[Senate Hearing 115-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:39 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Collins, Hoeven, Kennedy,
Feinstein, Murray, Tester, Udall, Shaheen, Merkley, Coons, and
Leahy.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK PERRY, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY ALISON L. DOONE, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
opening statement of senator lamar alexander
Senator Alexander. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, please come to order.
Today's hearing will review the Administration's fiscal
year 2018 budget request for the Department of Energy. This is
the subcommittee's third budget hearing this year. We have our
final hearing on the budgets for the Corps of Engineers and
Bureau of Reclamations next week.
Senator Feinstein and I will each have an opening
statement. I'll then welcome the other Senators who are here,
and I'll recognize each of you for up to 5 minutes for an
opening statement, if you'd like to make one after Senator
Feinstein and I finish, alternating between the majority and
minority.
Our guys must still be at lunch or something.
[Laughter.]
Senator Alexander. Congratulate the democrats for being
here.
We will then turn to Secretary Perry, whom we welcome
today, for testimony on behalf of the Department of Energy. And
at the conclusion of Secretary Perry's testimony, I'll
recognize Senators for 5 minutes of questions each, alternating
between the majority and minority in the order in which they
arrived. I want to make sure that there's--Mr. Secretary, I
hope your schedule permits it, but we may have several
questions, and my instinct is to let the Senators ask the
questions that they want to ask.
First, I'd like to thank Secretary Perry for being here
today. He was only confirmed March the 2nd, but he's been able
to get into his job very quickly. He's been secretary for less
than 4 months, but he's dived into some difficult issues here
in Washington that we've been working on. For example, the MOX
(Mixed Oxide) situation in South Carolina, the nuclear waste
stalemate, he's already begun to provide leadership in that
area, and he's taken time to go see the responsibilities under
his secretaryship. Yucca Mountain, he's been there, Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, Senator Udall, he's been
there, Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, he spent a day in Tennessee, Italy for the Group of
7 Ministers meeting, and even visited the Fukushima nuclear
complex in Japan. So I congratulate him for that.
And I also thank him and his staff throughout this initial
phase of being available to us in Washington DC. When we've had
questions, it's been an easy relationship in terms of getting
questions and answers. I thank him.
fiscal year 2017 appropriations law
I also want to thank Senator Feinstein. I do this whenever
I have the opportunity, but it's a great pleasure to work with
her again in drafting the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
We've been able to do that in a bipartisan way. We have our
differences, but we know how to resolve differences, if we
possibly can. Last year we were able to do it, and not only
report it to the full committee, but pass our bill on the floor
of the United States Senate, and as a result, we had 87
different Senators of the 100 who had some say, some request,
some comment in our bill because it was widely participated in.
That bill provided record levels of funding for the Office
of Science that funds the department's 17 national
laboratories. It had a record level of funding for the Corps of
Engineers, which builds our Nation's locks and dams in dredges
our ports, and which is the top priority for more than one-half
the Senators that submit requests to this subcommittee. The
bill also supported super computing, something the Secretary's
talked about, allowing our national laboratories to maintain
five of the ten fastest computers in the world, maintain the
Nation's nuclear stockpile, cut wasteful spending, and done all
of this within the constraints of the Budget Control Act.
fiscal year 2018 budget request
We're here today to review the Administration's fiscal year
2018 budget request for the Department of Energy. The
department has three critical missions: nuclear security,
science and energy, and environmental management. The budget
request for 2018 is about $28 billion. This is a decrease of
about $2.9 billion below what Congress provided in the fiscal
year 2017, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, which was just
approved a few weeks ago.
The budget request significantly decreases the investments
to federally funded research and development. It terminates
ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), we'll want
to talk more about that, and recommends reducing the Office of
Science, which is in charge of our national laboratories, by
over $919 million, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
by $1.45 billion, nuclear energy by $310 billion, and the
Office of Electricity by $110 billion.
That's why we're holding this hearing, to give Secretary
Perry an opportunity to discuss the department's priorities, so
Senator Feinstein and I can make informed decisions as we begin
to write the fiscal year budget in the next few weeks.
We want to make it clear that governing is about setting
priorities and we'll be setting the priorities here within the
Congress, but if we find useful suggestions within the
President's budget, we'll be glad to consider them.
For fiscal year 2018, under the Budget Control Act spending
caps, Congress has slightly less money to appropriate than last
year. It would seem to be almost the same. Senate republicans
have agreed to markup our appropriations bills to the same
overall number that Congress approved in the omnibus
appropriations bill we passed in May.
I hope that will permit us to markup our bill in a
bipartisan way. Congress may agree to add funds later in the
year, and if it does, we can do as we did in 2016, we would add
those amounts to what we've already agreed on. In the meantime,
our allocation may be as much as 2 percent lower for nondefense
spending, which made up about 47 percent or nearly half of the
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill last year.
On the defense side, it's not clear what our allocation
will be, but the President's budget has proposed about a
billion more than last year to continue modernizing our
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.
Today I'd like to focus my questions on four major areas,
which I will do later, all with an eye toward setting
priorities. One, prioritizing Federal support for science and
energy research. Two, ensuring the department is spending the
money Congress provided last year in the 2017 budget as
Congress intended and the way Congress intended. Three,
oversight and management of large projects, like MOX, and ITER
and the uranium facility, and, Senator Udall would want me to
say, the planning for the plutonium facility in New Mexico, and
solving the nuclear waste stalemate.
prioritizing federal support for science and energy research
Number one, the U.S. continues to produce more than 20
percent of the wealth each year for just about 4 percent of the
people. We're a wealthy country. And as researchers have told
me, it's hard to think of a major technological advance since
World War II that has not involved at least some government
sponsored research. Much of that research is done at our 17
national laboratories, which are our secret weapons for
innovation research that leads to better jobs and higher family
incomes.
Research funding for the Department of Energy labs has
produced technologies for unconventional natural gas
development, super computing, 3-D printing, nuclear imaging
devices used for medical diagnosis, MRI scanners, optical
digital recording technology used to make DVDs, batteries, and
energy storage systems for cars and trucks and the electric
grid, precision detectors and pharmaceuticals.
The department's research programs have made the United
States a world leader in science and technology, and these help
us maintain our brain power advantage, so we can remain
competitive with other countries. And that's why last year
Senator Feinstein and I in this committee provided record
funding levels in a regular appropriations bills for the
department's research programs, including $5.392 billion for
the Office of Science, $300 million for ARPA-E, and $1 billion
for the Office of Nuclear Energy.
The Federal budget can't be balanced on the backs of
national labs, national parks, national institutes of health,
and national defense. Those aren't the problems. The problems,
we all know it, are the mandatory entitlement funding which is
going up. National labs, national parks, national institutes of
health, and national defense, has been like this since 2008,
and it's projected by the Congressional Budget Office to stay
like this. In other words, it's under control. Spending in the
trillion dollars that the appropriations committee works on is
under control. It's going up at about the rate of inflation. If
the rest of the budget was as under control as the
appropriations committee part of the budget, we wouldn't have a
Federal debt. So maybe we should take over the rest of the
responsibility for the rest of the Federal budget, instead of
getting lectures from people about balancing the Federal budget
on the back of the national labs, national parks, national
institutes of health, and national defense.
The Federal debt is not the result of energy and research.
The U.S. faces a choice between falling behind China, or
advancing technologies can make us more competitive.
In June of 2017, ranking the world's most powerful super
computers, China maintains the top two places, Switzerland is
third, and Titan at the Oak Ridge lab, which is the fastest
super computer in the United States, moved to fourth. That is
despite consistent support from the last administration and
from a bipartisan group in the United States Congress the last
several years.
Now, in 2018, the Oak Ridge lab will complete Summit, which
will be five times faster than Titan. Secretary Perry saw
Titan. I think he wrote his name on it, right above Al Gore's.
And that will help researchers better understand materials and
nuclear power and support more energy breakthroughs.
I'm pleased to see that the department's budget request
prioritizes super computing and includes $508 million to
deliver the first Exascale machine by 2021.
ensuring the department of energy is spending its money as congress
intended
Now, my second question later will be about making sure the
department spends the money it has in the way Congress
intended. We have heard that the department is delaying funding
announcements based on objections to climate change and clean
energy research. The truth is, increased research and clean
energy is important in dealing with climate change, but that is
only one reason to do it. It's also important to lower the cost
of electricity, which raises family incomes and spurs economic
growth. In fact, when we did Rising Above the Gathering Storm
10 years ago, the committee considered making it all about
energy because that was such an important anchor for our
economic growth. So I'll be asking you, Mr. Secretary, about
ARPA-E, about advanced manufacturing, about biological and
environmental research, and I'll need your assurance that
you'll continue to fund projects consistent with Congressional
intent in the omnibus appropriations bill.
oversight and management of large projects
Third, ensuring effective oversight of large construction
projects. I'm taking a little time on this, but it's important
that we do. Over the past 5 years, Senator Feinstein and I have
worked hard with the department to keep costs under control,
and we've had some success, especially on the uranium facility
in Tennessee, which was once out of control, and as a result of
the red team recommendations, is on time and on budget
according to General Klotz. It has a target of completion in
2025, at a cost of $6.5 billion, and the designs of the nuclear
facilities will be 90 percent complete later this year.
Your budget requests--Senator Leahy, if you have to leave,
I'll be glad to stop my remarks and let you say a few words, if
you'd like to. I know you have other commitments.
statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I'm simply
going to put the statement in the record, but I'm going to urge
the Secretary not to ignore the technological advances we made
or the fact that they're going to cost money to continue them,
if we're going to, ``change the world,'' as the Secretary said,
I agree with him on that, we've got to spend money.
You, Mr. Chairman, have always pushed for money for
technological research, as has Senator Feinstein, and we can't
turn such research on and off. We have to continue it. But I'll
put my whole statement in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
I want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for
having this hearing today to discuss the administration's fiscal year
2018 Budget Request for the Department of Energy. Secretary Perry, the
Energy Department is one that has a wide array of responsibilities and
roles in this country and internationally.
Secretary Perry on your first day on the job you challenged the
Department's employees to ``go change the world.'' You remarked how you
were quickly learning what a consequential role the Department has to
change the world every day. But the budget proposal you are presenting
to us today will not move us forward nor will it address our Nation's
needs, challenges, or quite frankly our values.
We cannot roll back the important progress that has been made in
promoting science, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and climate
advancements by failing to invest in America's clean energy economy.
That clean energy economy stands to create millions of good jobs in
rural communities across the country, and will result in billions of
dollars in exports of renewable energy goods. This is a well-documented
opportunity to create jobs and invest in the industries of the future
to make our economy more innovative, productive, and clean. We have
come too far to allow all the progress we have made to be washed away
by attempts to reject science and common sense environmental
protections.
During your confirmation process, you said that if confirmed you
would ``look out for the good of all Americans'' with respect to the
Department's important mission. We cannot achieve that mission if we
stop investing in technology and innovation, as this budget proposal
would do, or leave thousands of low-income households in the cold by
eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program, as the President
intends. Many of the great technological advances and innovative
products we see in the marketplace today are the result of Federal
research and investments that were made over 20 years ago. This
research has a wide-reaching impact and cannot simply be turned on and
off like a light switch. The funding cuts and programs eliminated by
this budget mean lost American jobs, lost energy savings, and hard
times for folks who need help--that is a lose, lose, lose proposition.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy is the Ranking Democratic Member of the
committee. We're delighted to have him here today, and his
statement will be made a part of the record.
MIXED OXIDE FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY
Your budget request, Mr. Secretary, also proposes shutting
down the MOX fuel facility in South Carolina and replacing it
with an alternative called dilute and disposal. We've talked
about this project many times. Last week General Klotz told us
the cost to build the MOX facility will be $17 billion,
including $12 billion still to go, compared to $500 million
needed for the dilute and dispose option. He also told us the
MOX process would cost $800 million to $1 billion per year to
operate, compared with $400 million for dilute and disposal.
I'm anxious to hear your views on that. I look forward to
learning more about your views on ITER, which we have talked
about.
NUCLEAR WASTE STALEMATE
Now, finally, solving the nuclear waste stalemate, to
ensure that nuclear power has a strong future, we've got to
break that 25-year-old stalemate, and we welcome your
leadership in helping us to do that. We need to find places to
build geologic repositories and temporary storage facilities so
the Federal Government can finally meet its legal obligations
to dispose of nuclear waste safely and permanently.
This year's budget request for the department includes $110
million to restart work on Yucca Mountain repository, and $10
million to study ways to open an interim storage site or use a
private interim storage site. I strongly support Yucca
Mountain, I believe it ought to be a part of the solution.
Federal law designates it as the Nation's repository, and the
Commission's own scientists have told us we can safely store
nuclear waste there for up to one million years. But even if we
had Yucca Mountain, even if it were open today, we would still
need to look for another permanent repository.
We have more than enough fuel to fill Yucca Mountain to its
legal capacity. So Senator Feinstein and I, along with the
leaders of the Committee of Energy, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Cantwell, Senator Bingaman, Wyden and now Cantwell, have a bill
to implement the recommendations of the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which we're working to
reintroduce this year.
The legislation complements Yucca Mountain. It would create
an agency to find additional permanent repositories and
temporary repositories for used fuel, but the quickest and
probably least expensive way for the Federal Government to
start to meet its used nuclear fuel's obligations is for the
Department of Energy to contract with a private storage
facility for used nuclear fuel.
The former Secretary of Energy, Secretary Moniz, told this
committee last year that the department has existing authority
to take title to used fuel and contract with a properly
licensed private company to store it. Understand that two
private companies have submitted applications to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for consolidated storage facilities, one
in Texas, one in New Mexico. I'll be asking questions about
that today.
I look forward to working with you, Secretary Perry, and
also with Senator Feinstein, who I now recognize for her
opening statement.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
think you know how much I value our partnership on this
subcommittee and our ability to work together, and there's no
reason why that won't continue. So thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you. We've not had a
chance to meet and talk in person, but I hope that will change
and we'll have an opportunity to do so. I represent a big State
that is very energy conscious, and a lot of good things
happening there. So I look forward to the opportunity to share
some of them with you.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
In a speech at the Idaho National Lab last month, you said,
``If you work at a national lab, you are making a difference''.
