly disappointed by the Trump administration's
unwillingness to send agency witnesses before our committee.
Today, we have an experienced panel of senior leadership
officials from the Department of Energy, including two
distinguished former Energy and Commerce staffers, Deputy
Secretary Dan Brouillette, and Under Secretary for Energy Mark
Menezes. I am pleased they are back with us, and I want to
welcome them, as well as the other agency officials.
The purpose of this hearing, according to my Republican
colleagues, is to weigh whether DOE is in need of
modernization, and what parts of its mission are still
necessary. Now, publicly, my colleagues have discussed a full-
fledged effort to reauthorize the Department, an effort that
has not occurred since the creation of DOE over 40 years ago.
However, so far, they have been short on details, and I hope to
learn more today about what my Republican colleagues want to
achieve in this endeavor. Specifically, we need to know what
real problems at the Department we are attempting to solve. If
my Republican colleagues want to take a targeted look at DOE
programs to see where improvements can be made, then I am open
to listening to their proposals. We might be able to find the
areas of agreement where we could work together to enact
solutions.
However, if the goal is simply to eliminate scores of
successful programs and arbitrarily shrink of size of DOE, like
the unrealistic and flawed Trump budget proposal last year,
then you are going to find opposition on this side of the
aisle. Last year, President Trump made his priorities clear by
proposing a budget for DOE that gutted or eliminated critical
programs that historically had bipartisan support. The
President's budget took a hatchet to popular bipartisan
programs like energy efficiency, renewable energy, the Loan
Programs Office and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
If my Republican colleagues hope to work together on this,
they should know in advance that we will not support any
reorganization that harms these programs or others which
benefit consumers and help combat climate change. And
similarly, we will not support any reorganization that attempts
to shift some or all of EPA's programs into the Department of
Energy. I do believe there are ways that the DOE can improve,
and more successfully, fulfill its mission. And I think we can
work together to make those improvements. For example,
according to the Government Accountability Office, DOE's Office
of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security
Administration have demonstrated limited progress in improving
contract management and have struggled to ensure that they have
the financial and staffing capacity to mitigate risk. So we can
and must develop bipartisan solutions that address these and
other critically important issues.
The Department of Energy is a vital part of the executive
branch, playing a critical role in incentivizing the
development of clean energy technologies, conducting cutting-
edge scientific research, and maintaining our Nation's nuclear
security. DOE is also home to a number of other agencies that
operate independently and are vital to our Nation's energy
policy, including the Energy Information Administration and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. And it is
critical that the independence of these agencies be maintained.
I was pleased to see that FERC reaffirmed its independence
yesterday when the five commissioners unanimously rejected
Secretary Perry's proposal to provide preferential rates to
coal and nuclear generation.
So we have two knowledgeable panels of witnesses before us
today, and I hope, and I look forward to hearing their
perspective. And I yield back the balance of my time. I don't
think any of my colleagues want the time, so I will yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. The gentleman yields back, so we are ready for
testimony.
I want to thank you all of you for sending your testimony
up in advance. We could look at it half-time between the
Alabama and the Georgia game. And we appreciate that. Your
testimony will be made part of the record in its entirety, and
we will give each of you 5 minutes to summarize that before we
do the questions. You know the drill, and we will start with
our friend, Dan Brouillette.
Thank you.
You have got to turn that--we have new switches since you
were here.
STATEMENTS OF HON. DAN BROUILLETTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. MARK MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY OF
ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. PAUL DABBAR, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND HON.
FRANK KLOTZ, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY, AND
ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF DAN BROUILLETTE
Mr. Brouillette. You guys have gotten a little technology
since I have been here. And I am more accustomed to being on
that side. The view is a little better from over there.
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush and members of the
committee, speaking for myself and my three colleagues, who
will also testify today, it is on honor to appear before you on
behalf of the administration and the Department of Energy. This
is my first opportunity to testify before Congress as the
Deputy Secretary of Energy, and I appreciate the opportunity to
update you on our progress.
I am proud to work for such an outstanding Department, and
especially under Secretary Perry, who is a true leader with
exceptional management skills. He has set for us several
priorities, and we will walk through this today. But just to
run through them really quickly: Promoting America energy
security by stressing innovation over regulation; enhancing
national security through nuclear security; addressing the
obligation of legacy management and nuclear waste; and the
topic of today's hearing, modernizing the Department of Energy.
With my full testimony submitted for the record, allow me to
briefly discuss these priorities.
Thanks to continued innovation from our national labs, we
have ignited a technology revolution which has led to an energy
revolution that is advancing our national security and our
energy security. Today, we use energy cleaner and more
efficiently, we obtain it from a wider diversity of sources,
and we produce it more responsibly, affordably, and in greater
abundance than previously predicted. We are closing in as a
country on full energy independence, and we are on a path to
achieving the administration's goal of energy dominance.
For far too long, U.S. energy policy has been hampered by a
false choice between two goals: growing our economy or
protecting the environment. The result was an overload of
regulations that drastically reduced energy production. Our
administration and the Department of Energy are working to
replace the ``or'' with an ``and.'' We are reducing unnecessary
regulations on American energy, and in so doing, we are
allowing our Nation to benefit fully from technological
breakthroughs that reduce pollutants while dramatically
increasing production.
We are also focused on ensuring the reliable delivery of
electrical energy to the American consumer for years to come.
America's electrical grid is strong and reliable because it is
powered by a diverse mix of energy sources. These sources work
together to mitigate disruptions and increase resiliency when
periods of extreme temperatures, like the one we just recently
faced, affect supply and demand.
As you know, last fall, Secretary Perry proposed that FERC
consider establishing new pricing rules that factor in the
important contributions of baseload generation to ensure long-
term grid resiliency and reliability. FERC responded yesterday
with the unanimous decision to direct regional transmission
organizations and independent system operators to proactively
evaluate the resilience of the bulk power system. We are
encouraged by this action, and we look forward to working with
FERC and the individual commissioners on this important issue.
But taking steps to ensure the grid's diverse energy supply
is but one aspect of DOE's critical mission. Today, the
Secretary of Energy is responsible for a broad range of
national security, scientific, and environmental activities. A
key challenge for any large enterprise with such a broad
mission is that it remain agile enough to adapt to tomorrow's
challenges. Last month, the Secretary announced his intention
to modernize the Department, to return it to its statutory
framework, and to enable us to deploy resources more
effectively and efficiently.
The modernization plan directs several key changes. First,
we have separated the Office of the Under Secretary of Science
and Energy into two Under Secretary positions, and we restored
of three Under Secretaries that are outlined in statute. The
Under Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary of Science, and
the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security and administrator of
the NNSA, all of whom who are here today to address this
subcommittee and respond to your questions.
The new Under Secretary of Energy, Mark Menezes, will focus
on energy policy, technologies, security, and reliability, and
certain departmental management functions. While the new Under
Secretary for Science, Paul Dabbar, will focus on innovation,
basic research, and environmental cleanup. General Klotz from
NNSA, who will soon be retiring, as was mentioned by the
chairman, is here today as well. And I would like to also
publicly take this opportunity to thank him for his service to
our Nation nearly 40 years, where he has served with honor and
distinction, both in and out of uniform.
In addition, elements of the former Under Secretary for
Management and Performance portfolio will now fall under my
responsibility as the Deputy Secretary. These changes are a
vital first step to better organizing the Department to carry
out its broad mission and to get much needed results for the
American people. We will continue to look at ways to maximize
our effectiveness, and we look forward to working with Congress
and, in particular, this committee. We look forward to
consultations with you toward that end.
In conclusion, I would like to thank this subcommittee once
again for inviting us to testify today. I believe each of the
Under Secretaries has brief opening statements, and then we
will all look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brouillette follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Brouillette.
Mr. Menezes, before you start, I just want to again thank
you for your time that you spend with us on a bipartisan
delegation trip to look at the terrible circumstances of the
hurricane impact in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
You may want to update us from when we went together down last
month. But thank you for appearing before us, and we look
forward to your testimony and your responses to our questions
as well.
Mr. Menezes. Thank you. And I look forward to giving you an
update on the Puerto Rico situation, should the committee
desire.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK MENEZES
Chairman Upton, Vice Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush,
Chairmans Walden and Pallone, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
along with my colleagues, on behalf of the administration and
the Department on the Department's modernization and
realignment efforts.
Support of the administration's goals of energy dominance
and economic competitiveness are realized through this
realignment effort, which more carefully aligns the resources
and efforts of the Department to promote the responsible
development of resources, as well as to ensure the reliability
and the resiliency of our electrical grid. Returning to this
committee room, I am reminded of the work accomplished on
behalf of the American people by the members and the staff of
this committee, some of whom are here today, and with whom I
have had the pleasure to work when I served on the staff. In my
2-month tenure as Under Secretary, I have had the pleasure of
meeting with and speaking to a number of former colleagues and
friends in endeavor to keep the lines of communication open as
we continue to evaluate the progress made with this
realignment.
As Chairman Upton mentioned in early December, I was
invited to travel with Chairman Walden's codel to Puerto Rico.
It was my fourth trip to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
along with eight members of this committee. And we saw the
damage firsthand that Hurricanes Irma and Maria brought to
these territories. Seeing the devastation to the electricity
delivery system as well as to the healthcare and other
services, serve as a reminder of the important work that we can
do to ensure reliable and resilient electricity delivery which
is critical to the lives of so many millions.
The President's America First Energy Plan rightly calls for
utilizing all of our energy resources in an all-of-the-above
strategy to achieve energy security and economic strength at
home and energy dominance through exports to markets abroad.
Let me give a few examples of how the Department is working
to promote the responsible development of these resources as
well as to ensure the reliability and resilience of our
electrical grid. DOE is the lead Federal agency for supporting
energy infrastructure owners and addressing cyber threats to
the energy sector. We partner with the private sector to
prepare for, protect against, and reduce the impact of cyber
threats. We are a member of the National Security Council, and
bring the deep technical expertise from our 17 national labs to
recognize and respond to cyber threats.
The Office of Fossil Energy's national energy technology
laboratory rare earth elements program focuses on developing
technologies that be help recover rare earth elements from coal
and coal by-products. The development of a domestic supply of
rare earth elements that is economically competitive will help
fuel our Nation's economic growth, secure our energy
independence, by reducing our reliance on foreign rare earth
element sources and increase our national security.
Additionally, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has
conducted research that has delivered 6 cents per kilowatt hour
utility scale solar 3 years ahead of the Department's goal.
This success allows us to focus our research priorities on a
more significant and long-term challenge, integrating variable
renewables into our electric grid.
Reliability and affordability paired with grid security
enhancements will provide a more resilient energy
infrastructure for the Nation. Improved policies for the
development of energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines,
smart grids, small modular nuclear reactors, energy storage,
along with public-private partnerships with our national
laboratories, bringing research technology to market, will help
us address our Nation's energy challenges.
The Department appreciates the committee's interest in our
realignment, and we look forward to continuing to work with you
on this and other opportunities to foster and promote
responsible energy development and promote energy dominance.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Dabbar, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL DABBAR
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush,
and members of the committee. I am honored to highlight the
mission of the Under Secretary of Science, which includes the
Office of Science, the Office of Technology Transitions, the
Office of Environmental Management, and of Legacy Management. I
could say much about our priorities in those areas, but I will
instead focus my remarks today on basic research, market-driven
innovation, and environmental cleanup.
In the area of basic research, let me highlight two near-
term projects and programs. One of the main priorities of the
Office of Science is the accelerated deployment of the first
U.S. exoscale-capable super computer with the intent to deploy
the first of the three machines in 2021, maintaining our global
leadership in computing since its inception. Computer modeling
and simulations are vital in this era of big data and complex
systems. And exoscale computing, which will be at a billion
billion calculations a second, that is 10 to the 18th,
represents the next step. The evolution of super computing
includes advances into physical sciences and high technology
areas. This area is of intense international competition, and
it is key that this project will maintain our global
leadership.
The second project area I would like to highlight is the
Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility and the Deep Underground
Neutrino Experiment, LBNF DUNE, at Fermilab outside of Chicago.
It is another important priority for our Department. Once
completed, this international center for neutrinos will study--
will pair the world's highest intensity neutrino beam at
Fermilab outside of Chicago with massive cryogenic detectors
installed deep in a former mine in south Dakota. Completion of
this project will cement U.S. preeminence in neutrino science,
one of the frontiers of high energy physics. I can report to
you today that America's global leadership in science remains
dominant, as it has for the last century. In the area of
enhancing technology transitions, the mission of the Office of
Technology Transitions is to expand the commercial impact of
R&D and the DOE portfolio by facilitating partnerships with
industry and investors in close coordination with the DOE
programs in the national labs.
Additionally, OTT is responsible for commercialization
activities across all the DOE programs. Commercialization is a
high priority of mine and the rest of the management team. I
look forward to working closely with the Energy Investor
Center, as well as with other DOE programs and our national
labs to continue facilitating engagement with investors and
with industry, and expand the pool of potential investment
capital in DOE technologies.
In the area of environmental management, the government's
nuclear weapons program has made significant contributions to
our Nation's defense. But this legacy includes significant
obligations to address liquid radioactive waste, spent nuclear
fuel, special nuclear material, transuranic and mixed low level
waste, contaminated soil and water, and thousands of access
facilities. As a former radiation control worker, I am
particularly sensitive to our obligations in the area, as well
as the health and safety of those executing on the program.
We look forward to successful completion of key projects
around low activity waste vitrification in Hanford, as well as
salt waste treatment in Savannah River. This can significantly
demonstrate risk reduction and progress in addressing cleanup
obligations. The new alignment of the Offices of Science and
Environmental Management reporting to the Under Secretary of
Science, myself, will create additional momentum in
environmental cleanup by further leveraging the experience of
the national lab complex, and exploring various potential
alternatives for science and environmental management, project
management, and contract approaches. And we hope to better
manage costs and solve the environmental management challenges
while ensuring the highest level of safety for our Federal and
contract employees, the public, and the environment.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
And Mr. Klotz, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK KLOTZ
Mr. Klotz. Thank you. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush,
Chairman Walden, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to represent the women and the men of the
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration. We greatly appreciate your interest in and your
strong support for NNSA missions, its major programs, its
infrastructure modernization projects, and, most importantly,
its people.
As America's highest ranking military leaders have
repeatedly said, nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our
national security. NNSA was established by the Congress in the
year 2000 as a separately organized agency within the
Department of Energy to carry out three vitally important and
enduring missions that directly relate to nuclear deterrence.
The first of these is maintaining the safety, the security, the
reliability, and the effectiveness of America's nuclear weapons
stockpile. The second is to reduce the threat of nuclear
proliferation and nuclear terrorism at home and abroad. And the
third is to provide nuclear propulsion to the U.S. Navy's
aircraft carriers and submarines.
NNSA relies heavily upon the scientific, technical, and
engineering talent and capabilities at its national
laboratories and its production plants in fulfilling these
national security missions. Secretary Perry has described these
unique facilities as our nation's crown jewels. And they have,
indeed, done a remarkable job in applying leading-edge science
to address the Nation's most urgent security needs.
That said, we continue to face important challenges as an
enterprise, and we clearly have work to do. For example, it is
absolutely imperative that we repair and modernize NNSA's aging
infrastructure, over 50 percent of which is more than 40 years
old, and some facilities even date back to the World War II and
post-war Manhattan project.
We must also continue to improve project management and
conduct of operations by our contractors who manage and operate
our sites. Our initiatives, to this end, have been informed to
either findings and recommendations of recent congressionally
mandated and internal reviews, and include such measures as
establishing clear lines of authority and responsibility;
adjusting contract incentive structures; holding contractors
accountable for safety, security, and performance; and assuring
appropriate levels of oversight.
The results, I think, over the last several years, speak
for themselves. Since we created an office for project
management in NNSA in 2011, the administration has delivered
its $1.4 billion capital construction project portfolio, 8
percent under the original budget. And just this year, we
delivered the High Explosive Pressing Facility at Pantex in
Amarillo, Texas. We delivered the TRU Waste Facility at Los
Alamos in New Mexico. The Deputy Secretary and I cut the ribbon
at the construction support building at the Y-12 production
plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And we are just about to finish
the administrative support complex at Pantex, which will house
about a third of the Pantex workforce later this year.
Additionally, I am proud to say all of NNSA's weapons life
extension programs are on schedule and on budget despite the
fact that we are in one of the busiest periods we have been as
an enterprise since the end of the Cold War. It is worth
emphasizing that NNSA collaborates closely with other DOE
organizations on several fronts to execute its missions. The
three national laboratories for which NNSA has responsibility,
Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, not only support NNSA's
missions, they also support other DOE programs.
Likewise, the other 14 national laboratories within the DOE
complex do substantial work in support of NNSA's missions
because of the unique skills and resources they possess.
Together, the 17 DOE national laboratories are greater than the
sum of their parts creating a world-class scientific complex of
unparalleled capability.
One of these areas, as already mentioned by my colleague,
is in developing exoscale computing capability. We are doing
this jointly with the Office of Science. The project will
dramatically advance the Nation's capabilities in science,
medicine, applied energy technology, and national security. It
will also ensure that America remains a world leader in the
highly dynamic and competitive field of computational
technologies. For this reason, this exoscale project ranks as
one of the Department's highest priorities.
Again, thank you for your very strong support, and I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you all for participating and being
here this morning. And we wish Secretary Perry well for sure.
Mr. Brouillette, as the DOE's chief operating officer, I
know this is the budget time. I am a former OMB official a lot
of years ago. And the timeframe is a little bit different than
it was when I worked for President Reagan in that the budget
had already been up by the first week of January, and now since
then, Presidents have sent their budgets up a little bit later.
Given the huge demand for resources in your important
department, I don't know if they have actually done the
passback yet from OMB back to DOE, but how is your relationship
with those folks down at the old executive office building in
terms of their response to the Secretary's budget priorities?
Mr. Brouillette. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, our
relationship----
Mr. Upton. They are not in the room. They are watching.
Mr. Brouillette. They are watching. Yes, I will be graded
on this response, I am certain.
Our relationship with Director Mulvaney has been strong. We
are fortunate to have him as an OMB Director. As you well know,
he is your former colleague, he comes from the Congress, he
understands the budget process very, very well.
With regard to our processes internally, we are in active
conversations with the OMB. We have not yet completed the
budget process. We do expect to see the final product of their
work very, very shortly. And we expect it will be sent to
Congress very, very shortly as well.
Mr. Upton. The Department's role to maintain the Nation's
nuclear deterrent is obviously a very important and vital
mission. Recent reviews have found that the structure of the
NNSA has sometimes isolated DOE's work from the needed cabinet
level leadership. Can you commit to us, and certainly Mr. Klotz
as well, that you will be working to ensure appropriate
secretarial leadership and management support to enhance that
vital mission?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes. Absolutely. As you know, Mr.
Chairman, this committee was instrumental in 1999, in the
general time frame, in the creation of NNSA. So we understand
full well what the direction of the U.S. Congress is toward the
Department. It has given us the ability to work closely
together. The Department and the NNSA collaborate very, very
closely on the national security mission, and as well as other
missions, which includes environmental cleanup, the cleanup of
those sites.
I will defer if General Klotz has any further comments that
he might want to make about that collaboration. But I can
assure you and this committee that we are working closely
together.
Mr. Upton. General Klotz.
Mr. Klotz. Chairman, I would echo everything that the
Deputy Secretary said. I think we have a very close working
relationship. We had one in the previous administration. We
certainly have one in this administration as well.
One of the things that Congress did in creating the NNSA
and the position of the administrator of the NNSA is they made
that same individual also an Under Secretary within the
Department which allows that individual to work very, very
closely with the colleagues and throughout.
I might add, one of the points that I really want to foot
stomp in my oral statement applies to that part of the DOE
complex out in the laboratories, the 17 laboratories. And as I
indicated, we work very, very closely together. The non-NNSA
laboratory support us significantly in our national security
work, and we do an awful lot of basic science research that has
relevance to the work they are doing as well. So I think this
is a win-win organizational structure which has been created.
Mr. Upton. My remaining comment, I would like each of you
to respond just briefly with regard to the cyber threats, not
only on DOE, but obviously the facilities that you oversee. So
we know that there had been a number of briefings, public and
private, over the years in terms of the increasing cyber
threats. We know that literally hundreds of times daily it is
the--likely attempts. And what can we do to ensure the safety
for all of our citizens?
Mr. Brouillette.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Cybersecurity is one of
our highest priorities. The Department of Energy is the sector
specific agency responsible for cybersecurity within the energy
community, or energy industry, I should say. One of the first
steps that the Secretary directed me to take as the Deputy and
as the chief operating officer was to ensure that our own house
is in order. We are obviously going to work with the industry,
work closely with what is known as the ESCC, the Electric
Sector Coordinating Council, to take input from our industry
partners. I am aggressively focused at the moment on our
inside-of-the-house activities. So working closely with our own
CIO to make sure that our Department, our complex is protected
on cyber matters.
Mr. Upton. And do you have any recommendations for us in
terms of trying to make your job easier?
Mr. Brouillette. I will happily come back to the committee
and share with you some additional thoughts once I can get my
arms around this complex. But, sir, at the moment, I can't
think of anything that I would need from this particular
committee or the Congress.
Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired.
Do you have something you would like to add to that
response? If not, go ahead, Mark.
Mr. Menezes. One thing that we are doing, in Office of
Electricity, we are actually running a nationwide grid system
evaluation, really, if we can continue to supply the national
critical assets with the power and eliminate the potential risk
of cyber attack. This has not been done, and so this will be
done by our Office of Electricity.
Mr. Upton. I think there was an exercise that was supposed
to take place not too long ago.
My time has expired. Let me----
Mr. Menezes. Grid X. We did----
Mr. Upton [continuing]. Yield to the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of the
witnesses, I want to ask questions. If you don't have answers
to the questions in that I only have 5 minutes, I want to allow
you to respond in writing. As a matter of fact, that would be
good.
Deputy Secretary Brouillette, last week, my office reached
out to staff at DOE in preparation for today's hearing
inquiring about the percentage of minorities and the senior
positions within the agency as well as it is much easier for
the agency to consider policies and initiatives that address
the needs of minorities when there are minorities at the table
when decisions are being made.
Are you prepared today to share some of these figures with
the subcommittee? Specifically, can you provide a percentage or
number of minorities in leadership position within the
Secretary's office, the review boards, the boards and council,
and among the SES staff?
Also, can you, or Under Secretary Dabbar, share with us a
number of minority directors at the 17 national labs and on the
percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership positions
at those labs?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I would be happy to provide
those to you. I am aware of the question. I will respond to you
formally in writing and make those numbers available to you.
I would also like to share with you, at least, some of my
early experiences at the Department. My first impressions----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I only have a few minutes.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. Let me ask Mr. Dabbar.
Mr. Dabbar, can you answer the question? How many minority
directors of the 17 national labs, and on the percentage of
minority staffers in leadership positions in the labs?
Mr. Dabbar. I apologize. Could you repeat? Someone was
coughing.
Mr. Rush. Can you or Under Secretary share with us the
number of minority directors at these 17 national labs and on
the percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership
positions at those labs?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman Rush.
No. I will be glad to share that information with you. I do
not----
Mr. Rush. OK. Thank you. You don't have them.
