    [Senate Hearing 116-335]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-335

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                   S. 607                       S. 2137
                   S. 1739                      S. 2300
                   S. 1821                      S. 2368
                   S. 2094                      S. 2393
                   S. 2095

                                    __________

                               SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

                                   __________

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     37-815             WASHINGTON : 2021

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                             BILL CASSIDY, Chairman
    JAMES E. RISCH                       MARTIN HEINRICH
    MIKE LEE                             RON WYDEN
    STEVE DAINES                         MARIA CANTWELL
    CORY GARDNER                         BERNARD SANDERS
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH                     DEBBIE STABENOW
    MARTHA McSALLY                       MAZIE K. HIRONO
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    JOHN HOEVEN                          CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
      Brianne Miller, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy
                                    Advisor
                          Jed Dearborn, Senior Counsel
                    Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    Renae Black, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Louisiana......................................................     1
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     1
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from New Mexico........................................    17

                                   WITNESSES

    Menezes, Hon. Mark W., Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy     2
    Portman, Hon. Rob, a U.S. Senator from Ohio......................    19
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island.......    19
    Porter, Anton C., Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory
      Commission.....................................................    20
    Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire..........    26

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Acuity Brands, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    30
    Air Conditioning Contractors of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................    89
    Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    33
    Alliance to Save Energy, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    91
    American Chemistry Council:
        Letter for the Record dated 7/9/19...........................    34
        Statement for the Record dated 7/25/19.......................    36
    American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric
      Cooperative Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    93
    American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
      Engineers (ASHRAE):
        Letter for the Record........................................    38
    BASF Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    40
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Written Statement............................................    11
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    94
    Duke Energy:
        Letter for the Record........................................    41
    Edison Electric Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    95
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Written Statement............................................    17
    Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................    42
    Leading Builders of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................    44
    Menezes, Hon. Mark W.:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
        Written Testimony............................................     5
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    73
    NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    46
    National Association of Clean Water Agencies:
        Letter for the Record........................................    47
    National Association of State Energy Officials:
        Letter for the Record dated 6/19/19..........................    48
        Letter for the Record dated 6/10/19..........................    96
    National Rural Electric Cooperative Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    97
    Nuclear Energy Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................    49
    Olson, Hon. Pete:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    28
    Porter, Anton C.:
        Opening Statement............................................    20
        Written Testimony............................................    23
        Responses to Questions from Senator Cantwell.................    60
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    88
    Portman, Hon. Rob:
        Opening Statement............................................    19
    (The) Real Estate Roundtable:
        Letter for the Record........................................    51
    Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne:
        Opening Statement............................................    26
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon:
        Opening Statement............................................    19
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     1

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    hearings/2019/9/subcommittee-on-energy-legislative-hearing.

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

                                   U.S. Senate,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy,
    presiding.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

        Senator Cassidy [presiding]. The Committee will come to
    order.
        We are going to have testimony, and we are trying to hustle
    because we have votes at 2:45.
        Senator Wyden has another commitment. He asked if he can go
    first. That is fine with Senator Heinrich and I.
        Senator Wyden, we will start with you, and then we will
    turn to Under Secretary Menezes and Mr. Porter. Out of
    deference to my Senate colleague, I am nonetheless told that we
    must do that for some sort of procedural aspect.
        Senator Wyden.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman and Senator Heinrich, thank you
    both for your thoughtfulness, and I am going to clock this in
    at under three minutes because I know our witnesses' time is
    short.
        Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I had the opportunity this
    summer to be with those at Oregon State University who are most
    knowledgeable in marine energy research and development. Oregon
    State University is a national leader in the development of new
    marine energy technologies. They partner with the University of
    Washington and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. They co-
    manage the Pacific Marine Energy Center, a DOE test center
    established in 2008, to advance marine energy technologies.
        What we talked about there, and I will wrap up with this,
    are essentially what are the next steps. I am interested in
    working with my colleagues here and Chair Murkowski. The Marine
    Energy Research and Development Act builds on efforts underway
    at the Department of Energy (DOE) by giving the Water Power
    Office more funding to quicken American innovation and spur
    production in marine energy technologies.
        What the legislation does is it directs the Water Power
    Office to support efforts in the private sector, national labs,
    and the Marine Energy Centers and focus on advanced energy
    technologies that are capable of generating more marine energy
    more affordably and with a smaller carbon footprint.
        I am going to break the speechifying off by saying I think
    all of us have been concerned with respect to marine energy,
    that we want to be sensitive to fisheries and marine
    navigation. We are doing that. I also want to commend the folks
    at DOE with the Powering the Blue Economy.
        I will put the rest of my statement, Mr. Chairman, with
    your permission and that of Senator Heinrich's, in the record.
        Senator Cassidy. Without objection.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you both.
        Senator Cassidy. Under Secretary Menezes.