And I would certainly agree with that. It seems that you
understand how the national labs are improving people's lives.
You also seem to understand the important role these labs play
in making American industry competitive.
I think you would agree that discovery, invention, and
innovation, is what made America the economic power that it did
today. Yet this budget drastically cuts up to 70 percent from
the four applied energy programs, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
number three, Nuclear Energy, which we'll talk more about, and
four, Fossil Energy.
It eliminates the ARPA-E program altogether. And as the
Chairman has said, it cuts the Office of Science by 17 percent.
And this is, of course, the budget for the labs. These programs
foster new discovery. They then build on those discoveries by
identifying possible uses and collaborating with inventors and
industry to develop new products. All of this is decimated by
this budget request.
Out of a work force of 29,000 across the non-NNSA (National
Nuclear Security Administration) labs, this budget would layoff
6,700 people, or 23 percent of the employees. This includes 41
percent of the people at Ames, 33 percent at Oak Ridge, 29
percent at the Pacific Northwest, 27 percent at Berkeley, and
16 percent of the people at the National Energy Technology Lab.
Every non-NNSA laboratory would see drastic employment cuts
under this proposed budget.
To make matters worse, the budget also drastically cuts
operational run time at all major research machines at the
national labs. These include the light source at Argonne,
Berkeley, Brookhaven, and SLAC, neutron sources at Oak Ridge,
nanoscale source centers at five national labs, and
accelerators at five national labs.
ADVANCED LIGHT SOURCE
Now, we've seen the positive aspect of these research
machines. For example, the advanced light source at Berkeley
was essential to developing the Ebola vaccine. And I would love
to take you there. You will not see a busier lab, I'll bet you,
anywhere in America, than you will at Berkeley. And so I issue
that challenge to you.
The alternative light source uses X-rays to illuminate the
smallest but most important players in the battle against
disease, viruses and proteins that fight them. The intense X-
ray beam is able to produce a detailed map of the protein's
structure. Researchers from scripts, in collaboration with
Berkeley lab scientists, use this technique to map Ebola
antibodies at an atomic resolution. The map guided the
scientists in developing ZMapp, one of the first drugs that was
successful in combating the Ebola outbreak in 2014. Similar
experiments using ALS are essential for developing new drugs
for other emerging diseases. Researchers from Indiana
University, Texas A&M, and Berkeley, are using the ALS to map a
key Zika protein known as NS5. This protein compromises the
body's immune system so the virus can't replicate--excuse me,
can replicate.
Understanding how these processes work will allow
researchers to develop new ways to treat Zika and other health
threats. The advanced light source can also be used to research
material properties, to understand their structures, and
chemical properties on a molecular or even atomic scale. GE
Aviation recognized the power of these large-scale scientific
tools and entered into a multi-year partnership to use the ALS,
the advanced light source. GE is using the machine to study new
composite materials that could improve the efficiency and
performance of jet engines by allowing them to operate at
higher temperatures. Something that it appears with our weather
patterns that could really be necessary.
The ALS's X-ray beams and ultra high temperature testing
capabilities allow GE researchers to create 3-D microscale maps
of composite materials to watch how they perform in real time
and under realistic operating conditions, a capability that
drew GE Aviation to the ALS in the first place. The results of
their studies have already provided insight into the ways to
improve the composite materials' performance.
IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL LABORATORIES
So all of these examples highlight how the Department of
Energy provides the irreplaceable tools that make American
companies competitive and improve countless lives all across
this great country. So the message of this budget is clear.
Those capabilities and their outcomes are not important to
whoever put this budget together, or they wouldn't have done
it. It also tells students that scientific research is no
longer a priority of the United States. Imagine the
irreversible harm we'll do to future industries if we can't
attract students to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics) fields today.
I'd like to finish with a statement you made at a recent
visit to Oak Ridge. Mr. Secretary, you said, ``The
Administration's goal to create jobs and wealth, I will suggest
to you, are centered in the Department of Energy and the things
that we have the capability of dealing with.''
We must change this budget. Your quote--you didn't say
that, I said that part.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feinstein. Your quotes make it appear that we agree
on the importance of the labs to American innovation and
competitiveness, but the budget request you're defending
doesn't agree with this. So that's a big problem, and we need
to square it off. So I hope, Mr. Secretary, that both the
Chairman, the members on both sides of this aisle, and I can
work with you, and that we can really develop a budget, which
is funded to make America proud and keep the entrepreneurship
that made this country great in the sciences and related
industries continue on.
So thank you very much.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
And we'll have Senator Kennedy and then Senator Coons. If
any Senator has scheduling problems, if you'd let me know. I
want to make sure you have a chance to have an opening
statement.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have we had the
opening statement by the Secretary yet?
Senator Alexander. No. We're having opening statements by
Senators, if they wish to make them. Then the Secretary will
make his statement, and then we'll all have a chance to ask our
questions. So you----
Senator Kennedy. I know, Mr. Chairman, this is heresy, but
I don't want to make an opening statement. I'd like to hear
what the Secretary has to say.
Senator Alexander. You'll be a very----
Senator Feinstein. Popular man.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Popular Senator. So thank
you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Coons.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER A. COONS
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
You've laid out an important argument in your opening
statements. The Chairman recited a long list of American
inventions and innovations made possible by federally-funded
science. The Ranking Member detailed the advanced light source
at Berkeley, which I've also visited, and which has contributed
dramatically to our advances.
CUTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST
I just want to briefly say at the outset that I am very
disappointed with the department's fiscal year 2018 budget
request. I understand the importance of making tough budget
choices, but I am struck by the breadth and severity of cuts
proposed to basic research. Thirty to 70 percent cuts in R&D,
and in particular, eliminating ARPA-E, the State Energy
Programs, Manufacturing USA Institutes, energy hubs and more.
This isn't just cutting. This is, in my view, giving up on the
clean energy race. This is about jobs, this is about clean
energy, which creates millions of jobs across our country,
including, as we know, in your home State. If we don't support
these jobs in this country, we are simply allowing them to go
to our competitors around the world, principally China.
I look forward to your presentation and the chance to ask
questions later. Thank you for the chance to make a brief
opening statement.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Senator Hoeven, Senators may make an opening statement if
they wish, and then we'll go to the Secretary, and then we'll
have questions. Do you have an opening?
Senator Hoeven. I would not have an opening statement
unless the Chairman of our subcommittee is encouraging it,
because I like to support him. So it's entirely up to his call.
Senator Alexander. You know, you're one of the more
eloquent United States Senators, but I'd be happy with your
questions, if you wanted to wait until then. It's up to you.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Alexander.
And just very briefly, I want to thank Secretary Perry for
your recent visit to New Mexico, including Los Alamos and
Sandia National Labs, and also the Waste Isolation Pilot
Project near Carlsbad, New Mexico. I think those visits raised
the morale of the employees, and also let employees know, as
Senator Feinstein said, what an important job they're doing at
the national labs.
STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
For decades now, the stockpile stewardship program at the
national lab has guaranteed the safety and responsibility of
the Nation's nuclear arsenal without testing. It has only
improved with the advent of more sophisticated computing and
other science based methods. The United States and Russia
continue to reduce the number of nuclear weapons as part of the
New START while we also work to ensure our remaining deterrent
is safe, secure, and effective, a mission charged to the DOE
(Department of Energy) and which for over two decades I believe
you have met on time that yearly recommendation to the
President.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
You have many other important missions, I'm not going to go
on long here, but I think technology transfer is tremendously
important, where you take those good ideas in the lab and move
them from the lab bench out into the marketplace, and there are
a number of other things that the two laboratories in New
Mexico work on, cyber security, legacy waste clean up, and many
other initiatives. But I really look forward to working with
you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Senator Udall.
Senator Tester, Senators have an opportunity, if they'd
like to make a brief opening statement before the Secretary's
comment. And you're next. If you would----
Senator Tester. No, I'm going to save all my questions for
the grilling.
Senator Alexander. Okay. That sounds pretty fearsome.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. I look forward to the Secretary's
testimony.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I also will wait for questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
And we'll have ample opportunity for whatever questions
you'd like to ask, and I want to thank the Senators for such
good attendance today.
SENATOR HELLER'S LETTER REGARDING YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Senator Heller has asked me to include in the record a
letter to Senator Feinstein and me about Yucca Mountain. I know
he feels strongly about it. I wanted to make sure his views are
part of the record today.
[The letter follows:]
Senator Feinstein. Did you also want to put Leahy's
statement in the record?
Senator Alexander. I will also put Senator Leahy's opening
statement in the record. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
We'll now turn to Secretary Perry to provide his testimony.
Without objection, your full statement will be included in
today's hearing record. I know we've invited Alison Doone, the
acting Chief Financial Officer of the department, to sit next
to Secretary Perry at the witness table.
Secretary Perry, welcome. You may proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RICK PERRY
Secretary Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It's an honor to
be here before you, and Ranking Member Feinstein as well, and
each of you that are on the dais. Thank you. Thank you for your
public service.
I am here today to discuss President Trump's fiscal year
2018 budget request.
And Mr. Chairman, as you stated, it is a distinct privilege
for me to be sitting here in front of you. Yesterday was the
first time I ever sat on this side of the desk. And I like your
side better.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Perry. But, anyway, it is a privilege to be here.
And as a former legislative appropriator and as a governor, I
have a very real and deep respect for the budget writing
process.
I know the important work that you're about, that we're
undertaking together, and I look forward to working with you to
finalize a budget that we can all be proud of, and that serves
the taxpayers of this country well.
NATIONAL LABORATORIES
It's been three and a half months since I took my hand off
the Bible and was sworn in as Secretary of Energy, and I have
seen firsthand as a number of you have accompanied me to
different laboratories and facilities that the department
oversees, being involved both domestically and internationally.
This department makes a difference. I travel around the country
to many of the national labs, some of them based in your
districts. I met with the brilliant minds who are driving their
missions, and I've look forward to visiting every one of them,
Senator. And these labs are truly our national treasures. They
are the future of innovation in this country. I have been in
absolute awe of the diversity, the scope of the department's
mission, the consequential work that we are charged with
undertaking.
INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT
I've also traveled internationally. Senator Shaheen and I
went to G7 in Rome, I went to Beijing to the Clean Energy
Mission Innovation Ministerial. I had the opportunity to visit
Japan, as you shared, Mr. Chairman, met with their leaders, the
stakeholders, about the future of energy in that country.
They're our energy partners. On a very somber note, I toured
the Fukushima site and recognized the monumental challenge that
they have before them.
Coincidentally, the trip to Asia began on the day that
President Trump announced that he would officially withdraw the
United States from the Paris Agreement, and I delivered his
message to the world, that even though the U.S. would no longer
be a part of that Paris Agreement, we are still and we will
continue to be a leader in clean energy technology, and we're
committed to that mission more than ever.
SECRETARY'S GOALS
The Department of Energy does many things very well.
America has remained on the forefront of technology for over 40
years because of the amazing men and women that work in our
headquarters and our national labs, overseas for that matter.
They wake up every day knowing, as you mentioned, that they
make a real difference. I told them on my first day that the
greatest job I ever had was being the governor of the State of
Texas. But after working here, after seeing what these
individuals had the opportunity to do, I have come to realize
that the Secretary of Energy, job is now the coolest job I've
ever had. And under my leadership, our experts at DOE will
continue their work for the benefit of every American and our
allies as well.
As Secretary of Energy, I am also a member of the National
Security Council. This council's supported by DOE and its
mission to keep us safe. President Trump's fiscal year 2018
budget request for the Department of Energy provides $28
billion to advance our key missions and focuses on important
investments, including ensuring the safety and effectiveness of
our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting our energy
infrastructure from cyber attacks and other threats, achieving
Exascale computing and focusing the amazing network of our
national laboratories on early stage research and development.
My goals are straightforward. Advance our Nation's critical
energy and scientific R&D missions, strengthen our nuclear
security, and fulfill our environmental management commitments.
NUCLEAR WASTE
I just painted you a very rosy picture. Pretty bright
picture. Lots of good news. But there are other hard
conversations that we need to have. As you're well aware, there
are approximately 120 sites in 39 States that are storing spent
nuclear fuel or high level waste. In fact, all but five members
of this committee have that waste in their State. We have a
moral and national security obligation to come up with a long-
term solution, finding the safest repositories available.
This is a sensitive topic for some, but we can no longer
kick the can down the road. As a former legislative
appropriator, as an agency head, as a governor, I understand
following the rule of law. I've been instructed to move towards
that goal. The President's budget requests $120 million to
resume licensing activity at Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste
repository, and to initiate a robust interim storage program.
Congress has spent $5 billion taxpayer dollars in another area
that I want to specifically address in my opening remarks, and
that is, in MOX.
MOX FACILITY
This project is way over budget, and from my perspective,
no end in sight. The Army Corps of Engineers estimated a cost
of $17.2 billion, total, with a 2048 completion date. The money
appropriated for this project is money that we could be using
toward other priorities, like national security or cleanup of
sites in your States. There's a better, cheaper, proven way to
dispose of plutonium. In fact, we're already doing it, and I
look forward to having an ongoing dialogue with many of you
about these tough but important issues in the days and months
to come.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST
This budget proposal makes some difficult choices, but it's
paramount that we execute our fiduciary responsibility to the
American taxpayer. The President's proposal prioritizes the
core mission of the department by consolidating duplications
within our agency in order to respect the American taxpayer. He
deserves credit for beginning this discussion about how we most
wisely spend our scarce Federal resources.
As for me, this isn't my first rodeo. During my 14 years as
governor, I managed under some pretty tight budget. Governor--
we didn't always have blue skies and smooth sailing in Texas.
There were some real challenges from a budget standpoint during
my 14 years as governor, but we dealt with that. And I
respectfully ask you to take that experience and that
background into consideration as we work towards managing this
agency.