All right. Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with the
minorities energy initiatives that were created under former
Secretary Moniz?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Rush. What are your plans for moving forward with that?
Mr. Brouillette. We are going to continue that important
program. I understand its importance to not only Congress, but
the communities that are served by that program. We have every
intention of continuing it.
Mr. Rush. Now, then, the Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity have been moved to the Deputy Secretary level.
What are the plans for, in this office, moving forward?
Mr. Brouillette. The same answer, sir. We are going to
continue that. It is a very important program. It is vital to
the communities that it is serves. And we see its continued
importance to the Department.
Mr. Rush. In your response in writing to me----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. Be very specific. I would like to
know what plans and the implementation schedule, what those
are?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. Secretary Dabbar, your jurisdiction within the
Office of Science includes responsibility for doling out
taxpayer research dollars in the form of grants to institutions
of higher learning.
Can you provide this subcommittee with a list of schools,
universities that have received funding over the past 10 years
from your Department as well as the amount distributed to each
institution? Also, do you know the percentage of funding that
is loaned to minorities serving institutions, including
historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-
serving institutions over the past 10 years?
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman Rush, yes. About $3 billion a year
is distributed through various FOAs out of the Department. It
is a very large portion of the budget. The vast majority of the
$3 billion across all our various programs goes to
universities, and I would be glad to follow up with the
specific information in writing that you are asking for.
Mr. Rush. And I want to know about black-serving
institutions and historically black colleges and universities
and Hispanic-serving institutions.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir, we will do that.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question for
Mr. Dabbar.
You oversee national labs. Can you provide this
subcommittee with the approximate dollar amount of contracts
that the labs dole out to private companies and vendors? Is
their goal to include minority contractors? Have the labs
reached that goal? And if not, is there a plan in place to
increase minority participation for contracting and vending
opportunities within the labs?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, we will.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you all. The gentleman's time
has expired.
The chair would recognize the chair of the full committee,
Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again,
thank you all for being here. We look forward to your written
responses to Mr. Rush's questions.
The Office of Environment Management oversees the
environmental remediation projects at some of our nation's most
contaminated sites, including the Hanford reservation which I
referenced earlier, located just up the Columbia River from
where I live.
In 2013, then-energy Secretary Moniz moved the
environmental management out of the responsibilities of the
NNSA administrator to a newly created Under Secretary for
Management and Performance. And DOE's recent realignment
shifted the office to now be managed by the Under Secretary for
Science. So it seems like it has been moving around a bit on
who has the responsibility. Those of us in the northwest care
deeply about that and even more deeply about getting it cleaned
up and protected, especially given some of the failures that
have occurred eventually in some of the tanks and all.
So Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Under Secretary Dabbar,
will you please describe the reasoning for this shift, and, for
example, what expertise is aligned with the Office of Science
that may prove beneficial to similar large project management
challenges that are associated with the EM's mission and give
us an update on the latest at Hanford and where that waste
would go if we ever get Yucca open. So, Mr. Brouillette, maybe
you'd like to start out.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will share with you some of the thinking that we had
behind that particular move. And it starts with some of the
first comments that I heard when I became a young staffer on
this committee back in 1989. And that was along the lines of
Hanford is very complex. Hanford is very complicated. It is a
technical issue and, therefore, we haven't cleaned it up yet.
And Secretary Perry has heard those very same arguments.
And the thought process that we went through was how can we
figure out how to fix this problem. And we have some of the
best, some of the brightest scientists in the world working at
the Department of Energy. So we thought that perhaps by
combining these programs and forcing some collaboration between
the environmental management program and these scientists would
allow us to find the technical answers that we need to find to
begin the actual cleanup of that site as well as other
environmental management sites throughout the country. I will
defer to Mr. Dabbar as to what the specific steps that we will
take. But that was the initial thought.
From a management standpoint, you should also know, too,
that the Office of Science within the Department of Energy
stands head and shoulders above many Federal agencies in its
ability to conduct proper, efficient, and effective contract
management. They do that very, very well. So we want to avail
ourselves to those talents as well within the Department of
Energy.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Secretary Dabbar.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. Chairman Walden, as the Deputy Secretary
mentioned, I think there are two major buckets of reasons
that--in terms of the specifics why the coordination can help
in the execution of the mission of environmental management
upon this reorganization. The first is technology. There are a
number of different areas within the national lab complex that
have linkages to the mission of environmental management. As
you know, within the BES area, the Office of Science, we have
chemistry. And a large portion of the issues associated with
environmental management are radiochemistry issues. And
obviously, between the chemistry functions as well as the
nuclear side, nuclear physics side of the Office of Science,
there is an awful lot of technology overlap. On top of that,
there are other examples such as computer modeling of various
disposition of various radionuclides, which we can use our high
performance computing for. So it is a great degree of
opportunity.
And then the other bucket is project management. As the
Deputy Secretary mentioned, the Office of Science is one of the
three major areas that deal with project management, and it
generally executes on time and on budget. And we think that the
project management skills associated with other areas including
the Office of Science.
Mr. Walden. So you were just out there, right?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Can you give me, in the 45 seconds left, your
update? Are we still on target?
Mr. Dabbar. So there are things that we are moving along
with that we are very excited about and we think are very
positive. And there are some areas that have challenges. In
terms of the positive areas, finally, we are moving down the
road of making glass at the plateau. The DF LAW, which is the
low activity waste treatment plant, is coming online. And we
are going to make some glass, and we are going to clean up some
tanks.
We are also looking at closing out our first tank farm,
possibly, first time ever. And we are looking to ship some
waste off sight, first time ever. So there is some very
positive things that we are executing on.
Mr. Walden. When and where?
Mr. Dabbar. Well, there are some options around TRU. TRU
Waste is the things that we are looking at, and there is a
couple different options very specifically that we are looking
at. We have not identified exactly which one, but there are
specific locations. And for that shipment portion example that
we are focused on, we are focused on TRU.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. You are recognized, Mr. Pallone, from New
Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are of Mr. Brouillette.
I was pleased to see FERC yesterday unanimously terminated
the grid resiliency rulemaking that Secretary Perry proposed
last year. And that flawed proposal would have subsidized
certain coal and nuclear plants under the guise of a grid
reliability crisis. And this is chiefly a policy matter, in my
opinion, that should be left to Congress and to the states.
On October 12 of 2017, I sent a letter to Secretary Perry
requesting additional details regarding the development of this
proposed rulemaking, including a list of DOE staff who put
together the proposal and a list of all meetings where DOE
staff or leadership discussed the proposal with outside
organizations. And I saw that photos were published recently
showing Murray Energy's CEO Robert Murray handing Secretary
Perry a so-called action plan last March, a portion of which
states, ``Immediate action needs to be taken to require
organized power markets to value fuel security, fuel diversity,
and ancillary services that only base-load generating assets,
especially coal plants, can provide.''
And so, these photos made me question how much outside
influence went into the preparation of the proposed rulemaking
and who those outside parties were.
Now, Mr. Brouillette, I haven't received response to my
letter, which was sent nearly 3 months ago, so I wanted to ask
first: Do you know the status of DOE's response to this letter?
Mr. Brouillette. No, sir, I don't, but I will happily look
into it and make sure that you are responded to.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Obviously you are making a
commitment to ensure I receive a total response, and you will
do that.
Mr. Brouillette. I was just handed a note, sir. It seems
that our lawyers, our GC office is responding to your note,
preparing a response, but I will ensure that you receive it.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Thank you. Now, let me go
to the second thing that I want to talk about, and that is this
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board panel. I would like to ask
about that and its current status. As far as I can tell, the
board, which has historically provided advice and
recommendations to the Secretary on key DOE issues has not been
reconstituted under Secretary Perry; in fact, the DOE website
still shows members of the board that served under the Obama
administration, including one of the witnesses on our second
panel today, Dan Reicher.
Now, Secretary Menezes relied heavily on advice and
guidance from this advisory board, which put together several
comprehensive reports during his tenure, and it seems to me, my
opinion is that Secretary Perry, who had little experience on
national energy issues before taking the helm at DOE, and even
proposed eliminating the Department all together, when he was a
presidential candidate, would benefit from such a group of
advisors.
So my question first is, am I correct that the Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board has not been reconstituted under
Secretary Perry? Is that accurate?
Mr. Brouillette. I think it is accurate to say that it has
not been disbanded. The Secretary's advisor board still exists.
The Secretary is still in the process of evaluating membership
on that board. But at this moment in time, I don't think he has
made any decisions with regard to that particular board in
terms of its membership. But I can tell you that it is an
important component of the advisory function at DOE, and I
think he has every intention of maintaining it.
Mr. Pallone. So from what you said, and I don't want to put
words in your mouth, you are saying that he does intend to keep
it and appoint some members, it is just that he hasn't gotten
around to it.
Mr. Brouillette. I think that is correct.
Mr. Pallone. I just think it is important that the
Secretary have the guidance of a body like that.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. As he makes key decisions.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. And obviously, you agree.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. And hopefully, he is going to move ahead with
that.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, he will.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to this
subcommittee. Two of you, especially, should be very familiar
with this room. You worked with a lot of the portraits that are
up on the walls. So it is good to see you all back. I don't
know whether to congratulate you on progress or to commiserate
with you on regression, but I am glad to see you.
Before I ask my questions, I doubt that too many people--
General Klotz was talking about Pantex, and one of the unknown
stories in my life is that in 1972, I was offered a job at
Pantex as an industrial engineer with a company called Mason &
Hanger, which was a contractor. It is the weirdest plant
interview I ever did. They said, we can't let you see the
plant. We can't tell you what we make. We can't tell you what
you are going to do, but we really want you to come to work.
And I asked a couple of questions, and they just said, we can't
tell you.
So then when I left the office, out in Amarillo, or outside
of Amarillo, I saw this big bomb casing, big, big bomb casing.
I said, well, that gives me a clue as to what they do here. But
not too many members probably know what Pantex--I don't know
what they do now, but then they actually made some of our
nuclear weapons, and maybe they still do or they just maintain
those.
Mr. Klotz. Well, two thoughts, sir. One is, your career
turned out OK, even though he didn't come work for us. And,
two, the Pantex is the one facility where all the various
components that make up a nuclear weapon are shipped, and it is
the highly skilled workforce of people in the panhandle region
that----
Mr. Barton. Well, I know they are very proud of it.
Chairman Thornberry is very proud that that facility is in his
district. Well, I have a number of questions in terms of the
Department's structure and reauthorization. Chairman Walden has
asked that I try to lead an effort to reauthorize the
Department on a bipartisan basis. So I just have some kind of
general questions I want to ask Deputy Secretary Brouillette.
What is the number of direct personnel that is actually
working at the Department right now, not contractors, but full-
time Federal employees?
Mr. Brouillette. Sir, it is approximately 13,000. Just
north of 13,000.
Mr. Barton. How many contract employees does the Department
have authority over?
Mr. Brouillette. The approximate number is going to be just
north of 100,000.
Mr. Barton. 100,000. OK.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes.
Mr. Barton. Do you know in terms of the contractors how
many of the primary contracts are competitively bid as opposed
to no bid contracts, sole source contracts?
Mr. Brouillette. No, sir. In terms of an absolute number, I
can't give you that, but I am happy to respond for that on the
record. We will do the research and provide that information to
your office.
Mr. Barton. OK. Again, in terms of these contracts, I know
some of them are long-term contracts. Do you have any idea what
the average length of the prime contracts are?
Mr. Brouillette. It really depends on the work that is
being done, but I will defer to the two Under Secretaries who
may be able to provide you with a more precise answer. Paul.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Chairman Barton. It does depend on which
ones, but in a typical science contract, many of them are 5
years with a 5-year extension. That is a typical contract.
Obviously, within a lot of our national labs, some have very
long-term relationship needs and are linked to universities.
Some of them are more engineering and construction jobs, so if
you take environmental management or some of the general areas,
those are very project specific. So depending on the length of
the project, many times they could be 3 or 4 years. And some of
the very longer term ones, such as at Hanford, they are a bit
longer, given the length of the construction.
Mr. Barton. Could the Department give the committee a list
of these large primary contracts and when they are next
scheduled to be up for renewal?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. If we are going to do a reauthorization bill,
that is some information we would need.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, we would be happy to provide
that to the committee.
Mr. Barton. One of the things that now Senator, then
Congressman, Ed Markey, and I worked on 10 or 15 years ago was
the creation of a northeast gasoline reserve in fuel oil
reserve. And I notice those have now been established in almost
every State in the northeast--has either/and a fuel oil and a
gasoline reserve--are these facilities similar to tank farms
where you actually store fuel onsite, or is it a contractual
arrangement where the private sector has to provide the fuel if
it is called on to?
Mr. Brouillette. Sir, with regard to the strategic
petroleum reserve, we actually retain the fuel onsite.
Mr. Barton. So these gasoline reserves and fuel-off
centers, like in Massachusetts and New York and New Jersey,
they actually have the fuel onsite?
Mr. Brouillette. I will check on the gasoline reserves in
the northeast to ensure that this answer is correct. It is my
understanding that at least partially those fuels are stored
onsite. But with regard to the strategic petroleum reserve----
Mr. Barton. I know the crude oil is.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, it is.
Mr. Barton. My last question is. Is the Department and the
Trump administration supportive of a Department of Energy
reauthorization bill in this Congress?
Mr. Brouillette. Sir, I am sorry, the question is, do we
support a reauthorization bill?
Mr. Barton. I have had informal contact and discussions
with Secretary Perry, but I have never asked for a formal
response on the record, so I am now doing so.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. We would be very enthusiastic about
working with Congress to reauthorize the programs. With regard
to the actual policy, OMB is going to be a part of this process
as well. But as a Department, I can assure you that we stand
ready to assist the committee if it proceeds.
Mr. Barton. I appreciate that. And I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
witnesses for being here. Mr. Deputy Secretary Brouillette?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peters. You said something that I have said in my
campaign speeches for 20 years, 15 years, however long I have
been doing this, which is that the choice between a clean
environment and a prosperous economy is a false choice. And I
wanted to follow up just in terms of the Department's policy
with respect to that.
I read through the testimony, I saw some stuff about
environmental cleanup, but what I didn't see was reference to
some of the more current discussion around greenhouse gases.
And I just wanted to ask you, is it a policy in any respect of
the United States Department of Energy to limit the emission of
greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants, including
methane and black carbon?
Mr. Brouillette. Is it the policy of the Department to
limit it?
Mr. Peters. To limit those emissions.
Mr. Brouillette. Well, we are not the regulator, if that is
your question. We don't regulate those types of emissions, that
falls more to the EPA. But with regard to finding technological
solutions, using the scientists in our labs to develop new
technologies, that would limit those types or reduce those
types of emissions. Absolutely, that is part of the
Department's mission.
Mr. Peters. Would that be a reference to carbon capture
specifically, or do you mean----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, it is. The Secretary has been very
gauged on that issue. He just returned, as a matter of fact,
from overseas, where he was part of a clean energy ministerial.
We have been working with our international partners around the
world to see that technology further developed and utilized in
other countries around the world.
Mr. Peters. Beyond that, are there any other technological
solutions the Department is pursuing to reduce or limit
greenhouse gas emission?
Mr. Brouillette. I might defer to our Under Secretaries as
they run those programs.
Mr. Menezes. Specifically, our Office of Fossil, for
example, is developing new technologies on small coal units,
for example, where one of the criteria is reduced emissions. So
it is actually in the production of electricity is where the
technology is focusing on, not just post-combustion where you
capture it and store it.
We are developing really, across the broad spectra, we are
looking at fuels that can be produced and used at the front end
to lower emissions than during the actual combustion process
itself to reduce emissions, and then post-combustion capture
and sequestration.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Deputy Secretary, let me just say, is it
fair to say that, in developing resiliency and energy security,
it is not part of your calculus to determine which energy
sources are cleaner than the other, to be abbreviated about it?
Mr. Brouillette. I think the Nation is served by the all-
of-the-above strategy. I don't know that we are going to pick
and choose the generation sources or the energy sources, that
is where the American people--for other policymakers. But if
your question is related to our support of an all-of-the-above
strategy, the answer to that is clearly, yes, we do support
renewables, we support wind, we support solar, we also support
nuclear, as well as coal and natural gas.
Mr. Peters. Do you have a position on the Tax Code's
treatment of any particular energy source?
Mr. Brouillette. No, sir.
Mr. Peters. I guess the other question I have is with
respect to energy. First of all, I was struck by what we all do
agree on. We talked a lot in this committee about cybersecurity
and grid security, we want solid distribution, and basic
research. And I pointed out before that the ARPA-E program, I
think, since it was created in 2009, has provided $1.5 billion
in funding to more than 580 projects that has led to the
formation of 56 new companies, 68 projects with other
government agencies, including Defense that has attracted more
than $1.8 billion in additional private sector investment.
Mr. Dabbar, is that the kind of investment you want to see
continued when you talk about basic science research?
Mr. Dabbar. Overall, we are very supportive of the programs
that we have at the Department around commercialization. ARPA-E
is certainly a portion of it. If you think about the large FOA
bucket, which is a grant bucket, we have about $3 billion a
year across our various different areas. And ARPA-E is about
$300 million of that, so it is about 10 percent.
Mr. Peters. I was concerned that the President's initial
budget zeroed it out. And I spoke to the Secretary about it
when he was here. He indicated that maybe he didn't agree with
that, I certainly don't. I want to say that I am sympathetic to
all the agencies that come testify for us in the wake of this
so-called tax reform that added at least $1 trillion to a
national debt. And we are looking at $1 trillion deficits going
forward. I think it puts a lot of pressure on that. But I do
want to highlight that as something that I agree deserves our
support as a Congress and hope that we can figure out a way to
responsibly fund that.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Yield to Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our four
witnesses. A great panel. Two neighbors from Louisiana,
Secretary Brouillette and Secretary Menezes. A Naval Academy
graduate, a fellow sailor, a submariner, Mr. Dabbar. And
Lieutenant General Klotz, who has the high honor of being a
native born Texan, Lubbock, Texas. Welcome.
As a former naval aviator, over 1300 hours of P-3 Orion
submarine hunter, I was trained to track, attack, and destroy
Russian ballistic missile submarines. And while I can never
confirm nor deny that I flew with nuclear weapons, we were
qualified to drop what is called a B-57 nuclear death bomb.
That bomb was designed to destroy Russian submarines where it
created a big wave of air on the break and keel by the weight
of the boat. That bomb has since been retired. But as you all
know, we still have nuclear weapons as part of our strategic
deterrence.
My first question is for you, General Klotz. DOE and NNSA
has the task of keeping, as you said, our nuclear weapons safe,
reliable, and effective. And you have years of experience
administrating the nuclear security programs of the Department.
You understand the challenges to this complex mission.
My question is, please discuss the role of the national lab
system, not only the weapons labs, but the whole system in
maintaining our nuclear deterrent and national security?
Mr. Klotz. Thank you, sir. That is a wonderful question.
People often ask me what was I most surprised about coming into
this particular job 4 years ago, and one of my answers is, I
understood how the three national laboratories, which NNSA has
responsibility for, contribute to that mission. What I didn't
realize, until I went out and visited all of the other 14
laboratories is how much work is being done throughout the
entire system. We use the other laboratories because of the
special scientific and engineering skills that are resident in
those laboratories, some of the unique equipment that they
have. But I would say of all 17 laboratories, we have direct
funding going to the vast majority of them. And even those
laboratories that we do not directly fund, many times they are
subcontractors to other laboratories doing work for the NNSA,
both in the weapons activity account, and in the defense
nuclear non-proliferation account, as well as naval reactors.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. My next question is for Secretary
Brouillette and Secretary Dabbar. Houston, my home town, is the
oil and gas capital of the entire world. I am proud of that. As
we say in Texas, that ain't changing any time soon. Natural gas
is now very abundant, and it has now become the core of
electric grids across the country. At the same time, though,
the fastest growing jobs in Texas are actually in wind power.
We are exploding, number one in America in production of wind
power.
We have an important role to play, but some have said that
unlocking that source of energy, it is right, will have to have
better batteries, better transmission lines, and also the wind
is always blowing when we need it and where we need it.
Could you talk about how DOE balances and supports new
developments like wind, a crucial source of energy, while
moving forward with research to alternative energy?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, sir, as a
Texan, and as a part-time resident of Texas myself for 12
years. I was down with USAA in San Antonio, Texas. I understand
the record of Secretary Perry, I wanted to call him Governor
Perry. But as Governor of Texas, he approached this with an
all-of-the-above strategy. Texas is now the largest wind energy
producer--one of the largest, I should say, in the United
States. It is a very, very important component of our diversity
mix for the purposes of generating electricity.
What we are doing at the Department of Energy is trying to
find ways to manage the variability of those intermittent
sources on the grid, as well as using the science labs to
develop the next stage, the next level, if you will, of battery
storage, of battery power. And I will let Under Secretary Paul
Dabbar speak to the specific activities that he has undertaken
as the head of our science labs.
Mr. Olson. Commander Dabbar.
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. As someone who grew up
in Oklahoma and saw the wind come over from Texas, I am very
much appreciative of that--we kind of caught the tail end of
what wasn't used in Texas.
One particular area of the Office of Science, and this goes
back to our previous question around renewables, is in the
battery area. One of the big strengths of what the Office of
Science does is in the area of battery technology beyond
lithium. Actually, at our laboratory in Oregon, they branded
the chemistry area for batteries beyond lithium. So there is at
least a little bit of marketing in the science organization.
There is a number of different batteries that we are
working on: multiple batteries, including magnesium ion, which
includes solid state that we are working on at a very early
stage; flow batteries, which can be used for grid applications;
and next generation lithium ion, using our light sources and
other modeling techniques on the computer side to improve upon
existing lithium ion.
We think this is a major idea in terms of being able to
take applications from technologies in the Office of Science
and really move forward and really leverage renewables from an
intermittent source to something that can be more 24 by 7.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, my time has expired. USAA member for
life. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
witnesses here today. Secretary Brouillette, in your testimony,
you highlight the importance of energy security and explain
that this energy security, as well as our economic prosperity
depends on continued American ingenuity and innovation. And you
continue by saying that Secretary Perry and yourself are very
proud of the advancements that DOE's research and development
has spurred. That DOE-funded R&D is truly inspirational. I want
you to know that we all agree with that statement, however,
many of my colleagues and myself are greatly concerned by the
budget request we received from the Department of Energy
earlier this year.
And I just have a few yes-or-no questions about the budget
proposals for you. For instance, you emphasized the importance
of reliable electricity, but the proposal proposes cutting
electricity delivery and energy reliability budget from $206
million to a $120 million, which is a decrease of over 40
percent. Can you tell me just yes or no, do you anticipate
revising that cut for this year's budget request?
Mr. Brouillette. It is hard for me to answer yes or no,
sir, because we are going through the process that is ongoing.
Mr. Doyle. Try your best to do that because our time is
limited.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. I think this office is very
important. We are going to work with OMB to find an appropriate
number.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you. Also, President Trump's repeated
promises on clean coal throughout the campaign and presidency,
I want to point out that many members on both sides of the
aisle support technological innovations that aim to achieve
that goal.
In fact, my colleague on this committee, Representative
McKinley and I, lead a letter each year that would boost
funding for that research. Last year, we proposed increasing
the funding for fossil R&D by over 30 percent to $829 million.