          STATEMENT OF HON. MARK W. MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Menezes. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member
    Henrich and members of the Subcommittee.
        Senator Wyden, thank you for your comments on the Power the
    Blue, and I'll reference your bill.
        It's a privilege and honor to serve at the Department of
    Energy, an agency tasked with, among many other important
    responsibilities, overseeing the nation's energy supply, our 17
    national labs supporting early stage energy R&D across a wide
    range of science and engineering disciplines and working
    effectively with our states and tribes on our nation's energy
    challenges.
        First, I'd like to, of course, thank the members of this
    Committee for your advocacy resulting in the confirmation of
    our Director of Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, ARPA-
    E, Lane Genatowski, appreciate your support for that. And we're
    very pleased to have gotten confirmed, Dr. Rita Baranwal, who
    now heads up our Nuclear Energy Office. Thank you very much for
    that support.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    regarding the legislation that's pertinent and important to the
    Department of Energy which is now pending before the Senate.
    The Administration continues to review all of these bills,
    although we have provided some technical assistance to your
    staff, as requested.
        The Department is grateful for the Committee's attention to
    these critical issues. In the energy sector we believe the
    research and development capabilities consistently demonstrated
    by our national labs is unrivaled and provide unique
    opportunities to address key challenges working with industry,
    academia and the states.
        The President's America First Energy Plan rightly calls for
    utilizing all of our energy sources to achieve energy security
    and economic strength at home and energy dominance through
    exports to markets abroad.
        Today's hearing addresses many areas, including
    reauthorizing many important nuclear energy research and
    development programs to ensure the long-term viability of the
    existing fleet of the nuclear power plants; support for state
    and local government's energy infrastructure; promoting
    innovation with the Clean Energy Technologies Market,
    specifically including carbon capture, as Senator Wyden
    mentioned; accelerating the introduction of marine renewable
    energy into the U.S. energy supply; support for grid
    resiliency; and finally, supporting the training and
    development of an emerging generation of energy jobs. Each of
    these are, indeed, crucial factors in advancing energy
    resilience, protecting and projecting America's power overseas
    and securing our economic and national security.
        DOE has a long and successful history of working with
    states on the nation's most significant energy challenges.
    Nearly all state and territory governments and select local
    governments have an energy security or assurance plan which
    serves as a foundation for action when an energy disruption
    threatens public welfare or when the energy industry requests
    help. These plans address energy supply risks and
    vulnerabilities and enable a quick recovery and restoration.
    Combined with training and exercises for personnel and
    stakeholders, energy assurance plans enhance response and
    recovery efforts and support resiliency investments.
        Specifically, the bills associated with supporting states
    and local governments, S. 2094 and S. 2095, will continue a
    long and successful history of working with states as a
    reliable partner on the nation's most significant energy
    challenges. We must continue to evaluate the risks facing our
    nation's energy infrastructure and mitigate high risk
    scenarios. So we thank you for supporting our efforts to do
    this. The Department, specifically the Office of Electricity,
    has been a leader in this area with its efforts focused on
    electricity resilience, investing in energy storage,
    microgrids, sensors and advanced modeling.
        Additionally, your bills on the Department's Office of
    Cyber will help our Department's Office of Cybersecurity,
    Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) provide
    guidance and support for state energy and emergency officials
    to ensure that their energy assurance and security plans and
    related planning efforts are regularly updated and tested.
        Your bills promote an important function of the Department
    which is to provide support for states and local governments to
    develop and refine energy assurance plans and build
    institutional expertise on understanding interdependencies and
    vulnerabilities. These plans address energy supply and security
    risks and vulnerabilities, support resiliency investments and
    enable technology advancement to improve energy security.
        Keenly aware of the threats posed by physical and
    cyberattacks as well as natural disasters, as we have just seen
    with the hurricane off of our coast, our Office of Electricity
    and the CESER Office have been working with several offices
    within the Department to maintain the kind of readiness needed
    to withstand the fiercest and most sophisticated attacks
    imaginable. Your bills would further enable the Department to
    serve as a foundation for robust preparedness, response and
    recovery efforts across governments, the electricity, oil and
    natural gas industries.
        Now, having spent most of my career working throughout
    multiple segments of the energy industry, I know firsthand the
    national importance of maintaining a robust workforce that
    requires an extraordinary level of technical expertise.
        The Department of Energy National Labs Jobs ACCESS Act and
    Clean Energy Jobs Act of 2019 will serve to fulfill that market
    reality, the need for a skilled, technical workforce,
    especially at the national labs and certain facilities within
    the NNSA.
        I also thank you for presenting a bill that grants the
    Commissioner of FERC the additional funding and flexibility to
    hire experts to service the growing number of projects over
    which FERC has jurisdiction.
        Finally, it is important to highlight that without this
    Committee's assistance, advancing critical technologies, such
    as artificial intelligence, advanced data analytics, grid-scale
    storage and carbon capture, utilization and sequestration,
