[Senate Hearing 115-534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-534
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1089 S. 2968 S. 3495
S. 1713 S. 3088 S. 3618/H.R. 6511
S. 1875 S. 3295 S. 3656/H.R. 6398
S. 2257 S. 3376 S. 3676
S. 2803 S. 3422
__________
NOVEMBER 29, 2018
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-661 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TINA SMITH, Minnesota
------
Subcommittee on Energy
CORY GARDNER, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH JOE MANCHIN III
JEFF FLAKE RON WYDEN
STEVE DAINES BERNARD SANDERS
LAMAR ALEXANDER MARTIN HEINRICH
JOHN HOEVEN ANGUS S. KING, JR.
BILL CASSIDY TAMMY DUCKWORTH
ROB PORTMAN TINA SMITH
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
Brian Hughes, Staff Director
Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
Brianne Miller, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy
Advisor
Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Scott McKee, Democratic Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Gardner, Hon. Cory, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
Colorado....................................................... 1
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
Senator from West Virginia..................................... 2
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 14
WITNESSES
Barton, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Representative from Texas............... 13
Menezes, Hon. Mark W., Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 16
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
American Public Gas Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 7
American Public Gas Association, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 11
Barton, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 13
Carbon Utilization Research Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 4
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
Chart: Figure 1. Strategic Petroleum Reserve................. 31
Clean Harbors Inc., et al.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 76
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy:
Report from the GAO addressed to Representative Conyers and
Senator Byrd dated 12/20/2007.............................. 39
CFR Publication: ``Your Rights under the Energy
Reorganization Act''....................................... 56
Section 629 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005................. 57
Gardner, Hon. Cory:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
Statement for the Record..................................... 78
Make It Safe Coalition Steering Committee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 60
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Menezes, Hon. Mark W.:
Opening Statement............................................ 16
Written Testimony............................................ 19
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 63
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 14
----------
The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
public/index.cfm/2018/11/subcommittee-on-energy-legislative-hearing
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Cory Gardner,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
order.
Thank you, everyone, for being here this morning. Good
morning.
The Subcommittee comes together today for a legislative
hearing on a number of bills. As always, I appreciate the
opportunity to work with the Subcommittee's Ranking Member,
Senator Manchin, to address key topics in the energy space.
This legislative hearing will allow us the opportunity to
receive testimony from and ask questions of the Under Secretary
of Energy, Mark Menezes--is that correct?
Mr. Menezes. Menezes, which is very close.
Senator Gardner. Menezes--excellent, very good, thank you--
of the Department of Energy, the agency that would be
responsible for implementing the changes laid out in the
various pieces of legislation.
One of the bills on the docket that I have been working on
with my colleague, Senator Bennet, is the Enhancing State
Security Planning and Emergency Preparedness Act.
In response to Presidential Executive Order 13800 directing
the Department of Energy (DOE) to assess the potential scope
and duration of a prolonged power outage associated with a
significant cyber incident, the readiness of the United States
to manage the consequences of such an incident and any gaps or
shortcomings in assets or capabilities required to mitigate the
consequences of such an incident, the DOE issued a report
titled, ``Assessment of Electricity Disruption Incident
Response Capabilities.'' This assessment listed several gaps
related to state energy security planning, citing the needs for
states to coordinate their planning efforts with federal and
industry partners, states to include integration of cyber
information sharing mechanisms and DOE to support state and
local planning and help identify gaps and/or overlapping
resources.
The legislation that Senator Bennet and I have introduced,
slightly modified from its House companion bill introduced by
Congressman Upton, is designed to address those gaps. The bill
outlines the contents of a state security plan, including the
need for coordination and joint exercises with industry and
federal stakeholders. This plan will assess the state's
existing circumstances and propose methods to strengthen the
ability of the state to secure its energy infrastructure
against all physical and cyber threats, mitigate the risk of
energy supply disruptions to the state, enhance the response to
and recovery from energy supply disruptions and to ensure the
state has a reliable, secure and resilient energy
infrastructure.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of Senator Ernst's
Department of Energy Veteran's Health Initiative Act. This bill
will authorize an existing partnership between the two agencies
that uses the computational power and analytical techniques
harnessed within the DOE's national laboratory system to
enhance our understanding of the health care challenges faced
by our veteran population and could improve the VA's approach
to suicide prevention, cancer treatment and cardiovascular
care. More than half a million veterans have already opted into
the program, volunteering their health data to contribute to
this important research. The methods and capabilities developed
during this program could be expanded down the road to further
the mission and goals of DOE, the national lab system and other
federal agencies. It is also worth pointing out that the
funding required for this partnership and the pilot program in
the bill has already been included in the FY'19 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill.
I am a supporter of Senator Duckworth's bill, Energy Jobs
for Our Heroes Act, which will create a program that prepares
veterans for jobs in the clean energy sector.
Other bills included on the agenda will cover areas such as
grid energy, conservation, LNG exports, the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and nuclear energy.
I now turn to Senator Manchin for his introductory remarks,
and then we will introduce our witnesses and turn to
Congressman Barton.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Chairman Gardner, for holding
this hearing to discuss the 14 bills on today's agenda.
I would also like to thank our witnesses, Congressman
Barton and Mr. Menezes, for appearing today to discuss these
proposals with us. It is good, as always, to see you all again.
The bills cover a range of topics, but I would like to
highlight two proposals in particular.
First, my bill with Senator Heitkamp, the Fossil Energy
Utilization Enhancement and Leadership Act, or we better know
it as the ``FUEL Act.'' This bill would direct the Department
of Energy to establish and update a coal technology program to
develop new transformational technologies for coal-powered
generation, which would help protect coal jobs while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
The coal technology program will include the following
components: the research and development program; a large-scale
pilot program; a demonstration projects program; net-negative
carbon dioxide emission projects; and a front-end engineering
and design, or a FEED, program. The bill also establishes a
research, development and deployment program for carbon
utilization, as well as an interagency task force on carbon
dioxide pipelines.
The bill includes Senator Heitkamp's DOE study on the
benefits of long-term contracts between the government and
utilities to ensure viable market prices for carbon dioxide for
uses like enhanced oil recovery. It also includes the
authorization for the DOE to continue R&D for advanced
separation technologies for rare earth elements from coal and
coal by-products, which Mr. Menendez----
Mr. Menezes. Menezes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Manchin. ----Menezes and I discussed last year.
Cory messed me up on that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Gardner. I am sorry about that.
Mr. Menezes. Believe me, I sat next to this Chairman for
years.