However, the Department of Energy's budget request proposed
cutting the fossil energy R&D budget by $352 million. That is
an over 55 percent cut down to $280 million. And it is Mr.
Reicher's testimony that we will hear when the second panel
gets here highlights, it actually cuts R&D funding for CCUS
specifically by nearly 85 percent.
Do you anticipate increasing the Department's budget
request for fossil R&D, and specifically, for CCUS next year?
Mr. Brouillette. I anticipate that the Congress will want
to support that at a higher number.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Yes, they will.
Mr. Brouillette. That is exactly right. That is exactly
right.
Mr. Doyle. Your testimony also sings the praises of energy
and technological innovation. But the budget proposes, as Mr.
Peters pointed out, eliminating ARPA-E. This is very perplexing
to a lot of us. The nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine released a report last year that
analyzed ARPA-E, a congressionally-authorized program. And that
report says ARPA-E is, in many cases, successfully enhancing
the economic and energy security of the United States by
funding transformational activities. And it continues to say,
importantly at this early stage, the committee has found no
signs that ARPA-E is failing to deliver on its mission and
goals, or is on a path to failure, or is in need of reform.
Do you plan on revising your budget requests for next year
with regards to ARPA-E?
Mr. Brouillette. That is a decision, sir, that is going to
be made by OMB. But there are differences of opinion about
whether or not the Department should be in that particular
business. We have offered a proposal to the Congress, but I
will assure you the Congress funds the agency or funds ARPA-E,
we will execute to the letter of the law.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, we will be doing that, too. Thank you. I
want to also highlight a DOE study published in 2016 that
highlights the importance of CCUS technologies. In it, the
authors describe the industrial CCUS as the low-hanging fruit
among CCUS projects, because many industrial processes produce
relatively pure streams of CO2.
DOE has previously funded industrial CCUS pilot projects
through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. And though
there have been proposals to delineate natural gas CCUS
technology and coal CCUS technologies in the previous
administration's budget request, would you support separate R&D
funding source for industrial CCUS?
Mr. Brouillette. I would, sir, but again, that is a final
decision that is going to be made by OMB and the Congress
itself.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. And let me just finish by saying that
I am pleased to participate in an energy efficiency and
manufacturing roundtable hosted by Scott Energy Innovation
Institute at Carnegie Mellon this coming Friday, and
Representative McKinley, a leader on this issue, will be
joining me, as will many manufacturers and energy companies in
my district.
President Trump has placed a special emphasis on the
manufacturing sector, and understandably so, as the industry
has been suffering for too long. In this proposed
reauthorization of DOE, would you want to change the Advanced
Manufacturing Office or the Clean Energy Manufacturing
Initiative, and if so, what kind of changes would you foresee?
Mr. Brouillette. As a former executive at Ford Motor
Company, I understand full well and understand keenly the
important work that is done by the advanced manufacture and
technology folks at DOE, and I happen to support what they do.
With regard to future changes, I would like to work with you
and this committee to determine what those might be. I have not
given it significant thought before you asked me the question,
but I will do so.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. We appreciate you being here today,
and we look forward to working with you.
Mr. Brouillette. Thanks.
Mr. Doyle. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have
you all here. I am going to try to go quick. I have got four
short questions.
First, Dan, Secretary Perry has stated that it is the
Federal Government's legal and moral obligation to permanently
dispose of spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. If Congress
provides the funding, is DOE prepared to reconstitute the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which we call
OCRWM, and resume its statutorily required regulatory review of
the Yucca Mountain license application?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. If you provide the funds, we
will execute to the letter of the law.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you. I have been flipping around.
Mr. Dabbar, just because you mentioned it. I understand what
making glass means in this whole Hanford debate. Had we not
broken the law with the last administration, and had we kept to
the timeframe per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its
amendments, where would that glass go?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. So the vitrification I
was referring to for DF LAW, which is the new vitrification
facility which is coming on line, is low activity waste. That
can be stored onsite at Hanford. It does not need to go to----
Mr. Shimkus. What part of the Hanford waste is designated
to go to the final repository? And you can name that for me.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir. That would be the high level waste,
which that building is still under construction, but that also
is planned to be vitrified in the future, and that would need
to be disposed of offsite.
Mr. Shimkus. And if we were on schedule, per the law, where
are you and DOE designing the cast and the delivery systems to
finally go to? There is an easy answer.
Mr. Dabbar. So, in general, there has been, I think, a lot
of debate by this House about whether----
Mr. Shimkus. I am not asking about the debate by this
House, I am asking about the Department's position and current
law.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. The previous analysis of where it was
supposed to go was to go to the Yucca Mountain site.
Mr. Shimkus. That is where it is supposed to go per law.
And had we not broken the law and not derailed the timeline,
that is where it would be going. So, thank you, that was a lot
harder than I thought.
Let me go to Mark real quick. Under the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, they are doing a study called
Co-Optima. I am not sure if you are aware of that. I would ask
you to look into it and report back to me on this. It is
basically an energy efficiency in transportation vehicles.
Actually, Secretary Brouillette might know a little bit
about it, but it is going to be very, very helpful to us as we
try to thread the needle on this RFS debate. And it is really a
high-efficiency, high-octane research project that you all are
doing. And I need to know when you are going to be done with
that, and that will be very, very helpful in this. So could you
get back to us?
Mr. Menezes. We will. We will look into it and we will
provide the response.
Mr. Shimkus. Dan, do you want to add anything to that since
you----
Mr. Brouillette. No, sir. I know that this is an ongoing
conversation between you and the administration and others in
Congress, and we will get right back to you on the results of
that study, or at least the progress of that study.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, because that study I think it is linchpin
on how we can thread the needle on this, if it comes out the
way I think a lot of us have hopes and expectations. Mark, I
want to go back to you--and maybe there will be some other
folks that this kind of addresses some of the other agencies
here. Secretary Perry signed a--this is on the uranium market,
and Secretary Perry, let me see the--I have the Honeywell
Conversion Facility in Metropolis, Illinois that is idle
because we think--part of the reason is the DOE's activity and
the uranium market through the Uranium Bartering Program,
Secretary Perry wrote a letter last year in reference to how
that should not affect uranium mining, and our individual
processing facility, and our ability. We think it is. Can
anybody comment on this because of the idling of that?
Mr. Dabbar. I would be glad to take that, sir. I think, as
you know, a previous administration had looked at funding part
of the Portsmouth D&D through funding of sales of uranium, and
that there is a requirement that the Department does an
analysis on the impact of those sales. That current program is
expected to be completed in 2021. And the Department earlier
this year, and the Secretary signed off on a detailed analysis
that took down the amount that we are selling this year to 1200
MTU. And that is the current plan. Once again, the current plan
is that it will end by 2021.
Mr. Shimkus. I would just say, it is impacting the jobs and
the economic activity in my district in this plan. I would hope
you all would take that into consideration.
Mr. Upton. Ms. Castor.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Menezes, in
Puerto Rico, over 40 percent of the electricity customers have
been without power now for about 4 months. And I understand
that that is well over half a million American citizens. I was
surprised that in the emergency aid package, what was proposed
by the Trump administration, and passed at the end of the year
in the House, it did not include a lot of direction and
flexibility for the Department of Energy working with FEMA and
the Army Corps of Engineers to build the more resilient grid
that we discussed in this committee.
Can you give us an update on what is happening right now
and the division of labor to help get the power back on, and do
it in a resilient way that protects the American taxpayer in
the future?
Mr. Menezes. Let me use this as an opportunity to just
update with the numbers. As of the 6th, we have 80.8 percent of
the normal peak load restored, and now we have 60 percent of
the customers with power--that is 885,000 homes and businesses.
We have 87 percent of the substations that are operating. And
we still have 3,000 personnel down there working every day to
restore power to the people of Puerto Rico.
With respect to the request for assistance, that is going
to be an OMB, I think, agency answer to provide for you. I know
we certainly gave them----
Ms. Castor. Do you feel like you have the authority,
working with the Army Corps and FEMA, to build a more resilient
grid, to not just build back what was there that was outdated
and it was bankrupt, but to do something to protect taxpayers
in the future?
Mr. Menezes. Yes.
Ms. Castor. Or do you need additional authority from the
Congress to do that?
Mr. Menezes. Well, again, I can't speak for the
administration, but from my own personal observations of having
been involved in the Puerto Rico efforts since I have been
sworn in, it is clear that DOE's expectations of what it can do
exceeds its authorities and the resources that are provided to
it, particularly----
Ms. Castor. I think I understand your question that you
need greater authority.
Mr. Menezes. Particularly on the resiliency, though,
however, we are leading the interagency effort to model to
determine how when we move toward--after restoration toward
rebuild----
Ms. Castor. I am afraid it might be too late by that point
if we are doing the modeling now, because we have the
technology. The national labs and industry have all the tools
at their disposal. But if we are just going to restore power
the way it was, it is not going to work as well.
I want to move on. I heard what you all said, you are
committed to innovation, you are committed to diversity of
sources, but everything going on at the Department of Energy
just belies that fact when you look at the very significant
proposed budget cuts by the Trump administration last year. A
$2.7 billion decrease, including drastic cuts in clean energy,
electric grid operations, next generation energy technologies.
That is not a recipe for innovation.
And then, thank goodness, the FERC unanimously rejected
Secretary Perry's proposal yesterday to give financial relief
to some sources of energy when we need really a competitive
wholesale market. And resiliency and reliability doesn't mean
you just double-down on what has been our energy sources of the
past, but to look at all the energy sources for the future.
Then you add on the Department of Energy's backpedaling on
our very popular and cost-effective energy efficiency appliance
standards. That is not a recipe for innovation and diversity of
sources. I hear what you are saying, that the policy is
dominance, but I think that all of this added together is
taking America backwards at a time when other countries and
businesses across the world are investing. Thank goodness
America still remains the leader in research and development,
and there is fantastic research going on in the national labs,
in our higher education institutions, and with business.
But I think when you backpedal, when you say, we are not
going to invest in the science that we have in the past, you
are just weakening our ability to compete with companies like
China. They want to be the world leader now. And it is no
secret.
All of that put together, Secretary Brouillette, how do we
keep America's competitive edge in all of these sources of
energy, all of the technology, when policies of the Trump
administration seem to be going backwards?
Mr. Brouillette. Thank you for your question. I hear your
concern, I am not sure I agree with every premise, but I do
hear your concern in your argument. Let's just start with the
NOPR, with regard to what the Secretary in proposing a rule to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the point of that
rule was not to pick winners and losers as it has been
described or to subsidize in certain cases certain forms of
energy. What it was proposed for and the rationale behind it
was to preserve baseload generation, which provides, in many
respects, the resiliency and the reliability that we currently
enjoy with our grid.
Ms. Castor. But weren't you then asking customers across
the country to pay for more expensive sources of energy, and
that would cost customers billions and billions of dollars?
That doesn't seem like a path for innovation and diversity
sources.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Well, in some respect, it wasn't the
Department of Energy asking, it was the people who actually run
the grid, the PJM folks, in particular, and others who were
asking for changes to their market rules because they,
themselves, acknowledge, in certain cases, the providers of
this type of electricity are not properly compensated for the
services that they provide. So they have sought changes as well
to their own market rules, and that is what we were
participating in, was that conversation to do exactly that.
So it wasn't an effort to subsidize dirty fuels or to take
a step backward, if you will, it was to provide a more
appropriate compensation for services that are provided each
and every day. So that was the intent behind that rule.
With regard to the budget and the science and the
innovation that the Department is currently undertaking, in
certain cases, while we may see some reductions in certain
areas of the Department, it is the focus of the Secretary and
the focus of the administration to have the Department focus on
basic science rather than applied science. So to the extent you
see some reductions in areas, it may be that you are looking at
reductions in applied science, simply because we want the focal
point to be basic research, which we feel is a very strong
point of the Department of Energy. We feel that they do that
very, very well, and we want to encourage those activities.
Mr. Upton. The gentlelady's time is expired. The gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much
for our panel for being here, it is very, very interesting and
informative, so I appreciate your time here today.
In recent Congresses, this committee has taken steps to
give DOE new authorities that modernize its energy security
missions. Response for enacting legislation in the FAST Act to
give the agency additional critical infrastructure protection
authorities, particularly for the electric grid. We also
enhance authorities for emergency preparedness for energy
supply disruptions.
And in my district, again, to give you an idea, northwest,
west central Ohio, I have got 60,000 manufacturing jobs and a
couple--several years ago, not too many years ago, we had a
very, very tough winter, and we were fearful that we might have
some energy disruptions. When you got 60,000 type manufacturing
jobs out there doing everything from float glass to steel and
everything else, you just can't shut down lines. So we are
heavily dependent on baseload capacity out there to make sure
we can keep things running.
It is also interesting in the last year, year and a half,
that they have been out, not only talking with all of my folks
from my electric co-ops to my municipal electrics and you go on
down the line, that not only talking with customers, but also
the individuals that work and run the facilities. There is a
lot more concern out there about cyber attacks, and what could
be happening out there.
And, Mr. Menezes, I understand that you have received the
Cyber and Emergency Energy Supply Responses functions in the
Department; is that correct?
Mr. Menezes. With respect to the program in the Office of--
--
Mr. Latta. Let me ask you this: In your experience with the
emergency responses in recent months, do you believe the
Department should have a larger role in energy and cyber
emergencies at this time?
Mr. Menezes. Again, it has been my experience since being
with the Department that the expectations do exceed the
authorities that we have. We see it in all emergency response
across the board. We are looked at to provide answers and
expertise, which we have in support of rebuild efforts,
protection efforts, et cetera, as I mentioned. We are on the
NFC, which gives us insight into certain classified information
that others do not have. And, yet, when you look at our
authorities, it is limited.
Mr. Latta. All right. Let me ask you this then. As you talk
about that limited authority that you have, are you committed
to work with this committee to identify and enhance your
authorities, and really work with us to say, what are the tools
out there that you need to have to make sure that you can do
your job?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir. We are committed to working with
this committee as long as you let us bring our OMB counterparts
with us.
Mr. Latta. OK. General Klotz, again, as from the other
members on the committee, thank you very much for your service
to our Nation. And with your responsibilities to cover
emergency response relating to radiological emergencies. Is
that correct?
Mr. Klotz. That is correct, Congressman. Although, most of
the work in terms of emergency response is a responsibility of
state and local responders or National Guard. Our primary
function is to support them by, one, training them, and two,
being there with the tools that are necessary to measure and
characterize any radiological or nuclear release.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with that then. When you are
out there training, especially the National Guard and local
responders, because that is, again, who I hear from the most
because I am out in my district all the time. Do they feel that
they are getting the information that they need to have from
you all to make sure that they can get the tools that they need
for these responses that they might have to deal with?
Mr. Klotz. Sir, the feedback I get is very, very positive,
that this is a very useful course. In fact, we usually get
asked to come back and either expand the number of people we
reach in our particular courses, or go through a program of
training the trainer so that they can do that themselves.
I might add, one of the other things we do is because this
is the season for large sporting events, we are also the
organization that goes out and measures the radioactive
characteristic picture of a given community before an event. So
if there is an event, we can very quickly home in on that. So
you may see, from time to time, a helicopter or aircraft flying
over areas where that is being done, that is the NNSA out there
doing that work.
Mr. Latta. With my last 17 seconds that I have left, just
to follow up real quick. Now, who pays for the local response?
Is it through you or----
Mr. Klotz. No, I think that that comes through a different
funding stream. What we basically do is we fund the training,
as I said. We have teams at each of our national laboratories,
and I mean the broader DOE complex of national laboratories,
which can be deployed with equipment to support state and local
or military responders, and so we fund that part of the
process.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time
has expired.
Mr. Upton. Yes. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I thank all of the
Secretaries for being here this morning. Secretary Brouillette,
thank you for reiterating a point that Secretary Perry made
when he testified before this subcommittee last year. Spurring
energy innovation is an essential part of the Department's core
mission.
The national labs are often rightly called the crown jewels
of America's research infrastructure. They produce major
achievements in advancing science, energy innovation, and
national security. Much of their work is cross-cutting and
promotes all of these goals. I saw this firsthand when I
visited Brookhaven last year.
When Secretary Perry appeared at our hearing earlier, he
expressed his support for ARPA-E. However, the budget request
from the administration, which included the virtual elimination
of ARPA-E and 70 percent cut to the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, did not reflect, in my opinion, the
importance of innovation in DOE's role in supporting the next
generation energy technology.
So, Secretary Brouillette, do you believe a robust R&D
budget, as well as a qualified DOE workforce, are critical to
maintaining U.S. leadership in science, energy, and security?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, I do. Do you want me to elaborate?
Mr. Tonko. Just quickly.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Yes, sir, I do. Sir, as you and your
colleagues begin this budget process, it is going to be a
negotiation between you and the White House, and I just want to
assure you that at some point, the Congress and the White House
will come to an appropriate funding number for those labs, and
we will honor those commitments.
Mr. Tonko. I would hope the message from the agency will be
forceful----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. In making certain that progress is
the----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Is the mission here. As this
committee and DOE's leadership consider the future of the
Department, can you explain your vision for the R&D portfolio
for the next 3 years? What are the goals and what are the
priorities?
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. I will also defer to Under Secretary
Dabbar, as the new Under Secretary of Science, he has some
specific things that he would like to share with you. But I can
tell you that we will continue the progress that has already
been made by those 17 national laboratories, they are, in fact,
crown jewels. I appreciate the fact that you would take the
time to visit Brookhaven. I would also like to invite you to
attend and to visit the rest of the laboratory system so that
you can see firsthand the rest of the work that is being done
there.
With that, I will defer to Under Secretary Dabbar.
Mr. Dabbar. I thank you, Congressman Tonko, and I remember
following your energy work prior to this particular role
throughout New York. Across the whole complex, including New
York, the Department is very much focused on innovation. As you
know, Brookhaven is one of our premiere laboratories, as well
as our other complex that we have through NNSA, SPRU, West
Valley through NYSERDA, there is a lot of focus that we have to
the state, and of course, to the whole Nation.
The Office of Science is obviously the preeminent position
in the world across all the different areas of physical
science. The particular areas that we are focused on, as were
mentioned earlier, was on exoscale computing, that has the
ability for us to really move the ball forward across a number
of the areas of physical science. In the areas of particle
physics, we are obviously moving forward, and LBNF/DUNE, which
is out of Chicago, as well as a number of other high energy
particle physics that spread in Michigan from Chairman Upton's
area.
So there is a number of areas that we are focused on. I
also mentioned batteries with Brookhaven, the chemistry side,
which we think has particular potential advantages across a
number of energy areas.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am
particularly concerned about the proposed elimination of the
Weatherization Assistance Program, which is among the
Department's expired authorizations. And I urge this committee
to examine reauthorization as part of this effort. We just
experienced dangerous winter conditions throughout much of the
country. Wind chills were as low as negative 30 degrees for
sustained days in my hometown in upstate New York. In the
Adirondack to the north of my district, the temperature, in a
number of places, never got above zero degrees for several
days. People deserve a response from a weatherization program;
those especially who live in poverty, who live paycheck to
paycheck and still have a difficult time providing for their
energy cost.
Not only are the energy efficiency benefits from WAP
critical to low income families budgets, but these homes are
often unhealthy and unsafe.
Through WAP, DOE provides funding to states, tribes, and
U.S. territories. So whether it is the weatherization program
or the State Energy Program, do you believe DOE should play a
role in supporting state energy offices and the work they do?
Senator Brouillette or Senator----
Mr. Menezes. Well, again, just to echo the comments of the
Deputy Secretary, we look forward to working with this
committee and the appropriators, to reach an appropriate
number. The organization is alive and well now at DOE under the
CR, and we look forward to working with a number and then
carrying out the intent of Congress on that.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Secretary. And last year the House
passed the reauthorization of state energy programs. Would the
Department welcome Congress taking a look at how to improve the
weatherization program?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. I believe my time is up, but I yield back, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Upton. Time is up. Mr. McKinley.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess probably,
Brouillette, it is to you on this. If I could just get this
question out, where I really want to go. I have been over to
the NETL Laboratory in Morgantown. I know Mike Doyle has got a
facility up in the Pittsburgh area, and we have one in
Morgantown. There has been a request to do a mission alignment
study under DOE. Can you give me an update on where that might
stand?
Mr. Brouillette. With regard to the structure of the labs
or----
Mr. McKinley. Yes. Over the years, people talk about
consolidation.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. McKinley. And I think the uncertainty is still swirling
there to give them comfort. Secretary Chu had said there will
not be a consolidation at Morgantown with anyone else. Mooney
said the same thing. I am just curious----
Mr. Brouillette. And I am unaware of any plan to
consolidate those two facilities.
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Mr. Brouillette. We are looking at missions throughout the
Department. It could be that we utilize NETL's resources in
both locations to attack a singular problem, but I am aware of
no plan in terms of a reorganization to combine the two
organizations.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. To the core, last month when we
had a hearing with DOE, some folks that we were talking, it
opened up a different subject, and that was the importing of
energy from Canada, particularly in the northeast. I was
unaware of that. I think most of the people here in this group
in Congress were unaware of the amount; 76 gigawatts of power
coming in from that.
My concern was--76 gigawatts of power, on average, may be
100 power plants that aren't existing in America because of
that, bringing in Canadian-subsidized utilities. I want people
to understand the impact of that.
Just if you take at NEI's, their own website, with a
nuclear, they are talking about, for each nuclear power plant,
it generates around $16 million of taxes, local taxes, and to
the Federal Government; it is $67 million for each one. We are
short about 100 power plants because importing the Canadian-
subsidized or government-owned, where they are creating excess
electricity.
I am curious, from DOE's perspective, when the negotiations
are underway under NAFTA, or when they get taken place, will
this be taken into consideration so that we might be able to
see some consideration for that where we are supporting
Canadian energy producers rather than American?
Mr. Menezes. Well, regarding----
Mr. McKinley. It shifts over to you then.
Mr. Menezes. First of all, I definitely agree with your
comments on the amount of energy that we actually import from
Canada, it is a huge amount, and it is one of our largest
trading partners in energy. Most of it is into the tight power
pools in the northeast, it doesn't surprise anyone where.
Regarding----
Mr. McKinley. My concern is that when we do that, that
means we are not--our local tax base is--it is non-existent.
There are the things that take care of our schools, our roads,
our infrastructure. We are supporting the infrastructure of
Canada rather than having 100 power plants in the United
States.
Mr. Menezes. Yes. And our research is aimed toward smaller,
like small modular nuclear, for example, as well as I had
mentioned before, some of the smaller coal facilities, the low
emission, zero emission coal facilities. This would allow you
to put smaller units closest to the load pocket. And whereas it
is difficult to build interstate transmission lines, as we
know, but if you can't increase the transmission lines, you can
at least begin to site clean generation closer to the load
pocket. That would minimize our dependency on interstate
transmission----
Mr. McKinley. If I could reclaim--I am holding my time
here. As long as we are continuing to import something that is
government-owned, and it is cheaper when it comes in here, they
are competing unfairly with America energy producers.
All I am asking is that when we hit with NAFTA, that we
have some discussion about the importing of all of this 76
gigawatts of Canadian power at the expense of American jobs.
Mr. Menezes. You have our commitment, and we are certainly
monitoring the NAFTA situation.