    would simply not be possible.
        And so, before I close, let me say thank you for advancing
    Senate bill 143, DOE's Veterans' Health Initiative Act, as you
    have shown that you know the health of our nation's veterans is
    of utmost importance to the Trump Administration, to Congress
    and, of course, the Department of Energy.
        We recently have begun standing up an Office of Artificial
    Intelligence which will perform a myriad of functions for the
    nation and, specifically, the nation's vets. DOE-fueled
    advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning
    are helping researchers identify and neurologists treat
    traumatic brain injuries and other mental health conditions
    paving the way for better outcomes and a better future for our
    nation's war fighters.
        In conclusion, let me thank you again for the opportunity
    to be here today. The Department appreciates the ongoing,
    bipartisan efforts to address our nation's energy challenges,
    and we look forward to working with the Committee on the
    legislation today, any future legislation. I look forward to
    your questions and our discussion.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. Mr. Porter, we are going to call an
    audible.
        I understand that we wanted you guys to testify first
    because we are going to bump up against votes, but Senator
    Heinrich and I are both going to submit our statements for the
    record.
        [Statements of Senator Cassidy and Senator Heinrich
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. I think we have time for Senators Portman
    and Whitehouse to testify, and then we will come back to you
    before we go to votes.
        Senator Portman, would you go next please?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
    you and Senator Heinrich letting us come by today and the
    opportunity to give a brief statement on the Subcommittee
    legislation you're looking at today which is S. 2137 that
    Senator Shaheen and I have worked on for the past eight years,
    that's the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.
        Back in 2015, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, President
    Obama did sign a few pieces of this legislation into law, but
    most of the legislation was caught up at the House. We did pass
    it in the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 12 and this
    Committee has approved it overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan
    basis, in the last four Congresses.
        I would also like to thank the Under Secretary for being
    here today and for the Department's support of our energy
    efficiency efforts. During Secretary Perry's confirmation, he
    committed to working with me to get this across the line, as
    you know, and we look forward to continuing to work with both
    of you.
        It improves energy efficiency in basically three areas:
    residential and commercial buildings, manufacturing, and then
    the biggest energy user of all in the United States which is
    our Federal Government.
        The greenhouse gas emission reductions are equivalent to
    taking about 11 million cars off the road. We think even more.
    We are getting more studies on that. But it just makes sense.
    It is good for the economy. It is good for the environment. It
    is good for jobs.
        I am proud it doesn't include heavy-handed mandates,
    something, Mr. Chairman, some colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle have been concerned about. In fact, the building code
    sections, in particular, are completely voluntary. We developed
    a compromise that's supported by a wide range of groups,
    including energy efficiency advocates, environmental groups,
    industry states and even some of the home builder groups.
        I'd like to thank the other co-sponsors of the legislation
    in the Senate, but also our House sponsors. We have an
    identical House companion bill, and that would be
    Representatives McKinley and Welch who stuck with us.
        So it is time to get this bill passed once and for all.
        I appreciate you letting us come by today and really
    appreciate your holding the hearing today.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Let me thank Chairman Cassidy and
    Ranking Member Heinrich for inviting me here today. Thank you,
    Senator King, for being here.
        And let me also applaud the full Energy Committee, under
    the leadership of Senators Murkowski and Manchin, for reviewing
    legislation that would boost energy storage, advanced nuclear,
    energy efficiency, carbon capture, renewables, and grid
    modernization.
        Today, the Subcommittee is going to be considering other
    important measures, including my bill with Senators Manchin,
    Capito, Braun, Booker, Collins and Feinstein, targeting
    emissions from the industrial and heavy-duty transportation
    sectors like steel, cement, chemicals and emissions from
    commercial airplanes and trucking.
        Around 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come
    from these sectors, yet few technologies exist to substantially
    reduce their emissions. Our bill sets up a new Department of
    Energy Advisory Council to fund research and deploy emission
    reduction technologies for these sources and a technical
    assistance program to help local governments support these
    innovations.
        The bill has broad bipartisan support from industry, labor,
    and environmental groups. You don't often hear this, but it's
    supported by the Environmental Defense Fund, the National
    Association of Manufacturers, the Natural Resources Defense
    Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry
    Council, and the United Steelworkers.
        The House Science Committee today also cleared companion
    legislation led by Representatives Casten, McKinley and Eddie
    Bernice Johnson. So if this moves, it stands a very good chance
    of coming into law.
        This is, of course, one piece of a much larger puzzle that
    ultimately must include putting a price on carbon emissions, a
    price on carbon, that corrects a market failure and puts us on
    a path to avoid the worst climate chaos.
        I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today, to
    be working with this Committee and Subcommittee, and to help
    develop the broad climate change package that our times
    require.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you both.
        Mr. Porter.