Senator Gardner. That is our DOE witness.
[Laughter.]
Senator Manchin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a
letter from the Carbon Utilization Research Council in support
of this legislation for the record.
Senator Gardner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Manchin. The second bill I would like to highlight
is the All-of-the-Above Federal Building Energy Conservation
Act of 2018. I was happy to partner again with Senator Hoeven
on the newest version of this bill, which we have been working
on for several years now.
Energy conservation is the key cost savings tool for the
Federal Government and it is important that the relevant
regulations and standards are consistent, ambitious and
effective. Therefore, this bill provides building managers with
more flexibility. It repeals the Section 433 ban on the use of
fossil fuels in federal buildings, which was never implemented,
and it replaces it with commonsense energy efficiency measures
that will allow federal building managers to focus on energy
management systems by providing them more flexibility. It also
strengthens recommissioning of existing buildings and ensures
that major renovations of federal buildings meet the same
standards that new federal buildings are required to meet, 30
percent less energy use.
I would like to submit a July 26 letter signed by 10 major
trade associations in support of this bill, as well as this
written statement from the American Public Gas Association.
I was also happy to see Senator Murkowski's Nuclear Energy
Leadership Act on the agenda, a bill which I co-sponsored.
In conclusion, I am excited to discuss these bills today.
As a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am also
interested in hearing more about Senator Duckworth's proposal
to expand support for veterans through the ``Energy Ready Vets
Program'' at DOE, as well as Senator Ernst's initiative to use
DOE computing capability to support veterans' health
initiatives.
I look forward to working with Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
Member Cantwell, Chairman Gardner and my colleagues to move
these proposals forward.
I will go ahead and submit these. I want to submit these
letters to you. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
I will now turn to Congressman Barton, our colleague from
the great State of Texas.
Before you begin, I just want to thank you for your years
of service. Congressman Barton, I began in the House on your
Energy and Commerce Committee. If I would have stayed there, I
would now be Ranking Member of the least senior group of the
Committee.
[Laughter.]
So I would probably be on the fourth row still, but it is
great to have you here, Congressman Barton. Thank you, welcome.
We will allow you to proceed with your comments on H.R.
6511, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Reform Act, and then we
will
turn to Chairman Murkowski for some comments and then Mr.
Menezes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON,
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Chairman.
I feel like it's old home week. The first time I was in
this very hearing room was in 1981 when I was a White House
Fellow with the Department of Energy, and there was a hearing
on decontrol of wellhead prices which I later offered a bill in
the late '80s that passed and became law when President Bush
signed. I was sitting back there. The room was crowded. There
were lots of cameras, lots of Senators and I was just in awe of
even being in the building.
So we've come full circle. I come back today. I would
consider you to be a protege of mine and Senator Cassidy. I
served with Congressman Portman before he became Senator
Portman. Of course, I've known Senator Murkowski and I knew her
dad very well. I can't say I've known Senator Manchin or
Senator Smith, but I should have. So I'm honored to be here. Of
course, Under Secretary Menezes used to work for me and helped
pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So it's an honor to be
here.
Today's bill is, I mean--I think Senator Manchin pointed
out, and you pointed out, you've got 14 bills you're looking
at. They're all important bills. It's a good thing to see the
Senate working together. I wish there were some TV cameras here
to show that you can cooperate. It's not all the Kavanaugh
hearing and things like that.
My bill is one of those bills. We have a great Democratic
sponsor, Congressman Bobby Rush of Chicago, who is probably
going to be the next Subcommittee Chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. So it's
bipartisan.
I'm not aware of any opposition. Now, there may be some. I
guess that would be the purpose of today's hearing, but the
Administration supports it and I've talked personally to
Secretary Perry about this.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was established in
1970 and, contrary to popular belief, I was not in the Congress
in 1970.
[Laughter.]
We were just coming out of the Arab oil embargo, there were
lots of issues about whether the United States could ever be
energy independent and we wanted to preserve our domestic
resources, but we also wanted to build a reserve in case there
was another oil embargo. Through the years, we've authorized up
to a billion barrels. At one time we actually built capacity
for about 700 million and, I believe, we have a little under
500 million barrels in the reserve. The last five to six years,
as our energy situation has improved, the Congress and the
President have begun to use the reserve. It's, kind of, an
emergency piggy bank.
In the 21st Century Cures Act, we authorized selling enough
oil to fund $6 billion in research to find a cure for cancer
and other diseases, just in the last Congress.
So this bill, it's a simple bill. It simply says if we have
unused capacity--at the discretionary of the Secretary of
Energy to put it up for bid to be leased and give an option to
the private sector to lease it. The Secretary doesn't have to
put it up for bid. It's not mandatory and if he does, or she
does, depending on who the Secretary is at the time, the
private sector doesn't have to do anything, but if they do want
to do it, the existing fiscal reserve is located near oil
refineries on the Gulf Coast.
It does have an infrastructure in place. It needs to be
updated, but it would make it a good thing for the private
sector to utilize the unused space. And it would be a good
thing for the people of the United States because the money
that would be obtained from leasing--some of that money could
be used to update and modernize the SPR. This would not be a
Yucca Mountain situation where the ratepayers pay into the
trust fund, but the money is used for everything but building
Yucca Mountain. So it's a great bill. I hope the Committee will
hear it favorably.
And one last thing--my time is about to run out, being a
House member, I do honor time constraints.
[Laughter.]
In December of this year coming up, there is the
probability that we are going to export more crude oil than we
import. For the first time in forever, we are going to be truly
energy independent in oil but also in natural gas. And as
Senator Manchin well knows, we export a lot of coal. So we have
reached that nirvana where the United States of America is
going to be totally energy independent. Nobody would have
dreamed of that, even 20 years ago, and I think that's a good
thing.
With that, I yield back.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Congressman, and again, thank
you for your service and being back with the Senate Energy
Committee. Thank you.
Chairman Murkowski, the Chairman of the full Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am so glad
that I was here to hear my friend and fine Congressman from
Texas, Representative Barton.
I appreciate your leadership, the effort that we made to
lift that oil export ban, that 40-year policy that has allowed
us now to be a participant, to be a major player, a world
player with our oil resources has been transformative. You led
on the House side on that initiative, and I appreciate your
leadership there.
I also appreciate what you have been doing as you review
our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You used the term, it has been
viewed as, the ``emergency piggy bank.'' I have called it the
ATM for whatever Congress is looking for.