Mr. Brouillette. Congressman, if I could add just real
quickly. You do have our commitment on that. The Secretary did
initiate a conversation with Minister Carr of Canada and his
counterpart in Mexico. Recently, he held a meeting in Houston,
Texas, among the three energy ministers, I will commit to you
that we will ensure that this issue is discussed in those
conversations.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Flores [presiding]. Mr. Loebsack is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all of
you for being here today, obviously, and I always learn a lot,
I don't get to ask questions until the end here, but it is
really great for me to listen to my colleagues ask questions
and to hear your answers, I do appreciate that very much. But I
want to follow up on what Mr. Tonko asked about weatherization.
First, I just have to say for the life of me, I cannot
understand why anybody could possibly propose dramatic, drastic
slashes in a weatherization program as this administration did,
it is completely beyond me. If anybody has ever, as I have,
visited any of the local community action programs, for
example, that implement weatherization programs and gone to
homes of seniors or low income folks or disabled folks who have
benefited from weatherization, and it is not just in the
winter, it can be in the summer as well in either the midwest
or in the southern parts of our country, we can see that there
is job creation. They employ local folks to weatherize homes.
Sometimes they have even high school kids, for example, who are
trying to learn a trade who participate in this kind of a
program.
So for the life of me, I just don't understand why there
was this proposed cut on the part of the administration. And
Mr. Brouillette, sorry, I was not here when you were here or on
this committee, I should say. Can you give me some
justification or rationale as to why those cuts were proposed
in the first place?
Mr. Brouillette. Well, I don't think it is because we
disagree with the ultimate goal of those programs. And I can't
speak to your specific concern on the specific program or this
specific amount that you are proposing--there are better ways,
sometimes there are different ways to achieve the same
outcomes. And I can commit to you that we at DOE are attempting
to do those things.
I was just fortunate enough to attend the solar decathlon
out in the western part of the U.S., and I saw many of the kids
that you were referencing in your comments. They built homes
that were energy efficient; they built homes that were safe;
they built homes that were frankly astounding in their
technological advance. We want to continue to support those
types of activities.
Mr. Loebsack. Can we get your commitment that you will
press as hard as you possibly can----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. On this front?
I realize it won't be--make the final decision, but----
Mr. Brouillette. It is always a negotiated effort, sir, but
you have my commitment.
Mr. Loebsack. Because it is important, as it is with so
many other programs, that we get that commitment from you folks
as part of the administration.
And with respect to the reorganization that is being
proposed, how will that play out when it comes to something
like this to make sure that the weatherization program--let's
assume that we do get adequate funding for it--that it is
implemented properly and that it continues as it has been?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. I don't see any changes. The
reorganization does not fundamentally alter or change the
direction of these particular programs that were set up by
Congress.
Mr. Loebsack. That is good to know.
Mr. Brouillette. We are simply changing an organizational
chart and providing a different structure by which we manage
the agency.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
I would like to go back also, if I could, to the question
having to do with storage for electricity, if I can, Mr.
Dabbar. Is that how you pronounce it?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack. Naval Academy grad, you said? Is that
correct?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes. My stepson and his wife are both Naval
Academy grads and Active Duty Marines at the moment. So thank
you for your service.
But it is true that Texas does produce the most wind energy
of any state. But Iowa produces the largest percentage of its
electricity from wind, and it is upwards of 37, 38 percent.
Could you give us some kind of a timeframe to follow up on Mr.
Olson's question? Because it is great that we are seeing--you
mentioned beyond lithium--a lot of R&D, a lot of work going
into how we are going to store this electricity so that we can
do more with respect to wind energy or with respect to solar
energy. But can you give us a timeframe down the road what kind
of number of years we are talking about?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. The time is now. It is one of
the most exciting areas within the Office of Science, dealing
with applied energy in terms of developments of something that
can be sent to the grid.
I mentioned a number of technologies in my previous
conversation. I won't go through it. But the list of companies
that we are working with specifically on those various
different types of technologies is vast. We are working with
big companies such as United Technologies and Dow and Johnson
Controls and General Motors. We are working with startup
companies. The list that is across our various labs that deal
with chemistry in the battery area is, give or take, around 80
different companies today.
And so there are various different types of technologies
that have different uses in terms of weight-to-power ratio. And
some are better for transportation. Some are better for utility
scale. And so we intend to push that very hard on the basis of
what we have been developing, and so we look forward to doing
that promptly.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Kinzinger is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here, again, spending some time with us on these
important issues.
I would like to start by commending all of you, led by the
Secretary, for your renewed focus on the vital role of the DOE,
our science and energy workforce, and our energy resources have
to play in national security. It has been an area that I think
has been way underdiscussed when it comes to issues of
countering Russia, countering our enemies overseas, et cetera.
It is something I have often stressed in this committee, and I
look forward to continuing to work with all of you on it.
To Mr. Brouillette and Menezes, did you guys get the
hardest names possible to come here? I thought Kinzinger was
tough.
In the hearing with Secretary Perry a few months ago, I
raised concerns that DOE was not always fully represented or
engaged on energy matters pursued by the State Department due
to the establishment of an energy bureau at State.
Will you discuss the value of DOE engagement
internationally. When the U.S. meets with other nations' energy
ministers, why is it important for DOE to be at the table?
Either one of you can start.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Well, sir, as I leave for Saudi
Arabia and UAE tomorrow, I can speak firsthand to the
importance of those conversations. I did return from several
overseas trips. I represented the President and the Secretary
in Kazakhstan; Tokyo, Japan; and Santiago, Chile, just
recently.
Each one of those conversations brought new ideas. They
brought a richness. And, candidly, I know some concerns were
raised here about U.S. interests. It gave us an opportunity to
articulate and, in some cases, to protect U.S. interests with
regard to energy development and security.
We value those conversations very deeply. The Secretary
does. I do. We do have a very robust and a very aggressive
international affairs department within our organization. It is
led by an assistant secretary. He is not yet confirmed or she
is not yet confirmed. I don't know who the nominee will be, but
it will come forward shortly to the U.S. Senate. But we hope to
have that position filled very, very shortly. We are going to
continue these conversations around the world.
With regard to our State Department colleagues, we interact
with them very closely. I never travel internationally without
collaborating with the State Department and, in many cases,
integrating our work. So that process----
Mr. Kinzinger. All of us, when we travel, we work with
State. But do you send silos? Are there areas we need to break
through those silos where there is duplicative action or
counter action?
Mr. Menezes. Well, we work closely with our State
Department colleagues, as the deputy said. We are trying to
enhance our collaboration so that we can have much fuller
communications between the two. Because in the past, there
really has been a break, at least with respect to the energy
component at the State Department. There appear to be sometimes
conflicting missions. And so we are now working, taking
positive steps to try to see and understand what they do. We
know what we do. And so we hope that we can work together to
achieve some efficiencies and really gain an understanding of
what they are doing and what they hope to accomplish.
Mr. Kinzinger. Good. Thank you. I am also on this
committee, but I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, so I have traveled a lot in that capacity. And it
really does blow me away the number of times. And I get that we
have a government but that I see sometimes State countering the
message of other parts of government. So I think the more you
guys can coordinate and work together, the more beneficial it
is not for DOE or State, but for America.
General Klotz, and thank you for your service to the
greatest branch of the military. On the nuclear security front,
I understand that DOE and the National Nuclear Security
Administration have done considerable work to enhance detection
of radiological smuggling from former Soviet states, along with
almost 60 partner countries. Can you provide an update about
the process of the Nuclear Smuggling Detection and Deterrence
program and what you are doing to ensure that we can safely
transition to a model where countries fully fund the
sustainment and maintenance of the equipment we supply? And I
want to add on that, that is something that people don't think
about much anymore because it is just out of our purview, so--
--
Mr. Klotz. Well, thank you very much for that question. The
nuclear detection and smuggling program is one of the most
important ways in which we try to work to make sure that
special nuclear materials do not get in the hands of bad guys,
whether the bad guys are a rogue nation that wants to develop a
nuclear weapon or a terrorist that wants to use nuclear
radiological materials in an improvised bomb to sow terror and
panic.
We have worked, as you said, with a number of different
countries. Our business model, basically, is to go in, deploy
technology that has been largely developed through our national
laboratories, including the non-NNSA national laboratories,
train the individuals who operate this, help them for a period
of basically 5 years. And over that 5-year period, the
objective is to transition the maintenance, the
recapitalization, and the training necessary to operate that to
the host countries.
We have sent a couple reports, since I have been in the
seat on, where we are doing that, when the progress is. And I
would be happy to make sure your staff gets the most recent
copy of that.
Mr. Kinzinger. Again, thank you all for being here.
And I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Schrader, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brouillette, the administration last year proposed
privatizing transmission assets owned by the Bonneville Power
Administration. The proposal to sell off BPA's assets
represents about three-quarters of the grid in the Northwest,
was supposedly a major savings reform effort offered by the
administration in its fiscal year 2018 budget. As you can
imagine, those of us in the Pacific Northwest are pretty
concerned, Chairman Walden, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and myself
here on the committee.
Frankly, BPA manages the majority of the transmission in
our neck of the woods. It is clean energy. It seems very
misguided since Federal hydropower actually makes us money,
doesn't cost us money, some upfront money, but with interest it
gets paid back. I don't understand the logic of that. We are
totally against that idea, very concerned about that, would
hope that your agency as well as the administration might
commit here and now not to pursue that in this coming budget.
Mr. Brouillette. Thank you, sir, for that question. I am
aware of the concerns of the delegation throughout the
Northwest. I have met with Chairman Walden as well as several
Senators to discuss this issue in my confirmation hearings. And
as I said there, and I will say here again publicly, the
Congress really does control whether or not we actually sell
anything with regard to those assets. So without some statutory
change by the Congress, I can assure you that nothing will be
sold.
Mr. Schrader. All right. I appreciate that. I assume you
yourself think it is a wise asset to retain?
Mr. Brouillette. It has provided cheap energy in the
Northwest. We enjoy our relationship with the PMAs. We are
looking at them very closely, frankly, to learn from them as we
address issues like cybersecurity and other matters.
Mr. Schrader. Sure.
Mr. Brouillette. DOE is uniquely positioned with both a
science agency and a research agency. We are also an asset
manager and owner through the BPA, and others, SWPA and WAPA,
and whatnot. But we enjoy our relationship. We look forward to
working closely with them.
Mr. Schrader. That seems to fit into all the above energy
strategies using different types of components.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schrader. Along the same lines, BPA currently reports
to you, as I understand it. And given the size of the agency
and the importance, as I just outlined, to the 12 million
people in the Pacific Northwest, we consider it very important
to have the ear of someone higher up in the agency. There was a
proposal, as I understand, to change that. Maybe have BPA
report another under secretary or something along those lines.
Could you commit today to maintaining the current
organizational structure with regard to how BPA reports
directly to the deputy?
Mr. Brouillette. Well, sir, I would be hesitant to commit
to any future plans we might have simply because I want the
opportunity to review the entire department. The PMAs have
reported to the deputy secretary for some time. There was a
time in the past when they reported actually to an assistant
secretary within the Department. So I would like the
opportunity to continue reviewing the department and perhaps
report to you on my findings and work with you on any future
changes that we might make or we may not make.
Mr. Schrader. If you could commit maybe to at least
consulting the delegation before you made a final decision----
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schrader [continuing]. We could give a little input.
Given the nature of energy security these days, it is more and
more important, I think, to make sure we have direct access to
people and power that make these----
Mr. Brouillette. I can assure you they will always have
direct access. And I will give you a commitment to work closely
with you.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
Mr. Menezes, given the climactic changing events we have
had this past year, huge floods, huge hurricanes, the big fires
out West all the way from the Canadian border down to
California, very concerned about grid reliability and the
hardening of the grid. There seems to be diverse opinions about
what that hardening the grid means. Some would say it is a lot
more renewable energy. Others would say making sure we have the
redundancy and the assets we have on the ground, as was alluded
to in some earlier questions, or rebuilt to withstand some of
these huge events, these devastating nature events that we
haven't seen in the past.
Where is the Department going with regard to reliability?
Where are we going to put most of our efforts and our funding?
Mr. Menezes. Well, currently, we had the modern grid
consortium, the laboratory consortium, where we have been
modeling how to make grids more resilient. We are bringing that
to bear in Puerto Rico where we are going to make
recommendations when we begin to rebuild and restore in Puerto
Rico.
The advent of integrated microgrids, for example, is a key
component of that. In New York and other states they have been
looking at this. And our labs have been doing modeling. And in
Puerto Rico, we are actually going to find three pilot
microgrids so that we can bring the actual research that the
labs have been doing and put them into action in Puerto Rico.
In my response to Representative Castor, we had run out of
time. But I wanted to tell the committee that we are actually
using the work of the labs to actually model and to build more
resilient grid structure.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our
panel for being with us today.
The United States is currently positioned well to utilize
our vast energy resources, including oil, natural gas, and
coal, as a positive geostrategic tool to advance our Nation's
interests globally. It is also important that we enable
domestic nuclear technologies to compete in the international
market to assure we have a seat at the table on critical issues
relating to peaceful use of civilian nuclear technologies and
nonproliferation.
The Department of Energy plays an important role in that
process through what is known as the Part 810 approval process.
Recently, Secretary Perry affirmed his commitment to streamline
the regulatory review process. NNSA is responsible for
overseeing the approval, while consulting the Office of Nuclear
Energy and the DOE general counsel in addition to interagency
coordination.
So, Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Secretary Menezes and
Administrator Klotz, do you recognize the importance of U.S.
engagement in the global civil nuclear market? And can you
assure me that you will continue to implement greater
efficiency in this program?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, on both accounts. We recognize
full well. We are engaged in several conversations around the
world, in essence to create opportunities for our civil nuclear
programs and our industry partners throughout the U.S.
I will defer to General Klotz, perhaps, for a more detailed
discussion on 810 and NNSA's role.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Klotz. Congressman, I think the premise of your
question is extraordinarily important, and that is if we want
to be leaders in nuclear security, nuclear safety, nuclear
safeguards, and nonproliferation, then we need to have a seat
at the table. And the only way you get a seat at the table is
to be a knowledge leader in this particular industry.
You also touched on--we hear the frustrations from the
commercial companies about how long it takes to do 810
processing, and we share that frustration. It is true the DOE
and the NNSA are the stewards of this process, but we are not
the owners of the process. And the long poles and the tent many
times are outside our control. In particular for those
countries which require a specific authorization, the State
Department has to get assurances from the host government that
the requirements will be followed by the host government.
Sometimes those take 12, in some cases even 18 months.
So we are working very hard. We continue to work very hard
in a process improvement program that you know about for the
810 process. In the areas where we can cut down and make this
much more streamline and efficient, we will continue to push on
that.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Good.
Mr. Menezes, do you have any comments to add to that, or do
you concur with what they have said?
Mr. Menezes. I certainly concur with them. We at the DOE
are uniquely positioned to see the importance of maintaining
global leadership in this. And that was, frankly, part of our
domestic electricity policy. Our 403 letter meant to ensure
that our base load nuclear units continued to run economically,
because we are losing the leadership certainly on the civilian
side. And as we see other countries developing civilian nuclear
fleets, we want to be there. We do not want to be on the
sidelines.
Mr. Johnson. Can any of you identify further policy and
process options to assist our domestic nuclear industry to
remain competitive in the international market? And we will
just go right down the line with the three of you again.
Mr. Brouillette. Sir, I think Under Secretary Dabbar wants
to chime in, being a Navy nuke.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, one additional point I think
addresses that specific question is that the White House has
actually convened a cross-agency group, specifically in these
particular areas. And we have participated in that. But it also
includes Defense, it includes State, and a number of other
areas. And there are very specific verticals in the areas that
you listed. They are being evaluated by groups. So
participation in the fuel chain. Participation and
commercialization on an international basis, on security of the
fuel chain. And so we are participating and getting very much
into the details, along with other members across agencies on
this topic.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I don't have time to get into my other
question, because it is fairly long. Let me just paraphrase it
real quickly and get your affirmation.
LNG exports, big, big deal for us, big geopolitical
leverage point for the United States. I have got legislation
that is designed to help expedite the permitting process. I
know the Secretary and I have talked about this. Are you folks
committed to working with us to expedite this as well?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, we are. We have taken some
initial steps. We look forward to working with the committee to
further refine the permitting processes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Great.
I yield back.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Oh, Mr. Welch. I am sorry. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask Mr. Brouillette and Mr. Menezes a few
questions. Energy efficiency, incredibly important, enormous
bipartisan support for it on this committee, a lot of
leadership on both sides of the aisle. We are going to be
hearing, I think from the next panel, about some things like
master limited partnerships, like energy saving performance
contracts. Mr. Kinzinger has been a big champion of those,
along with me. So I will wait for the next panel.
But one of the questions is about efficiency standards. And
there is some debate on this because it does involve
regulations. And there is general skepticism about regulations
in the new administration, and some of it well-founded. But it
is standards, like applying standards have been extremely
helpful to industry and to consumers in saving money. And there
is a number of deadlines that Congress had set for efficiency
standards, and some estimates indicate that could be about a
$43 billion annual savings by 2035. But the latest regulatory
agenda, as I understand it, that has been released by DOE,
removed the target completion date for these standards and put
them in a, ``longterm action section,'' a category that OMB has
said is specifically for rules where no action is really
intended. And there have been five deadlines, I think, since
2017.
So my question here is what is your position, and what do
you intend to do to comply with the law to complete these rules
by the established deadlines?
And again, the premise of my question is that these rules
actually are helpful to industry and helpful to consumers. We
might have some debate on it. But if the regulations are well-
designed, then I think they achieve the positive goals of
energy efficiency. So could you both comment on that?
Mr. Menezes. I am happy to start. Certainly, when I was
here with the committee, energy efficiency and applying
standards were a key part on the major legislation that we
passed in 2005. And Congress set a lot of the deadlines that
the Department had to meet. Some think that they were
aggressive or not. But in my 2 months since being there, a lot
of things had been piling up and coming across my desk. And a
couple of them are on the mandatory reports to Congress that
this committee had put in the legislation back then to provide
the very reports that you are probably looking at.
I will be honest, I had not seen them before. And we very
clearly set forth those deadlines that we had met, those that
we still hadn't met. And as you had said, we are not shy about
it. We actually admit some of the difficulties that we have
had. The goal is to, of course, meet the statutory deadlines
and obligations.
I know the other body is looking at some legislation that
would give us a little flexibility, I think, to look at this to
be able to meet those deadlines. But the Department is
committed to following the law to have these standards in
place, according to the deadlines that are set in the statute.
And I know that you have the same report that I just reviewed
probably a few days ago. And I have been in discussions with
the general counsel's office on how we can improve this.
Mr. Welch. I think I am being reassured here. You are
telling me that full speed ahead on meeting the standards, not
a detour to slow walking the standards or not implementing them
altogether.
Mr. Menezes. You do have our assurance of that. It is quite
stark when you see our very own reports that are very clear on
when we have met them and when we haven't.
Mr. Welch. And I am taking from this a full-throated
support for efficiency standards and the benefits that they
provide in savings to consumers and, of course, incidental
reduction in carbon emissions.
Mr. Menezes. Well, certainly, in meeting our statutory
deadlines, you have my full-throated support on that, because
the hallmark of this administration is to comply with the laws
that are applied in the Department.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Menezes and Mr. Dabbar, you are responsible for
some scientific and nuclear office labs that are examining
hardening of the grid from a tax such as electromagnetic pulse,
EMP, incidents, which is something I have been harping on ever
since I arrived in Congress.
What activities are priorities for the Department to ensure
the industry can benefit from your research and infrastructure
capabilities?
Mr. Menezes. Well, as we have said in response to other
questions on this, our labs are doing quite a bit of research
on making the grid more resilient, particularly with respect to
the EMPs, and the GMDs for that matter. We have been working
with Oak Ridge and EPRI in the industry to identify ways to
ensure that we had the sufficient transformers necessary in the
event that there be such an event. Our laboratory consortium is
also looking at this issue. And that, together with our efforts
in cyber, we hope will eventually, you know, provide us the
information to make the grid even more resilient.
Mr. Long. Mr. Dabbar?
Mr. Dabbar. I have nothing more to add on that, sir.
Mr. Long. OK. EMPs can happen in nature or through
malicious acts, correct?
Mr. Dabbar. That is correct.
Mr. Long. Pardon?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
Mr. Long. OK. And, General Klotz, the broad crosscutting
nature of the Department's mission is evident in my home State
of Missouri. The National Nuclear Security Administration, or
NNSA, maintains the Kansas City National Security Campus, which
is responsible for manufacturing and procuring components for
the nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, the Department of
Energy helps support the University of Missouri's MURR nuclear
research reactor. The MURR reactor is seeking approval to
produce lifesaving medical isotopes in partnership with NNSA
and is currently studying a partnership with NNSA to convert
the reactor to use low-enriched uranium instead of highly
enriched uranium.
Will you please describe NNSA's programs to convert
research reactors to this low-enriched uranium?
Mr. Klotz. I would be delighted to. But first of all,
thanks for mentioning our Kansas City plant, which produces all
the nonnuclear components that go into a nuclear weapon, which
is about 80, 90 percent of what goes in there. And for members
who have not had a chance to visit that, it is an example of
the kinds of things that can be achieved by recapitalization of
this 40-, 50-year-old enterprise that I talked about earlier.
But specifically for the reactor conversion, as I said
earlier, sir, one of our strategies is to prevent terrorists
from getting their hands on special nuclear material or rogue
nations getting their hands on special nuclear materials from
which they could make an explosive device. One of the ways we
do that is to help research reactors and other institutions
stop using highly enriched uranium, which can be used in a
nuclear weapon, for the research purposes to use low-enriched
uranium.
We have already worked with, converted, or verified the
shutdown of over 100 facilities worldwide in transitioning
either no longer using any uranium or using low-enriched
uranium. And our current efforts include close cooperation with
Missouri University Research Reactor, MURR, to qualify a new
high-density, low-enriched uranium fuel that can be used to
convert that particular reactor.
Mr. Long. OK. And what proliferation challenges keep you
awake at night?
Mr. Klotz. I think--that is a good question, and I think
about it a lot. My sense is nuclear terrorism remains among one
of the most significant threats to the security of this
country, to the security of our allies, and the security of our
partners. So making sure that we have done all we can do to
lock up, safeguard these materials that are an important part
of our civil nuclear industry, both here and abroad, is one of
the things I worry the most about.
Mr. Long. And how does a highly enriched uranium conversion
program fit within NNSA's mission relating to nonproliferation?
Mr. Klotz. Well, again, it is one of many arrows in the
quiver or one of many of a multifaceted strategy to make sure
that those special nuclear materials, like highly enriched
uranium, their use is minimized and that people convert to
using low-enriched uranium or other types of phenomenon to do
their research.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Brouillette, the Department's 17 national
laboratories are the boots on the ground, so to speak, that
execute the activities that enable DOE to fulfill its missions.
Have you engaged with the lab directors to assure the
Department's alignment, or alignment readjustment, will be able
to fully unleash the potential of the national labs?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I have. We have done that both
directly and as a collaborative group effort. We have within
the Department of Energy known as a lab operations board. And
we have a smaller executive council made up of lab directors
that both advise me and the Secretary. I have consulted with
the lab directors, and I think you will hear from one on
another panel about this reorganization plan and perhaps what
it should look like. And they have submitted ideas, many of
which we have accepted.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. So then you can probably share some of the
recommendations from the lab directors that were provided to
you and some of the specifics of that with the committee?