When we were faced with limited resources, Texas became a
very shiny example of energy growth, of economic growth, of
higher educational standards, and important improvements to our
environment. We did it by setting clear goals, by managing the
best and the brightest to achieve these goals, and by spending
those scarce resources wisely. With your help, I believe that
we can attain many positive outcomes at the Department of
Energy on behalf of the American people.
NUCLEAR WASTE
So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to add some clarity
to a statement I made yesterday in front of the House, if I
could, just a short clarification on some remarks I made
yesterday about nuclear waste and interim storage. And I want
to be crystal clear with this committee and with others that
while there are a number of options that we've talked about on
how to deal with these issues, no decision has been made at
this time with respect to the timing or location, for that
matter, of waste storage.
We have no--there are no plans. I think it's appropriate to
say, there are no plans for interim storage at this particular
time, in New Mexico or Nevada or Texas or any other site, and
any such plans would, obviously, require coordination with you,
with the Federal, State, and local officials.
The waste issue is a dilemma that we have a responsibility
to address. And yesterday what I was doing was attempting to
convey my interest in working with Congress to bring resolution
to this issue, and you know, that's all I was saying. So my
point is, let's work together. Let's find some solutions to
these challenges that vex us, that have been in front of us for
a while, and I'm eternally optimistic, sir, that we can do that
in a way that serves this great country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Perry
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2018 Budget Request for the Department of
Energy (``the Department'' or ``DOE'').
As you know, I was confirmed by the United States Senate on March
2, 2017. It is a privilege and an honor to serve as the 14th Secretary
of Energy and fulfill this important role critical to our Nation's
energy and scientific pursuits along with assuring our nuclear
readiness.
As a former legislative appropriator and Governor, I'm keenly aware
of the budget writing process and only wish I had been confirmed by the
Senate earlier so I could be a full participant in crafting this
proposal.
The President's proposal focuses our priorities and reigns in
spending.There is much the Department does well and stays within
budget, and unfortunately there are places we need to be better
stewards of our financial resources. This budget proposal makes some
difficult choices. I look forward to explaining our priorities and
working with you to continue the important mission of the Department of
Energy.
In short, the President's fiscal year 2018 $28 billion Budget
Request for the Department of Energy (``Budget'') advances our key
missions through significant investments to modernize our nuclear
weapons arsenal, protect our energy infrastructure from cyber and other
attacks, achieve exascale computing, and address our moral obligations
regarding nuclear waste management and the Nation's nuclear legacy.
The Department's world-leading science and technology enterprise
also generates the innovations to fulfill our mission. Through our 17
national laboratories, we engage in cutting-edge research that expands
the frontiers of scientific knowledge and generates new technologies to
address our greatest challenges. While most of this is in the energy
field, the DOE also does work to support the health sector with
research and recently launched a program with Veterans Affairs to use
our computing ability to assist our Nation's veterans.
The Budget focuses the intellectual prowess of our scientists and
engineers on the development of technologies that the ingenuity and
capital of America's entrepreneurs and businesses can convert into
commercial applications and products that improve the lives and
security of all Americans.
restoring the nuclear security enterprise
The Budget fulfills the President's vision of rebuilding and
restoring our Nation's security through robust investments in the
Department's nuclear security mission. The Budget provides $13.9
billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, $1 billion or
8 percent above the fiscal year 2017 Enacted level.
As a participant on the National Security Council, the Department
has a unique role in our Nation's security. I undertake these
responsibilities with the utmost gravity.
One of my key duties as Secretary of Energy is to annually certify
to the President that the American nuclear weapons stockpile remains
safe, secure, and reliable, without the need for underground explosive
nuclear testing. The Budget includes $10.2 billion for Weapons
Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, and
effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. This $996 million
increase over fiscal year 2017 supports modernizing our nuclear weapons
enterprise and meets Department of Defense requirements in accordance
with the President's Memorandum on Rebuilding the Armed Forces.
The Budget supports our ongoing Life Extension Programs (LEP) and
Major Alterations, which includes $4.0 billion for Directed Stockpile
work, a $669 million increase. Funding for the W76-1 warhead LEP
directly supports the Navy and will keep the LEP on schedule and on
budget to complete production in fiscal year 2019. An increase of $172
million, or 28 percent, for the B61-12 LEP will keep us on schedule
delivering the First Production Unit (FPU) in fiscal year 2020 to
consolidate four variants of the B61 gravity bomb and improve the
safety and security of the oldest weapon system in our nuclear arsenal.
The Budget also supports the Air Force's Long-Range Stand-Off
program through an increase of $179 million or 81 percent from fiscal
year 2017 Enacted for the W80-4 LEP, to deliver the first production
unit in fiscal year 2025 of the cruise missile warhead. We also
increase funding by $51 million or 18 percent for the W88 Alteration
370, to provide the scheduled first production unit in fiscal year
2020.
The Budget for Weapons Activities also increases investments to
modernize our nuclear infrastructure. For example, we include $663
million, an $88 million increase from fiscal year 2017, for
construction of the Uranium Processing Facility needed to replace aging
facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex, as well as $98
million, up $83 million from fiscal year 2017 Enacted, to accelerate
the replacement of old and unfit buildings at the Albuquerque Complex.
The Weapons Activities Budget request also includes $161 million, a
$66 million increase, for NNSA collaboration with the Office of Science
on the development of capable exascale computer systems, which I
address below.
Moving on to NNSA's Naval Reactors program, the Department has the
ongoing responsibility to provide militarily effective nuclear
propulsion plants for Navy vessels and to ensure their safe, reliable
and long-lived operation. The Budget provides $1.5 billion to support
the safe and reliable operation of the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet and
continuation of the Columbia-class submarine program, refueling of the
Land-Based Prototype reactor, and the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project.
The Budget also includes $1.8 billion for the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation (DNN) program to reduce global threats from nuclear
weapons. This critical national security program prevents the spread of
nuclear and radiological materials, advances technologies that detect
nuclear and radiological proliferation worldwide, and eliminates or
secures inventories of surplus materials and infrastructure usable for
nuclear weapons.
The Budget proposes to terminate the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility project, providing $270 million for use toward an orderly and
safe closure of the project and $9 million to develop the pre-
conceptual design for the dilute and dispose approach to plutonium
disposition. This is an example of a significant cost and schedule
overrun that should have set off alarms earlier in the project and
should have been canceled.
We will, in an orderly and responsible manner, begin to wind down
the project. My staff, in coordination with other stakeholders, is
already reviewing alternative, enduring missions that could potentially
utilize existing infrastructure and expertise.
The Budget also provides $277 million for Nuclear Counterterrorism
and Incident Response, $5 million above fiscal year 2017 Enacted, to
work domestically and around the world to improve our ability to
respond to radiological or nuclear incidents, in conjunction with other
agencies in a broader U.S. Government effort.
Finally, the Budget for NNSA includes $419 million for the Federal
workforce at the NNSA. This $31 million increase is essential to
ensuring our world-class workforce of dedicated men and women can
effectively oversee NNSA's critical national security missions.
securing against cyber threats
Among the most critical missions at the Department is to develop
science and technology that will assure Americans of a resilient
electric grid and energy infrastructure. Protecting these assets means
it has to be resilient and hardened to defend against the evolving
threat of cyber and other attacks. Consumers need to trust when they
flip the switch, their lights will come on. Unfortunately, cyberattacks
pose an ever-increasing threat to the Nation's networks, data,
facilities, and infrastructure.
As utilities and independent power producers and operators have
integrated advanced digital technologies to automate and control
physical functions in their energy systems to improve performance,
sophisticated cyber threats have increased. Nation-States, criminals,
and terrorists conduct sophisticated probes of energy systems that can
be used to exploit cyber vulnerabilities that disrupt or destroy energy
systems.
To ensure robust cybersecurity programs across the energy sector,
the Budget provides funding in multiple programs. In the Office of
Nuclear Energy, we add a focus in the $20 million Light Water Reactor
Sustainability program to research new technologies to address nuclear
power plant cybersecurity, and we provide $17 million for cybersecurity
at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). In the Office of Fossil Energy,
we provide $8 million for our sensors and controls research program
seeking early-stage breakthroughs to help secure power plants against
cyber-attacks.
Finally, the Budget includes $42 million for energy delivery system
cybersecurity in Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and a
renewed focus to take steps to make a difference within 2 years in the
cybersecurity of our Nation's power grid. Our budget funds early stage
activities that improve cybersecurity and resilience of the grid in
order to harden and evolve critical grid infrastructure. We focus on
early stage R&D at national laboratories to develop the next generation
control systems and components, devices and systems with engineered-in
cybersecurity features; and we fund a new activity to develop a
continuous monitoring capability that will significantly increase our
awareness and ability to prevent and respond to these types of events.
We also cannot ignore the risks to the Department's own science,
technology, and nuclear security infrastructure. Across the
Department's programs and sites, we are taking major steps to safeguard
our assets against cyber threats. The Budget includes robust funding to
secure our own networks. For example, the Budget increases funding for
the Chief Information Officer by $17 million from fiscal year 2017 to
modernize infrastructure and improve cybersecurity across the internal
DOE IT enterprise. We also increase funding for cybersecurity in the
National Nuclear Security Administration to $150 million to step up
security for our nuclear security networks. In the Environmental
Management program, we consolidated $43 million for cybersecurity into
a new budget to ensure the security at our nine major cleanup sites.
Cybersecurity is one of my key goals at the Department, and the
Budget will help us take concrete steps to harden our systems and our
infrastructure.
exascale computing
Turning to the Department's role in science and technology, the
United States has long led the way in computing, dating back to
invention of the first computers and continuing with world-leading
machines at our national laboratories. Our leadership in developing and
building the world's fastest computers has faced increasingly fierce
global competition in the last decade. Maintaining the Nation's global
primacy in high-performance computing is more critical than ever to
ensure our national security, our continuing role as a science and
innovation leader, and our economic prosperity.
The Budget includes $508 million to accelerate development of an
exascale computing system, including $347 million in the Office of
Science (Science) and $161 million in NNSA. This unprecedented
investment, which is $249 million--or 96 percent--above the fiscal year
2017 level, reflects the Department's intention to deliver an exascale
machine in 2021 and a second machine with a different architecture by
2022. To get there, the Science/NNSA partnership will focus on hardware
and software technologies needed to produce an exascale system, and the
critical DOE applications needed to use such a platform.
By accelerating our progress towards exascale computing, we will
take back American primacy in computing science and technology. This
world-leading exascale program will bolster our national security by
supporting the nuclear stockpile, while also supporting the next
generation of scientific breakthroughs not possible with today's
computing systems.
addressing the obligation of nuclear waste and legacy management
The President's fiscal year 2018 Budget Request for the Department
deals with the issue of nuclear waste disposal and supports
accelerating clean-up of our Cold War legacy.
addressing the imperative of nuclear waste management
For too many years, the prior Administration has literally kicked
the can down the road on nuclear waste.
The Budget Request takes significant steps forward for the country
in other critical areas. First, recognizing that we must move ahead in
fulfilling the Federal Government's responsibility to dispose of the
Nation's nuclear waste, the Budget includes $120 million, including $30
million in defense funds, to resume licensing for the nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain and initiate a robust interim storage
program.
The Budget devotes $110 million to restart Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) licensing activities for the nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain, including funding for management, site operations
and maintenance, as well as technical, scientific, legal and other
support.
In addition, the Budget includes $10 million to initiate a robust
interim storage program that complements the nuclear waste repository
by developing a capability for earlier acceptance of spent nuclear fuel
to accelerate removal from sites in 39 States across the country. An
interim storage capability also adds flexibility to the system that
will move materials from sites across the country to its ultimate
disposition.
By restarting the long-stalled licensing process for Yucca Mountain
and committing to establishing interim storage capability for near-term
acceptance of spent nuclear fuel, our Budget will accelerate
fulfillment of the Federal Government's obligations to address nuclear
waste, enhance national security, and reduce future burdens on American
taxpayers. This also will increase public confidence in nuclear safety
and security, thus helping nuclear energy to remain a significant
contributor to the country's energy needs for generations to come.
fulfilling legacy cleanup responsibilities
The Budget also includes $6.5 billion for Environmental Management
(EM), $89 million above the fiscal year 2017 Enacted level, to address
its responsibilities for the cleanup and disposition of excess
facilities, radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and other materials
resulting from five decades of nuclear weapons development and
production and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research.
To date, EM has completed cleanup activities at 91 sites in 30
States and Puerto Rico, and is responsible for cleaning up the
remaining 16 sites in 11 States--some of the most challenging sites in
the cleanup portfolio.
New in the Budget is $225 million to address specific high-risk
contaminated excess facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex
and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The Budget includes $1.5 billion, $4 million above fiscal year
2017, for the Office of River Protection at the Hanford Site, for
continued work at the Hanford Tank Farms and to make progress on the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. This budget will continue
progress toward important cleanup required by the Consent Decree and
Tri-Party Agreement to include a milestone to complete hot
commissioning of the Low Activity Waste Facility by December 31, 2023.
The Budget also includes $800 million to continue cleanup activities at
Richland, including continued K-Area decontamination and
decommissioning remediation and the K-West Basin sludge removal
project.
For Savannah River, the Budget provides $1.4 billion, $214 million
above fiscal year 2017, to support activities at the site including the
Liquid Tank Waste Management Program, continued construction and
commissioning to achieve startup of the Salt Waste Processing Facility
in 2018, continued construction of the Saltstone Disposal Unit #7, and
support for facilities that receive and store nuclear materials.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is essential for the
disposition of transuranic defense-generated waste across the DOE
complex, and the Budget provides $323 million to safely continue waste
emplacement at WIPP. The Budget Request will continue WIPP operations,
including waste emplacements, shipments, and maintaining enhancements
and improvements, and progress on capital asset projects, including $46
million for the Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation System and
$19.6 million for the Exhaust Shaft. These steps will increase airflow
in the WIPP underground for simultaneous mining and waste emplacement
operations.