       STATEMENT OF ANTON C. PORTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
                      ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Porter. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Heinrich and
    Senator King, my name is Anton Porter and I serve as the
    Executive Director of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    (FERC).
        The Office of the Executive Director is responsible for
    providing administrative support services to the Commission,
    including human resources, financial management, information
    technology, security, procurement, logistics, and
    organizational management. It is my honor to provide testimony
    this afternoon responsive to S. 607, the Timely Review of
    Infrastructure Act.
        As a member of the Commission's staff, the views I express
    in this testimony are my own, and not necessarily those of the
    Commission or of any individual Commissioner.
        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is composed of 12
    program offices that support the agency's mission of ensuring
    consumers can obtain economically efficient, safe, reliable,
    and secure energy services.
        Our largest program office, the Office of Energy Projects
    (OEP), is responsible for performing the engineering and
    environmental review of natural gas pipelines, liquefied
    natural gas facilities and non-federal hydroelectric projects.
        The Commission's Office of Electric Reliability helps
    protect and improve the reliability and security of the
    nation's bulk power system through effective regulatory
    oversight of the development of mandatory reliability and
    security standards.
        In addition, the Office of Energy Infrastructure Security
    provides leadership, expertise and assistance to the energy
    industry to identify, communicate and seek comprehensive
    solutions to potential risks of FERC-jurisdictional facilities
    from cybersecurity, from cyberattacks and such physical threats
    as electromagnetic pulses.
        All three offices, which employ specialists in highly
    technical fields, would be impacted by S. 607. For example, OEP
    is made up of 345 specialists, including archeologists,
    biologists, geologists, engineers, environmental protection
    specialists and recreation planners, engaged in infrastructure
    review. In particular, the level of expertise required to
    support FERC's LNG program responsibilities is highly technical
    and scarce within the job market. Due to this scarcity, FERC
    has experienced difficulties recruiting and retaining staff in
    the Washington, DC, area due to compensation constraints. We've
    been forced to replace a third of this valuable expertise over
    this term to keep pace with this rate of attrition. During this
    four-year period, the Commission has constantly attempted to
    recruit candidates to fill these positions, issuing 176 vacancy
    announcements; however, 39 percent of these postings failed to
    result in the identification of any desirable candidates, in
    significant part due to compensation constraints. As a result,
    the Office of Energy Projects has not been able to keep pace
    with staff attrition.
        These problems have not been confined to OEP. Many of the
    Commission's offices have had similar experiences. Over the
    past four years many of our offices have experienced double-
    digit attrition rates that have been difficult to address
    despite our aggressive hiring efforts due to compensation
    constraints. Given the nine percent average attrition rate of
    engineers for the agency, our agency has not been able to rise
    above attrition.
        In FY 2016, engineers comprised 16 percent of the total
    number of agency-wide hires. Though there was growth in FY 2017
    with engineers making up 22 percent of total agency-wide hires,
    in FY 2018 that number plummeted to 13 percent. It is the
    lowest level in the past four years.
        Over the past four fiscal years as well, the Commission has
    made strategic--made hiring a strategic priority working
    diligently to hire ahead of the forecasted attrition. We have
    maximized our use of available Title V Recruitment Incentives,
    including offering one-time recruitment and relocation bonuses
    as well as using superior qualifications for setting pay above
    the minimum rate.
        Once employees are on board, we have also maximized our use
    of Title V Retention Incentives, including investing just over
    $1 million annually in providing student loan repayment program
    incentives to staff. Even with these flexibilities, 18 percent
    of candidates that declined offers noted they did so to pursue
    private sector opportunities that provide greater compensation.
        In summary, the language in S. 607, the Timely Review of
    Infrastructure, will assist the Commission in attracting and
    retaining the needed workforce with additional compensation
    authorities.
        This concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any of
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Porter.
        And now, Senator Shaheen.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
    and Ranking Member Heinrich. I appreciate your letting me bump
    into this panel. I hope the panelists don't mind two minutes. I
    know you're trying to get the Senators in and out before our
    votes start.
        I want to make three points about the Energy Efficiency and
    Industrial Competitiveness Act. I know that Senator Portman has
    already spoken to the bill, although I figured I needed to get
    here because I am sure he called it Portman-Shaheen, and I
    wanted to make sure we got the Shaheen-Portman piece.
        [Laughter.]
        Some of you remember we have introduced--first of all, it's
    about energy efficiency. And as everyone knows, energy
    efficiency is the cheapest, fastest way to deal with our energy
    needs. My favorite statistic is that over the last 40 years, we
    have saved more energy through efficiency than we have produced
    through fossil fuels and nuclear power combined in this
    country. So it is the low-hanging fruit.
        Second, this is a bill that has passed this Committee
    virtually every Congress that we've introduced it. We