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Absolutely. Yes, sir, I think I can.
Mr. Bucshon. Just for the record, as we look to maybe a
reauthorization, that is maybe some information on how the labs
in the Department----
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Would you like me to do that
formally, sir, in writing? Would you like me to----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, that would be great.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will do that. I will follow up
with you.
Mr. Bucshon. Thanks.
This is for a number of people, but a frequent concern
raised by DOE labs and contractors relates to the burdens of
unnecessary oversight that detracts from effective and cost-
effective mission performance on the other hand, sound
oversights necessary to ensure safety and security and protect
taxpayer interests. The development of mature contractor
assurance systems has been identified in congressional reports
and in this committee's work as critical to enabling a more
efficient oversight framework that will help unleash the
benefits of the labs and other programmatic work.
So I guess, Secretary Brouillette, you can comment first.
What can you tell us about what you are doing to ensure more
mature contractor assurance system? Basically, effective and
efficient oversight versus onerous and top-down oversight.
Mr. Brouillette. Well, we have looked at the design
standards within the Department. For instance, I will just give
you an example. We just went and visited a facility in Oak
Ridge that is a multimillion, billion dollar project. What we
are looking for is making sure that our processes internally
inside of the Department of Energy don't require certain things
of contractors that either slow down the process or make things
just exorbitant in terms of cost.
So if we are going to build, for instance, a simple office
building, something you have seen a million times in your
practice, it is simply there to house reception staff, we
probably don't need a 90 percent design build plan in place
before we allow the contractor to begin the initial stages of
that work. If we are going to talk about a nuclear facility,
however, we want to be very, very careful. It is looking at
simple things like that and working with the contractors
directly that we hope to bring some efficiencies and perhaps
some better processes toward the Department's efforts.
Mr. Bucshon. Anybody else have any comment?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir. I will go ahead and add the reference
that the Deputy Secretary made about the lab operations board.
And one of the initiatives that the Secretary wanted to take
onboard and for us to execute on, and we are now in the second
wave of that, is basically a management and an efficiency
review at a very specific level along the lines of what he just
described. And the lab operations board actually includes lab
directors, people from inside DOE headquarters, contractors
across all of our various different labs and programs. And what
we have been doing is looking at not only general points, but
actually very specific points along the lines of what stands in
the way of accomplishing the mission.
I will give you an example of one of the things that came
up and we have changed. The labs were required to submit 15
different human resources reports a month. And what we decided
was do we need all 15 of those or were there some overlap? As
you could probably guess, there was some overlap. And we have
actually consolidated some of those. And I believe we are down
to 10. So it is shorter than 15 a month, and we are now down to
10 a month.
But we are doing that in collaboration, to your particular
question, with the lab directors for us to review what is
really required in terms of our oversight requirements for, in
this case, human resources, but want to make certain that it is
not overlapping, that things that had been added over the years
were maybe duplicative.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. And I would say I know a number of people
have talked about budgetary concerns. And from my viewpoint,
every Federal agency that does this, that makes themselves more
effective and efficient, also utilizes taxpayer resources in a
more effective and efficient way. And in that vein may not
necessarily need as many resources.
With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Secretary Brouillette, one of the questions I want to talk
about is budget itemization and micromanagement. The Department
has a heavy reliance on outside contractors using M&O contracts
to conduct DOE's research and development activities that
manage your facilities and perform environmental cleanup
projects. Any time you have this government public-private type
of relationship, it results in a high degree of transactional
activities, both internally within the Department and
externally with these outside entities.
Recently, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the
National Energy Laboratories, or CRENEL for short, identified
transactional compliance and budget itemization, as they called
it, as a costly burden that inhibits DOE from fully realizing
the benefits of the contractor model. According to the CRENEL
report, the chief financial officer maintains thousands of
control points which, in turn, require management approval and
disbursement at the expense of DOE's overall efficiency. This
is not something that rose on your watch, but it is something
that has crept into the Department over years, if not decades.
So my question is this, Secretary Brouillette: Do you
acknowledge that the cost and burdens associated--or do you
acknowledge the costs and burdens associated with budget
itemization?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Will you work with the CFO and the relevant
program offices to reduce this micromanagement policy?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will. And I am familiar with
the CRENEL report and its findings. And I look forward to
working with the committee and the Congress overall to help
implement those.
Mr. Flores. That was going to be my next point. To the
extent that you need additional support from Congress to--if
there is something Congress has done that has created that,
then let us know and we will try to help fix that.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will point those out.
Mr. Flores. My next question is for Under Secretary
Menezes. This has to do with low-enriched uranium fuel. As you
know, the new technology, nuclear reactors may use innovative
fuels to improve reactor efficiency and safety. Currently,
commercial nuclear fuel that is available is generally enriched
below 5 percent. However, these new technology reactors may
require fuel that is enriched beyond 5 percent.
Your department maintains a significant stockpile of
uranium, and DOE may be able to consider options to provide
this enhanced nuclear fuel just as it does with university
research reactors. Do you see a role for DOE to steward this
type of nuclear fuel to assure that potential fuel access
issues will not inhibit technological innovation from our
Nation's next generation nuclear engineers?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir, we do. And we look forward to
working with you to get your input on how best to accomplish
that.
Mr. Flores. OK. And since we are talking about
reauthorization of the Department, I do have sort of a wildcard
question as respects energy in this country and as respects
reauthorization.
Secretary Brouillette, what keeps you awake at night, and
how does it--with respect to energy, and how should we look at
that with respect to reauthorization?
Mr. Brouillette. What keeps me up at night, sir, at the
moment is cybersecurity and its relation to the distribution of
energy throughout the country. We are facing some significant
challenges, both from internal sources here in the U.S. We are
all familiar with the kid in the basement who plays at night.
That is certainly a security concern. It is not the highest
security concern. What we are seeing across the world
increasingly are state actors who are taking very aggressive
steps to infiltrate certain security components of our grid as
well as our national pipeline infrastructure. And if I had to
point to one thing that keeps me up at night, it would be that.
Mr. Flores. OK. General Klotz?
Mr. Klotz. As I stated to an earlier question, the thing
that keeps me up at night is the threat of nuclear terrorism.
The devastating economic psychological consequences of a dirty
bomb or a nuclear device set off by a rogue nation would be
horrendous. And so everything we can do to make sure that we
have safeguarded, locked up, secured special nuclear materials,
reduced reliance on highly enriched uranium, plutonium, I think
is a positive thing.
Mr. Flores. OK. Secretary Dabbar?
Mr. Dabbar. In my particular area, it is around Radcon
conditions with workers at our environmental management sites.
We are decontaminating and decommissioning a number of
buildings that have plutonium contamination. We have a number
of liquid waste tanks, some of which have had challenges over
the years that we need to clean up and we need to put away into
our permanent location. So obviously, handling the environment
in those particular locations and making certain that the
health and safety of the workers during those very challenging
situations is paramount.
Mr. Flores. Secretary Menezes, 10 seconds.
Mr. Menezes. It is cybersecurity, a threat of our secrets
and our proprietary information that has given rise to other
countries being able to produce more than the very things that
we have developed and that we hold the patents to. I find that
very disturbing.
Mr. Flores. Thank each of you for your responses.
Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, I want to align myself with the comments made by
Mr. Shimkus earlier. The vitrified waste coming out through EM
activities in the Hanford and Savannah River Site needs a
longterm stable storage facility, and that stable storage
facility is Yucca Mountain. Speaking of waste and residual,
DOE's plutonium disposition plan are relative responsibilities
that you have regarding the Nation's nonproliferation
agreements.
In 2003, the DOE, in my home State of South Carolina,
entered into an agreement that DOE would remove one ton of
plutonium from South Carolina within a decade. The deadline was
repeatedly extended, and the DOE has yet to date fulfilled its
legal obligations. In fact, due to a number of the previous
administration's policy, the deadline is further out of reach.
The South Carolina DOE agreement included a stipulation that
provides for financial penalties to be paid to South Carolina
up to $100 million a year. The South Carolina attorney general
has had to sue the Department of Energy to receive this
payment, and further litigation is expected.
Deputy Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with this
issue? And what is the DOE's plan to keep the commitment to the
South Carolinians that are affected?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I am familiar with it. I have
known General Wilson for many, many years, and he has raised it
to my attention. Unfortunately, as it is subject to litigation,
I am not allowed to comment in detail, but I am happy to follow
up with you and your office as we move through this pending
litigation.
Mr. Duncan. So talking about waste and talking about
plutonium, rather, we spent a lot of money on MOX at Savannah
River Site. And there was a report that was issued by the
Department transmitted to Congress September 14 of 2016. It was
called ``An Updated Performance Baseline for the MOX Facility
at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' I say mislabeled
because this Department did not file, as we require in the
fiscal 2016 NDAA, its own order 413.3B for setting project
baselines and updated baselines.
So do you believe, Mr. Deputy Secretary, that a project
that is about 70 percent complete today, which the MOX facility
in Savannah River Site is about 70 percent complete today since
its construction started in 2007, could still take another 30
years to finish?
Wait a minute. We built the first nuclear weapon at the B
Reactor at Hanford in a little over a year.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure. We agree with that. And we would
like to see that sort of efficiency brought to the MOX facility
in South Carolina. It has taken quite a long period of time to
get to this point, and I think that has raised the concern of
the budgeteers both here in Congress and in the White House. We
have met with the contractors. We are in active conversations
with contractors on the ground.
There is, to be quite honest, some disagreement about that
70 percent number and whether or not they are, in fact, 70
percent complete. Folks on the ground in DOE have a different
opinion of that, and we have expressed it, and we are in, as I
said, very candid conversations with the contractor.
I would ask General Klotz or others if they want to opine
further on this and perhaps provide you with more information
as to where we currently stand.
Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the work that DOE does at sites
like Savannah River Site. The nuclear laboratory down there is
a valuable asset.
Mr. Brouillette. Sure.
Mr. Duncan. There is also a component Savannah River Site
is a valuable asset that was almost mothballed under the Obama
administration. That is H Canyon.
Mr. Brouillette. I'm sorry?
Mr. Duncan. The last--H Canyon.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. The last chemical separation facility in the
United States. So please assure me that this administration is
not going to even consider mothballing H Canyon.
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you for the question. H Canyon we
consider very important, and we want to keep it up and running,
we think, to process. We think there are actually options that
we could use for continued operations. So it is an important
part of the portfolio.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Klotz. I would like to echo what you said, Congressman,
and that is the importance of Savannah River Site to the entire
DOE enterprise. It is particularly important in the NNSA side,
because that is where we do our tritium operations, tritium
extraction, tritium recycling. Tritium being an extraordinarily
important component for all of our nuclear weapons.
The laboratory there, again, having visited all the
laboratories in DOE, again, I was astounded to find out how
much work they are actually doing in the weapon's activity
program for us, NNSA, as well as in the nuclear
nonproliferation area.
So I have talked a lot with the people down there, and I
think one of the things I can say, maybe as leaving government
and looking forward to the future, that is one of the things we
ought to think very seriously about is what is the longterm
future of the laboratory and of the entire Savannah River Site,
and what can it contribute and continue to contribute for
decades in the national security. I think this is a fruitful
area for discussion.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Savannah River Site is a valuable
asset, and they are looking for more missions. And I hope we
can give it to them.
And I yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the chairman. I appreciate you all
being here very much. It is an important hearing.
Deputy Secretary Menezes, thank you for mentioning rare
earth technologies in your opening statement. I do appreciate
that. There is a lot of potential for coal in my district in
rare earth and combining the two to create a product that is
more profitable than it may be at certain times in the past and
in the future.
So can you give me an update? Where do we stand on that?
When do we think that the technology will actually be ready for
prime time?
Mr. Menezes. Well, I am not sure I can give you a specific
timetable, but I am happy to get our program experts on it and
give you a briefing so that you can know exactly where we are.
Mr. Griffith. I know there is a lot of research dollars
that have gone into Virginia Tech in my district and in other
places. But I also know that I saw a map of slag heaps. And one
of the things people may not realize is is that a lot of the
rare earth elements or minerals actually exist in the coal, but
it is closest to the rock. So in the slag heaps, we can clean
up slag heaps and reap a benefit for the United States at the
same time and create some jobs, at least in the short run.
Short run being a decade. My folks would really appreciate
that.
Let me----
Mr. Menezes. The program experts are very excited about the
prospect that you can go to, really, the slag heaps, the waste
product piles, and be able to extract rare earth elements. And
think about it: We would no longer be dependent on China for a
large percentage of our rare earth elements.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. And what could be better? We are
cleaning up something that ought to be cleaned up anyway as a
part of our environment, and we are taking business away from
one of our largest international competitors. I think that is
great.
Along those same lines, but shifting gears a little bit, I
want to talk about research on burning coal more cleanly. When
you look at the world as a whole, while coal used for producing
power in this country is down, it is still accelerating in the
rest of the world. There are lots of places it is going to be
used when people talk about the ill effects of the pollutants
that come from burning coal or have come from burning coal in
the past. Many of the countries that are going to be expanding
coal facilities don't have the regulations we have. They are
going to continue to use coal. I would like to see us continue
to use coal but burning as cleanly as possible.
Can you give me an update on some of the research that is
going on? And I am particularly, and always have been,
interested in chemical looping. And I understand there has been
a little bit of a breakthrough using a different substance as--
for lack of a more scientific term--the primer in the chemical
reaction.
Can you give me an update on where we stand on that and
whether or not DOE is still positive? I know you are on natural
gas, and I get that. But also using chemical looping for coal
so we can transfer this technology to other parts of the world
and burn coal more cleanly, not just here, but worldwide to
help the environment.
Mr. Menezes. Again, yes, sir. Our national energy lab is
doing a lot of the research that you have been discussing. And
I think that both of us would benefit from a briefing from our
program people as to timetables and where we are.
In response to an earlier question, though, I did emphasize
that the research is no longer limited to, if you will, carbon
capture sequestration technologies. While it is important, we
are looking again at the front end, where the fuel that is to
be combusted and see if there are technologies that we can make
it on the front end less emission, more efficient, and then
during the combustion itself.
So we have some exciting opportunities. It has been a very
top priority for the Office of Fossil. Others have asked about
our full-throated support of certain issues. We have given
full-throated support, certainly during the budget process, to
get the resources to the Office of Fossil to evaluate, engage
in studies along the lines that you have been mentioning today.
Mr. Griffith. And I should say that, along these lines, it
is not just this administration. The Department of Energy has
always been interested in putting research into these areas.
And so even though I disagreed with the previous administration
on a lot of things, their DOE was doing some good things in
this arena, and I appreciate you all continuing to do that good
work.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Harper is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of
you for taking time to be here with us today.
I would like to talk to you, if I could, for a minute,
Deputy Secretary Brouillette. The National Nuclear Security
Administration was established as a semiautonomous agency
within the DOE in 2000. And as you know, the NNSA administrator
reports directly to you as the Deputy Secretary.
However, when Congress established the NNSA, the statute
required an NNSA general counsel, legislative affairs office,
and public affairs office separate from those respective
functions under you and the Secretary at DOE headquarters. And
those offices effectively serve the administrator, not the
Secretary.
While establishing separate functions may have been well-
intended, review by the congressionally chartered Augustine-
Mies Panel in testimony of this committee noted the inherent
problem of dual offices that limit and can conflict with the
Secretary's leadership over the nuclear enterprise.
So would you agree that there could be problems if, say,
the NNSA general counsel considers his client the administrator
and not the Secretary of Energy, who is ultimately responsible
for the mission?
Mr. Brouillette. That is a loaded question. The short
answer to your question, sir, is we respect what Congress did
in 1999 with the creation of the NNSA. And until Congress
changes that law, we will honor it.
If you are asking me for my personal opinion, however, it
does make management of the agency somewhat awkward. We work
well together. General Klotz and I have a great both personal
and professional relationship, and we work diligently to ensure
that the agency speaks with one voice. We try to do that as
effectively as we can.
However, as a manager, as a chief operating officer, when I
look at the enterprise, I am hard-pressed to make the argument
for separate offices and separate parts of the building doing
essentially the same functions.
Mr. Harper. All right. Well, let's just talk a little
further, then, about that. As we consider those potential
reforms to improve DOE's efficiency, give us some observations
or your take of what you make regarding the duplicative
functional offices in NNSA and DOE, let's say. Can you
elaborate a little more?
Mr. Brouillette. Well, I think you just articulated the
most obvious examples of the duplicative offices. Those
particular functions are, in my own personal opinion, easily
served by one office representing the entire Department. I
can't speak to any other specific examples.
I can tell you with regard to policy, with regard to
execution, particularly with regard to the nuclear weapons
programs, the Under Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the
Secretary decide both the policy and the execution of that
policy within the departments, within our authorities, and we
execute them with one voice and as one management team. We do
so appropriately, as Congress directed us to do. So there are
no other folks within the larger DOE complex directing the
NNSA. And I think the general would attest to that. All of the
instructions are given through the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary toward the NNSA.
Mr. Harper. Thank you.
And let's talk about maybe streamlining decision-making for
just a moment, if we could. You were at a town hall last month,
and you were asked about steps that can be taken throughout the
Department to improve efficiency and specifically reduce
burdensome paperwork that is associated with what is known as
the concurrence process. And you acknowledged the need to
improve this process. Would you please elaborate the problems
with this process and tell us what you see is the impact of
your efforts?
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. I was fortunate and privileged
to serve in the Department of Energy as an assistant secretary.
I was confirmed in 2001. I was confirmed for this position
almost 5 months ago now. I was somewhat dismayed to learn,
frankly, when I walked back into the building, that the same
green folders that we used to achieve concurrence on certain
matters, sometimes letters that you sent to us, are still
there. They are literally paper folders, green in color. And we
circulate them manually by hand throughout the Department for
opinion.
In this day and age, it strikes me as odd that we wouldn't
do that electronically. A much more efficient way of doing it
and, candidly, a very good way of maintaining accountability.
Other members of this committee have expressed some dismay and
some concern about the lack of engagement or the timeliness of
our engagement with this committee. I would suggest to you that
that is perhaps part of the problem, that we still do things
very manually within the Department.
Mr. Harper. A basic thing that can be corrected.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Cramer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
you for--really been a fascinating hearing, in my view. I also
a want to express the special recognition that the deputy
secretary issued on behalf of General Klotz. Those of us from
North Dakota, as you know, the model at Minot is only the best
coal north. I am very familiar with your leadership, and we are
grateful for it. Thank you. And you, by the way, are in the
perfect place at this time in your life, at least for the
country. So thank you for that.
The first issue I want to raise may not surprise those of
you who know me well, is I want to talk about what I see as a
lack of a research bridge, if you will, for large-scale carbon
capture sequestration utilization projects. Basic research,
very good. It goes to the utilities where regulators, like I
used to be, warn them against investing in things like this,
that there is sort of an antirisk culture, certainly among
utilities, which I think was highlighted in your grid study,
Mr. Deputy Secretary.
And so what I am wondering is can we--or am I right, first
of all, and how can DOE play a role in the demonstration part
of carbon capture sequestration technologies that, like I said,
find basic research, not quite enough muscle to get it to the
commercialization side. Maybe, Under Secretary Menezes, you
could help me with that.
Mr. Menezes. Well, this committee has been a key player in
identifying carbon capture sequestration of the clean coal
power initiative, for example, and providing the authorization
for appropriate levels of funding. Of course, appropriate
levels of funding is a key thing. But over time, when you look
at what we have done here, the DOE has, over the years,
identified several projects, whether it be coal or natural gas,
for example, or other uses, to try to figure out how it is that
post combustion you can capture and then sequester or use the
carbon dioxide.
What we have today is we had the Petra Nova plant, for
example, in Texas. Of course, Kemper is usually pointed to as a
DOE investment. We have others. We have yet to really figure
out how it is that we can have the technology to scale to
perform at the efficiency level that we want and then to be
able to do with the carbon dioxide that we would like.
We have not stopped funding programs. We have a pilot
project in India, for example, which would look to enhance oil
recovery. But each of these projects are unique with respect to
the combustion, the fuel combustion. So this is not a one size
fits all. It is not a one technology that fits all combustion
types. So the fuel use is important. And even within coal, the
type of coal. As you know, lignite is certainly different from
other coal.
Mr. Cramer. It certainly is.
Mr. Menezes. And your state has had the longest active
capture program in use.
So we are committed to it. Sometimes it is a question of
resources. I think it is a fair question to ask, have we not
sufficiently funded the most promising technologies and perhaps
funded other technologies that may not have been promising
when, in fact, they received the moneys. And I think as we--the
knowledge is maturing, and I think we are close to, hopefully
figuring out how, in fact, is the most efficient way on a
multiple range of fuels to capture and use the carbon.
Mr. Cramer. Well, I know you will find advocates on this
committee, as you pointed out. And we will continue to work
with you on providing those resources. And I appreciate the
very good answer, very thorough answer.
I just, in my last minute, just raise one other issue that
is a bit different than you might expect. But because General
Atomics is--that is an important corporate citizen at the Grand
Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, and particularly at the
Grand Sky UAV park. I have had the opportunity to go down to
San Diego a couple of times. In my most recent visit about a
year ago, I visited their ITER project. I don't know how
familiar you are with it. But, yes, the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, which, to me, just
seems to present a lot of opportunity with a mega fusion
project. And I know it is housed in San Diego. Thirty-five
countries are part of this. As I look at the U.S. commitment to
it, again, financially, I sometimes think we are coming up a
little bit short. And I just want to highlight it, either for
comment or for further discussion as we go forward.
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Quite a different
topic than my family's farm in Hazen where they would mine the
coal seam that was surface mined.
Mr. Cramer. Yes.
Mr. Dabbar. The ITER project is a very interesting project
as a part of the Office of Fusion, which is in the Office of
Science. The ITER project was negotiated a very long time ago
as a large international consortium. For those of you who don't
know, building a 500 megawatt peak fusion plant in the south of
France. That would be large. That would be a large normal power
plant. It is a very large project in terms of dollar amounts
and the contribution from all around the world, including us.
Fusion is important to us. General Atomics also has a fusion
reactor in San Diego that you visited. So the overall is very
important.
The challenges around ITER is project management. I think
you have heard a lot before about us as a management team
having private sector experience around project management. The
biggest challenge around ITER is that it is six times
overbudget and it is 10 years late in terms of timing. And so I
know that on a very bipartisan basis there has been a big
debate about funding of that and how that affects overall
budget and the performance.
The performance of the ITER project has improved since they
changed out the management team there, and so they are getting
back on being able to perform. And we look forward to working
with the Congress here on the appropriations side should you
want to continue funding it.
Mr. Cramer. Appreciate it. Thank you, and I am well over
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flores. Yes, you are. The gentleman's time has expired
long ago.
I would like to thank this panel for attending. Seeing that
there are no other members wishing to ask questions, this panel
is excused and we will move to Panel II.
Mr. Flores. All right. Let's go ahead and get started. We
want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking
the time to testify before the subcommittee. Today's witnesses
will have the opportunity to give opening statements, followed
by a round of questions from members.