I, along with so many members on this Committee, guard
jealously that safety net that we put in place purposely, not
to make it easier for you to drive up to the pump and pay a few
pennies more, but to be that emergency reserve. And so, we need
to make sure that that Strategic Petroleum Reserve is actually
strategic. And that is why the effort for the modernization, I
think, has been important. That is why I think we need to be
very watchful and very guarded as we access it.
But your proposal for this review for options as we
recognize that we do see changes is one certainly worthy of
consideration. I know that an analysis, a review of all aspects
of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is underway with the
Department and I look forward to that.
I wanted to take just a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman,
and speak to a bill that is on your calendar this morning, and
I appreciate all the good legislation that is out there.
I have introduced one that we are calling the Nuclear
Energy Leadership Act, and I have long been concerned that here
in this country we are ceding our place as a global leader in
nuclear power. We have competitors--with China, with Russia--
who are moving forward with advanced nuclear technologies, and
I just think that we have been slow to come together around any
form of a coherent strategy.
In order to be a serious player in a global nuclear future,
we have to develop, we have to commercialize and we have to
sell the most advanced reactors in the world. If we don't do
that, what we risk is that we will no longer be this arbiter of
nuclear safety and security, we basically put that in the hands
or in the control of nations like Russia and China.
But we have some of the smartest people in the world at our
national labs, in our universities, in industry. There are
innovators working across the United States to bring their
advanced reactor concepts to market, ranging from water-cooled
to salt-cooled, from low temperature to high temperature and
from a few megawatts to thousands. I think we all recognize
that these different technologies may have different
applications in a niche here or there, but we do not know that
until we are able to better understand where these technologies
might fit into the market.
We are seeing other countries that are directing billions
of dollars behind advanced technologies that they will rapidly
develop through their state-owned enterprises. And so, in order
to compete, we need DOE to partner with our industry. We need
to change policies to better focus our efforts.
There is a lot of good work going on. This is a very
bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be able to work with Senator
Booker as my lead co-sponsor, but we have a lot of members of
this Committee that have joined us, Senators Risch, Capito,
Manchin, Duckworth, and a host of others.
So as we focus on energy security, on clean energy
security, on national security and economic opportunity, I
think it is imperative that we be moving forward on the nuclear
front as well. I am pleased that this bill is before the
Committee today.
Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
Congressman Barton, you mentioned spending time in this
room, unless you wish to feel like you are serving time, you
are free to go any time that you would like.
[Laughter.]
We will turn now to Secretary Menezes.
Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK W. MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Menezes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Manchin, members of the
Subcommittee, former Chairman Joe Barton, it's a privilege and
an honor to serve at the Department of Energy, an agency tasked
with, among other important responsibilities: overseeing our
nation's energy supply, managing the Department's 17 National
Laboratories, supporting early-stage energy R&D across a wide
range of science and engineering disciplines and working
effectively with our states and our local governments on our
nation's energy challenges. And thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you here today on this legislation pertinent
to DOE.
Having looked at all of the bills, generally I can say
that, much like the Department, we share the goals of a lot of
these bills. We share some of the concerns that the bills try
to address. The Department is doing a lot of work in a lot of
these areas that are touched on by the bills. The bills appear
to bring some coherence. So those are my general statements.
As you know, the Administration continues to review these
bills and I will also say that on most of these bills your
staffs have been working with our technical experts over at DOE
to look at some of the issues that the bills are trying to
address. And I would invite you to continue to be able to use
our staff and our experts as we continue to work on the bills,
should they need any further refinement.
As you know, the President's America First Energy Plan
rightly calls for utilizing all of our energy sources to
achieve energy security and economic strength at home and our
energy dominance through our exports to markets abroad.
In the area of fossil, through the increase in production
of crude oil and other liquid fuels, refined petroleum products
and production of natural gas, the United States has become,
truly, an energy powerhouse. As Chairman Barton pointed out,
who would have thought that back in the days when the
Department of Energy was created due to an energy crisis and
the fact that we were at mercy to the OPEC-producing nations?
We set up SPR. We set up the Department of Energy and fast
forward--I shouldn't say fast forward because it was quite a
way to get to where we are today.
Chairman Murkowski talked about the repeal of the export
oil ban, but today, traveling around the world, to be able to
stand up and to say that America is now the leading producer of
oil and natural gas in the world is quite an extraordinary
thing to say. Our allies and our partners across the world
greatly appreciate that. That is a recent occurrence, but look
at how far we have come.
And, of course, our dominance in that area now provides
choices to our friends and allies and our partners. And we are
now economic competitors to all of those OPEC nations that have
given rise to why we had to create the Department of Energy to
begin with. We're competitors of the OPEC nations, and we are
competitors to Russia.
So it is an exciting time. It is the work that has been
built by many Congresses, many leaders, and it is a great
opportunity for us to continue in that area.
Some of the bills deal with LNG export. We are committed to
making decisions on natural gas export applications,
expeditiously, once the agency has all the information
necessary to make the required public interest determination.
Additionally, the Department supports an effective
modernization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
In the world of nuclear, of course, nuclear is clean,
reliable, safe, but the nuclear power industry, as Chairman
Murkowski points out, needs to continue to innovate. Advanced
reactors, including small, modular reactors, hold great
promise--a safe, clean, reliable and secure power for our
nation. The Department recognizes that advanced reactors face
challenges to ultimately achieving commercialization. In
addition to early-stage research and development, the
Administration supports prioritizing investments in nuclear
energy research infrastructure to enable private sector
innovation.
Regarding the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, it would
enhance nuclear energy innovation specifically related to
advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and the bill
specifically would direct the Department to construct a fast
neutron-capable research facility. And this, of course, is
consistent with the Department's current plans to develop a
virtual test reactor.
Electricity--our economy, our national security and the
well-being of our citizens depend on the reliable delivery of
electricity. The Department, working with and through the
national laboratories, supports key efforts to improve the
resilience and the reliability of the nation's electricity
system. These include supporting private industry's investment
in transmission systems to support resource adequacy and
generation diversity, developing and deploying cybersecurity
technology for the energy sector, moving forward with new
architecture approaches for the transmission and distribution
system to enhance security and resilience and advancing energy
storage.
The Advancing Grid Storage Act of 2018 would establish a
cross-cutting energy storage program at DOE. Its intent is
consistent with the early-stage research in grid-scale energy
storage that is currently being conducted by multiple offices
at the DOE offices.