    introduced it for the first time in 2011, and I think that
    speaks for itself. It has gotten hung up on various other
    issues that have really had very little to do with the specific
    provisions of the bill. And I think one of the reasons that
    it's gotten through the Committee so well in the past is
    because it's had this broad array of supporters, everyone from
    the leading builders of America, to the American Chemistry
    Council, to the National Resources Defense Council. It's very
    rare that we find a piece of legislation that has that broad a
    range of advocates supporting it.
        And third, we can actually pass it through the Congress
    this year.
        We have, I think, much more support in the House than we've
    had in some past sessions. It has strong bipartisan support. In
    the past, the last time it passed through the full Senate, it
    passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. So this is
    legislation that can get done. It can actually provide some
    savings. According to the American Council for an Energy-
    Efficient Economy (ACEEE), if we pass this legislation, not
    only would it save consumers over $16 billion a year, it would
    create about 300,000 jobs and be the equivalent of taking 22
    million cars off the road. So there are real benefits to
    passing the legislation.
        I would urge the Committee to consider it and pass it out
    again so that we can actually make it into law.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. I will note that Portman said 11 million.
    You said 22 million. We've got to keep at this. We are growing
    pretty quickly.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, let me just say that the statistics
    that I used on it were what we had from ACEEE the last time it
    was introduced, and we're still waiting for their updated
    analysis on the bill as we've reintroduced it in this session.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it.
        As I said earlier, I am going to submit my opening
    statement for the record.
        If there is no objection, I'll also ask that Pete Olson,
    who has introduced a bipartisan companion bill to the Timely
    Review of Infrastructure Act, that his statement be entered
    into the record, without objection, so ordered.
        [Representative Olson's statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. Martin, are you going to submit yours for
    the record?
        Senator Heinrich. I just wanted to ask unanimous consent
    that a number of letters of support for various pieces of
    legislation be included in the record.
        Senator Cassidy. Without objection.
        [Letters of support for various pieces of legislation
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I will defer my--I will defer until the end. I have to be
    here.
        So if Senator Hoeven would like to go first on our side,
    then I will----
        Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Doctor.
        I want to thank Governor Shaheen for being here today and
    express my strong support for Shaheen-Portman----
        [Laughter.]
        ----and also mention that it includes some outstanding
    pieces of legislation like the All-of-the-Above Federal
    Building Energy Conservation Act which is my bill, and that is
    another reason I am strongly supportive of advancing Shaheen-
    Portman this year. And I know, I think, there are many other
    members on the Committee feel the same way.
        Thank you both to Senator Cassidy and Senator Heinrich for
    calling the hearing today. I appreciate it. And Senator Cassidy
    for allowing me to proceed.
        Mr. Secretary, CarbonSAFE is, the FOA has been released on
    CarbonSAFE now. And we have some projects, particularly Project
    Tundra in North Dakota, where we have not only some of the most
    sophisticated coal-fired electric companies involved putting
    money into the equation, but also the Energy Environmental
    Research Center at the University of North Dakota which we have
    the PCorp partnership with the Department of Energy doing the
    latest, greatest research on a collaborative basis with a
    number of states and Canadian provinces to capture and store
    CO2 and then, the State of North Dakota through the
    Lignite Energy Council is also putting money in. So we have a
    partnership there. The partner we need is the Federal
    Government in order to put this retrofit technology on these
    coal-fired electric plants to capture the CO2 and
    sequester it.
        The issue is not the technology to do it. We are certain
    that we can do it. As a matter of fact, we are already doing
    it, as I think you probably know, at Dakota Gasification
    Company. We are already sequestering huge amounts of
    CO2. But it has to become commercially viable,
    commercially viable. And we have the added opportunity in North
    Dakota of not only capturing it and storing it, geological
    storage, but also tertiary oil recovery which can create a
    revenue opportunity too.
        We are very anxious to see the FOA move forward and to be
    included, so would you address CarbonSAFE? How you plan to
    proceed and also I certainly would love to have you come out to
    North Dakota. We have had not only the Secretary but other
    members out there to see what we are doing.
        But your thoughts on including projects like ours because
    we have to get out in the field and actually start doing this
    to get to commercial viability. You have to be a partner. We
    need to make it happen. This is the solution, in terms of
    carbon for coal-fired electric, is that carbon capture and
    storage and this opportunity for tertiary recovery.
        So if you would please address that?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you very much for your passion for
    supporting these technologies and, indeed, anyone who is
    familiar with what has been going on in North Dakota in the
    area of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration over the
    years knows that North Dakota has really been leading the
    efforts. This has been going on for years with the support of,
    with the Department and it goes back to, I think, as early as
    the Carter years, if I know this.