Our second witness panel for today's hearing includes
Thomas Zacharia, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
Donald Levy, who is the Albert A. Michelson Distinguished
Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago and Co-chair
of the Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management
Reforms in the Nuclear Security Enterprise; Sarah Ladislaw is
the Director of Energy and National Security Program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies; Steve Wasserman
is the Director of Lilly Research Laboratory Collaborative
Access Team, Advanced Photon Source of the Argonne National
Laboratory, on behalf of the Society for Science at User
Research Facilities; Dan Reicher is the Executive Director at
Stanford University Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and
Finance and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution; lastly
but not least, Rich Powell is the Executive Director of the
ClearPath Foundation.
We appreciate all of you being here today.
We will begin the panel with Dr. Zacharia, and you are now
recognized for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. We would
request that each of you adhere to the 5-minute limit. Thank
you.
Dr. Zacharia.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA, DIRECTOR, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL
LABORATORY; DONALD LEVY, ALBERT A. MICHELSON DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND CO-CHAIR,
PANEL TO TRACK AND ASSESS GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT REFORMS IN
THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE; SARAH LADISLAW, DIRECTOR,
ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; STEVE WASSERMAN, DIRECTOR, LILLY
RESEARCH LABORATORIES COLLABORATIVE ACCESS TEAM, ADVANCED
PHOTON SOURCE, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, ON BEHALF OF THE
SOCIETY FOR SCIENCE AT USER RESEARCH FACILITIES; DAN REICHER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY STEYER-TAYLOR CENTER
FOR ENERGY POLICY AND FINANCE AND SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION; AND RICH POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH
FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA
Mr. Zacharia. Thank you, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
to testify.
My name is Thomas Zacharia, and I am director of the
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As you
heard from the earlier panel, Department of Energy is
responsible for the missions of science, energy, national
security, and then LANL legacy cleanup.
The role of the national labs is to provide the science and
technology capabilities and solutions the Department needs to
accomplish these missions. My written testimony provides
several examples of how Oak Ridge had leverage capabilities and
resources and works with other national labs, industry, and
universities to meet DOE's mission needs. In the interest of
time, I will speak to only one of these.
The Summit supercomputer, which will begin operating at
ORNL later this year, will surpass what is now the world's most
powerful computer in China. Summit resulted from CORAL, the
Collaboration of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Livermore, meant to
streamline the procurement process and maximize the government
buying power. Six labs are partnering with an extensive network
of American companies, academia, and laboratories on the
Exascale Computing Project to ensure that U.S. researchers will
have access, not only to the computing systems with 50 times
the power of today's most capable machines, but also to the
applications and software that they will need to use these
machines effectively.
This partnership shows how the national labs individually
and collectively play a pivotal role in developing new tools
for science and technology, to include reliable and resilient
infrastructure in applying those tools to DOE's mission needs
and in sustaining U.S. competitiveness.
Most DOE national labs are GOCO facilities, government-
owned/contractor-operated. The relationship between DOE and the
contractors who manage and operate the labs is ideally a
partnership in which DOE determines what is to be done and
contractors determine how to achieve it.
Many aspects of the GOCO model work very well. However,
some reviews have identified problems in program execution and
increased costs. In 2015, the Commission to Review the
Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories made several
recommendations for improving lab management, many focused on
rebuilding the GOCO partnership. DOE is responding by working
to drive fundamental change in its management of the national
labs.
First, DOE has adopted a planning process that is improving
the strategic alignment of the labs and enabling them to work
more effectively to focus on national priorities. In terms of
governance, DOE is working with its contractors to streamline
contract mechanisms, while ensuring that contractors are held
accountable.
DOE's lab appraisal process has become a useful tool for
evaluating and incentivizing contractor performance and for
informing decisions on whether to extend or compete expiring
contracts. Contractor assurance systems are providing new tools
for determining the proper level of oversight. For example,
ORNL offers a fast-track CRADA program. This program
streamlines execution of cooperative research agreement and
major technology of transfer mechanism by exploiting robust
contract assurance processes. Our partnership with DOE's ORNL
site office was a key factor in implementing this new
mechanism.
DOE's regulatory reform task force identified regulations
governing lab operations as a target of opportunity. The task
force embraced several proposals from the National Laboratory
Directors' Council that focused on these regulations. Cross-
functional teams are implementing some welcome changes, as
described in my written testimony.
This process has fostered an alignment in which DOE and its
contractors are working together on common goals. Continuing
efforts along these lines should produce additional savings and
operational improvements.
With regard to policy reform, Secretary Perry is realigning
the Department to advance its policy goals consistent with the
statutory requirements. At ORNL we look forward to working with
our DOE sponsors to support them in the execution of their
missions.
Finally, DOE is encouraging the national labs to work with
industry to turn early-stage innovations into products. New
approaches include the agreements for commercializing
technology mechanisms now available to all labs and support for
early-career innovators.
The actions that DOE has taken to make the national labs
more efficient and effective will enable these institutions to
focus on delivering the science and technology needed to ensure
our energy security, national security, and global
competitiveness in the 21st century.
The M&O contractors are committed to working with DOE to
build and maintain a culture of trust and accountability that
will ensure the greatest possible return on the Nation's
investment in the national labs. Thank you, again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zacharia follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton [presiding]. Thank you.
Dr. Levy. You need to hit that button on the----
STATEMENT OF DONALD LEVY
Mr. Levy. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, members of
the committee, I am Donald Levy, Professor of Chemistry
Emeritus at the University of Chicago. The University of
Chicago is a management and operating contractor for the
Department of Energy, operates two Office of Science
Laboratories: Argonne National Lab and Fermi National
Accelerator.
Ten years prior to my retirement in 2016, I was vice-
president for research and national laboratories at the
university and the person responsible for executing our M&O
contract.
I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and I am
here today as co-chair of the joint panel of the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public
Administration, which is charged to monitor the efforts of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, to address
issues raised in several reports concerning NNSA's management
and governance of the enterprise. I also wish to acknowledge my
NAPA co-chair for the study, Jonathan Breul of Georgetown
University. I very much appreciate you giving me the
opportunity to discuss insights we have gained so far in the
course of our panel's study.
Our study was requested by Congress in the National Defense
Authorization Act of fiscal year 2016, being carried out by a
very strong panel whose membership has extensive experience and
excellent credentials in both nuclear security and public
administration. It is supported by the NNSA, which has gone out
of its way to provide the panel with full information relevant
to its tasks.
The congressional request that formed our panel came about
because of the long series of reports that identified serious
concerns in the operation of the nuclear security enterprise.
By one count there were more than 50 critical reports over two
decades. In spite of all those reports, problems persisted. The
concerns in these reports are not about the safety and security
incidents you may occasionally read in the paper, and certainly
not about the quality of the work being done. Rather, they
arise from serious and systemic management and governance
problems which have persisted for many years and were perceived
as an eventual threat to the national security mission of the
NNSA.
Our first report was released last March and the second is
in preparation. Our work will run through the fall of 2020. The
Authorization Act asked in particular that NNSA create a plan
to address concerns raised in the most recent critical report,
which was produced by a panel co-chaired by Norman Augustine
and Admiral Richard Mies.
The Augustine-Mies report identified five serious concerns,
which are called, and I quote from the report, ``systemic
problems in both management practices and culture that exist
across the nuclear enterprise.'' These are: Number one, a lack
of sustained national leadership, focus, and priority. Number
two, overlapping DOE and NNSA headquarters staffs and blurred
ownership and accountability for the nuclear enterprise
missions. Number three, lack of proven management practices,
including dysfunctional relationship between the program line
managers and mission support staffs. Number four, dysfunctional
relationships between the government and its management and
operating contractors, which has led to burdensome
transactional oversight rather than management focus on mission
execution. Number five, insufficient collaboration between NNSA
and Department of Defense weapons customers, resulting in
misunderstanding, distrust, and frustration.
These concerns are not merely vexations or opportunities
for improvement. Rather, they each represent a risk, which if
not addressed, would eventually erode the Nation's ability to
provide adequate nuclear security. Each of the concerns in the
Augustine-Mies report mirror similar findings in many previous
reports.
Our studies found, through multiple site visits, numerous
meetings and phone calls with NNSA staff members and study of
relevant documents, that NNSA has initiated a large number of
changes in response to the Augustine-Mies report and others.
But as noted in our first report, quoting from that report,
``it has not identified success and it lacks qualitative or
quantitative metrics to identify and measure change.''
Moreover, the changes that have been made seem piecemeal
and not as part of a larger strategic plan intended to address
longstanding problems. Our panel continues to press for
measures, quantitative or qualitative, that can indicate
whether progress is being made against the serious and
persistent concerns.
In our upcoming report, we will provide a more detailed
analysis of some of NNSA's more promising changes. But the
panel has also heard first-hand from the laboratory staff that
in spite of these changes, problems persist.
More broadly, NNSA is embarking on a large-scale program of
change management in order to alter practices and attitudes
that have settled in over decades. In its first report, our
panel explained that the experience of many organizations have
revealed some common steps that are necessary for effective and
lasting change to take root. Not all of those steps are in
place at NNSA, and our upcoming report will delve into this.
Successful change management, especially this scale, also
requires buy-in and leadership from the top. It is important
for the next NNSA administrator and DOE leadership to recognize
the magnitude and persistence of the problems and take on this
challenge.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
remain at your disposal for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Ms. Ladislaw.
STATEMENT OF SARAH LADISLAW
Ms. Ladislaw. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and
members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here to speak
with you today about DOE modernization.
I run the CSIS Energy and National Security Program. It is
one of the country's oldest and most well-known think tank
program focusing on energy policy and geopolitics. It was
created around the same time as the Department of Energy and
for many of the same reasons. The views I express today are my
own.
The Department of Energy was created in the late 1970s
during an inflection point in America's energy history. Today,
the United States faces a new energy inflection point. Unlike
the scarcity atmosphere of the 1970s, the United States has
been leading the world in a new age of perceived energy
abundance and rapid technological change. With it come new
challenges and opportunities.
For example, while the United States is now the world's
largest producer of oil and gas, we are still vulnerable to
energy supply disruptions in a globally integrated market.
Electric power systems are becoming more distributed and
complex, which brings enormous benefits but also operational
and security challenges.
Efforts to create and manufacture new technologies or
capture market share in developing economies is leading to
stiff competition and creating new trade relationships and
geopolitical dynamics. Concerns over air pollution, water
resources, and the global climate challenge are fundamentally
altering the investment environment for energy companies and
the policy decisions taken by governments around the world. The
United States is blessed with many advantages in this
environment, but the potential for disruptive change is higher
than ever.
The Department of Energy has an important role to play in
addressing all of these challenges. First, the DOE should take
a leadership role in conducting analysis regarding the safety,
reliability, and optimization of the Nation's energy
infrastructure. As we continue to witness, abundant supply does
not in and of itself provide energy security. Transmission,
delivery, and distribution infrastructure is critically
important to ensuring adequate supplies of energy.
Second, the DOE should continue to maintain emergency
preparedness planning and response functions. Most notably, DOE
manages the Nation's strategic petroleum reserves, the world's
largest government-owned and managed emergency stockpile of
crude and home heating oil. The DOE should modernize and
Congress should safeguard this important asset.
Third, energy efficiency promotion should remain a core
mandate at the Department of Energy. One of the original
mandates of the Department of Energy was to enact efficiency
standards. The role that the Department plays in setting those
standards is often overlooked or criticized, but has paid
important economic and security dividends over the years.
Fourth, scientific research and innovation are essential to
meeting DOE's mission across the board and should be
strengthened. The role that DOE and the national laboratories
play in national research and development ecosystem are
critical. Government does not constitute the entirety of the
U.S. innovation landscape, but makes important contributions to
funding research not undertaken by private interests, feeding
into the personnel and intellectual supply chain of the
research community, and working collaboratively with the
private industry and universities to catalyze important areas
of research.
Fifth, energy strategy and analysis are more important than
ever, so the DOE should maintain and strengthen its energy
policy and analysis function. It is critically important for
DOE to have a strong energy policy and analysis function in
order to play an active and authoritative role in the
interagency policymaking process and to engage with industry
and other stakeholders.
Sixth, independent and impartial energy information is
essential. For decades, the country has benefited from the data
collection, reporting, and analytical function of the Energy
Information Administration. EIA provides unbiased, market-
relevant research on a regular basis through reports, and
provides an important policy neutral voice in the energy
policymaking process.
Seventh, DOE should increase its capabilities when it comes
to understanding, managing, and engaging in global energy
issues. DOE plays an underreported role in managing
international affairs in geopolitics as they relate to energy.
The International Affairs Office should be strengthened and
expanded to have a stronger analytical function designed to
inform DOE leadership and thinking about global energy trends
and the emerging challenges we face.
The Department of Energy has a long history of supporting
the Nation's security, economic, and environmental priorities
and objectives. It was born during a time when the Nation's
energy outlook was dangerous and uncertain. Today's energy
outlook is no less uncertain as the country prepares for more
interconnected and interdependent energy systems driven by new
consumers, new priorities, and stiff competition. Preparing for
this future requires the same amount of dedication and
commitment that the DOE has delivered for the last 40 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on DOE
modernization. I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Dr. Wasserman.
STATEMENT OF STEVE WASSERMAN
Mr. Wasserman. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and
members of the subcommittee, my name is Stephen Wasserman. It
is a pleasure to be at this hearing on modernization of the
Department of Energy to discuss part of the Department's
science mission: the DOE scientific user facilities. DOE's
creation and operation of these facilities, an important part
of its support of research and energy and the physical
sciences, is a major success story of the Department.
This morning, I appear on behalf of the Society for Science
at User Research Facilities, SSURF, on whose board of directors
I currently serve. SSURF is a new scientific association,
founded in 2016. It continues efforts that began 27 years ago
to foster cooperation between the large research facilities of
the U.S. Government, as well as between the facilities and the
scientists who use them.
As we peer into the Department of Energy's future, it is
useful to briefly look back at the path that has led to today.
In 1945, Dr. Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of
Scientific Research and Development during World War II, issued
a report, ``Science, the Endless Frontier,'' in response to a
Presidential request a year earlier. In his text, Dr. Bush
stated that, ``research involving expensive capital facilities
beyond the capacity of private institutions should be advanced
by active government support.'' The current DOE user facilities
are the result of such support.
The facilities are the Nation's shared toolbox for research
and innovation. The individual tools are large, often extremely
so. Access to them is merit-based, with each operating an
independent review system for proposed experiments.
The DOE Office of Science operates 26 user facilities.
Additional ones support the security missions of the National
Nuclear Security Administration. No other nation has the number
and variety of scientific capabilities that U.S. scientists can
avail themselves of here at home.
The user facilities are embedded in our scientific psyche.
Over 30,000 scientists from university, industry, and
government laboratories currently perform experiments at one or
more facilities. These researchers come from all 50 states and
from every continent, except Antarctica. Three hundred seventy-
five companies use the DOE facilities, including more than 50
members of the Fortune 500. In addition, most Federal agencies
which have a scientific component to their mission sponsor or
perform research at DOE locations.
Today, I would like to highlight two examples of the impact
of the facilities. These represent only a minute sample of the
thousands of research projects that are pursued each year
within the DOE facility network.
The first example comes from the Oak Ridge Leadership
Computing Facility, OLCF. General Electric manufactures large
turbines fueled by natural gas for the generation of electrical
power. In 2015, GE used the Titan supercomputer at OLCF to
simulate two turbine designs: one current, the other then under
development. The simulations reproduced observations from the
current system and predicted successful performance in the new
model. Full scale tests of the new turbine later confirmed the
simulations. The first of the new turbines, which increased
efficiency by 2 percent, a major improvement in the field of
power generation, were installed in Texas in mid-2017.
The second example is from the DOE X-ray sources. These
sources are vital to research and development in human health.
Virtually every major pharmaceutical company in the U.S. uses
these sources to probe the structures of proteins implicated in
human disease. This area is one in which I have been involved
for 20 years, currently at Eli Lilly and Company.
Scientists in the pharmaceutical industry continually
investigate how potential new medicinal compounds interact with
their biological targets. These efforts have aided the
development of drugs to treat cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, and
autoimmune diseases, as well as ongoing research to find
approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer's.
New medicines whose developments included experiments at
one of the DOE synchrotron sources can be found in each year's
approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recent
example that is for me close to home, in September, the FDA
approved abemaciclib, a new treatment for certain forms of
breast cancer that was developed by Lilly. I and my co-workers
at Lilly performed experiments at the Advanced Photon Source as
part of the research that lead to this medicine.
Today, our country is focused on the need to upgrade the
Nation's infrastructure. The user facilities are a type of
infrastructure that, like transportation and utilities, needs
to be maintained and improved. The DOE Office of Science has
been an admirable steward of this infrastructure. However, the
office has been handicapped by budgets whose buying power has
significantly decreased over the last decade.
Current fiscal constraints mean that renewal often occurs
at the slower pace than the facility's age and that timelines
for upgrades are lengthened or delayed. The current levels of
support have already left our Nation behind in the capabilities
available at a small subset of the facilities. Continuing this
trend risks a gap in innovation and technology between the
United States and other nations.
In conclusion, I would like to return to ``Science, the
Endless Frontier.'' Near the end of his summary, Dr. Bush
observed that responsibilities for scientific research are the
proper concern of the government where they vitally affect our
health, our jobs, and our national security. We at SSURF and
our colleagues in the user facility community could not agree
more. The user facilities are a critical part of the greatness
of the U.S. scientific endeavor. We need them for our economy,
security, and quality of life. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Reicher, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER
Mr. Reicher. Thank you.
Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to share my perspective on the DOE's
mission.
I have spent more than a decade at the Department under
four secretaries and have a deep respect for the agency. So it
pains me to say that DOE, under the Trump administration, is
heading in a problematic direction when it comes to the
innovation, commercialization, and deployment of U.S. clean
energy technology.
The administration has sought unprecedented cuts in DOE's
budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity
reliability, fossil energy, and nuclear power. It has proposed
to eliminate the Loan Programs Office, ARPA-E, the State Energy
Program, and the low-income weatherization program. It has
begun putting the brakes on energy efficiency standards and has
not reestablished the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.
Let me be clear, DOE continues to make progress in critical
areas, but this progress is slowing as important programs keep
personnel, longstanding advisory functions, and related funding
are hollowed out. These challenges come at a time when
worldwide investment in clean energy is growing, roughly $750
billion annually today, and there is a global race for
dominance in this massive market.
The Chinese have a well-organized plan to dominate clean
energy. From wind, solar, hydropower, and storage, to nuclear
power, advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, carbon capture,
and transmission, China is not only leading in manufacturing
and deployment, but increasingly in R&D and commercialization,
the traditional U.S. strong suits.
This committee should look at the risk posed by these
trends and ensure that DOE's applying a full set of resources.
We preceded our peril in hobbling the U.S. Government's work
with industry to advance our Nation's competitive position in
clean energy, a sector where much energy innovation has come
from the U.S., often at taxpayer expense.
My testimony addresses several issues. First, Congress
should resist the administration's proposed 69 percent cut in
funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy or EERE, and
urge the administration to propose robust funding in fiscal
year 2019. In a June letter, all seven of us who are EERE
assistant secretaries, both Republicans and Democrats,
emphasized that cuts of this size would do serious harm.
Second, this committee should resist the pending rescission
of funds by House appropriators that would effectively end the
work of DOE's Loan Programs Office, LPO. LPO, originally
authorized by this committee, is carrying out its emissions
well, helping to commercialize advanced nuclear fossil and
renewable energy as well as transportation technologies, and
managing the existing $36 billion investment portfolio.
In a June 4 letter to this committee that I would like to
submit for the record, 17 CEOs wrote that the LPO is often the
only way to get innovative energy technologies commercially
deployed. LPO has $41 billion in remaining loan-making capacity
that would be a big down payment on the trillion dollar
infrastructure program that Congress may soon take up.
Third, DOE's Appliance Standards Program was one of the
most effective approaches to saving energy, and has long
enjoyed bipartisan support. Unfortunately, DOE recently put
work on most new standards on hold, and could end up violating
statutory deadlines. This committee should ensure that DOE does
not advocate its important standard setting role.
Fourth, a bipartisan effort over the last several years
would open up congressionally authorized investment vehicles,
master limited partnerships, private activity bonds, and real
estate investment trusts to clean energy technologies, and
thereby lower the cost of financing energy projects. The House
should adopt the bipartisan MLP Parity Act, sponsored by
Representatives Poe and Thompson, as well as Congressman Welch,
and the bipartisan Carbon Capture Improvement Act sponsored by
Representatives Curbelo and Veasey.
Fifth, the need for electricity storage is growing fast
with the significant increase in solar and wind. Congress and
the administration should help advance both utility scale and
distributed storage through R&D funding, grants, tax credits,
loan guarantees, MLPs, and other tools. In this regard,
Congress should resist the Trump administration's proposed 61
percent cut in DOE energy storage R&D.
Sixth, carbon capture and storage can cut emissions in both
power generation and heavy industry. Over the past 20 years,
DOE has relied on a variety of Federal tools--R&D funding
grants, Federal tax credits, private activity bonds, and loan
guarantees--to advance CCS and made good progress. The House
should resist the Trump administration's proposed 85 percent
cut in DOE's CCS R&D funding and adopt pending legislation that
would improve the current CCS 45Q tax credit and authorize both
master limited partnership and private activity bond funding.
Seventh, the U.S. Government is the single largest energy
user in the Nation, with an energy bill to taxpayers exceeding
$23 billion. The committee should take note of a 2016 task
force by a report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
that proposes many ways to cut this bill and expand the
deployment of clean energy on Federal lands. It should also
resist the proposed 63 percent cut to the budget of DOE's
Federal Energy Management Program.
Finally, this committee should encourage Secretary Perry to
reactivate the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that has long
provided important expert input into the Department's programs
and operations. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reicher follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Powell.
STATEMENT OF RICH POWELL
Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member
Rush, and other committee members. My name is Rich Powell,
executive director of the ClearPath Foundation.
ClearPath develops conservative policies that accelerate
clean energy deployment. We advocate for innovation over
regulation, educating policymakers and conducting and
supporting independent policy analysis. A note, we receive no
funding from industry.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on
DOE modernization. Refocusing the Department's key research and
development programs is crucial to securing American clean
energy dominance internationally and facilitating a cleaner,
more reliable, and affordable domestic energy supply.
Our Nation is rapidly approaching a crossroads. Coal makes
up a third of American power production, and the average plant
will likely retire by 2030. Half of U.S. nuclear plants could
close by 2040. Refurbishing or replacing these facilities
presents a once in a century opportunity to develop domestic
advanced industries.
Meanwhile, global energy demand is projected to grow by 28
percent by 2040. The market in India alone is estimated at $2.7
trillion. A homegrown, U.S. advanced energy economy can seize
this opportunity. If our Nation does not rise to that
challenge, we run the risk of falling behind. In fact, we
already are.
China, in particular, is already outflanking us on next
generation technology. It is bringing an advanced nuclear
reactor online this year at a time when the U.S. is struggling
just to keep its existing fleet afloat and doesn't even have a
fast test reactor available for American entrepreneurs to test
new designs. China is already the global leader in solar
manufacturing and superefficient coal technology and is rapidly
advancing in batteries and electric vehicles.