The Flexible Grid Infrastructure Act proposes that the
Department develop and implement reports, research and
development, state technical assistance and an innovation
challenge to harness the capability and flexibility of
Distributed Energy Resources. Many states, many areas have been
looking into that for years. This has been an issue that has
been evolving over time. The Department appreciates the
objectives of the proposed legislation and it incorporates the
R&D conducted by several of our DOE offices, notably under our
DOE Grid Modernization Initiative.
Energy efficiency--DOE's Building Technologies Office leads
a vast network of research and industry partners to continually
develop innovative, cost-effective energy solutions. Efficient
buildings help us to do more with less energy. This alleviates
pressure on our electric grid and extends our energy resources.
As a research agency, DOE plays an important role in the
innovation economy. The Office of Technology Transfer, the
National Laboratory complex and other DOE programs currently
strive to meet the objective of advancing innovation driven by
DOE R&D into the private sector.
DOE has a long and successful history of working with
states on the nation's most significant energy challenges.
Nearly all state and territory governments and certain local
governments have an energy security or assurance plan which
serves as a foundation for action when an energy disruption
threatens public welfare or when the energy industry requests
help.
These plans, as pointed out by Chairman Gardner, address
energy supply risks and vulnerabilities and enable quick
recovery and restoration, combined with training exercises
which we think are key for personnel and stakeholders. Energy
assurance plans enhance response and recovery efforts and
support resiliency investments.
Finally, the Department is eager to assist in promoting the
physical and economic health of our veterans, who have given so
much in service to our nation. We are equally committed to
ensuring full protection for DOE federal employees and the
rights of those who present claims of whistleblower
retaliation.
In conclusion, let me thank you again for the opportunity
to be here today. The Department appreciates the ongoing
bipartisan efforts to address our nation's energy challenges,
and we look forward to working with the Committee on the
legislation today and on future legislation. I would be happy
to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Secretary Menezes, and again,
thank you, Congressman Barton.
Under Secretary Menezes, in response to President Trump's
Executive Order 13800, I mentioned in my opening, on
strengthening the cybersecurity of federal networks and
critical infrastructure, the Department issued a report that
had identified a number of gaps in the nation's ability to
recover from cyber incidents. Your testimony touched on a
couple of these things, at least one of these gaps, that
highlighted the importance of state planning for energy sector
disruptions, including those related to cyber. The DOE report,
I read with great interest and concern, working with Senator
Bennet on the Enhancing State Energy Security Planning and
Emergency Preparedness Act.
Could you perhaps talk a little bit about and elaborate a
little bit about how the Act can complement the Department's
current authorities to help address any gaps in state energy
planning? And as you consider that question, you know, you talk
about the rapid restoration of services in the event of a
disaster, how planning can help facilitate that and whether or
not exercises under those plans for emergency preparedness help
complement existing efforts in that area.
Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the bill.
We have reviewed your bill. I have discussed this with
Assistant Secretary Karen Evans and, indeed, it's very
important that we have in place provisions that ensure that
there are no gaps as we make sure that we have the most
reliant, reliable and resilient system in place.
Now, almost all states and certain local governments have
assurance plans or some type of energy security plan and, you
know, we typically provide much expertise and technological
assistance to these states to develop the programs. A key part
of this is training to ensure that the folks that have devised
these plans know how to implement and carry them out when
they're needed because these plans are designed to be able to
respond when there is a threat or when there is a serious
potential problem facing the grid opportunities. We do provide,
at INL and other places in our labs and in our departments, the
training and exercises to ensure that those that have the
responsibility to carry these out are properly trained.
Your bill sets forth in one spot, if you will, the clear
lines of how these plans would be provided to the government,
under what terms and conditions financial assistance would be
given, what technical assistance the states and local
governments would be expected to receive, and it ensures that
the risks are borne at the level where the plans are developed
and put in place. We think the states and the local governments
know their resources and their systems, of course, better. We
bring in the standards and the training. And so, we think that
this bill certainly clarifies that.
Senator Gardner. Great. Thank you, Secretary.
In your testimony you also talked about other legislation
that I am co-sponsoring dealing with the Department of Energy's
Veteran's Health Initiative Act that leveraged tools that you
have at your disposal to help improve veteran's health care. I
think this is a great partnership that will yield significant
benefits. It is a partnership that already exists between the
DOE and the VA.
Could you talk about some of the highlights and the
benefits the DOE has already realized through this program and
some of the success that this partnership has had to date,
already, on veteran's health care and what kinds of
developments you see in the future then knowing the knowledge,
techniques and tools that you could further utilize under this
legislation, partnerships can help create transfers of those
ideas and innovations to the Federal Government?
Mr. Menezes. And is this the, I'm sorry.
Senator Gardner. I apologize. This is Senator Ernst's
legislation, H.R. 6398, Senate bill 3656.
Mr. Menezes. Well, as you're aware, you know, a key mission
of DOE is leadership in advanced computing and we are using our
abilities for data access and evaluation together with our
computer capabilities to really develop in the field of human
health related to our veterans.
We think that the VA will serve as a template for how to
build the capacity with other agencies as well so that we can
evaluate the health care issues that we have identified, and
indeed we believe that this can be used to address several of
the issues that are unique to veterans.
Senator Gardner. Secretary Menezes, I am going to cut you
off right there. Perhaps we can continue that in follow-up but
I am going to turn it over to Senator Manchin right now.
Thanks.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Menezes, if you could just explain in layman's terms so
we understand--we are, for the first time, exporting more oil
than we are importing. Is that correct?
Mr. Menezes. We are a net exporter of natural gas, of oil
and natural gas, yes.
Senator Manchin. Okay.
Why do we still import if we are independent? Why are we
still buying oil? Is it because of refineries, or are there
other reasons that you can make it very simple for me to
understand?
Mr. Menezes. Well, it's my understanding that we import
some oil in part because we have refineries that were built to
receive certain oil from certain places that we, frankly, could
not get locally. So as a consequence we do import certain
amounts of oil.
Senator Manchin. So basically, we are not energy-
independent because we are depending on that oil for our
refineries to run?
Mr. Menezes. We are producing more and more, just over the
past few----
Senator Manchin. Well, I mean, it must be the oil that we
are producing is not compatible with the refineries that we
have----
Mr. Menezes. Correct.
Senator Manchin. ----and technology has not changed.
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Manchin. Is there an incentive from the DOE to make
them change the refineries or increase their technology to
accept--so we can truly be energy-independent?
Mr. Menezes. Right.
So there are different kinds of oils that are produced all
over and there are different kinds of processes----
Senator Manchin. I understand. I understand all that.