        I was fortunate enough to visit, really not in my capacity
    as Under Secretary but really in industry, trying to figure out
    if, in fact, we can get some of this technology that could be
    commercially available on to existing units.
        So, and your leadership on this, of course, is second to
    none.
        I think you'll be pleased to know that we have been working
    very diligently both on the CarbonSAFE and on the Tundra FOA
    and we--announcements on both are imminent.
        And I think that you will be pleased to know that we have
    been trying to meet deadlines and get these FOAs out and get
    the funding out. We know that the fiscal year ends September
    30th, so across the Department we are doing what we can, not
    only on these topics but across all of our FOAs, to get these
    FOAs out and the funding out as well. So I think you'll have
    some imminent news shortly.
        Senator Hoeven. Good. That is very encouraging.
        The other project I want to bring up quickly here is, we
    also have Red Trail Energy which is actually an ethanol plant.
    They are producing ethanol from corn, obviously, in North
    Dakota, and they want to do the carbon capture as well to sell
    low-carbon intensity fuel on the West Coast, same kind of
    thing.
        Your thoughts because now you are actually also doing
    carbon capture on a renewable fuel. We have that opportunity we
    are pursuing very aggressively. Your thoughts on that as well.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, you touched on a key topic. Carbon
    capture, utilization and sequestration is in no way limited to
    what traditionally are coal facilities. That's what we're
    thinking about. And indeed, Chairman Cassidy has a similar
    interest with respect to natural gas. The Department has an
    interest, not only on ethanol refiners itself, but all
    refineries, large industrial processes, cement, steel, across
    the way.
        Interestingly, when we talk about carbon capture, post-
    combustion, you know, we have research underway for direct
    capture, the creation and the capture of the CO2,
    the making of products that could be converted into hydrogen,
    the use of hydrogen to furnish the plant, you know, the use of
    liquid fuels and natural gas.
        So, it's, we're looking at all of this across--the ethanol
    refinery is one example. We're looking at putting similar kinds
    of technologies anywhere where there's a post-combustion
    opportunity to capture the CO2, put it to use where
    we can, sequester it where we can or make other products out of
    it. So all of which is to ultimately lower, you know, the
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, thanks, Secretary. And your
    willingness to move on this is really important and much
    appreciated.
        Mr. Menezes. Thank you for your support on these very
    important topics.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to start by asking Mr. Menezes a
    question on a related issue.
        Back in 2007, Congress anticipated that lighting technology
    would advance rapidly, and certainly Sandia National Lab in New
    Mexico has been a huge part of that with developing our modern
    solid-state LED light bulbs.
        At a time when we are seeing a number of our colleagues act
    very responsibly with respect to energy efficiency--moving
    forward the Portman-Shaheen legislation, for example--I was
    utterly dismayed that the Department recently reversed the
    progress that we have made on light bulbs. And the answer I got
    was that it didn't square with the underlying statute, but the
    underlying statute was incredibly broad. In fact, Part IV said
    any other lamps that the Secretary determines are used to
    satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general
    service, incandescent lamps.
        I want to know, why is the Administration turning back the
    clock on this? I just think it is absolutely nonsensical, and
    it is going to cost consumers an enormous amount of money.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question and allowing
    me to, sort of, demystify, you know, what transpired.
        We didn't roll back any existing standards. What we did was
    there was a definitional rule which sought to combine the
    definition of general service lamps and the general service
    incandescent lamps which in 2007 Congress painstakingly put
    very specific language in that in the general service lamps
    definition they carved out, specifically, the general service
    incandescent lamps, specifically to pull that out. They further
    limited what products could be in the incandescent.
        Senator Heinrich. But the language is actually quite broad.
        Mr. Menezes. Well----
        Senator Heinrich. It gives the Secretary broad authority to
    say any other lamps that the Secretary determines are used to
    satisfy lighting applications, traditionally served by general
    service incandescent lamps.
        Mr. Menezes. Well again, but it was also very specific on--
    --
        Senator Heinrich. I think you are choosing to selectively
    apply the law.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, in any event on incandescent, Congress
    made clear that before any increase in energy efficiency
    standards for incandescents, it had to be economically
    justifiable. And what frustrated the past Administration was
    the appropriations rider that did not allow the agency to use
    any appropriated monies to do the economic analysis. That has
    been eliminated. We have now done the economic analysis. Now
    you might not like the result of the analysis, but Lawrence
    Berkley Lab and Navigant has done the economic analysis, and on
    the incandescent light bulbs it stated clearly that it was not
    economically justified, that the cost to increase the
    efficiency of these incandescents would not survive the life of
    the product. But it's a definitional rule is what we've done.
    We haven't announced any standards, but that's what the rule
    has done.
        And so, we think that this is more defensible in court
    because it does track, we think, what Congress intended----
        Senator Heinrich. I think it is----
        Mr. Menezes. ----in 2007.