The Budget includes $359 million, $30.9 million below fiscal year
2017 enacted level, to continue major clean-up projects at the Idaho
site, such as the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit, and to process,
characterize, and package transuranic waste for disposal at offsite
facilities. It provides $390 million for Oak Ridge, $108 million below
fiscal year 2017, to continue deactivation and demolition of remaining
facilities at the East Tennessee Technology Park, continue preparation
of Building 2026 to support processing of the remaining U-233 material
at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and support site preparation
activities for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility at the Y-12
National Security Complex.
For Portsmouth, the Budget includes $418 million, $36 million above
fiscal year 2017, to continue progress on the deactivation and
decommissioning project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, safe
operation of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility, and
continue design and construction activities at the On-Site Waste
Disposal facility. And at Paducah, the Budget includes $270 million to
continue ongoing environmental cleanup and depleted uranium
hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility operations at the Paducah site.
In addition, the fiscal year 2018 Budget Request supports activities to
continue the environmental remediation and further stabilize the
gaseous diffusion plant.
Together, these investments for Environmental Management will make
significant progress in fulfilling our cleanup responsibilities while
also starting to address our high-risk excess facilities at NNSA sites.
refocusing priorities on core missions
The Budget refocuses the Department's energy and science programs
on early-stage research and development at our national laboratories to
advance American primacy in scientific and energy research in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. The Budget funds $6.4 billion in
early-stage R&D while reducing later-stage research, development,
demonstration, and deployment programs by $3.1 billion from the fiscal
year 2017 Enacted levels.
As part of transitioning later-stage R&D, demonstration, and
deployment responsibilities to the private sector and the States, the
Budget terminates five Energy Innovation Hubs and five Clean Energy
Manufacturing Institutes, which together constitute an annual taxpayer
burden of over $187 million. The Budget eliminates the Supercritical
Transformational Electric Power demonstration program and SuperTruck
II, together saving $44 million annually, and terminates deployment
activities like Weatherization and the State Energy Program in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, saving a total of
$265 million.
Also in line with Administration priorities, the Budget terminates
the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, known as ARPA-E, and the
Department's Loan Programs, while maintaining necessary Federal staff
to oversee existing awards and loans. We also close the Office of
Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, to avoid duplicative efforts
already accomplished by the program offices. Termination of these three
programs will save over $300 million in fiscal year 2018 alone while
significantly reducing financial risk to the taxpayer moving forward.
focus on innovation
The fiscal year 2018 Budget focuses its investments on the basic,
early-stage R&D conducted by the scientists and engineers at our 17
national laboratories who are constantly on the path to developing the
next great innovations that can transform society, and bring forth a
new era of prosperity for the American people. The Budget provides $6.4
billion, $4.5 billion in the Office of Science and $1.9 billion in
energy research and development programs, with a renewed focus on
cutting- edge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the
private marketplace.
The Budget consolidates programs focused on bringing technologies
to the market in the Office of Technology Transitions. Through
concerted effort and coordination with our labs, this will reduce costs
to the taxpayer while at the same time providing a robust technology
transfer program to transfer breakthroughs from the national
laboratories to the private sector.
Nuclear Energy
The Budget provides $703 million for Nuclear Energy, $313 million
below the fiscal year 2017 level, to continue innovating new and
improved ways to generate nuclear power. The budget refocuses funding
on early-stage research and development, such as the Nuclear Energy
Enabling Technologies program, that enables innovation driven by the
private sector. While the Budget ends the Consortium for Advanced
Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), it increases funds for
Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) by $7 million
to integrate VERA, the virtual reactor developed by CASL, and RELAP-7,
a safety analysis and simulation tool developed at the INL, into the
existing NEAMS program.
From 2012 through 2017, the Department spent $390 million on the
Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Licensing Technical Support program. With
NuScale Power submitting its application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the completion of planned activities in fiscal year
2017, the Department closes the SMR Licensing Technical Support program
having achieved its goal to commercialize SMR technology. Given the
ongoing promise of SMR technology, the fiscal year 2018 Budget includes
$20 million for early-stage R&D supporting advanced SMR designs.
Finally, the Budget for Nuclear Energy also supports robust
safeguards and security funding of $133 million--a $4 million
increase--for protection of our nuclear energy infrastructure and
robust infrastructure investments at INL facilities.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
The Fossil Energy Research and Development program advances
transformative science and innovative technologies which enable the
reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use of
fossil fuels. Fossil energy sources currently constitute over 80
percent of the country's total energy use and are critical for the
Nation's security, economic prosperity, and growth. The fiscal year
2018 Budget focuses $280 million on cutting-edge fossil energy research
and development to further our energy security, advance strong domestic
energy production, and support America's coal industry through
innovative clean coal technologies.
In fiscal year 2018, we invest $30 million in a new initiative to
repower coal-fired plants through research on advanced technologies and
systems that improve the reliability and efficiency of existing coal
units and incorporate new, advanced technology components and systems.
We also will support research on coal combustion to help support
potential U.S. coal exports, as well as research on carbon utilization
efforts to develop materials and chemicals for new business
opportunities, in support of a strong American energy sector and
vibrant coal industry.
As part of the Department's effort to operate more efficiently, the
Budget proposes the initial stages of footprint consolidation for the
National Energy Technology Laboratory. In a phased approach, we propose
to consolidate NETL's Albany, Oregon site into the NETL's Eastern sites
and initiate a Mission Alignment study in fiscal year 2017 to evaluate
alternatives for the consolidation of NETL's eastern sites.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget funds $636
million to support research at our national laboratories to drive
energy innovations in renewable energy, next-generation transportation,
and energy efficiency.
The fiscal year 2018 investments support development of battery
technologies and advanced combustion engines, and new science and
technology for developing biofuels. The Budget funds research into the
underpinnings of future generations of solar photovoltaic technology,
into the design and manufacturing of low-specific power rotors for tall
wind applications, and on wind energy grid integration and
infrastructure challenges.
The Budget also funds early-stage R&D for advanced manufacturing
processes and materials technologies. These efforts, combined with the
research that leverages the unique high-performance computing assets in
the national laboratories, we can drive the breakthroughs that will
promote economic growth and manufacturing jobs in the United States.
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
All power generation, regardless of the fuel, relies on the power
grid to deliver electricity to our homes and businesses across the
Nation. The Budget provides $120 million for Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability to support research and development at the national
laboratories to develop technologies that strengthen, transform, and
improve energy infrastructure so that consumers have access to
reliable, secure, and clean sources of energy.
In addition to the cybersecurity program described earlier, the
Budget funds foundational research to ensure the reliability and
resiliency of the U.S. electric grid, to support modernization of the
distribution of electric power, and to advance the state of the science
and technology underpinning grid energy storage, transformers, and
other grid components.
world-leading science research
The Department of Energy is the Nation's largest Federal supporter
of basic research in the physical sciences, and the President's fiscal
year 2018 Budget provides $4.5 billion for the Office of Science to
continue and strengthen American leadership in scientific inquiry. By
focusing funding on early-stage research, this Budget will ensure that
the Department's National Laboratories continue to be the backbone of
American science leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic research,
and by building and operating the world's most advanced scientific user
facilities--which will be used by over 27,000 researchers in fiscal
year 2018.
We provide $722 million for Advanced Scientific Computing Research,
an increase of $75 million above fiscal year 2017. This funding will
continue supporting our world-class high-performance computers that
make possible cutting-edge basic research, while devoting $347 million
in the Office of Science to reflect the Department's intention to
accelerate our achievement of exascale computing by 2021. This focused
effort will drive the innovations necessary for computing at exascale
speeds, resulting in computing systems at unprecedented speeds at
Argonne National Laboratory in 2021 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in 2022.
The Budget also provides $1.6 billion for Basic Energy Sciences,
supporting core research activities and the Energy Frontier Research
Centers. We will continue construction of the Linac Coherence Light
Source-II at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and operations of the
light sources across the DOE science complex, supporting research
across the Nation and ensuring our continued world leadership in light
sources and the science they make possible.
The Budget also provides $673 million for High Energy Physics,
including $54.9 million for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino
Facility and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, $5 million above
fiscal year 2017. By supporting the highest priority activities and
projects identified by the U.S. high energy physics community, this
program will continue cutting-edge pursuit to understand how the
universe works at its most fundamental level.
The Budget for the Office of Science provides $310 million for
Fusion Energy Sciences, including $247 million for domestic research
and fusion facilities and $63 million for the ITER project. For Nuclear
Physics, the budget provides $503 million to discover, explore, and
understand nuclear matter, including $80 million for continued
construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and operations of
facilities, including the newly-upgraded Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility. For Biological and Environmental Research the
Budget includes $349 million to support foundational genomic sciences,
including the Bioenergy Research Centers and to focus on increasing the
sensitivity and reducing the uncertainty of earth and environmental
systems predictions.
strategic petroleum reserve
In addition to our nuclear security responsibilities, the
Department of Energy, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, is
responsible for ensuring the Nation's energy security. The Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR), one component of that effort, protects the
U.S. economy from disruptions in critical petroleum supplies and meets
the U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program. The Budget
includes $180 million, $43 million below fiscal year 2017 Enacted, to
support the Reserve's operational readiness and drawdown capabilities.
Looking forward, the President's Budget proposes to sell
approximately 270 million barrels of SPR crude oil by 2027, roughly
half of the remaining SPR inventory after all sales currently
authorized by law are completed, resulting in estimated receipts of $1
billion by fiscal year 2019 and $17 billion through 2027. The SPR
program will conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the sites to
be decommissioned as the SPR footprint is reduced from four to two
sites. The Budget continues the sale of SPR oil for the Energy Security
and Infrastructure Modernization Fund authorized by the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2015 to support an effective modernization program for
the SPR, but at half the previous funding level because of the
anticipated closure of two SPR storage sites.
Finally, as the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR) is
operationally ineffective and not cost-efficient as a regional product
reserve, the President's Budget proposes to liquidate the NGSR and sell
its one million barrels of refined petroleum product in fiscal year
2018, resulting in an estimated $69 million in receipts.
power marketing administrations
The Budget includes $82 million for the Power Marketing
Administrations, the same as fiscal year 2016 Enacted. The Budget also
proposes the sale of the transmission assets of the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and
the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA). The Budget also proposes
to repeal the $3.25 billion emergency borrowing authority for WAPA
authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
conclusion
In conclusion, I reaffirm my commitment to ensure that the
Department of Energy, through its National Laboratories, will continue
to support the world's best enterprise of scientists and engineers who
create innovations to drive American prosperity, security and
competitiveness for the next generation. The President's fiscal year
2018 Budget Request for the Department of Energy positions us to take
up that challenge while continuing to ensure our national security.
In my opening I mentioned my time as Governor of the State of
Texas. Over my 14-year tenure, I proposed seven budgets. Some had
spending increases. Others had deep spending cuts to deal with economic
downturns and uncertainties. Every one of them directed the spending of
billions of dollars of our taxpayer's dollars.
As we move forward over the coming weeks and months, I look forward
to working with you and your colleagues in the United States House of
Representatives. I am committed to ensuring DOE is run efficiently,
effectively, and we accomplish our mission driven goals.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We'll now begin a round of 5-minute questions, and I'll
begin.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET
Presidential budgets have a pretty bad record in this
Congress, whether they come from democrats or republicans, and
this one was especially bad. And what I try to do is look
within the budget to see if there's anything good in it at all.
Not much here, and I don't know why Presidents send secretaries
up here to defend such budgets. I used to be in that shape when
I was education secretary, and somebody in the back office
somewhere would write the budget and then send me up to defend
it, and I never appreciated it. I don't want a response from
you on that, but I did find in this budget one area that I want
to compliment you for and ask you to comment on.
The budget request prioritizes super computing, recommends
$508 million, including $347 from the Office of Science, $161
million from NNSA (National Nuclear Safety Administration), and
delivery of at least one Exascale system in 2021.
SUPERCOMPUTING
As I said before, under President Obama's administration
and bipartisan support from this committee, supercomputing was
a top priority. Senator Bingaman really got us started on it 10
or 12 years ago, sent me to Yokohama to look at the Japanese
computer. And what our government did since then was create a
leadership computing facility, and rather than every little
agency having a computer, we put within our laboratories a
combined computer strategy, we built some big ones, and we've
got some of the best people in the world at many different
laboratories who know how to operate them. Despite that, over
the last weekend, China--the list of the most powerful
supercomputers was released. China maintained two top places,
the top two. Switzerland pushed Titan down from fourth to
third. We still have five of the top ten.
So my first question about computers is could you talk
about your strategy for funding them, and my second is, while
you were at Oak Ridge, you were told that 20 percent of our
supercomputer time is spent helping other agencies. And one
proposal, one example of that was helping Veterans
Administration. Another proposal was to help CMS, Center for
Medicaid and Medicare Services, to apply the same techniques we
apply when we look for terrorists, and look through Medicare
and Medicaid claims and find waste, fraud, and abuse, since the
Economist magazine has said that one out of four dollars billed
for Medicare and Medicaid is swindled, and that drug smugglers
are moving in to Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse because
it is safer and more profitable.
So those are my two questions in--you have two minutes.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. What can you say about funding in the
future and what can you say about using the computers to help
with waste, fraud, and abuse?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Well, Mr. Chairman, having been a governor, you understand
the--I think governor's budgets and President's budgets a lot
of times have the same challenges. So I understand that. But,
more importantly, having been an appropriator, I just want to,
again, remind folks that I've had that experience, too, and
that I know this is a starting point, and that this process is
one that I respect and I will follow and work very, very
closely with you, going forward.