Mr. Menezes. ----and so, there will always be different
kinds of refineries, really, all over, you know, our nation.
Senator Manchin. But I mean, do you agree that, basically,
to be energy-independent you should be able to not depend on
any import at all to run your energy sector?
Mr. Menezes. I do agree with that. I will also say we still
import some refined products. So that is an issue as well. It
seems to me along the lines of what you're saying----
Senator Manchin. Is that your bailiwick--are you
responsible for that as far as what our balances are in
importing and exporting?
Mr. Menezes. Well our--the Energy Information
Administration does keep track of what we produce, what we
import, what products we import, at what levels, at what times
and where and----
Senator Manchin. If I might ask to indulge the Chairman
that we could go more in depth on that to find out how we could
truly be energy-independent within our own country? So maybe
further down the line we can bring you back or bring your team
back.
Senator Gardner. [Off-mic response]
Senator Manchin. That would be good?
Ok, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also notice in your testimony you are still reviewing
Senate bill 2803, which is the FUEL Act, and I want to thank
you for working on that. The FUEL Act, S. 2803--I believe it is
critical policy ensuring that advanced coal and natural gas
technologies borne in our labs reach commercialization. Also,
it is needless to say that it is important for maintaining coal
jobs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring our energy
security.
According to the Energy Information Administration, coal
and natural gas will provide 56 percent of the total U.S. net
electricity generation in 2040, and 50 percent of total global
energy consumption by 2040. In the meantime, the current
generation of coal plants is about 25 percent more efficient
than the last generation, and a lot of this is due to federal
partnerships and investments, but it is important that we keep
our eye on the ball.
So in light of the projected reliance on fossil fuels here
in the U.S. and abroad, do you believe that ongoing federal
investment in coal and natural gas technologies is key to
ensuring a cleaner energy future? And, is there any stipulation
we are putting as we have different types of agreements with
India and China, who are not using the same technologies that
we are, to be able to use the fossil fuel more cleanly?
Mr. Menezes. Well, it's interesting that you say that and
the short answer is yes, your bill is consistent with our
``all-of-the-above.'' Your bill focuses on fossil, but again,
it's ``all-of-the-above.''
Senator Manchin. Right.
Mr. Menezes. Particularly on India, I actually plan to be
attending a trip to India next week. And on the agenda for
India is we have a task force for natural gas. You know they
have infrastructure issues, but they want to import more U.S.
LNG.
We also, of course, have nuclear that we're developing, we
hope to develop in India as well. I mean, they want to bring
electricity to 300 million of, you know, their people.
What was----
Senator Manchin. I understand that people are very much
concerned that India will throw caution to the wind as far as
the environment is concerned because they have to bring----
Mr. Menezes. I apologize for interrupting but--so they,
right now, they get most of their electricity from coal. They
have an abundance of coal. I am going to specifically hold a
meeting with those that are interested in our carbon capture
utilization sequestration technologies.
Senator Manchin. Right.
Mr. Menezes. So they have actually----
Senator Manchin. Well even just the scrubbers and low NOx
boilers and baghouses for mercury. Those are just basically the
things that we have perfected.
Mr. Menezes. Well it is and, again, on the carbon capture
side of it, you're talking about addressing the CO2 as well.
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Mr. Menezes. So you have the panoply of pollution control
equipment that we offer but, specifically, they are looking
for----
Senator Manchin. But particulates is their biggest problem
right now. They cannot breathe.
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Manchin. And we have been able to cure that problem
in West Virginia and across the country by using the
technologies we have perfected.
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Manchin. So I would hope that you would take that
and maybe report back to us, because I am understanding the
plants that they are putting online do not even have the basics
of sulfur reduction, NOx reduction, baghouses for mercury, the
things that we have already been doing for the last two
decades.
Mr. Menezes. Well, I will be happy to report when I return
after my trip next week.
Thank you.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Senator Manchin, you asked why do we still
import?
One, we cannot get natural gas from where it is produced up
to New England. And so, periodically they will import natural
gas because the Governor of New York will not allow pipelines
to deliver low-cost, clean-burning, natural gas to replace fuel
oil in Manhattan or to supply gas for cold winters in New
England. So I do think that is something to consider.
Senator Manchin. The only thing I would say on importing
from the standpoint can we import from--if we are going to
import, can we import from the United States?
Senator Cassidy. Got it.
Senator Manchin. We have a lot of gas.
Senator Cassidy. Yes.
Senator Manchin. We are trying to get the pipeline.
Senator Cassidy. Pipeline is cheaper.
Senator Manchin. We are trying.
Senator Cassidy. I am going to speak to the SPR reform
bill, Senate bill 3618.
We know that Congress established the SPR after the oil
embargos of 1970. But now we use it for something besides
energy reserve, we use it to preserve natural disaster
protection, encourage a stable economy and rightly or wrongly
to pay for legislation that sometimes has nothing to do with
energy.
It is now mandated about 290 million barrels from the SPR
will be sold over the next decade or so. So the legislation we
have proposed would authorize DOE to lease up to 200 million
barrels of storage capacity. Now we think this is important
because one, it will help keep the SPR in good working order,
saving taxpayers money by ensuring costs for upgrades are
included in the lease agreement. And successfully doing so
could attract investment into approving facility operations to
be responsive to commercial needs.
It will not increase the use of fossil fuels; rather it
allows fossil fuels that are going to be used to be stored. And
if you will, it exemplifies the original motto of the EPA. If
you know that little circle of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, we are
going to reuse and recycle capacity that otherwise would not be
used. The carbon footprint will be lower because energy will
not be used to create new caverns; rather, we will just reuse
and recycle and reduce the need for new capacity with this
bill. That said, Mr. Menezes, does the Department support this
bill?
Mr. Menezes. The Department supports the goals of the bill
and supports what the bill is attempting to do.
The fact--you and Chairman Barton outlaid the fact that the
reason for the SPR might not be as great. It was designed for
strategic reasons. We now have ample supply, if you will, for
our domestic use. Although, as Senator Manchin mentioned, we do
import some for reasons that you talked about.
For us to be able to now put into our own economy, if you
will, our--any oil that's stored there and it can be done in a
way that continues to allow the caverns to function for the
purposes that they were designed, you know, we would not object
to that goal.
Senator Cassidy. Now, foreign governments have the capacity
to have the ability, under current law, to lease that space.
Mr. Menezes. That's correct.