        Senator Heinrich. ----frankly, indefensible at a time when
    we are seeing unprecedented weather events, whether you choose
    to accept that or not, when we are seeing floods in the Midwest
    that are ruining people's livelihoods, when you are seeing
    entire countries devastated by hurricanes, that we have an
    Administration that is seeking to turn back the clock on the
    progress that we have made and that has created an enormous
    amount of economic opportunity in this country with that
    progress.
        So I just want to say, once again, I think this is utterly
    disappointing that we have a Department of Energy that seeks to
    protect the technologies of the 19th century rather than
    embrace and improve the technologies of the 21st century.
        Mr. Menezes. Well again, there were no standards that we
    changed in the rule. It was purely definitional. So standards
    continue to exist, and we'll continue to look at that.
        By the way, our complete analysis is all contained in the
    public record. We've asked for public comments until November
    4th. This is not, in any way, a final rule. We take public
    comment and then we can issue a final rule thereafter, so----
        Senator Heinrich. I think you have had my--
        Thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Menezes. ----invite even more comment on that.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator McSally.
        Senator McSally. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking
    Member Heinrich for holding this hearing today and for
    including the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act which I am proud to
    sponsor with Senator Coons.
        Our bill will help support existing nuclear power plants by
    investing in DOE research that these plants use to improve
    efficiency, safety, and longevity of our nation's nuclear power
    fleet.
        As you know, Arizona is a leader in our nuclear energy and
    the technology. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in my
    state is the largest electricity-generating plant of any source
    in the United States. According to Arizona Public Service, APS,
    who operates Palo Verde, the amount of clean power produced
    over the plant's lifetime has offset the emissions of nearly
    484 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is the
    equivalent of taking 84 million cars off the road for a year,
    and this is just for Palo Verde.
        Our nation's fleet of nearly 60 nuclear power plants keep
    more than 550 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions out of
    the atmosphere every year. This means any serious conversation
    about reducing carbon emissions must include serious support
    for our nuclear plants.
        So I want to talk a little bit about our bill.
        Secretary Menezes, in your testimony you identified nuclear
    energy as a strategic national asset for the U.S. I would like
    you to elaborate a little bit more on that, and what role do
    plants like Palo Verde play in providing energy security for
    our nation's electrical grid?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for that question.
        And the Department of Energy realizes that without our
    leadership in civilian nuclear energy, we are yielding
    technological expertise and superiority to other countries who
    are developing new fuels, new reactors and they are really
    beating us, if you will, at maintaining the global leadership.
        It's imperative for us, whether you're pro-nuclear or not,
    to, frankly, support efforts to maintain and to increase that
    ability to be able to compete, all for other countries, these
    new technologies that are state-of-the-art and when economic
    conditions potentially change in the U.S., that we can build
    more nuclear facilities.
        And at the Department when you look, you know, we are
    supporting the AP1000 technology and that plant that's being
    built in Georgia. We also have plans with the support of
    Congress to develop small modular reactors, and we hope to site
    one of those facilities, perhaps, at Idaho. We're also looking
    at other locations. But it's very important that we develop
    these new fuels for the existing fleet, and we need to be able
    to put in place testing reactors for the future fleet.
        It's important that we, as we replace fossil using fuels,
    you have to have nuclear to provide baseload generation that
    continues to drive the economy.
        And so, I ask people to look at nuclear in a different
    light than they may have looked at in the past. And while it is
    not an inexpensive technology, it is important that we maintain
    our current fleet, that we seek ways to relicense them, that we
    do seek to deal with the waste issue but that we do put
    resources together so that we can really develop those
    technologies of the future so that other countries look to us,
    rather than China, Russia and other countries that are
    developing this technology.
        So it's important for the United States, we think, to
    really push hard on this.
        Senator McSally. I agree.
        Mr. Menezes. And the existing fleet is important.
        Senator McSally. Oh, that is what I wanted to get to as
    well.
        In the research done at DOE, can you just speak to it,
    which is reauthorized and modernized and updated in our
    legislation. How important is that, specifically, for our
    efficiency and the longevity of our current nuclear fleet like
    we have at Palo Verde?
        Mr. Menezes. Right.
        Well, and as I mentioned, we have programs that need to,
    you know, be reauthorized and they look at a variety of
    different things within the nuclear industry.
        For existing facilities, it really is, it's the fuel cycle.
    How do you make improvements there? It's the cycle itself, it's
    the reactors themselves but it's also accident tolerant fuels.
    So we're making new fuels that will replace the existing fuels,
    minimize waste problems down the line.
        The reactors, we need to push the envelope on advanced test
    reactors and versatile test reactors. Congress has been very
    good about identifying that you need to do that. Right now, we