The best way for America to outcompete in future energy
markets is to develop increasingly advanced technologies that
can best rival offerings, as we did with the fracking
revolution for our shale resources. We may not be able to beat
China with cranes and concrete, but we can win in high-skilled
manufacturing of carbon capturing fuel cells, printable solar
panels, and modular advanced reactors.
But these breakthroughs do not happen overnight. Hydraulic
fracturing and today's solar and wood technologies took decades
and significant investment from both private and public sources
before their widespread deployment.
The private sector is often ill-positioned to pioneer new
and capital-intensive technologies alone. DOE must remain
central to America's clean energy innovation dominance, linking
academic research and commercial products. Too often, however,
we think of DOE's R&D role in terms of research capabilities or
dollars spent, rather than delivering disruptive new
technologies to solve particular problems or address market
challenges. Spending more with a business-as-usual approach
will not win the global energy innovation race.
The Department should reorient itself toward moonshot
technology goals that empower industry to tackle the challenges
of breakthrough technologies. Clearly articulated, longterm
research priorities could insulate critical RD&D efforts from
changing political winds. Used appropriately, they would
leverage limited Federal resources towards the most important
priorities.
Big goals at DOE have worked before. The 2011 SunShot
Initiative aligned secretary-level resources to reduce the cost
of solar power by 75 percent within 10 years. Last year, DOE
reached the goal ahead of schedule. More such goals are needed.
For example, an advanced nuclear MoonShot could implement
Secretary Perry's call for an increased emphasis on the
development of new nuclear technologies.
For ambitious technology development goals to succeed, the
Department should implement a few systematic reforms. First,
DOE should adopt more private sector management practices.
Major Moonshots and interim subgoals could provide yardsticks
to evaluate progress. If specific bets don't meet milestones,
dollars should be redirected; a practice common today at ARPA-
E.
Second, a soup-to-nuts approach to energy research is
needed, especially for capital intensive technologies such as
carbon capture and advanced nuclear. Striking a balance of
supporting demonstration while avoiding market interference is
a delicate one, but is necessary to maintain international
competitiveness. Prematurely ending private-public research
projects raises the risks that our rivals will commercialize
them instead.
China has no philosophical objection to funding applied
science. They are happy to take American basic research and add
applied dollars to demonstrate and commercialize them, reaping
the benefits of our creations.
In conclusion, America has an opportunity to lead the
global market for clean, reliable, and affordable energy. But
without a more focused and nimble government partner, American
entrepreneurs are likely to lose the clean energy race. A
recommitment to leading global energy innovation would not only
improve our geopolitical position, it would reduce emissions
and maintain low consumer prices, while seizing a multitrillion
dollar opportunity.
ClearPath applauds the committee for taking on this
important and overdue task and stands ready to assist its
legislative efforts. Thank you again for the opportunity to
provide remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you all for your testimony. I know
it has been a long hearing, and you were here promptly when the
gavel came down at 10 o'clock. I have a couple of questions, as
I know the members do here.
Dr. Wasserman, I was pleased to hear you talking about some
very positive things, particularly relating to what Lilly has
been doing and the funding to offset some of the buying power
for new drugs and devices. As you know, this committee passed,
every one of us, passed on a 51 to nothing vote in the last
Congress, 21st Century Cures, which accelerates breakthrough
drugs to address disease. We worked hard to make sure that
there were the appropriate offsets for more funding for the NIH
and other resources.
Have you at all looked at what we did as it relates to the
advancement of new technologies in the medical side?
Mr. Wasserman. Only slightly, Chairman. As we look at new
technologies, as a company, we are always looking for ways to
improve our goal of getting medicines to the patients who need
them as soon as possible. So the things that the government has
done to foster that, including our use of the facilities,
developing other new technologies, leveraging the things that
both that NIH and DOE have created for us to improve our
efficiency in the laboratory.
As you know, it is a long slog to get a drug to market.
And, for example, the experiments that I mentioned today on
breast cancer were done, I think, 7 years ago, and the approval
came down. But, again, we know it is difficult to get a drug to
market, and every advantage that we can come up with sponsored
by the government or with the own initiative within the
industry.
Mr. Upton. We worked very closely with Dr. O'Neese,
particularly as it related to the DOE user facilities as part
of that legislation. He was a very constructive partner as we
worked together.
Dr. Zacharia, you have watched our committee's action and
you know that we have been very involved in cybersecurity. And
I guess the question that I have for you is, what do you see as
we try to avoid unnecessary duplication but still ensure
breakthroughs in cyber defenses and response capabilities, in
particular, in regard to advanced supercomputing capabilities
to address those challenges?
Mr. Zacharia. Chairman Upton, thank you very much. So
cybersecurity clearly is a challenge for a system like ours or
a society like ours because the adversary only has to succeed
once, whereas we have to be 100 percent foolproof. And so the
approach that we have taken working with the Department is to
make sure that the cost of penetrating critical assets is
increasingly higher. So just like if your own home, the higher
the walls, gates, et cetera, the alarm systems, it forces the
people to go look elsewhere. And so cybersecurity, broadly
speaking, is focused on new tools and technologies and software
solutions, building on the computing capabilities that we have,
the supercomputing capabilities that we have. But also within
the DOE space, we also focus on the cyber physical systems
where you are also not just focused on the penetration of
computing and information technology, but really the gateway
into grid and energy grid systems, which is a big challenge, as
was noted in the previous panel.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one more comment about
the question about the Cures Act, is that, as you--the DOE
supercomputer systems are used effectively in working with a
joint program between NCI and DOE and working with a private
sector, in this particular case, GlaxoSmithKline, in developing
a pilot project where the computing capability and the data
analytics are being brought forward to look at much more
targeted personalized medicine initiatives.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reicher, I am quite interested in your influent overall
proposal--your influent program, but in general, I am
interested in your whole thrust here, and I think you have been
pretty specific, and that means a lot to this committee in
terms of some of your recommendations. But I only have 5
minutes, so I want to zero in on the weatherization program and
the EERE recommendations in general.
We are in the midst of extremely cold weather throughout
the Nation, and has this weatherization program been effective,
and has there been a return on the investment? I mean, what is
the cost of the investment, in your opinion, into the
weatherization program?
And, secondly, how will low income families be impacted if
this program were completely phased out? And what would the
effect be on local jobs if this program were to be phased out?
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Rush, the Weatherization Assistance
Program has been a very successful program. More than 7 million
homes have been weatherized around the United States to date. I
think it is every $1 of Federal investment leverages between $4
and $5 of outside investment, so it is a good government
leverage in that way. It comes at a moment when it is not only
cold out, but we are seeing a pretty big increase in the cost
of heating fuels, as oil prices increase, as natural gases
prices increase. So it does a lot in that way. I think much of
the review of that program, and I know Oak Ridge has done some
of it, has been fairly positive about the program, to date.
And there is some great job production in this program. It
really puts local people to work going in and, first, measuring
what is leaking in a house, and secondly, blowing in insulation
and fixing windows. So it has got all the right hallmarks. So I
really, really hope that we don't see the elimination of this
program. It has been supported for decades. Forty years
anniversary, I think, was last year. So I am a big fan.
Mr. Rush. From your previous work at Argonne, can you speak
to some of the innovative works that have taken place in the
energy storage field? This is for Dr. Levy, I am sorry.
Dr. Levy, you worked at Argonne. Can you share any insight
into some of the most promising potential breakthroughs in the
beyond lithium program? What are some of the possibilities that
can help move us forward into the future in regards to storing
energy and developing a more resilient and efficient 21st
century electricity grid?
Mr. Levy. Thank you, Mr. Rush. First of all, I must
confess, I have been away from Argonne for 2 years, and I am a
couple of years out of date. And I think in the battery
business, that is an important 2 years.
They were having very promising results in improving
storage, and of course, that is important for two reasons. It
is important in order to use intermittent sources of energy. It
is also important for all sorts of other applications. So there
is nothing but gain to be had there.
I think the best I can offer you in terms of specifics is
to get back to you after talking to some of the people at
Argonne.
Mr. Rush. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
all being here.
What the intent of what I think the administration is
trying to do is, and what we are trying to do, is look at the
Department of Energy after 40 years, and how do you update it?
How do you modernize it? How do you make it efficient? And
really how do you tell the story? I think part of the problem
is the public really doesn't know the story, and that is part
of our challenge too.
I have been to Argonne and I have been to Oak Ridge, but
those are special trips that people have to make. And if you
are not a member from that area, then you just don't get there.
So we have got great scientists, they work real hard.
And then the other part is, you know, Members of Congress
easily can go back to why did we create the Department of
Energy? And if you go back to the history, remember, it was the
energy crisis of the 1970s, which some of us were a lot younger
then. And then we get to Congress and we still have an energy
crisis.
So the creation of the Department of Energy in the 1970s
didn't solve the crisis. And I would argue that it is
individual investment. And right now, it is the fracking
technology that really has transformed this whole world's view
now, not just within the continental United States, but really
the international energy markets. I also do a lot in eastern
European freedom issues, so the energy extortion by the
Russians is real.
So that is kind of the intro into my questions. I want to
go to Ms. Ladislaw first in addressing the SPRO. I was a big
SPRO supporter when we were importing a lot of crude oil, and
we are, but we are also exporting. So we are having that
debate, right, $2 million to modernize it, and then what,
right? I have been quoted as saying, ``I am not even sure why
that should be part of our portfolio anymore.'' I think in your
statement you disagree with that, and I would ask why.
Ms. Ladislaw. Thanks very much for the question and for
your interest in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I find you
are right, a lot of people don't know about its existence in
addition to all the things that the Department of Energy has
done over the years. I was not around the Department's
creation. I have worked with----
Mr. Shimkus. Let's go to someone else then. No.
Ms. Ladislaw. I have worked with people that were, though.
And what I find really interesting is that, as we remember it,
the Department was created during a time of crisis, and we
thought it was going to get much worse. And a lot of it had to
do with deregulating our domestic environment and making a
whole suite of challenges and deciding that we were going to
commit to this internationally connected and efficient market
for oil and gas and things like that. And we have pursued that
for 40 years. And I actually think that the Department and the
United States should take a lot of credit for that system that
we have created. It is what is going to allow us to sell a lot
of the oil and gas resources that we have in a free and open
market, and I think that is a huge advantage.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me just go ahead, real quick, because I am
running out of time.
Ms. Ladislaw. I was just going to say, I think that the
reality, though, is that we have, as forecasters, been wrong,
time and time again over that 40-year period about near-term
market changes, whether we are going to have enough resources
or not have enough resources. And a lot of that has to do with
situational type of things that we couldn't foresee, like
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and things like that.
Mr. Shimkus. Just because I want to be respectful of my
colleagues' time. So, we have got the Bakken now and we have
got the Pennsylvania shale, we have got, obviously the oil
sands, we have got Keystone, and hopefully eventually we will
get Keystone XL Pipeline. And we now, after much consternation,
export crude oil, which I think has been a huge benefit. It has
been a benefit for our identification location recovery,
keeping the prices at a place where we still have people
looking in the continental United States, and so I think that
has been a net plus for the country and for jobs and the
economy.
I get from your testimony, and correct me if I am wrong. I
think that is true for LNG too. And I would like to hear your
comments on that. Do you believe that that would be the same
type of response if we were more active in LNG exports?
Ms. Ladislaw. Sure. I think LNG exports are certainly good
for the U.S. economy.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Great.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Ms. Castor.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses for your very interesting testimony.
I have to say, Mr. Reicher, I share your concern that the
Trump administration's policies they are putting forth in the
beginning of the administration appear to want to hollow out
our Department of Energy, and that would be to the detriment of
this great country. At this time, it just doesn't seem like the
way they are thinking matches the challenges that we face and
takes advantage of all of the fantastic technological advances
and natural gas revolution, and as Ms. Ladislaw said, the
energy abundance that we have at this point.
You, Mr. Reicher, pointed to the drastic cuts in clean
energy, the electric grid operations, the next generation
energy technology. You pointed to the inexplicable back
peddling on energy efficiency standards for household
appliances. But you have particular expertise as the former
assistant secretary for EERE. Will you explain the consequences
of such drastic diminishment of energy efficiency and renewable
energy under what the Trump administration has put forward?
Mr. Reicher. So I think it hurts us in a variety of ways. I
think it hurts us in terms of people's pocketbooks, if we
really do pull back, if we don't take advantage of the savings
that we can achieve, if we don't take advantage of a variety of
other things, weatherizing people's homes. So I think it hits
there.
It obviously hits from an environmental standpoint. We have
made a lot of progress in cutting carbon emissions, both
because of the rise of natural gas, but also because of the
deployment of a variety of renewables. It definitely hits us in
terms of our competitiveness. And I will have to tell you, I am
very worried about what we are doing.
We published a major report at Stanford that actually DOE
funded, looking at the Chinese solar industry and how it is
that it has gotten so very strong. And it has gotten so very
strong because there is a highly organized effort in China,
industry and government, in each of these major energy
technology categories to begin to, essentially, own these
energy industries. They now make 70 percent of the world's
solar panels. And it is not just cheap manufacturing, it is
also now R&D.
The Chinese are getting very good at solar R&D. They are
getting very good at nuclear R&D. They are getting very good in
carbon capture, in transmission. And I really worry that, from
a competitiveness standpoint, we're going to really hurt
ourselves. And it is, in fact, this industry government
partnership that has been active for the last 40-50 years that
has really kept us in the ball game.
And, lastly, I will say, much of what China is moving
forward with was technology invented in the United States, and
a lot of that at government expense, taxpayer expense. So I
really think we need to think from a competitiveness standpoint
where we are headed.
Ms. Castor. And your point is not lost on me on how much it
is costing the rise in carbon pollution because I come from the
State of Florida, and I think the insurance industry earlier
yesterday or at the end of last week released the totals for
the damages from hurricanes. Now, the direct link isn't there,
but what the consensus is that these extreme weather events are
intensified because of higher carbon levels. We have the best
scientists in the world and we have the technological edge, why
would we cede that to China?
Ms. Ladislaw, you also highlighted the importance of energy
efficiency. You said it is important to the economy and it pays
great dividends for security. Could you expand on your concerns
about receding in America's leadership on energy efficiency and
renewables?
Ms. Ladislaw. Sure. Working for a security organization, I
think people think, in particular at this time of abundance,
that the way that you are secure is you have more, right? If
you just have more, then you are thereby secure.
I think the original sort of mandate for the Department of
Energy was to use less and produce more, more in variety and
more in quantity, and that use less piece has been huge. The
Alliance to Save Energy has remarkable figures that I included
in my testimony about how much the U.S. has saved. And I think
that what we are finding now is, around the world, developing
countries that don't want to develop along the same lines that
the United States did, want to benefit from purchasing those
technologies or making those technologies themselves. It is a
very competitive marketplace out there for additional energy
efficiency.
And we shouldn't forget that part of the reason why the
United States has enough oil to export today is not just
because we produce it, but it is because we use so much less of
it than we thought we were going to. And so I think that energy
efficiency just struggles from being one of those untold
stories with really big strategic advantages both today and
that we can pay forward to the future as well.
Ms. Castor. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Flores.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the panel
for joining us today. It has been enlightening testimony.
Mr. Powell, you and I both agree that as Congress looks to
allocate scarce resources, that investment in basic research
has great value in terms of translating into the seed corn of
future economic opportunity.
In that regard, I was enthused by your talk about setting
MoonShot approach. Can you expand on how setting technology
moonshots can ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars
versus the status quo?
Mr. Powell. Sure. Thanks very much for the question. So I
think we should remember that the sort of energy miracle of
this past decade, the shale gas revolution, was heavily
influenced by research conducted at the Department of Energy,
on hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, diamond-headed
drill bits. It is very possible the shale gas revolution would
not have occurred without that research at DOE in partnership
with private industry.
And so the question is, how do we produce more of those
miracle technologies? In our view, it is very hard to get
somewhere if you don't know where you are going. And so one
first step is simply to establish the sorts of performance
benchmarks that we are looking for, for new sort of miracle
technologies. So what does an advanced reactor look like that
would actually be right for today's energy market. So smaller,
more modular to build, probably a much lower cost point for
energy. And then aligning resources at DOE to overcome
bottlenecks to achieve a goal like that.
Again, in the SunShot Initiative, they put a very
aggressive time-based, cost-based goal out there. They broke
down every part of the cost of grid scale solar systems, and
they subjected each of those parts of the costs to very
rigorous research and analysis and found ways to overcome them,
and then helped rapidly bring them down.
So we think that this kind of approach could be applied to
advanced carbon capture technologies, grid scale storage,
advanced nuclear, certainly in the transportation space, and
certainly in the industrial emissions space as well.
Mr. Flores. That takes me to the second part of my
question. You said that ClearPath engages collaboratively with
outside organizations, businesses, and think tanks about the
future of energy in this country. And in that regard, can you
share with us any insights you have as to examples of moonshots
that Congress and the DOE should be considering----
Mr. Powell. Sure.
Mr. Flores. When it comes to the energy space?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think one that is low-hanging fruit is
grid scale storage. So we have talked a lot across this hearing
about grid scale storage today. The nice thing about grid scale
storage is actually you have a lot of dollars, a lot of bang
for the buck in expanding. So if we were to set a goal of, say,
grid scale storage systems at less than $100 per megawatt hour,
that would be a disruptive change. Right? It would greatly
improve the ability for grid scale storage to compete with
peaker power plants. It would also be very good for the further
expansion of solar and wind technologies.
And to accomplish a goal like that might only be
incremental 10 of millions of dollars in appropriations in a
year. But it is simply having that focus and increasing that
level of ambition.
Mr. Flores. What is another example? You and I have talked
about advanced nuclear in the past.
Mr. Powell. Yes. Certainly, advanced nuclear. So if we were
to set a goal, a very ambitious performance-based goal to say,
empower the private sector to demonstrate four advanced nuclear
reactors within a decade, we are actually on track with a
number of our programs already, like the Advanced Reactor
Concepts Program, that is working with two advanced reactor
developers right now, X-energy and the Southern-TerraPower
collaboration on Molten Chloride Fast Reactor.
So we have a new scale power as well that could certainly
qualify for something like that. So we have a number of horses
already in the race, and this would encourage us to get more
advanced reactor developers into collaboration with DOE and
hopefully get four of those demonstrated.
Mr. Flores. Thank you. Ms. Ladislaw, as you discussed in
your testimony, and as many of us on this panel know, the
change in the U.S. energy profile has really had huge
geopolitical impacts. And the State Department's primary
mission is diplomacy, but the Department of Energy has a
critical role there to play as well, whether it is to authorize
exports or provide technical assistance on trade energy flows.
In your view, what should Congress do to support the Department
of Energy's international affairs mission, in 30 seconds or
less?
Ms. Ladislaw. Thanks very much for your question.
I think, first and foremost, it is really important to
recognize the work that the Department is doing, both in
science and technology and on policy evaluation in an
international affairs realm. So the Department of Energy Bureau
is a wonderful department, and I fully support that as well. I
think that sometimes it leads to an either/or; should it be at
the State Department or at the Department of Energy, they
should be complements to each other. There is enough to analyze
and act on out there that they should be able to be both very
robust and complementary offices.
Mr. Flores. OK. Again, I thank the panel for their
testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ladislaw, I really appreciated your written testimony.
You highlighted the original congressional intent from the
findings of the DOE Organization Act. I think it is clear that
Congress intended for DOE's mission to evolve alongside our
Nation's energy challenges. We need to face the issues of our
time. In the 1970s, it was oil use and reliance on foreign oil.
Today, we should be considering our Nation's current and future
energy needs.
So, Ms. Ladislaw, in the spirit of DOE Organization Act, is
support for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D
consistent with the original goals of the Department?
Ms. Ladislaw. I believe so.
Mr. Tonko. As I mentioned during the first panel, I think
DOE's role in supporting innovation is essential. And based on
everyone's testimony, it sounds like you would likely agree
with that assessment. I think that, obviously, there is great
opportunity for job growth with R&D and energy efficiency.
Dr. Zacharia, the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium is a
great example of DOE working with public and private
stakeholders and making significant R&D investments in order to
solve energy challenges and make the U.S. a global leader.
Integrating new technologies into our electricity system is one
of the challenges to fostering a cleaner and more reliable
grid.
Can you explain the role that national labs play in
fulfilling DOE's mission, and how grid modernization fits into
those priorities?
Mr. Zacharia. Thank you very much.
So the national labs clearly sit between academia industry
in maturing important technology. In this area, the Grid
Modernization Lab Consortium is a consortium of a number of
laboratories. We work closely together. And as we deploy a
number of intermittent sources, one of the key challenges is
really being able to make sure that the grid is resilient and
reliable. And the way we have done that is actually both in
terms of doing research, but also working in partnership with
industry. Let me give you an example.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has worked very closely with
electric power board in Chattanooga, which is a small city
scale utility. And we worked very closely in deploying power
electronics such that the grid system can be managed very
effectively. And today, as a result of that, the citizens of
Chattanooga, when a storm comes through, and they only see a
blip because the grid is obviously be able to manage and work
around that.
One of the challenges in doing that is that, as you make
the system much more interconnected, there is also the concern
about security. And so we are also working very closely with
them to make sure that it is secure.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And as I mentioned, DOE must address the energy issues of
our times, along with grid modernization and the seamless
integration of more clean energy resources into our energy mix.
I believe DOE has a critical role to pay in one of the greatest
environmental, economic, and national security challenges of
our lifetime, that being climate change.
Does anyone on the panel wish to comment on the
responsibility that the Department has in helping to develop
climate solutions?
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Tonko, I think the Department has a great
opportunity to develop climate solutions. It has been working
on them for decades. And I think we are at a moment, though,
where I think we have got to keep the pedal to the metal in
terms of investment. And I say this with a very broad range of
technologies in mind. It is everything from renewables and
efficiency to nuclear to carbon capture, energy efficiency
technology. We talk a lot about standards, but there is a lot
that can be done.
So I think this is both a great opportunity. And I think if
we are going to both succeed at addressing climate--but we are
always going to profit as a country in addressing the climate
problem, we have two very strong reasons we should be moving
forward.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Ms. Ladislaw.
Ms. Ladislaw. I just wanted to second that last point of
Dan's. I do think that it is a shortcoming of our political
process that on one hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. On the
other hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. There is a lot of
benefit that can come to the U.S. economic system, to our
national security, to all of our strategic objectives from
leaning forward into some of the climate challenge issues. And
I think that the Department would be well served in doing that.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Reicher, I was struck by your comments about EERE and
weatherization. And I think they do meet both social and
economic goals being able to provide for sound-paying jobs and
addressing a more energy friendly environment. I know that in
upstate New York, a weatherization assistance program is
critical. Some of the coldest weather that comes into upstate,
and we just saw it, subzero for days in a row. It is some of
the toughest, poorest areas of the state with lowest household
income. And it is a social economic justice thing that we can
advance. So thank you for your comments.
Mr. Reicher. I just want to say, I grew up in upstate New
York. I not only know how cold it is, but I also know how snowy
it is.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. It has been both this year. So thank
you very much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of
the work the Clemson University is doing with their Duke Energy
eGRID. I am proud to represent my alma mater, Clemson
University, as it is in my district, and the research work they
are doing at facilities all the across the State of South
Carolina in partnership with other universities, funding
agencies and industry partners is extremely impressive.