So let me just address this issue of Exascale computing,
and I think it is----
Senator Alexander. Just so you know, I'm going to try to
keep to five minutes, my time----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. So others do as well. So
please go ahead.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
I think it's important for us around this room and outside
of this room to understand the importance of America
maintaining its super computing capability. Attaining this
Exascale, this next level, is incredibly important. And the
idea that China has the two fastest, and quite frankly, it is
pretty disappointing to me, as an American, that the Swiss are
number three. And no offense to the Swiss, but the idea that
somehow or another we don't even get on the podium, so to
speak, when it comes to our ability to be in the super
computing game. And you know, five of those, I think six of
those--of the top ten, we have. But our commitment to that is
clear. This budget makes it clear. Having talked to the members
of the committee and the members of Congress, and the
Administration, they understand how important this is, and it
is not just about being able to stand up and wave the flag and
say we've got to--you know, we're number one. It's about being
able to address the challenges.
Our computing capacity and the speed of which we're able to
do that is going to be the difference in whether we, you know,
find the next big issues that challenge us as a country or not.
So the commitment to Exascale, 2021 we'll be going to Argonne,
2022 we'll be coming to your home State and to Oak Ridge. And
it's completely different architecture. This is the--this is
the next generation past Exascale. So I think what's
important----
Senator Alexander. Maybe we can come back to that, Mr.
Secretary. As I said, I want to keep to the five minutes for
each Senator.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. So, Senator Feinstein.
NUCLEAR WASTE
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Secretary, I'm going to raise my
favorite subject, which is the most difficult, and you touched
on it, and that's the spent nuclear waste that's piling up all
over this Nation, in 78 reactor sites, in 33 States. We have
77,000 metric tons of waste. We have four sites in California,
3,000 metric tons. Our two big power companies, Southern
California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric, each of whom
has two 1,100 megawatt reactors, are closing them down.
There is no place for the waste to go. Yucca holds
everything hostage. In the House, if you don't do Yucca, you
get nothing, and the American people get nothing by way of
secure storage of waste.
And the Chairman, we have gone over, we have talked to the
four major figures in the authorizing and the appropriating
committees. For about 5 years we put a measure in our budget
that would permit a pilot nuclear waste site. We sat down with
the heads of the energy committee, we drafted overall voluntary
legislation that would constitute a nuclear waste policy for
this country that after talking with every expert we could
find, that we believed was workable and doable. There's tens of
millions of dollars held up in payments because there's no
place to put waste. And it goes on and on and on. And
seemingly, no energy secretary has been able to break this
logjam. And I'm getting more and more beside myself because I
think it is a real hazard to our people.
In California, we are on what's called the rim of fire.
We're on the Pacific coast, where big quakes, look at where--
Fukushima, Indonesia, Argentina, Alaska, California. Big
quakes. We have to secure this waste. It's all hot waste. And I
don't know quite what to do because the issue is Yucca, and
there are two schools of thought. I met with one of the
Senators and we talked about Yucca the other night, and she was
saying how it is dripping water right down through the whole
thing. If that's true, it's not a good place. I haven't been
there, I haven't seen it.
So I would like to ask you this question. The Department of
Energy has to take the lead here. We have to break the
stalemate. We have to develop some pilot projects because Yucca
would be filled tomorrow.
Are you willing to take on that leadership? And what will
you do? How do we solve this problem?
Secretary Perry. Senator, thank you. I will disagree with
you with one thing, that because of a Secretary of Energy,
singularly, we're going to be able to either move forward or
not. I will tell you, I will be a very willing participant as a
partner in this, understanding how this process works, and have
extraordinary respect for the United States Congress and the
process of how we create statutes and go forward working with
the Administration and being a part of the Administration.
As a bit of a--just a touch of levity here, I'm learning
that there's a real difference between being a secretary and
being a governor, and in the sense of that we have a
partnership here. And I think you know in my both public and my
private statements, that I think it is a moral imperative for
this country to move forward and find the solution to this
waste issue, both the high level waste and the interim. And I
will throw a lot of Jello at the wall, if that's what is
required to stimulate conversations, to, you know, to try to
truly come up with the solution to this.
But I don't think this is one individual's--and changing
one individual's going to--in its finality be the solution. But
I think we can have an open conversation and talk--I mean, the
idea that we've got a site that has----
Senator Alexander. Mr. Secretary, we're about at five
minutes, if you----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. We can come back to that subject, and I
have an idea we will.
Senator Feinstein. I think so.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Kennedy.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, after you got over at energy and had a
chance to get settled in, you looked at the budget, did you
find any waste in the budget?
Secretary Perry. Oh, I can find duplications in the budget.
I can find places that--I haven't seen a budget that's ever
been written, in my 30 years of being either an appropriator,
an agency head, or a governor, that there wasn't a place
somewhere that I could--or anybody else for that matter, could
point to and say that we can do without.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. You talked a little bit about MOX.
Maybe we'll come back to that. Other than MOX, what other waste
did you see in the budget?
Secretary Perry. Well, again, I think that's in the eye of
the beholder. So, you know, I go back and tell you that----
Senator Kennedy. Well, you're the beholder.
Secretary Perry. Okay. I'd tell you that there are areas,
whether it is in public relations, whether it's in different
agencies or different departments, I should say, where you have
duplication of services and you can consolidate them and do it
at a, you know, more efficient and effective way.
Senator Kennedy. Let me put it another way. What I'm trying
to get my arms around is you went from $31 billion to $28
billion, as I understand it, in your budget. And I assumed that
you decided the $3 billion wasn't a priority. Look, I applaud
you for your fiscal responsibility. You did it as governor, and
I appreciate that approach now.
Where'd you find the savings, is what I'm trying to get to.
Secretary Perry. Well, one of the things that I would like
to bring to your attention, sir, I got here on the 2nd day of
March, and that budget was already written.
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Secretary Perry. My job is to sit here in front of you and
to robustly defend it, which is what I'm doing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I appreciate your candor. So this is
not your budget. I get it. I understand.
MOX FACILITY
Tell me, if you would, being mindful of our time here, Mr.
Secretary, tell me what your objections are to MOX.
Secretary Perry. Well, there are multiple areas of MOX that
I think it would do well for us to have a good understanding
of.
This is a project that was put into place some years ago. I
think back in the Clinton Administration was when it was first
moving forward. In the mid 2000s it got kicked off, and it is
vastly beyond I think anyone's wildest dreams of a budget of
what we would be faced with.
Senator Kennedy. So you think it is too expensive?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you think--putting the cost aside
for a second, do you think the purpose of it is worthwhile?
Secretary Perry. I can discuss it and debate it. I think if
the question is, is there a better way to do this?
Senator Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Secretary Perry. Then I would say, yes, sir, there is a
better way. There's a cheaper way, there's a faster way, and
there's a lot of side issues and vagaries out there that I'm
not going to get into today. But if you want to know, this is
over budget by massive amount, the end in sight is 2048, and
there is an option that is acceptable, that is substantially
less expensive, and more expeditious.
METHANOL FACILITY
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you for that.
Let me ask you about your thoughts about the methanol
plant. There's a proposed petcoke-to-methanol facility in my
State, Lake Charles, very close to Beaumont. What's your
thinking about that? I noticed that in your budget, I realize
you haven't really had a chance to get completely settled in,
but your budget request eliminated this program.
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. And it was a loan guarantee, if I recall,
and I wanted to know your thinking on that.
Secretary Perry. Yes. Well, I talked to your other Senator,
Senator Cassidy, about that as well, and we have discussed it.
I'm not at this particular point in time going to tell you that
it's completely off the table to continue the conversation.
It's not. This budget does, in fact, do that. But I think it's
something that we can continue to have a conversation on.
Senator Kennedy. Is there anything in particular about it
that concerned you in terms of it being taken out?
Secretary Perry. No, sir. Not that I can tell you here in
the committee without further detail.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. I'm going to yield my
last two seconds.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Nice to meet you. I've watched you on TV,
and Louisiana, next door to Texas, I've watched you be a fine--
--
Secretary Perry. I had to compete against your governor
over there, Bobby Jindal. He's a good competitor.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Udall.
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Alexander.
In 2013, Los Alamos paused plutonium production following
compliance and safety concerns. A recent report was published
in the Washington Post detailing safety issues, which have been
covered well by the defense nuclear facilities safety board.
Both Los Alamos National Lab and General Klotz have
responded to these issues, identifying the work they have done
to correct the infractions, and I'd like to enter both the memo
from Los Alamos and the statement from General Klotz in the
record.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter--Chairman Alexander, I'd
like to enter two statements in the record from General Klotz
and from Los Alamos on the issue of responding to safety
issues.
Senator Alexander. It will be done, Senator Udall. Thank
you.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
In your opinion, in the opinion of DOE, is Los Alamos
making acceptable progress to fix all identified issues with
its plutonium pit program?
Secretary Perry. The short answer is, yes, sir. If I can
expand just a moment. It's made significant progress with
hiring new criticality safety analysts since that 2013 pause in
operations. They're back, you know, operating at an appropriate
level, and we have a conscientious and a safety-based decision
to pause that back in--the PF4 back in 2013. And anyway, the
reviews were done, the readiness assessments were very
deliberately and appropriately accomplished, and it's been
safely brought back online, and so I'm just satisfied that----
Senator Udall. No, thank you for that, and that's
consistent with both the Los Alamos memo that I put in and
General Klotz's memo that I put into the record.
PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION
Is the Department of Energy still on schedule to meet the
Department of Defense requirements for pit manufacturing?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. And the current contractor was penalized for
safety problems with the contract, will be going out for--that
contract will be going out for re-bid soon. Will DOE commit to
make safety improvements and accountability key parts of the
re-bid process at Los Alamos?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I think somewhere north of $80
million were withheld from that contractor in their fees, and
they didn't earn 4-year contract extension either. So from my
perspective there were some pretty good teeth in this and a
clear message sent. NNSA is conducting very thorough and
transparent annual reviews now to hold those M&O partners
accountable.
So, and again, when safety of the operation's at our labs,
I don't think there is anything more important, from my
perspective.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Secretary Perry for that answer.
An analysis of alternatives is currently ongoing for the
plutonium mission at Los Alamos, and I understand this analysis
is expected to be complete sometime this summer. Can you
provide a more specific time estimate for completion, and will
you assure us that the analysis will be objective and free from
political interference?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I think you need a little more
than a single word answer, though. The analysis that's being
done is going to look at what is in the best interests of this
country, what's this country's needs from the standpoint of
plutonium pit production, what is the timeline of which we
would be required, if the DOD tasked us with that, and do we
have the appropriate facilities and the volume, if you will, to
be able to handle that.
By this summer, which we're quickly approaching, we should
have that AOA (analyses of alternatives) finalized, and you and
the committee will be notified appropriately.
MOX FACILITY
Senator Udall. And just--I know my time's almost up here.
The final question had to do with MOX and where the waste
goes. And as you know, there are very specific requirements in
the law as far as the Waste Isolation Pilot Project. So I hope
that you will work with us and work with the State of New
Mexico to make sure that we have some agreement on that,
because that's an issue that's very important to New Mexico.
With that, I would yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perry, thanks for being here.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
CARBON CAPTURE UTILIZATION AND SEQUESTRATION
Senator Hoeven. Thanks for your service. We appreciate it,
and you bring a tremendous amount of experience in the energy
world to the job, as well as, obviously, leadership in
government. I appreciate the fact you've committed to come out
to North Dakota and see what we're doing with carbon capture
and sequestration.
We have the only full scale plant that I know of that
actually takes lignite coal, turns it into synthetic natural
gas, captures the CO2, and compresses it, puts it in
a pipeline, ships it to the oil fields for secondary oil
recovery. We're working to build on that. We want to show you
that. It's a pretty massive, amazing operation. And then at the
Energy Environmental Research Center, University of North
Dakota, they're doing, I think, the foremost or among the
foremost research in carbon capture and storage.
We have two projects that we're working on that we want
your help with. One is Project Tundra, where we're developing
retrofit equipment to put on coal plants, back-end scrubbers,
if you will, that will capture CO2 for storage,
maybe for secondary oil recovery or maybe just storage. So
that's on existing plants to reduce CO2. And that's
Project Tundra. The other is what we call an Allam Cycle, which
is actually developing a plant, a front-end process, building a
plant that would capture carbon or be very low carbon emission.
Both of those have not only consortiums of companies behind
them with funding, but also funding from the State of North
Dakota through research funds we have. We want to partner with
some of the funds that you have in your budget for pilot and
demonstration projects. Now, you're doing one of these down in
Texas--I think down in Houston, I'm not sure, but you would
know----
Secretary Perry. Petra Nova.
Senator Hoeven. Petra Nova.
Secretary Perry. It's actually in production now, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. And so that's exactly what we've got
ready to go with corporate--with, you know, corporate partners
that will put up capital. And these are all players that are
doing this already to some degree. And then with the State of
North Dakota. So to get you out there to see these things, and
then see how you as the leader of the Department of Energy is
really important for actually doing it instead of just talking
about it.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Right?
So I'd just like you to respond to that in terms of this
budget, you've got funds in there. Let's put them to work and
actually do it instead of just listening to folks talk about it
all the time. What do you think?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I think it's important for us to
prioritize these types of expenditures, where we can see a real
return on our investment, so to speak.
Senator Feinstein, one of the things that I was able to do
on my trip to China, to the Clean Energy Ministerial, was to
get them to agree to highlight carbon capture utilization and
sequestration in some of the projects that they're going to do.
We talked to the Chinese about this and I think it is really
important for us to go forward with these projects in the
United States because then we will have the technology that the
rest of the world can use and can buy. We can help in Europe,
for instance, who, you know, are in a bit of a quandary as they
move away from some historic uses of energy, whether it is coal
or nuclear, and they're having a really difficult time being
able to have the energy for their citizens.
So, you know, whether it's China or Europe, these
technologies have the potential to pay great dividends. And
again, this goes right back to what you talked about, the
Department of Energy, and the technology and the innovation
that we come up with in our labs that are then commercialized,
and this is a great example of it.