Senator Cassidy. Do we know of any foreign governments that
are interested in doing so?
Mr. Menezes. I'm not sure that we know that they are, but
your point is a good one. So if, you know, members of OECD that
have an obligation to store oil, they can use our SPR, if they
wish, to lease capacity.
Senator Cassidy. So conceptually, we are really doing it
just for the commercial space which we already allow for other
countries.
Mr. Menezes. That it was designed for----
Senator Cassidy. Which is to lease the space.
Mr. Menezes. Correct.
Senator Cassidy. I understand there will be technical
difficulties.
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Cassidy. And commercial space, you draw it more
rapidly than you do under the current arrangements.
There have been salt dome cave-ins in Louisiana. I am
concerned about this. But I gather there are also technical
solutions to this issue?
Mr. Menezes. Yeah, Sandia has been doing some modeling on
it, and thank you for raising that question. We are well aware
of the potential technical challenges. I mean, we use water
right now to have the oil, to get it out of the caverns. We
would probably need to--and then that corrodes some of the
walls because of the salt domes and water. So we would need a
brine solution, if you will, so you wouldn't have the
interaction with the water.
Senator Cassidy. And that technology exists because it is
already done by----
Mr. Menezes. The technology exists. The question is, we
need to modernize some of the facilities because they are, in
one case, you know, aging facilities.
So we're modernizing them, then we have plans to spend
about $1 billion, over $1 billion, for that.
Senator Cassidy. Just to make the point that this SPR is
already located where the refineries are----
[Senator Cassidy points at chart.]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Cassidy. ----that produce the refined products for
the rest of the country and, indeed, parts of the world. So it
is strategically located, hence the name, SPR, but also the
modernization could be paid for by the revenue from this
commercial lease. Correct?
Mr. Menezes. I think that's the way that Congress has set
it up.
Senator Cassidy. That is the way the bill is written.
So we need $1 billion. We could use the revenue from the
leasing to pay for this upgrade that would ensure long-term
viability and environmental soundness.
I ask my colleagues for support, and I yield back.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Chair Gardner and
Ranking Member Manchin and also Under Secretary Menezes. Thank
you so much for being here today.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the
bill that I introduced, the Advanced Grid Storage Act of 2018.
I want to thank several of my colleagues on this Committee for
co-sponsoring this bill, including Senators Heinrich, Hirono,
Cortez Masto, Stabenow, King and Duckworth, and I look forward
to talking with others of my colleagues about this bill and
getting you interested in what we are doing here.
So, you know, Minnesota is blessed with excellent wind and
solar energy resources and more and more of that intermittent
resources are coming into our electric grid, storage is a
valuable tool, though not the only tool, for smoothing over
periods when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining.
I would note that a couple of weeks ago, I think it was, we
had a very interesting discussion at this Committee around the
importance of blackstarts, another example of where energy
storage is so important to our country and to, actually, our
security.
So what my bill would do would be to encourage research
into new and promising storage technologies and it would also
help states and tribes and local governments and utilities have
the information that they need to most successfully utilize
this energy storage.
Also, really importantly, my bill would support initial
field deployments of storage technologies that perform well in
the lab and this is an important step forward.
I would like to point out as my colleague, Senator
Murkowski, was pointing out that this is also an issue of
economic competitiveness and the United States will either lead
or we will follow when it comes to new technologies around
energy storage. It will be either us in the forefront or it
will be China in the forefront, and I am very interested in
having us be in the forefront.
So, Mr. Menezes, I want to thank you for your testimony
which acknowledges, as I heard you, that my bill is consistent
with the current priorities of the Department of Energy. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on this bill because I
think that it could help to pull together some disparate parts
of what the Department of Energy is doing so that that works
more efficiently, effectively, and we can get this technology--
not only develop it but then deploy it out into the world.
Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for your comments.
You and I talked about this briefly, but the true
breakthrough technology is in storage and it's just not limited
to batteries----
Senator Smith. Exactly.
Mr. Menezes. ----although they will play a key part.
As we've talked about, storage has many different component
parts of it. Your bill identifies all of those and it looks,
it's visionary in that it creates the opportunity for even
future ways that we can store.
We do--it's a top priority of the Department, it is
dependent on resources, but currently we're spending about $300
million across the Department on all types of storage. As I had
mentioned, a significant portion is on EVs but, again, if that
technology can translate over into our energy system, you know,
that's well.
Senator Smith. And as you said, as you and I said when we
were speaking earlier, my bill would help to, kind of, pull
together many of the existing strategies so that they can work
well together and make them more efficient. I think that that
is an important goal and also the importance of getting this
new technology dispersed out so that we can all benefit from
it.
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Menezes. Thank you.
Senator Smith. I want to also just mention, Chair Gardner,
that my colleague, Senator Shaheen, is not on this Committee,
but I would like to speak in support of her bill, Investing in
State Energy Act. What her bill would do is to ensure timely
release of DOE funds for the State Energy Programs and the
Weatherization Assistance Programs. Both of these programs are
so important to many of our states, including Minnesota.
I have heard some things that give me great concern from my
state about delays in the release of these funds by the
Department of Energy over the past two years. Senator Shaheen's
legislation would require DOE to distribute these funds within
60 days of them being appropriated by Congress and that, seems
to me, a really simple and commonsense formula that would
prevent unnecessary delays. That is why I am supporting it, and
I urge my colleagues to take a look at Senator Shaheen's bill
as well.
Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, and I really appreciate you
being here, Mr. Menezes.
We love seeing Joe Barton again, former Chairman of the
Committee on the House side, my colleague, and I am glad he is
still focused on the energy issues. To Senator Gardner, this is
a great opportunity for us to talk about some smaller bills but
also the broader strategic advantages we now have as a country
and how we take advantage of that.
In Ohio, as you know, we are looking at the possibility now
of expanding infrastructure more which is our key to get the
Marcellus find and the Utica find to really reach its full
potential, both in terms of wet gas and natural gas, but also
some oil in Utica.
I want to talk to you about an energy efficiency measure
that we have before the Committee, and it is called S. 1089. It
is legislation that I am authoring with Senator Shaheen. We
have worked on a lot of energy efficiency bills over the years,
as you know, in fact
we are working on putting together our new version of Portman-
Shaheen right now with the hopes that we can get the
Administration's support and get the support of the Congress.