At Clemson's Restoration Institute in Charleston, South
Carolina at Clemson has what may be considered the world's
largest and most capable electric grid emulator called the Duke
Energy eGRID. eGRID has the ability to dynamically model
electrical power grid conditions anywhere in the U.S. or the
world. With this world class and unparalleled facility,
Clemson's technical staff and students are making great
advances in grid modernization and grid security through their
work at eGRID.
The eGRID is a key enabler of testing half-hour devices
that are critical components of the power grid infrastructure,
such as extra high voltage transformers. Failure of components
such as these transformers will likely cause widespread power
outages, which can be very difficult to recover from due to
lack of spares, logistics of moving them, and long lead times
for their construction. Critical components like these
transformers can be damaged from attacks such as EMPs,
geomagnetic disturbances from solar activity and cyber attacks.
Clemson has acquired one of these high voltage, high power
transformers at eGRID further positioning Clemson with the
unique capabilities.
Through R&D and testing of these critical components and
systems, Clemson University's eGRID facility will be
instrumental in modernizing and securing the U.S. grid. And I
invite anyone on the committee that would love to go and see
that drivetrain facility and eGRID facility in Charleston, it
is worth the trip.
So, Mr. Powell, you mentioned in your testimony the
importance of the DOE working with private sector to meet
mutual goals. The Clemson-Duke Energy eGRID is a prime example
of successful collaboration with the private sector to advance
innovation by not solely depending on taxpayer dollars. Can you
provide other examples of collaboration with the private sector
to advance the goal of modernizing the DOE?
Mr. Powell. Sure.
Well, the one that has been most consequential in the past
decade, or the past two decades, was probably Mitchell Energy
collaborating with the Office of Fossil Energy to develop shale
technologies. That is probably the one that was the most and
best known. I think another one that has been very, very
successful has been the collaboration between NuScale Energy
and the Department of Energy, particularly the Office of
Nuclear Energy, in developing a small modular reactor
technology. So that collaboration has now resulted in a
successful filing for a license with the NRC.
Mr. Duncan. Do you see MSRs as a really viable nuclear
energy alternative?
Mr. Powell. Well, in the United States, we see smaller
reactors as the only viable nuclear energy alternative----
Mr. Duncan. But at any given time, we have got 100 nuclear
reactors floating around the seas of the world and the United
States Navy without a single mishap. And I believe, and one
that believes, that that SMR or type technology is a solution
for powering small cities, or even large communities, so----
Mr. Powell. Absolutely.
Mr. Duncan. Do you have other examples?
Mr. Powell. Just to finish on that. Our power grid today
really rewards smaller power plant technologies. And so the
smaller that we can make the reactors, the more points that
applicability that those will be, that those will be around the
country.
I think we have seen very successful development in the
wind sector in public-private partnerships, in the Wind
Technology Center at the National Renewable Lab that has really
brought down the price further for very large wind turbine
technologies as well as.
Mr. Duncan. Right. And speaking of SMRs, which kind of
piqued an interest of mine in thorium or molten salt reactors.
Is DOE working the private sector at all on thorium
reactors, to your knowledge?
Mr. Powell. I will have to get back to you on that. I am
not sure that there is any current thorium work underway. They
are working on molten salt reactors, so that is where the fuel
is also the coolant, and it circulates through the reactor.
There is currently several active points of research and an
active collaboration between DOE and Southern Company and
TerraPower, which is the Bill Gates'-backed nuclear development
company.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. Thank you for that.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further. I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses here today. I
particularly liked the testimony of Mr. Powell talking about
researching and figuring out new ways to use the fuels that
will power the world, not just the United States, in the
future.
But with that, I will yield my time to Mr. Shimkus of
Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Morgan. I appreciate that. And I
really want to make sure I took the time. I appreciate you
being here. And also, you are an important panel. Again, as I
said earlier, we are trying to figure out should we look at
reauthorizing the DOE and what should be its assigned roles.
And I do a lot of stuff in the nuclear space, too. And I want
to ask a question. It is going to go to Dr. Levy first. And it
is really about organization.
So the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of
Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the
military application of nuclear science. But there are some
people who question the efficiency of that, since it is semi-
autonomous.
In fact, Admiral Richard Mies noted the separation of DOE's
support functions from the NNSA created a problem concerning
the Secretary's governance over the nuclear security mission.
They noted, ``What CEO of the successful company would permit
one of the largest, most demanding and unforgiving missions to
be quarantined from the headquarters' staff. Or to use an
operational metaphor, how could the commander of a ship at sea
fulfill his or her duty if 40 percent of the crew were,
``separately organized'? That would be both inefficient and
risky.''
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Levy. I don't think I do, although I am not sure the
present implementation of the separation is ideal. I think
there is a way to do it. This is an issue that the Augustine-
Mies panel took up in great detail. One of the suggestions was
that NNSA just be a separate agency. And their conclusion was,
for a mission that important, they needed cabinet level support
and cabinet level input.
My own personal opinion, and it is my personal opinion, the
panel hasn't come to a conclusion on this, is that it is a
doable thing, but it will take a lot of attention at the
highest levels of the Department of Energy, primarily the
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the administrator, the
Under Secretary, operating together very well.
Right at the moment, there is a lot of overlap. There is a
lot--certainly, the Secretary of Energy--I am not sure one
looks at the Secretary of Energy as the commander of the ship,
or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There has to be somebody
responsible for it, and he is responsible to somebody. At the
moment, I think there is overlap, which is not a very good
situation, and I think that is one of the things that is
important to clear up.
Mr. Shimkus. I think that is good.
Ms. Ladislaw, have you looked at this from your think tank
arena?
Ms. Ladislaw. It is not an area of expertise for me.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. And I would raise it to the chairman as
something we should look at as we move in this direction.
The last thing I wanted to also address is--I mean, because
there is such a different--a broad breadth is this, Dr.
Wasserman, on the supercomputing issue, because we--I know that
we--we are not Kim Il Jong II, so we don't blow off our nuclear
weapons anymore because we supercompute, and we trust it, which
is hard for many of us to believe. But we do.
And so in this--but I got confused, and that is why I ask
questions, because that is the best way to find out the
answers. DOE is moving to an exoskeleton larger supercomputing
ability. Is that separate than what the National Science
Foundation is doing on it? Doesn't it operate in conjunction
with other universities' supercomputing operations?
Mr. Wasserman. The exoscale effort, and I am not directly
involved in it, but one of my colleagues at Lilly is, actually,
as part of a DOE advisory panel. It is a partnership with lots
going into it.
Let me pause for a minute. You said it is hard to believe
that you can believe the simulation. In the example in GE I
gave you, which admittedly is not a national security weapons
type of simulation. But in this simulation, they could look at
things that they could not measure in the real world. And so
they could make a lot of progress in the simulation because you
could do that. To build the actual test mock-up and try to do
it physically would have not only been cost-prohibitive, but
would have required a whole doubling of their infrastructure.
So the exoscale is partnership. And as you can tell, if you
look at the statistics, the U.S. leapfrogs with other
countries. Currently China is ahead. We will catch up. I am
sure they will change that in the future.
But the ability to use this to look at things. When I
started my scientific career, the type of simulations we look
at would have been fantasy. And today, the exquisite nature of
not only the computer hardware, but the software developments
the people have found to use that hardware as efficiently as
possible are exquisite.
Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate. I yield back my time.
The University of Illinois has Blue Waters, which is part
of the NSF grant, and it is an awesome facility.
And I yield back.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel.
I am going to direct my questions to Mr. Reicher, because
he has got Vermont roots, and I want to acknowledge the good
work everyone has done. But none of you made the wise decision
to spend as much time in Vermont as he did. But thank you.
You heard, I think, the first panel, and there was some
discussion in that panel about the standard setting process.
And I am going to ask you three questions, so I want you to be
brief on each one. But can you just address that process and
what you think makes sense to do and what the dangers are if we
fall behind in what has been, I think, a bipartisan commitment
to the standards?
Mr. Reicher. So very quickly, Mr. Welch, there are two
things going on. One, there are concerns that DOE is not going
to move ahead. They kind of put a hold on issuing standards.
The second thing they are doing is reevaluating the standard
setting process. We did that back in the 1990s, made a lot of
improvements. Improvements have been made since. I am hopeful
that they won't go ahead and do more than they need to do at
this point, because it is a pretty good process.
Mr. Welch. All right. Next thing is there is a bipartisan
effort to have master limited partnership status apply to clean
energy projects. We have got Republican and Democratic sponsors
to that, and I am one of the lead sponsors.
Can you just offer your thoughts on the benefits that that
would provide to the clean energy sector?
Mr. Reicher. So master limited partnerships have been a
very important tool for financing oil and gas infrastructure to
the tune of about $500 billion. When the law was passed,
though, by Congress in the 1980s, renewables and lots of other
things were not included. You, Mr. Poe, others, Mr. Portman,
and Mr. Moran in the Senate have introduced legislation that
would open up these MLPs to all these other things. CCS,
storage renewables efficiency, and it would be a big step
because it would cut the cost of financing for these major
energy projects. And as we ramp down the tax credits for solar
and wind, we should ramp in this master limited partnerships
approach.
Mr. Welch. OK. I hope that is something we can work on, Mr.
Chairman. We have got a Ted Poe from Texas and Peter Welch from
Vermont, so there is some bipartisan and strange bedfellow
situations there, so let's see if we can do something.
On Federal energy management, the Federal Government's
energy bill, as you know, is $23 billion a year. And a number
of us on this committee, Republicans and Democrats, have been
really trying to extend energy saving performance contracts. We
have had a knotty problem on the scoring where it is a
Byzantine process to try to get there to be resolution between
OMB and this CBO.
Can you comment on what the opportunities are if we go very
aggressively in pursuit of energy savings performance
contracts, which, as my colleagues know, don't cost taxpayers
any money. The companies that bid on doing retrofitting of our
Federal buildings put the money up to do that, and then they
get repaid from the energy savings that benefit them with the
payback, and benefit the taxpayers.
Mr. Reicher. Yes. Very quickly. It is a great alternative
to appropriating funds to upgrade Federal buildings. There are
350,000 buildings. We could do a lot to cut this $23 billion
energy bill. But there are these difficulties in scoring, the
disagreements between OMB, CBO, and the Hill. We put out a
report, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, in 2016, on
Federal energy management. We looked at a whole number of
issues, a big number of opportunities. And one of them that we
explored were ESPCs. And we have suggested some ways that you
might fix that process, so I would encourage you to take a look
at that report.
Mr. Welch. All right. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you all.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate our scientists being here. We have still with
us the ranking Democrat on Mr. Upton's subcommittee, the
ranking Democrat on Mr. Shimkus' subcommittee--Mr. Shimkus was
here until I walked in. He left--myself as vice chairman. And
we have all been tasked with the chairman, Mr. Walden, to
perhaps do a DOE reauthorization bill, which we have had a
number of questions about. Part of that is going to be to look
at the role of the national laboratories.
I think it is fair to say that if we were starting from
scratch we wouldn't have 17 national laboratories, but we do.
Some of those are pretty obvious. Los Alamos, Sandia, some of
our weapons laboratories. I think some of them show the need
for more robust research. The renewable energy laboratory would
fall into that category. I know Mr. Tonko is a big supporter of
that. But some of them are not so obvious.
I don't know who to ask this question of, maybe Mr.
Reicher. Do we need 17 national laboratories today?
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Barton, I think I am outside of my area of
expertise right now.
Mr. Barton. Well, I just poked at random. If you don't feel
qualified----
Mr. Reicher. I will tell you this, that there is just an
amazing breadth of strength in those labs. Obviously, you know
better than I, the politics of shutting down labs is----
Mr. Barton. Not good.
Mr. Reicher [continuing]. Not good.
Mr. Barton. It depends on your point of view. From the
point of view of keeping it open, it is very good.
Mr. Reicher. Right. But I guess what I would say is I would
take a look at the missions of each and really assess what they
are doing, because I think they have all developed areas of
expertise. Argonne, for example, is really one of the world
leaders in advanced battery technologies, looking at things
other than lithium. And you go across the board, there is just
so much there. So missions should come first as you do on your
analysis.
Mr. Barton. Well, let me give an example that I know a
little bit about. Once upon a time, there was a national
laboratory in process called the Superconducting Super
Collider. It was going to be in my congressional district. In
fact, the main campus would have been about 10 miles from where
I live right now. And obviously, if we would have built it, I
would have been a big supporter of it. But we didn't build it.
We decided to go a different path. And we are putting quite a
bit of money over in Europe at CERN, but we still have the
Stanford Linear Accelerator. We still have Fermilab. We still
have Brookhaven. Do we need all of those national laboratories
studying high energy physics given the fact that we decided to
put most of our eggs in the European basket at CERN?
Mr. Wasserman. Mr. Barton, if I may. The people at the
national labs are incredibly creative. And as the example of
the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Its original for which it was
built around 1962 when it started, is no longer part of the
DOE. It has been repurposed. And instead of a particle
accelerator to smash things into each other to look at the
fundamental forces of nature, it is now the basis of the Linac
Coherent Light Source, which is an x-ray source rather than an
atom smasher.
And so this creativity, even though the infrastructure is
still there, things that have outlived their life have now
found a new use. And, in fact, the linear accelerator there,
the LCOS, is an example of interlaboratory cooperation. For
example, there is a device called an undulator--we won't go
into that today--which is the basis of it. Much of the
development work for those undulators were done at Argonne,
where they had a lot of expertise at the advanced photon source
on this type of device.
So this creativity means that we can repurpose things. It
also means that we can take multiple approaches to a difficult
problem. As scientists, we wish that innovation were a linear
path, but it is not. And often finding the best solution
requires looking at several different ways to do it and finding
the best one at the end.
Mr. Barton. Well, my time has expired. I understand the
quality of our scientists and our researchers. I don't deny
that. I also understand the political reality that DOE has
facilities in 30 different states. So that is 60 percent of the
states. So any time you try to change something, it is going to
be, especially in the Senate, a political difficulty.
But I do think if we are going to reauthorize the
Department it is only fair to the taxpayers that we do take a
quick look, a serious look at the existing laboratories. Again,
I do not deny that they can be repurposed. I don't deny that
they do good work. I know for a fact from my experience with
the Super Collider, we got a lot of brainpower that came to
Texas. And most of it stayed. Not all of it but most of it. And
it has benefited our state. So I am good for that. But I just
think we owe it, if we are really going to do this
reauthorization, that we ought to take a look at the existing
structure.
Mr. Powell. And my time's expired, so I am at the mercy of
the chairman here.
Mr. Powell. I will say very, very quickly.
I think the key thing to look at is not whether we need 17
labs, but whether we need 17 labs, all of whom say they can do
almost anything, right? I think because the mission of the labs
has shifted back and forth, they have gotten themselves--Dr.
Zacharia might kill me for saying this--have gotten themselves
into a posture where they are ready to go for any
administration with any set of priorities. And I would just
build on Mr. Reicher's point that we should be much clearer
about what each lab is excellent at and then align those
centers of excellence with top-down direction and goals.
Mr. Barton. I guess my final question. Did we find the top-
quark yet? That was the whole purpose of the Super Collider, to
find the top-quark.
Did we find it?
Mr. Levy. Yes.
Mr. Barton. We did find it.
Well, good.
Mr. Zacharia. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me a little
bit of time.
The laboratories are really where the integration of the
missions occur. And so if you look at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, it is one of the largest science and energy
laboratory, about $1.5 billion. It is funded through 1,000
proposals that RPIs have to compete. So in some sense,
laboratories bring core capabilities, a combination of people,
unique facilities, and programs. And we competed for the best
ideas that funded. So in some sense, the labs thrive in a
meritocracy. And so what I would say is that if one focuses on
the mission of the Department, then the laboratories will self-
select based on their capabilities and abilities to support the
missions of the Department.
Mr. Barton. I appreciate the chairman's discretion. Thank
you. And I appreciate you all being here.
Mr. Upton. Yield now to a very patient Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Powell, the eastern power grid has been experiencing
some extreme stress due to what is still now a very cold
weather, although today's not so bad. Part of the reason the
grid has maintained its reliability has been--and I am getting
to the issue of fuel diversity--has been the diversity of fuel
sources on the grid. Share with me your perspective on what
DOE's role should be to ensure grid reliability. And obviously
this comes on the heels of a report and a FERC 5-0 decision
yesterday, I think there is a lot of innings left in this game,
and I am just curious on your perspective?
Mr. Powell. So obviously, this has become a pretty
contentious topic about whether there is a diversity or a
resiliency problem on the grid as it currently stands.
I think the reality, as it stands today, is that we are
headed toward a grid dominated by natural gas power generation.
And so the question that we have to ask ourselves is, is that a
problem? Most of the modeling says it is not a problem. In this
cold snap, for example, this winter, the natural gas system has
worked well, and there hasn't been a resiliency problem with
the grid. But we can imagine events where an attack on a
pipeline or especially a major hub could make that a
significant issue over reliance on one type of fuel. And we can
imagine events where even if there is not a supply disruption,
you could have significant price spikes to that fuel source,
and that might result in sort of economic pain.
And so I think now the discussion is, is there some other
characteristic, diversity or resilience or something like that
that we need to find and define and quantify, and should that
be worked into the authority of FERC to ensure that, in
addition to reliability and affordability, this resiliency
characteristic is there as well.
We do think that there are ways that we can define and
value that resiliency characteristic that would not be overly
disruptive to the existing order of the wholesale markets. The
wholesale markets have delivered a lot of benefits to the
country in terms of reliability and affordability. And so we
think that it can be defined in a way. An added benefit of
defining it would be nuclear generators are a particularly
resilient power source, and so, we think that adding that into
the power mix would go a long way to helping support our
existing nuclear fleet.
Mr. Costello. We have heard some discussion here about
China and its role in the energy technology research
development and deployment space. What do you believe we need
to do as a country? And what is DOE's proper role in order to
ensure that we don't play second fiddle to China?
Mr. Powell. Thanks for that. I was pleased to participate
in that event together discussing this more deeply a few weeks
back.
So I think the first and most important thing is that we
need to signal that we are going to make a deep commitment to
some of these technology areas where China is also making a
very deep commitment.
Mr. Costello. Is that RPE? Is that somewhere else? Is that
purely within DOE? Where else does that come about?
Mr. Powell. So much of it is in DOE. We discussed a bit
today about making sure that our trade standards are correctly
putting the right burden on industry so that we are actually
able to compete in places like Saudi Arabia to build nuclear
reactors there. I think we need to make a clear commitment at
DOE through the continuation of RPE and through major mission-
oriented goals and commitments to these technologies that we
are actually going to put the resources into these technologies
so that our innovators don't then need to go over to China to
get the commercialization benefits.
If you look at just one company, for example, UET, it is a
vanadium flow battery technology that was developed at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, spun out of it by some
of our best researchers. China identified the technology and
its commercial applications, and so now they are sort of
funding the commercialization and spin-up. And they are buying,
I believe, the largest flow battery in the world which will be
deployed in China and not in the United States.
And so finding ways where we can make similar commitments
and actually show our innovators that we are serious about
that, we will make investors and we will make innovators sort
of not flee to China but develop a scale for innovation here at
home.
Mr. Costello. Final question for everyone. We have a
potential for an infrastructure bill. Let's just say $50
billion is allocated to energy infrastructure.
Where is that best deployed? Anyone?
Mr. Zacharia. Well, I will take the $50 billion since no
one else will.
So there are a number of areas where there are both science
infrastructure, but also infrastructure such as small modular
reactor that have been discussed.
In some instances, this discussion becomes academic in
terms of whether you are going to have a nuclear Renaissance or
not, because if the supply chain goes away, it becomes very,
very difficult to reboot the nuclear energy industry. And we
are only a few years away, in my view, that, if there is not a
procurement of some sort, then that industry will go away. And
this is somewhat analogous to the supercomputing industry.
About 10 years ago, the intelligence community was really
concerned that the supply chain was going to go away. And the
Nation stepped in and basically did the investments in
leadership computing and the procurements that ensued that kept
the supply chain.
Likewise, with SMR, one of the opportunities that you have
is that, for example, in places like Oak Ridge and Idaho where
we have a baseload and need between Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and Y-12 of about 150 megawatts. That is two units
of small modular reactor. One way to incentivize the specific
client adoption would be for the government to say is at least
explore whether that is a good use of investment in
infrastructure to actually buy down the risk of first applying
deployment in a small modular reactor. But also there are
signs, shovel-ready signs infrastructure, that is again looking
for resources. And so those are some of the areas that I would
consider for investment.
Mr. Reicher. Mr. Costello, if I could quickly give you an
answer.
There is already $41 billion available today in the DOE
loan program. It is allocated $12.5 billion for advanced
nuclear, $8.5 billion for advanced fossil, $4.5 billion for
renewables, and then a big chunk in the transportation side. We
are about to see a rescission by appropriators in both the
Senate and the House that would prevent major companies from
getting access to that $41 billion.
So that is available today. It is going to cost a couple
hundred million that already was appropriated by the Congress a
number of years ago. And if we could avoid that rescission,
that $41 billion across the board would be available. It goes
directly to what you just heard, because sitting over at the
DOE right now in the loan program office are applications, both
part 1 and part 2, for the Vogtle reactor, the NuScale reactor,
the Terrestrial reactor, and a couple of more.
So you don't need to find $50 billion. You need to make
sure that $200 or $300 million is not rescinded by
appropriators that would basically shut down the loan program
office at DOE. And I can't say this strongly enough to all of
you. Put that $200 million, $300 million back into effect, and
you are going to have tens of billions available in the form of
loan guarantees for nuclear, for fossil, and for renewables.
Mr. Costello. Very helpful. I waived on, and I am 3 minutes
over. So I don't know if I am going to ever get back on this
subcommittee again.
Thank you, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. I want to thank all of you for being here.
Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, we are almost
ready to adjourn.
I am going to ask you unanimous consent to submit two
letters into the record, a letter on EERE and a letter on the
loan program itself.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Upton. And pursuant to committee rules, I will remind
all members that they have got 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record. And I would ask that
witnesses submit the response, if you can, within 10 business
days. Certainly, for the first panel, Mr. Rush had a number of
questions we would like the answers back.
Mr. Rush. No. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you a
question. Based on Mr. Reicher's passionate request concerning
the $41 million loan program, do you have any reaction to----
Mr. Upton. Well, I wish we were appropriators. That is not
a role that we have. Sometimes we can take over. This is the
most powerful committee and the oldest, and we don't have that
authority. I have supported the loan program, I would say that.
I have supported the appropriations.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I think maybe it might be in order
for a bipartisan effort on both sides of this committee to make
our concerns heard with the Appropriations Committee. And I
would be willing to join with you and other members of the
committee to have a meeting or send some letters, but I think
our voices should be heard.
Mr. Upton. Well, and I know that we are all anxious to see
the administration's budget. We are going to have the
opportunity to ask Secretary Perry questions about that as it
gets submitted and take action on the floor. So I appreciate
the gentleman's interest.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Well, I think we need to do something as a
committee. That is a very compelling loss. If we forego these
loan guarantees, it is really going to hurt the collective
efforts of both sides of this aisle.
And you have done this before, but this committee really
needs to speak out, I think.
So thank you.
Mr. Upton. And if there are no further questions, we stand
adjourned.
Thank you all for being here.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]