Senator Hoeven. But this is really a key piece, and that's
why it's important that this funding's in our budget, and I'm
also addressing this to our Chairman and to our Vice Chairman,
this is how we go from the lab--we have to go from technical
viability to commercial viability. So we need to do this. We
need to do these pilot projects and these demonstration
projects to get the industry to commercial viability on
CO2 capture and storage because then they'll not
only adopt it in this country, but in other countries.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. So we can't cut that--I would ask, we can't
cut that piece out. We actually have to do it. We have to take
it--we can do it--it's technically feasible. We've got to make
it commercially viable. You're a key piece or part of that
process to get to commercial viability. Aren't you?
Secretary Perry. I'm going to follow your lead very
closely, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Good deal. Thanks again for your service.
Appreciate it.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Senator Hoeven, sounds like a pretty
good answer you got, to me.
Senator Hoeven. Outstanding answer.
Senator Feinstein. That was the best of the afternoon.
Senator Alexander. Yes.
Senator Merkley.
WIND ENERGY
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary.
I want to start by--wind energy. Wind energy has become
such a big part of the economy in many States, providing 30
percent of Iowa and South Dakota's total electricity
generation, 20 percent in three other States, Texas, of course,
is the biggest wind generator in the country. And so I was a
little surprised to see that with this powerful force for
economic development and clean energy that the wind program was
cut by 60 percent. You have a short thought as to why we should
cut it 60 percent? Shouldn't we keep advancing this--by the
way, in rural America, this is a powerful driver in my rural
counties of economic development.
Secretary Perry. I guess if there was anybody in the room
that has any more history, and experience with wind energy,
that would be me. Over the course of my time as the governor of
Texas, we became the number one wind energy producing State in
the Nation. As a matter of fact, we produced more wind than----
Senator Merkley. Congratulations, but I only have a little
bit of time.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
Senator Merkley. I appreciate the background.
Secretary Perry. Give me a crack to talk about Texas, and
I'm going to do it, sir.
Senator Merkley. It's a great opportunity.
Would you support----
Secretary Perry. More than five other countries, but----
Senator Merkley [continuing]. Doing more for wind than is
in the initial budget?
Secretary Perry. Well, here's what I will say about that,
and this is my experience with it. I think the States have a
substantially more important role to play than the Federal
Government when it comes to an industry that is reached a
maturity level that it is either going to stand or fall on its
own. And from the standpoint of this budget and what it's
looking at there are more and new technologies from the wind
side, I'm certainly open to our national labs looking at those
and funding them.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I will just make
a few comments on it, which is that if there's anything that's
mature, it's fossil fuels. Wind is evolving very, very rapidly,
and so slashing both the funds that are designed to improve its
integration into the grid and the R&D on it seems to me like a
mistake as well as slashing the energy storage budget by 75
percent, which is massively important to the stability of our
bridge.
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
And speaking of mistakes, selling Bonneville Power, and I'm
just going to make the comment, because if I let you talk, I'll
lose my last two minutes.
So selling Bonneville Power would be a huge mistake. Look
at what happened with the parking meters in Chicago, where it
is now $6 per hour after they sold off their parking meters.
The company recouped its entire investment of about $1.15
billion in the first 15 years, and they've got 60 years to go,
and so the citizens are paying far more. And if you put the
electric power of the northwest up to sale for--hold the entire
northwest economy hostage, it would be a phenomenal mistake,
and I can guarantee to you, every single Senator and House
member in the entire northwest will lay themselves down on the
track to make sure that that doesn't happen, trying to destroy
the economy of a good section of the Nation.
HANFORD SITE
I'm also concerned about the cutting of the funds to
Hanford. I was pleased in your nomination hearing to hear that
you're committed to, ``prioritizing one of what is the most
dangerous, most polluted sites in this country,'' but it has
$190 million slash to the Hanford budget for this most
dangerous, most polluted site in the country. Can we keep
working to clean this up?
By the way, a tunnel just recently collapsed that was a
tunnel into the PUREX facility. That thing hasn't been used
since 1980, and we haven't gotten a thing cleaned up yet. Can't
we get the site cleaned and not slash the funding for cleanup
at Hanford?
Secretary Perry. I think you bring up a very important
issue that I hope we can have a conversation with going
forward, and that is, the cost of Hanford and the projected
cost on the out years. I think there is some real questions
that need to be asked as we go forward about the return on the
investment that we're getting, and making sure that the dollars
that we do spend, Senator, are, in fact, delivering the results
that the people of the country and certainly of the northwest
deserve.
Senator Merkley. I absolutely agree with that. And the
point is, that we built all these nuclear plants, made a big
mess, and the Federal Government should clean it up, and then
go decade after decade with doing virtually nothing out there.
And you're right. I don't think the money's getting--that
there's not enough of action on the ground for the amount of
money we're spending, but apparently it's an extraordinary
difficult issue and undercutting the existing programs I'm
concerned about.
And my time's up, and thank you very much.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Secretary Perry.
OFFSHORE WIND
I want to talk to you about a different kind of wind power
than Senator Merkley brought up, and that is offshore wind
capacity.
I want the United States to be the global leader in this
cutting edge technology. I don't want it to be China or even
Europe or Japan or South Korea. I want it to be our country. By
the end of 2016, nearly 14,000 megawatts of offshore wind
capacity had been installed in 14 markets across the world,
including the areas and countries that I just mentioned. In
comparison, only 30 megawatts of offshore wind capacity had
been installed in the United States. We are way behind in the
global race to harness clean renewable offshore wind energy,
yet within 50 miles of our shores, there is enough offshore
wind capacity to power our country four times over.
I'm a strong supporter of the department's Offshore Wind
Advanced Technology Demonstration program, Maine has been a
real leader in this area. Do you believe that the United States
should prioritize advancing this kind of wind energy, the
offshore wind space?
Secretary Perry. Senator, as you know better than anyone in
the room, the University of Maine has been the Department of
Energy's partner in this, and each of those two offshore wind
projects have received I think about $11 million to date for
the R&D on this very cutting edge design, as you bring to our
attention. And they're eligible for up to $40 million for
construction, if they complete the very rigorous criteria along
the way, which I suspect they are going to do and I will help
you as well, keep them on line and on track.
Moving forward, our budget includes some $32 million to
focus on early stage R&D, to address the improvement side of
the performance and reliability of the wind technology. So I
think it is important, I was going to tell Senator Merkley
that, you know, I think it's important that although there's
reductions in the budget, and I understand that, I hope you all
will trust that I have some experience, pretty good experience
in dealing with having to manage big projects and big entities
when there is a reduction in the budget, and that I can win
your support and your trust going forward, but on this, you
have, I think, a pretty clear indication from my remarks here
that we're going to be continuing to be supportive in those
areas.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN NATIONAL LABORATORIES AND UNIVERSITIES
The second issue that I want to bring up is an exciting new
research collaboration between the Chairman's national lab, the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University of Maine that
was announced earlier this year. And this collaboration, which
is a formal agreement, will bring together the lab's expertise
in additive manufacturing with the University's focus on forest
bio based composites and other composite structures.
You highlighted in your testimony the importance of our
national labs, and this project really has such potential for
producing, to revolutionize our composite of low cost energy
systems, automotive manufacturing, airplanes and pressure
vehicles for compressed gas storage while lowering the energy
use and creating jobs.
Would you elaborate on how the department will encourage
and support research collaborations between the national labs
and our universities to bring American leadership to the
forefront in advanced composite materials manufacturing?
Secretary Perry. Senator, I had the opportunity to go out
to Oak Ridge with the Chairman, and we toured through the
advanced manufacturing facility out there. There 3-D printing,
and it's pretty fascinating, and as a matter of fact, we drove
a Jeep that they had 3-D printed. Those partnerships with
universities and our national labs, and I might add, the
private sector, those public-private partnerships are going to
play a very important role. I think as we are looking for
innovative ways to fund or maybe to be able to find some
funding that we think is important as we go along. Again, I'm
not afraid to get outside of the box and talk about different
ways to fund things that nobody's ever done before, that you
all obviously would checkoff on and approve, but let's have
these conversations because I agree with you that the
technology and innovation that is going to be coming out of
those labs and those partnerships are world changing.
Senator Collins. It is very exiting. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PARIS ACCORD
I want to thank you for being here, Secretary Perry. I do
appreciate your style. I do. And I want to thank you for being
in the position of Secretary of Energy. I will tell you that
American leadership is something I've been very, very proud of
my whole life, and I don't think it came by accident. I think
it came by way of the greatest generation in this country to
have vision and foresight. And I will just say, this is not a
question. I think pulling out of the Paris Accords was an
incredibly stick-your-head-in-the-sand move. There were no
mandates there. And I think it allowed us to be associated with
Syria and Nicaragua, while China could come in and take away
that American leadership and replace it with their solar panels
and their technology. And I just think it's the wrong message.
But that aside, I do want to associate myself with the
Chairman's remarks on budgets and statements. You talked and
you painted a really good picture. Unfortunately, the budget
doesn't back up what you were saying, and I think that's
unfortunate, because I think you have a very, very similar
vision as I do. R&D is critically important in this budget.
FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
And the R&D is cut fossil fuel energy research and
development by nearly $400 million. We have a little town
called Colstrip, Montana. It's called Colstrip for a reason.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. And R&D is going to be critical for that
town to stay in existence. It is just going to be critical. And
I don't think coal's going away in the near future. I think
that it's going to be on the decline for a while. But it's
going to still be around for a while. And if we don't have
research and development to develop coal plants, coal-fired
plants that, you know, take into account carbon capture and how
we deal with it, I think it's making a mistake.
Would you tell me what the thought process was into cutting
the R&D when you said multiple times during your opening
statement how important R&D was. In fact, I think it was the
first thing you said of importance in your job as Secretary of
Energy.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I think we have some work to do
on this budget, and I know that. And I'm going to spend the
time and the hours, you know, working with you all to find, you
know, find a budget that we can----
Senator Tester. Okay. Okay. Good.
Secretary Perry [continuing]. Both agree on and get the job
done.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Senator Tester. Thank you. My crack staff tells me that
Senator Merkley talked to you about selling off power marketing
administrations----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester [continuing]. Such as BPA. What they didn't
tell me is what your answer was. I think that we have heard
that there is the potential of selling off the power marketing
administrations, BPA, and I'll tell you how important it is for
a whole bunch of things.
Where are you at on that?
Secretary Perry. I would----
Senator Tester. Are you going to be advocating for selling
those, or are you going to be saying stay the course?
Secretary Perry [continuing]. Tell you, sir, that that has
been offered up in a number of budgets before.
Senator Tester. And where are you at on that issue?
Secretary Perry. I would tell you that I'll be working with
you all on finding the solutions to the challenges we face.
Senator Tester. So I will tell you this, okay. You're
pretty good, okay. You've been a governor for 14 years, and
you're pretty good. But here's the bottom line. We've got to
have leadership. You know what that's like. I mean, you
wouldn't have been governor for Texas for 14 years if it wasn't
about leadership, and you know very, very well that in your
position, we can do what we want, but you can do a lot of
things we can't stop. And I just need a commitment you're not
going to do that because it would be horrific for my folks.
I'll just tell you.
Secretary Perry. I think the message has been sent, sir.
Senator Tester. Okay. All right. Sounds good.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Energy is critically important for this country, affordable
energy. So you're going to maintain a position of economic
viability, affordable energy, as part of that equation.
We have made incredible advancements in solar and wind, and
there are pretty significant cuts to the DOE's wind account,
and I'm--if we truly are going to be at all of the above, which
I think we need to be, because I don't think you want to throw
away any opportunities, we should be doing whatever we can do
to increase those opportunities, especially those opportunities
that don't contribute to climate change. They have their other
challenges, by the way, wind does, and you know that, too.
But my question is, why we would be cutting our renewable
portfolio component that is, I think, going to become more
important in the future, not less.
SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
Secretary Perry. Senator Tester, I think you bring up a
really important issue that we need to talk about as a country,
and certainly starts right here in the appropriation's room.
And that is a technology that is zero emission, that we have
the potential to lead the world in, and that is small modular
reactors. I don't think there is an issue that I think has any
more potential for this country, and for the world, from an
emissions standpoint, and I think that these----
Senator Tester. So you're talking nuclear?
Secretary Perry. Very much so.
Senator Tester. Okay. So then that--and I'm going past
time, and you can cut me off, Mr. Chairman, because I know you
might.
But then what do you do with spent fuel? I mean, how do
you--that's one of the things you brought up in your opening
statement?
Secretary Perry. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator Tester. How do we deal--I agree with you, but how
do we deal--I mean, you got CO2 is a problem on one,
you got spent fuel is a problem on another, its half life is
long past anybody in this room and a whole bunch of their
ancestors are going to be around----
Secretary Perry. I think the technologies are available to
deal with the spent fuel.
Senator Tester. There are technologies to be able to
nullify the impacts of the spent fuel. Okay.
Senator Alexander. Senator, I think we're----
Secretary Perry. I think there are ways to deal with the
spent fuel that are appropriate from the standpoint of how you
deal with nuclear energy.
Senator Tester. And I would love to hear what those are.
Secretary Perry. Okay.
Senator Tester. I would. And so I look forward to carrying
on this conversation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. We will have plenty of time for a second
round of questions.
Senator Shaheen's been waiting patiently.
Senator Shaheen.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate you being here. But I have to
say, I share the Chairman's negative view of this budget
proposal, and I was especially disappointed that the
President's budget calls for a 70 percent, seven-zero, cut to
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That,
when energy efficiency is America's largest energy resource, it
contributes more to our Nation's energy needs over the last 40
years than any other fuel source, including nuclear and fossil
fuels, and it is also the largest sector within the U.S. clean
energy economy. It employs nearly 2.2 million Americans, the
majority of whom work for small businesses.
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Now, one of the programs that is zeroed out as part of that
office is the Weatherization Assistance Program, which has done
a tremendous benefit, provided a tremendous benefit to people
in New Hampshire and across the country. And by comparison, the
cost of this program is relatively low when compared to much of
what the DOE does, and it helps people like Neal and his wife
from Manchester, New Hampshire, our city's--our State's largest
city. They're both over 50, they're disabled, and they were
granted assistance to insulate their home through the
Weatherization Assistance Program, and Neal writes about that.