This is a small one, but a really important one. It has to
do with what we think of as motor oil or machine oil, and it is
a requirement that the Department of Energy, working with EPA
and OMB, update a 2006 report on the energy and environmental
benefits of re-refining used lubricating oil. It also requires
DOE to provide recommendations on how to collect used oil and
promote sustainable reuse. A lot has happened since 2006 in
this area, and we think it is critical to update it and there
are huge environmental benefits.
Lubricating oil that has been used, as you know, can be re-
refined and reused, really almost indefinitely, and it is often
not something that happens. This can happen because of the
newer technologies we have, the processes we have, and we can
upgrade that oil into higher grades over and over again.
This refining process using used oil as a feedstock is a
lot more energy efficient, of course, than using crude oil as
the feedstock. If you think about that, it uses a lot less
energy, needs only about 20 percent of the energy, as an
example, that you would need if you start with crude oil. It is
not only more energy efficient, it also helps protect the
environment because, again, you are using the same oil again
and again. Think of the motor oil or machine oil you might have
in your garage and, unfortunately, many times when people are
at the point of putting new oil in their car or a lawnmower or
other vehicle, they dispose of it and sometimes improperly. In
fact, your 2006 report says that 350 million gallons of used
oil every year is disposed of improperly.
That is really concerning because EPA has also said that 1
gallon of this 350 million gallons of used motor oil can
contaminate up to 1 million gallons of fresh water. So it needs
to be collected as opposed to burning it or in some instances,
again, improperly disposing of it which can contaminate
groundwater and drinking water.
The 2006 report also identified that refining results in
less greenhouse gases and heavy metal emissions compared to
burning used oil as fuel. Therefore, collecting it, obviously,
has huge environmental benefits and this legislation will help
identify the ways to increase the collection of that used oil
and the feedstock for re-refining.
Today, the Federal Government, state governments and
commercial entities all use re-refined oil in their vehicle
fleets which is a good thing. And with the increase in
performance in emission standards, auto manufacturers are now
requiring the highest quality of base oil to be used in their
vehicles. This kind of oil, which is called Group III oils, is
highly efficient and helps meet vehicle performance standards
and emissions.
I will say that we do lag behind other countries in terms
of our re-refining of this oil. The used oil that we re-refine
is a relatively small amount compared to what Europe is doing.
As an example, they have about three times as much oil re-
refining capacity as the United States. Only about 12 percent
of our used oil is re-refined. As a result, we have had to rely
on foreign sources for new, and this highly-efficient Group
III, oil that is required by the auto manufacturers.
I think this creates a national security concern. Only 71
percent of the world's Group III oil--I am sorry, 71 percent of
it is now coming from not the United States, but coming from
either the Middle East or China or Korea.
Under Secretary Menezes, let me just ask you about it. Do
you agree with me that there is a potential national security
concern with such a heavy reliance on countries such as China
and the Middle East for these highest quality oils which
automakers are now requiring?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir.
As we've talked about how the world has changed where we
have become a global leader in oil and natural gas production,
we also see where China has become a provider of many of the
products that we typically would have been producing here.
So to the extent that we can identify ways that we can
increase our domestic production of any of these types of
products and get us off of the reliance of exports, it would
certainly enhance our national security.
Senator Portman. Well, thank you. Re-refining, of course,
would do that.
Do you agree that the U.S. should be a leader in building
out our own re-refining capacities?
Mr. Menezes. Yes.
Senator Portman. This 2006 report we talked about
identifies a lot of challenges and opportunities but, again, it
is over a decade old and this updated report will help us
identify ways to use this used oil, use it more sustainably and
help industry grow, create more jobs.
A final question, do you believe it is important for the
Department of Energy to update this report?
Mr. Menezes. Well, since we thought it was important back
in 2005 when it went into the Energy Policy Act and the
Department was fairly quick, I think, in turning around a
study, but I checked and it appears that the 2006 study was,
you know, the last study that the Department formed. I think
that it's likely to reach some of the same conclusions,
although in the discussion of the national security, I don't
believe that that was a consideration in the past. So, to be
sure, you know, the information is dated--it's 2006.
Senator Portman. I appreciate your strong endorsement of
updating it and appreciate my colleagues supporting the
legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for joining us this morning.
S. 3495, limits the Department of Energy's review of
natural gas export, LNG export, applications to 45 days. Do you
think that is realistic, that your Department can complete the
review in 45 days?
Mr. Menezes. So on the LNG export, you know, we look at it
for authority to export. We are not the agency to actually have
to put together the NEPA analysis on the facility itself that's
being built.
On our review, we have been doing this now for several
years, you know, going back to the past Administration when we
put in place a mechanism to determine the economic impact on it
as well as the competitive impact on it and the other issues
that we look at. So we are much more now fully informed than
when we began the process, you know, back in 2014.
So to that extent, on those, there are particular issues
where we have done studies, we put them out for public comment
and so on the issue, for example, of the impact of availability
on price, on any kind of economic condition, we probably don't
have to go through much of a very detailed analysis on that
because we have been doing the analysis, and it's not----
Senator King. Do you do an analysis of the impact on
domestic gas prices for each of these applications?
Mr. Menezes. We do.
On gasoline prices?
Senator King. No, natural gas prices.
Mr. Menezes. Natural gas.
Senator King. We are talking about exporting natural gas.
Mr. Menezes. Right. Yes, we do it on pricing, and we do it
on availability of supply.
Senator King. You do do an economic analysis of the effect
on domestic gas prices?
Mr. Menezes. Right. We recently completed a study and we
posted the findings, I think we published them in the Federal
Register in July. And my recollection is it shows that were all
of the amounts that are pending to be exported of natural gas
and if you assume a high demand internationally where a lot of
this, of course, will go--I think the numbers run out to 2054
or so--that it will have, the impact will not be significant on
pricing to where it would make that big of a difference,
ultimately, on prices or availability.
Senator King. I want to review that data.
I want to go on record as being very skeptical of that. I
do not see how you can significantly increase demand, in
effect, by exporting and not affect domestic prices. We cannot
repeal the law of supply and demand.
Mr. Menezes. No.
Senator King. But----
Mr. Menezes. I'm happy to come by and show you the report
and the comments.
Senator King. I would appreciate that. Let's follow up on
that.
Mr. Menezes. And I think, by the way, I think we're still
reviewing comments on it but so----
Senator King. But you believe that 45 days is sufficient to
do the necessary analysis?
Mr. Menezes. Well, again, I don't know if 45 days, itself,
but the fact is we shouldn't be creating any unnecessary delays
on things that we have great familiarity with----
Senator King. I would agree with that, but this still is an
important consideration whether this project is in the national
interest that certainly involves effect on domestic prices, its
effect on supply. So are you supporting this bill?