He says, ``We feel as if we've won the lottery. No words can
express how our home has been made more comfortable and so much
more efficient. We hate to even think of where we would be
today had we not been recipients of these services.''
People who use the Weatherization Assistance Programs are
working Americans who are trying to stay in their homes, trying
to take care of their families. These dollars help them do
that. So can you please explain to this committee why we should
cut support for critical energy efficiency programs that are
creating jobs, stimulating the economy, and helping to reduce
energy bills for American families and businesses?
Secretary Perry. Senator, I think from a former governor's
standpoint, I would share with you that the Administration's
view of this is that that program, programs like that,
particularly in time when we do have to make decisions about
how to rein our spending in, could best be made by the States.
I know that the Administration's focus here is on activities
that are properly performed by, whether it's the Federal
Government's responsibility or the State's responsibility. And
I would argue that this is a program where the States, giving
them, and to the extent practical and as desired, will re-
prioritize their spending to deal with those. If those programs
are as important as what, you reference, and I certainly think
they are, then the States will pick up their fair share of
those.
SPENDING FUNDS CONSISTENT WITH APPROPRIATIONS LAWS
Senator Shaheen. Well, Mr. Secretary, I've heard that
response from a number of secretaries now within the
President's cabinet. And you know, I think you have a saying in
Texas that we also agree with, that dog just won't hunt. The
fact is----
Secretary Perry. I know what you mean by that.
Senator Shaheen. You know, we rely on resources that the
Federal Government has promised us, we send more tax dollars to
Washington DC than we get back. And we think that these
programs that make a difference for people in New Hampshire are
very important.
I have another question for you, Mr. Secretary, because I'm
deeply concerned by reports that DOE has delayed awarding
funds, and in some cases is refusing to release funds
altogether for various activities for which Congress has
already provided appropriations. And on May 4, your chief of
staff, Brian McCormack, sent a memo to department heads within
the agency, stating that all pending and future funding
opportunities would undergo additional review by DOE's Office
of Management to ensure the grants are consistent with the
President's priorities.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I know, because you have been a
governor that you know that the authority of funding the
Federal Government is held by Congress and Congress alone. So
can you commit that DOE will spend funds according to the
appropriated line items and report language included in the
fiscal year 2017 omnibus budget passed by Congress and signed
into law by the President?
Secretary Perry. Senator, I have some new information just
today on that issue that I want to share with you. And in
totality, we have now announced $595 million in awards to 489
different projects across our energy and science R&D programs,
and we've also announced some $35 million that are going to be
available through five new funding opportunities, FOAs. I think
it is common practice when a new administration comes in to
review ongoing programs and ensure consistency with the
Administration's policies. And in this matter, we did initiate
a full review, and that has been done, and we're issuing
awards, and will issue funding opportunities as they move
through the process. And you're absolutely correct, as a former
appropriator and as a governor, I understand the process. I
know who has the strings to the money.
Senator Shaheen. So I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but
can I just--do I then understand that you are saying that for
dollars that have been appropriated under the fiscal year 2017
omnibus budget, that the department will get those dollars out
the door by the appropriate timelines that are in that budget?
Secretary Perry. That is my intent.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
We welcome Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your patience. There's a lot of hearings going on this
afternoon.
HANFORD SITE
Secretary Perry, thank you for being here. Let me start
with the Hanford site. It's in my State, central Washington, as
you well know.
The Federal Government has a moral and a legal obligation
to clean up that nuclear waste site, yet President Trump's
proposed budget is very shortsighted, and it is inadequate when
it comes to Hanford.
I want to ask you, does DOE support completing the low
activity waste facility and hot commissioning it by December
2023?
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, you tell me how you will meet
that. It's a legally binding consent decree requirement with
this budget request that essentially holds the Office of River
Protection flat, despite a very clear demonstrated need for
increasing resources to meet those obligations.
Secretary Perry. Senator, you were not here a little bit
earlier, and I talked about Hanford in a global sense. I talked
about how I hope we can have a conversation. I know I'm coming
out hopefully this summer, and we can walk across the Hanford
site together.
Senator Murray. You can't walk across it. It is really big.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am. I'll attempt to travel it
however you choose.
But the point is, I'd like to come out there with you, and
we can talk about the cost, and are we getting a good return on
our dollars. And I think you share that.
Senator Murray. Well, of course, I do.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. And I did hear about your comments earlier.
And let me just say this: Thousands of projects on cleanup have
been already done.
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Murray. But there is a lot of work left to do.
Secretary Perry. A lot left to do.
Senator Murray. And this is a legal obligation, it's a
moral obligation. And we can't just say, well, we're not going
to do this. It is going to be done, it has to be done. Of
course, we're all interested in saving costs. But you also have
to protect all the workers there. This is a nuclear waste site.
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Murray. So safety has to come first. And you can't
just throw out decrees and consent decrees and legal
obligations that are there. And there is a lot more work to do.
So I just want you to know, this is not a simple project, you
just don't land there----
Secretary Perry. It is not a simple project. And I think of
all the challenges that I face as a secretary that are going to
be here after I'm gone, it is Hanford. How we deal with it, how
we address it, looking at new ways to address it, getting
outside of the box, and maybe how historically the government
has looked at it I think is worth a conversation. That's not to
say that I have any new piece of information, but I will work
with you every day, if that's what's required, so that the
people of Washington State and the citizens of this country
know that we are committed. I totally agree with your
observation that this is a moral and legal imperative that we
have as a country to clean that site up, and I'm committed to
it. I just want to make sure and use my experiences of a
lifetime of managing some pretty big entities as the governor
of Texas, that we do it in a way that we get the best result
for our expenditures.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that, but this is a nuclear
waste site. It is extremely dangerous.
Secretary Perry. I understand that.
Senator Murray. And it has to be cleaned up. And if it
doesn't clean up, it is going to leak into the Columbia River
and will be a problem much bigger than it is now. And I've
heard a lot of secretaries come before us that are going to go
back and re-look at it and do something different. I've been
here for 25 years, and I'll just tell you this. My dad was
there when it was first built. And when he went to war in World
War II and came back, and there was a site next to him, he
didn't even know what it was. Well, we know what it was. Now we
know what happened. We've had years of work to get it done. And
that is a community that helped our country win a world war.
And they do not deserve to have a nuclear waste site behind
them, nor do they deserve to have people come in every 4 years
and say I'm going to do something different. There's a lot of
complex agreements that are in place to get it done, and the
Federal Government's responsibility is to provide the dollars
for that.
So we need the Secretary to understand that. I appreciate
you're trying to understand it. But I also want you to know
that there's no cheap way to do this. There's absolutely no
cheap way to do this, and it has to get done. And I really
appreciate this committee, Senator Alexander, Senator
Feinstein, who do understand, that have worked with us for a
long time. None of us like to write checks for a lot of money,
but the alternative is just not viable.
So I appreciate your being here, and I appreciate you, Mr.
Chairman, for accommodating me.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murray, and thank you
for being here.
We'll go to a second round of questions. And I'll begin.
SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
Mr. Secretary, let me go to the subject that Senator
Feinstein says she's beside herself about. And my passion for
it is right up there with hers, which is used nuclear fuel. And
let me ask you some questions that don't necessarily require a
long answer.
Do you support building a permanent repository at Yucca
Mountain?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Do you also support storing used nuclear
fuel in a private consolidated interim storage site until Yucca
Mountain is ready to accept the used fuel?
Secretary Perry. I think that is an option that is viable.
Senator Alexander. Do you believe we would be able to place
used nuclear fuel in a private consolidated interim storage
site more quickly than it could be disposed of in Yucca
Mountain?
Secretary Perry. I think your theory is correct. I think
there's some questions that get asked about that, but your--my
instinct is that you are correct in the speed of which you
could--you could store.
Senator Alexander. That the private consolidated interim
site would be able to more quickly take, for example, used
nuclear fuel from California than Yucca Mountain--the private
site could be opened more quickly than Yucca Mountain could be
finished?
Secretary Perry. As a general rule, I think you're correct.
Senator Alexander. Do you believe we should work on all
options for used nuclear fuel at the same time, and if progress
on one stalls, should we continue to work on the other options?
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Secretary Moniz testified before this
committee last year that he had authority under existing law to
take title to used fuel and contract with a private facility to
store it. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Perry. As a general matter, I agree that the DOE
has the authority to take title to spent nuclear fuel, but I
think there's a more specific question as to whether DOE has
the authority to store such nuclear fuel at a private facility
away from a nuclear reactor, and that requires statutory
interpretation, clarification, if you will, and I think the
more explicit Congress can be about our authority, the DOE's
authority to store nuclear fuel at a private site, I think the
clearer that authority will be.
Senator Alexander. Thank you for that.
If we specifically appropriate general appropriation funds
this year for you to continue the work needed to be prepared to
take title to use nuclear fuel and store it at a private site,
will you be able to use those funds to make progress on private
consolidated interim storage?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Secretary, there's two or three
other questions I'll just send by letter. We're trying to get
as accurate information as we can about how long will it take
to open Yucca Mountain so that we can put used fuel there, or
how long might it take to open a private consolidated interim
facility so we can put used fuel there, or how long would it
take to open an interim storage site such as the one that
Senator Feinstein and I have put in the appropriations bills so
we can compare that? I know there's some variables there, and I
don't need----
Senator Feinstein. Expanding WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant).
Senator Alexander. Or expanding WIPP, would be a fourth
site. So getting good advice from the Department of Energy
about how long it will take, because we're really getting down
to practical decisionmaking here. I mean, if it is really true
that there are a couple of sites that are private, that have
applications before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission did tell us in the hearing here
that absent extraordinary circumstances, those facilities might
be licensed within 3 years, and then if the construction is
finished pretty quickly, we might be talking about getting used
nuclear fuel out of California in 5 or 6 years, as compared
with putting in Yucca Mountain in 10 or 15 years or longer.
Now, I don't know that those years are exactingly right,
but if they're even close to right, we ought to know that so
that we can think in a practical way, how are we going to get
this stuff from where it is to where it needs to go, at least
on an interim basis. So if we can write you--and I think
Senator Feinstein and I will write that letter jointly, I will
ask her if she would like to, so we can begin a narrow--see if
we can get some agreement on the time there.
Secretary Perry. You very clearly touched on a lot of
different options there that I think all should be on the table
to discuss. Again, no decisions have been made yet, and we're
obviously going to follow your lead at the DOE, but we will be
as helpful as we can be, and we will be as inventive as we can
be, and we will be as flexible as you need us to be to
accomplish what is a very important duty that the DOE has for
the country.
Senator Alexander. I think we're fortunate to have you in
this job at this point because this is a job that we two
politicians haven't been able to solve yet and we could use the
advice and leadership from someone with 14 years of experience
as a governor of Texas. So we look forward to working with you
on that.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
think your questions were precise and targeted and really
effective.
And, Mr. Secretary, I have tried for so long to solve this
problem, but it is a real conundrum, and it really does need
you to help us solve it. There's a difference of opinion with
the House. That has to be reconciled. We have to look at Yucca.
I mean, I have taken the position that Yucca does have faults.
The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) sat here and said
that's not right.
I listened to others who know, say water's coming down
through the place, and obviously, salt is better geologically
than water. So that we don't really know who to believe, and
it's very difficult. There's six million people living right
around Southern California Edison, which is a huge company, as
you know, and there's 3,300 hot plutonium rods sitting in spent
fuel pools right over a beach. I mean, it's a problem. So we
need to get them out of there, get them in transportation casks
and be able to take them. PG&E is beginning to do this and
putting them in transportation casks so they're ready to go
somewhere in their decommissioning.
WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING PLANS
But let me ask you something about detailed work force
restructuring plans.
I went through the concerns, the huge concern about cutting
6,700 jobs from really good labs, and what that will do. It is
my understanding that the managers of those labs are now
preparing for potential layoffs and developing detailed work
force restructuring plans.
My staff has been informed that one labs sent its work
force plan to DOE. We're told that your office not only sent it
back, but told other labs to no longer work on such plans.
Question: Is that true?
Secretary Perry. Not that I'm aware of.
Senator Feinstein. Well, could you find out?
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am, I will. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. And let us know. Because it's clear the
labs don't know.
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. So that would really be appreciated.
Secretary Perry. What I've shared with the lab directors
and those that have been both directly and indirectly, is that
we're going to do everything that we can to make sure our labs
are maintaining and doing the work that they've been tasked to
do.
You know, now, did I stand up and say, you know, do not
worry, nobody's going to lose their job? I did not. Because I'm
a realist and I've managed some pretty big entities before when
budget restrictions have been in place. But I want you to know
that we're going to do everything we can working with you and
your members to make sure that--particularly those 17 national
labs that we have, and the incredibly important work that we
do. We've talked about a lot of things this afternoon. We
haven't even discussed cyber and cyber security and the work
that's going on at Idaho National Labs, dealing with our grid
and making sure that our grid is secure. Literally, the
security of this country is intricately intertwined in our
national labs. And we are going to perform in a way that I
think you will be respectful of and supportive of, Senator,
when this process is over with.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I really appreciate that. We've
gone through this once before in another Administration. I
forget whether it was Democratic or Republican, but we went
through the same thing. And the havoc and the fact that we lost
good people that went to other places and the insecurity that
it set forth really was problematic. So I hope that you'll take
a special involvement. We want to work, I think I speak for the
Chairman, we want to work with you. We don't want to see
massive disruption in good projects that are going on in these
labs. If there's duplication, if there--you know, if there's a
need in one place and not in another, if there can be
transfers, and really, if there's waste, we don't want that
either.
So a lot of this depends on you, and I guess what I want to
say is as the Ranking Member, I'd like to work with you, and I
know the Chairman has been fantastic on virtually every issue.
I think we can solve this problem.
Secretary Perry. I do, too.
Senator Feinstein. So let's do it. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Senator, I do, too. And let me just share
with you. There's $4 billion of unspent DOE funds. If it could
be used, there are ways to skin this cat, so to speak.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. And we will spend the time and the effort
and be as inventive as we need to be to make this work.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking
Member Feinstein.