Mr. Menezes. Sometimes what causes delays, you know, we
rely on the applicants to get us information.
Senator King. Right.
Mr. Menezes. Right?
And so, while they may, you know, I can't say this for all
cases, but it really is incumbent on the applicants. And these
applicants are very sophisticated. They know what our standards
are. They know what our requirements are. And so, to the extent
that applicants can have the information that we can review,
you know, file, if you will, timely then that, of course,
allows us to do our job that much more efficiently.
The delays sometimes result in not only agency review but
in communicating with the applicants to ensure that they get
the information to us that we need to----
Senator King. Well, perhaps we could follow up with a visit
to go over this data and talk about this issue of analysis on
effect on price.
Mr. Menezes. Absolutely.
Senator King. Thank you.
I just want to commend to you, S. 3656, just recently
introduced by myself and Senator Ernst, that asks the
Department of Energy to help us, particularly with the
Veteran's Administration and the Department of Defense, in
terms of big data analysis of medical personnel.
I just came from a hearing in Armed Services--the medical
system in the military has 9.4 million people in it and to the
extent that we can analyze that data and use it to improve
health care for veterans and active duty service people, I
think that would be a great benefit. I hope you will look
favorably on that bill.
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir.
As you know, veterans' health has been a number one
priority of Secretary Perry. He, himself, has volunteered to
participate in some of the programs that we have ongoing. We do
think that we can help address some of the unique health issues
that veterans face.
With our large computing abilities, we're working very well
with the Veteran's Affairs. We're relying on their expertise on
this to ensure the proper use collection of data, the storage
of the data, the keeping of the data and the privacy concerns
addressed. So it's an exciting opportunity. Secretary Perry is
particularly pleased with the progress that we have been making
in working with the Veteran's Affairs.
Senator King. Thank you. We look forward to your support of
S. 3656. I appreciate it.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Menezes. Thank you.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Menezes, welcome back to the Hill, your old stomping
grounds.
I would like to discuss the DOE and NRC Whistleblower
Protection Act.
This three sentence, good government bill may not be too
long but it is very clear. It simply recognizes that under the
Atomic Energy Act and a subsequent Energy Reorganization Act,
the law provides employees of the Department of Energy with the
same whistleblower protection rights that the law also gives to
employees who work for DOE contractors and subcontractors.
Basically, we seek to define who a ``person'' is. It simply
was not fully defined in the previous legislation.
Now, one may believe, as I do, that this will simply
clarify what is already obvious, what a ``person'' is, that
when Congress added DOE as a covered employer under a short
provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, creatively titled,
Whistleblower Protection, Congress intended to provide DOE
employees with enforceable whistleblower protections. And I am
not alone in this view. The Department of Labor (DOL) argued
this view during administrative judicial proceedings.
In 2007, the Department of Energy even assured the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) that DOE was aware of
the 2005 law and would comply with it. In that same GAO report,
it noted that the NRC was already complying with the law.
In fact, if you go online and open the Code of Federal
Regulations today, you can download for yourself the DOL fact
sheet that explains how DOE employees are protected by Section
211 of the ERA.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent to
enter into the record, the GAO report,----
Senator Gardner. Without objection.
Senator Duckworth. ----the CFR publication and Section 629
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Senator Gardner. Without objection for all three.
[Laughter.]
Senator Duckworth. Alright, thank you, very generous.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Duckworth. I think that if we are all being honest,
we will recognize that, of course, Congress meant to provide
DOE employees with enforceable whistleblower protections, and
that any other reading of Section 629 leads to an absurd
result. That absurd result would require one to believe that
Congress secretly chose not to define the term ``person'' in
Section 629. I suppose, potentially, in the hope that many
years later and many dollars spent later, DOE whistleblowers
would discover during litigation that surprise, the protections
Congress gave you in 2005 can never be enforced.
Does anyone really believe Congress meant that? Does anyone
really think that such a ridiculous reading results in a just
result for brave DOE whistleblowers? And the answer should be
clear.
I hope we can move beyond the wonky discussions to focus on
what really matters: DOE employees deserve the same
whistleblower protections that are provided to employees of DOE
contractors and subcontractors. These dedicated civil servants
deserve these protections because the American people deserve a
nuclear industry that operates at the safest possible levels.
And coming from a state with 13 nuclear reactors, the most of
any other state, this is something I am deeply concerned about.
To achieve this, DOE personnel must have confidence that
they can communicate with Congress and blow the whistle on
specific energy law violations without suffering retaliation or
loss of a job.
Mr. Chairman, I would request unanimous consent that an
endorsement letter from the Make it Safe Coalition, a
whistleblower advocacy organization, be submitted into the
hearing record. Their letter explains the public safety
importance of DOE whistleblowers and the cost of not fixing
this legal loophole now.
Senator Gardner. Without objection.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can
move swiftly to clarify this important law by passing S. 2968.
Mr. Menezes, if you have any comments on this issue, I
would welcome them.
Mr. Menezes. First of all, thank you very much for your
description and the reasons why the bill is necessary. I
learned an awful lot listening to it right now.
I had met with your staff earlier and asked a question, you
know, why is this bill necessary? And again, she, like many
here in the room, was amending provisions of the EPACT of 2005
and so Sam Fowler and I are going to get together. We talked
specifically about it. We recall this provision and, indeed,
it's something that we need to look at.
I want to reassure you that whistleblower protection from
retaliation and the value that they bring in helping the
Department oversee, if you will, and operate all of our labs,
all of our contractors, the Department itself--this is a top
commitment of us to ensure their protection.
If you will, let me get with Sam Fowler so that we can go
through this. I talked to your staff earlier. It seems to be
that the word ``persons'' was probably, you know, overlooked,
if you will and let us get together and see if we can work
things out on that. We have no opposition to the bill itself,
as you know, and so I would like to get together with your
staff.
Thank you very much.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
If there are no further questions, we are going to wrap
this Committee hearing up. I have some questions for the record
from Senator Hoeven that I will enter into the record and ask
that you reply to them as soon as possible.
Questions for the record are due tomorrow by close of
business. Other submissions for the record are due within 10
business days.
I would ask that you reply to Senator Hoeven's questions
and any other questions that may be submitted as quickly as
possible.
With the thanks of this Committee, Mr. Menezes, thank you
very much----
Mr. Menezes. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. ----for your support, and to the members
participating today, thank you.
This Committee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]