Thank you Secretary Perry. I reviewed your testimony in
written form and appreciate the chance to question you today.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Coons. You've had a long hearing----
Senator Feinstein. 4 billion.
Senator Coons [continuing]. And I appreciate the chance to
raise my concerns.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST
Over the last decade, the United States has become
dramatically more energy secure and grown the economy, expanded
jobs, and reduced greenhouse gases, all at the same time,
broadly speaking. We've shown that we can be more
environmentally responsible and support new jobs, and that's in
no small part because of the Department of Energy's
groundbreaking work that has supported a wide range of new
energy technologies. That's why I think we need to stay
committed to a previous goal of doubling investments in energy
research. This would dramatically accelerate American
innovation, confront challenges like climate change, increase
jobs, ensure economic competitiveness, national security, and
our environmental vitality.
This budget, at least as presented, is the antithesis of
that commitment. The forward leaning research model that the
United States has championed for decades would be reversed, and
there could be, as you've discussed at length with other
members, significant cuts and jobs losses at our national labs,
research university startups, and more.
So let's be honest. We need to address our infrastructure
grid reliability, climate change, and other challenges, and the
Department of Energy has a critical role to play. Every energy
resource in technology today has been nurtured, supported, and
advanced in some small part or some significant part by Federal
research as Chairman Alexander laid out at the beginning of the
hearing, from hydraulic fracturing to solar power. We need to
continue to invest in these partnership between DOE and the
private sector.
Mr. Secretary, this budget approach, if fully adopted,
sends a clear message to China and the rest of the world that
they will become the world's economic engine for clean energy,
and the U.S. will become the caboose. It's my hope that we can
work together in a bipartisan way to blunt some of the impact
of this proposed budget.
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
Let me talk about advanced manufacturing. I was in
manufacturing in the private sector for 8 years. I have some
real concerns about the cuts to the Advanced Manufacturing
Office in this budget, and I'm not the only one raising this
concern. All seven former assistant secretaries for EERE, from
George H.W. Bush to President Obama, sent a letter raising
concerns about the 70 percent cut to this office. It seems to
me this request is inconsistent with President Trump's agenda
of supporting manufacturing. It's surprising there's $146
million cut to the Advanced Manufacturing Office, including the
$70 million to fund the Manufacturing USA Institutes. The
strategy that produced the Manufacturing USA Institutes was led
by the CEO of Dow and was led by a private sector initiated
outside effort.
I am concerned about this message to industry and to
manufacturing. How do you justify this kind of a cut, this
depth and breadth of a cut, in a manufacturing focused
investment sector where it was broadly supported by industry
partners from its outset and is critical to our long-term
competitiveness? Help me understand your reasoning?
Secretary Perry. Senator, I think the challenge that we
always have when we have restrictions in our budgets is how
we're going to manage the resources that we have. And again,
I'm not asking you to take a complete pig in a poke here. I've
got a history and a record of being able to manage some pretty
big entities during some period of time that were challenges. I
mean, billions of dollars of shortfall in my home State back in
the early 2000s. And I'm not going to sit here and tell you
it's going to be fun, it's going to be easy, but I'm going to
tell you that if you've got to have somebody managing the DOE
at a time when there may be some challenges from a financial
standpoint, I may be a pretty good person to have at the helm
of that.
Senator Coons. I appreciate that response, Mr. Secretary.
My question really wasn't about managing, it was more about
priorities----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, but I think----
Senator Coons [continuing]. And the fact that the President
ran on supporting manufacturing. This is part of a thoroughly
thought out well developed strategy for supporting
manufacturing, one that's been supported in the Senate on a
bipartisan basis. So my hope is that the critical investments
DOE's making in manufacturing will get a reconsideration.
QUADRENNIAL ENERGY REVIEW
Let me move to the Quadrennial Energy Review. It could be a
valuable policy review process. The Defense Department follows
the same approach. I've worked with Chairman Alexander on
authorizing legislation that would require the Federal
Government to undertake a periodic and analytically driven
review process of energy policy.
Can you assure me you'll continue to carry out with public
input the Quadrennial Energy Review that's required to be done
once every 4 years?
Secretary Perry. Senator, I'm going to follow the law, and
if that is statutorily in the law, you better believe it, we're
going to be doing it. So if it's statutorily required, I'll be
addressing it.
Senator Coons. Well, I certainly hope you'll consider it as
a potentially helpful tool in achieving the overall mission of
the department.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Let me just last say that in an interview recently, you
denied the idea that carbon dioxide is a main driver for
climate change, that human generated carbon dioxide is the main
driver for climate change.
What more do you need to hear from scientists or military
leaders, business leaders, anyone, to be convinced that man-
made greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious threat to our
economy and our future?
Secretary Perry. Senator Coons, I think it's a great
opportunity for this country to have a conversation about the
climate and get the politics out of it and bring the scientists
together. As a matter of fact, the undersecretary for President
Obama, the Undersecretary of Energy for President Obama, Steven
Koonin, has said he needs a theoretical physicist and was over
at the department and knows this issue rather well. And he says
it is probably time for us to have a conversation with all the
politics out of the room and let the scientists sit.
And so he was actually offering up the idea of having a red
team come in and have this conversation. And I would dearly
love to be in the room when they're having that, not to be one
of the experts, but to really listen and have that opportunity
to have the conversation. Because my perspective is that it is
not settled science, and the idea that, if you don't believe it
is settled science, you're somehow or another, a Luddite, is
just a little bit out of the realm of--I don't mind being
skeptic about things. But I think we ought to be honest about
it, that there are some pretty substantial, including,
President Obama's own undersecretary at DOE that says this
science is not settled.
And so, Senator, I hope we can agree that maybe it's time
for us to have a red team approach to this, sit them in the
room, and let's listen to what they come up with.
Senator Alexander. Okay. We're way over time.
Senator Coons. I just want to say thank you for that
response, and the openness.
And, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to bring up my
concerns.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Coons.
And let me acknowledge Senator Coons' leadership over the
last few years in a bipartisan way on American competitiveness,
both in legislation and his actions, and I know he would be a
valuable partner to the Secretary, as he has been to Senator
Feinstein and to me.
MOX FACILITY
Let me go to another subject that Senator Feinstein and I
consider maybe a number one priority, or at least tied for
number one, and that's the MOX facility in South Carolina.
I mean, we find ourselves in the middle of an unpleasant
situation there. But let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, some of the
same questions I asked General Klotz, the head of NNSA, when he
testified here, just so that we can be clear about your
position on this as we work together to try to solve the
problem with respect to the commitments that were made to South
Carolina over the last several years.
Last year, we did not know if WIPP would actually open or
when. Since then it has re-opened in New Mexico, and has
resumed operating. Is that correct?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Let's talk about the dilute part of
dilute and disposal first. There were some questions last year
about whether dilute and disposal method was a proven process.
Last year the department started to process plutonium, not the
plutonium that was part of the agreement with Russia, using the
dilute and disposal method; isn't that true?
Secretary Perry. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. And where will that plutonium go after
it is diluted?
Secretary Perry. It will go to New Mexico to WIPP. As a
matter of fact, I think there are five shipments that have
already been received and processed there.
Senator Alexander. I know at least four. But thank you.
So WIPP can accept----
Secretary Perry. You're correct, Mr. Chairman, it is four.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. The diluted plutonium.
There is about 13 tons of plutonium in South Carolina that's
not needed for the weapons program, about half of that was
included in the agreement with Russia. Last week General Klotz
testified before this committee that all of the excess
plutonium in South Carolina could be sent to WIPP under the
current law; do you agree?
Secretary Perry. That is my understanding.
Senator Alexander. General Klotz testified that operating
the MOX project would cost at least twice as much as operating
the dilute and disposal method; does that sound right to you?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. The estimates, I believe this is
Corps of Engineer estimates, operational costs between $800
million and $1 billion for MOX, and D&D was $400 million a year
for operational costs.
Senator Alexander. So that's operating. Now, how about
construction costs? How do you compare the construction costs
of the MOX project and the dilute and disposal project?
Secretary Perry. Again, the Corps of Engineers estimates,
about $17 billion for MOX total. We've already put five into
it.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
Secretary Perry. And the dilute and dispose facility would
be approximately $500 million to construct it.
Senator Alexander. And General Klotz said, testified, that
the dilute and disposal method gets the plutonium out of South
Carolina much sooner. He said the difference was between the
late 2020s for dilute and disposal, and the early 2050s for the
MOX procedure. Does that sound right to you?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Alexander. I understand there's a considerable
amount of excess plutonium in Texas. Can we dispose of that
material using dilute and disposal method, and when could that
begin?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, you could, and it's my
understanding that 2035 is the date.
Senator Feinstein. The beginning?
Senator Alexander. No, the date for the disposal of the
excess plutonium in Texas could begin in 2035.
Secretary Perry. Yes. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. That's 34 tons, if I'm not mistaken, in
Texas?
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Senator Alexander. The remainder of the 34 tons?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Now, that's not the South Carolina
plutonium, that would go--now, to sort of summarize, we know
the dilute and disposal method works, it costs less, it gets
the material out of South Carolina sooner, and the material can
go to WIPP under current law. Could it go anywhere else?
Secretary Perry. There're a lot of options, and again, I
don't want to put on anybody's plate that there is a plan to go
anywhere with this, but there are obviously other options.
Maybe some that we haven't even talked about yet. But, yes,
there are other options.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Feinstein, do you have other questions?
Senator Feinstein. No, I'm fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY
Senator Alexander. Well, I would like to ask one or two
more pretty quickly, and then I think we have a vote. And if
you're--I want to ask you about ARPA-E. And I'm going to accept
your comment earlier that the budget was written before you got
here, and your job is to robustly defend the budget, and I'm
not interested in making that awkward for you. But the budget
proposes to eliminate ARPA-E, and that's not what we're going
to do. And let me talk about why.
Twelve years ago, over a 2-year period, we had a bipartisan
effort in the Senate, and we had legislation introduced first
by Senator Frist, and I guess it was Senator Reid, even then,
but the democratic and the republican leader, when the
democrats were in control and the republican and democratic
leader when the republicans were in control, we had 50 or 60
cosponsors, President Bush strongly supported, we called it
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and it was an effort created
by some of the most distinguished Americans, led by Norm
Augustine, the head of Lockheed Martin, to give us 20 things
that we could do to help make America more competitive in the
world and raise our family incomes.
And as time went on, President Obama's appropriations were
a major part of that. That bipartisan effort got most of those
20 things done and funded. One of the most important was ARPA-
E. It was a strong recommendation from this distinguished
committee, headed by Norm Augustine that we take a look at
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has
led to the invention of the Internet, GPS, stealth aircraft,
the first weather satellite, and the first computer mouse, and
see if we can do the same thing with energy.
What was different about DARPA and is different about ARPA-
E, is that instead of just a government grant, or the
government trying to be a developer, it brings in to DARPA-E
and into ARPA-E promising technologies, works with them 2, 3
years and sends them back out into the marketplace to see if
they can survive.
My view, and that view of other Senators, is that ARPA-E's
been a big success. Its budget's much smaller than DARPA, $306
million last year, DARPA's ten times bigger. But it includes
grid scale batteries, energy efficient materials for
refrigeration, pipelines and shipping, radiative cooling, and
entirely new and innovative way to cool industrial buildings,
and engineering bacteria to convert carbon dioxide into fuel.
Now, I emphasize that, Mr. Secretary, because I think the
rap against ARPA-E is by some people who don't believe in
climate change who think all it does is work on a climate
change. If it does that, that's not all it ought to be doing.
It ought to be working on clean energy, which has a lot more to
do with things other than climate change and clean air. For
example, I've always thought the holy grail of energy will be
to find some commercial way to take the carbon out of
smokestacks and do something commercial with it. We talked
about that with carbon recapture. You know all about that. But
that has proved a little bit cumbersome and limited in its use.
So I've always thought that some scientist would find some way
to do that, and then we can use all the coal in the world all
we wanted to, because we could remove the sulfur, the nitrogen,
the mercury, we know how to do that, and if we could also do it
with carbon, then we could use the coal, we could lower the
cost of energy, we could eliminate a lot of poverty. And here
they are over at ARPA-E engineering bacteria to convert carbon
dioxide into fuel. Now, it may or may not become commercially
viable, but it might.
So what I'd like to ask you to do is take a new look at
ARPA-E and the work being done there. And maybe even invite
Norm Augustine, who's still around and very much interested in
this, to come talk with you sometime and say why the group that
recommended the Rising Above the Gathering Storm thought this
was so important 10 years ago, and what they think has worked,
and if there's some areas where they think it hasn't worked, to
take those criticisms into account.
And if you find out that all it has been doing has been
with an unnecessary emphasis on climate change, well, then you
can correct that. But clean energy is at the center of the
research effort that we ought to be doing in the United States,
and ARPA-E may be the very best way we have to do it. So I
wanted to just bring that to your attention while you're here
this afternoon.
Secretary Perry. It is fully in my attention, sir.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Secretary, you've been an effective
witness for a difficult budget, and I look forward to working
with you here. I think you bring a set of skills to problems
such as MOX and used nuclear fuel that could use those skills.
I found you to be an excellent student, as I followed you
through the day at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and I've
watched your leadership in Texas, so we won't agree on
everything, but I thank you for being here today.
I ask Senator Feinstein if she has any closing comments,
and then we'll close the hearing.
Do you have any closing words you'd like to say, Senator
Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you are a
ten. Thank you. I mean, that was very impressive, and I think
very convincing.
Don't you, Mr. Secretary?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Perry. I was going to say, at least an 11.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Perry. The first liar never has a chance,
Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Just say you're convinced.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Senator Alexander. And I'm going to----
Secretary Perry. I am convinced.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Thank you both and stop
while I'm ahead.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Members
may submit additional information or questions for the record
within that time if they would like. The subcommittee requests
all responses be provided within 30 days.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Alexander. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., Wednesday, June 21, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]