    do not have that capacity. So those that come up with great
    ideas they go to other countries and they're not countries that
    we would want them to go to, to be absolutely frank about it.
        It's in those areas that we need to continue those
    programs, and so that's why we are----
        Senator McSally. Great, thanks.
        I am out of time. I just want to say I appreciate your work
    on this and thanks for including our bill.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator King.
        Senator King. I don't really have too many questions for
    these witnesses. I will wait for the markup to talk about some
    of the provisions of the bill.
        My one question is on the nuclear bill.
        Mr. Menezes, my only problem is we made a promise to the
    American people 70 years ago that we, the Federal Government,
    would take care of the waste from nuclear plants. It bothers me
    that we are talking about modernizing, relicensing, and
    extending and we still haven't kept that promise.
        I live in a state that has a big slug of high-level nuclear
    waste sitting on an island waiting for the Federal Government
    to honor that commitment.
        Don't you think it makes more sense to solve that problem
    before we start talking about relicensing, license extensions
    and new plants, and new technologies?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, a very good question and I wish I knew
    the answer on how it is that we can do what Congress had
    directed the Department to do some time ago and that is to
    license Yucca Mountain. That is still the current law. It's a
    permanent repository. Congress made that clear. We only have
    had limited resources that we can pursue that.
        And so, it's really up to Congress and the appropriators to
    determine whether or not we have the resources to be able to
    develop that.
        I'm aware that there are many in Congress that believe that
    Yucca Mountain is not the answer, that they may wish to have
    interim storage or any other kinds of programs and that
    certainly is the prerogative of the Congress.
        We're happy to go any way on the technology, whether it's
    the Yucca Mountain, permanent storage. I think we have done
    sufficient research and development there that we can pursue
    that if Congress gives us the resources.
        And likewise, if it's dry cask, if it's some type of
    interim, you know, we know that other countries have proven
    technologies and I think that, you know, there's probably
    several solutions potentially to this, but as the law is right
    now, it's still Yucca Mountain as the permanent repository. And
    we are paying $2 million a day in taxpayer monies to be in
    compliance with the Yucca Mountain. We are found not to be in
    compliance and, it's costing the taxpayers $2 million a day.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        I certainly hope this is a question that we can ultimately
    address. I feel like this is just one more deficit that we are
    handing off to our children.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cassidy. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    Ranking Member Heinrich for holding this hearing. I wasn't sure
    whether we were going to hear from Commissioner Chatterjee or
    not, but thank you, Mr. Porter, for being here.
        We certainly want to keep the FERC organization running as
    professionally as possible. It is so important for us to focus
    on the important tools that the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission has when it comes to market manipulation and keeping
    our markets at just and reasonable rates.
        I believe one of the most important things is that ``cop on
    the beat'' looking at who is out in the marketplace and what
    they might be doing, and we clearly want to make sure that
    those kind of enforcement provisions are being used.
        And so, one of the concerns that I have is making sure that
    the Commission--there are recent reports that FERC's Office of
    Enforcement may not be being as vigilant as they have been in
    the past and might not be going after as many bad actors. Could
    the Chairman use his authority to stop investigations without
    other Commissioners or any sort of public scrutiny?
        Mr. Porter. Obviously, the Chairman has the capability to
    direct staff activities, but it has been my understanding that
    the Commission is supportive of the established processes that
    are in place. The Office of Enforcement is conducting
    appropriate due diligence and looking into areas where there is
    potential manipulation. So from my perspective, the Office is
    still exercising its responsibilities under the law.
        Senator Cantwell. I think it is my understanding that in
    May, FERC rescinded its policy on issuing notices of alleged
    violations. In other words, stockholders or the public are no
    longer being informed that FERC has determined that certain
    market players are under scrutiny for uncompetitive and
    possibly illegal behavior.
        Mr. Porter. Senator, again, it is my understanding that the
    Office of Enforcement is executing its responsibilities in a
    comprehensive way.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Could you get me a statistical analysis of that, the
    enforcement actions that have been done at the Office in the
    last, say, year?
        Mr. Porter. Yes, I could go back and confer with staff and
    provide a response for the record.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay, thank you, I appreciate that.
        [Statistical analysis for Office of Enforcement at FERC
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. But please hear me loud and clear--we are
    going to be very vigilant on this issue, because we need FERC
    to be vigilant on this issue.
        Mr. Porter. I understand.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Mr. Menezes, thank you so much for coming to the Pacific
    Northwest. We all enjoyed your comments at the Pacific
    Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
        I wanted to follow up a little bit on some of the questions
    similar to what Senator Heinrich was more or less alluding to.
    I know you are a big booster of the all-of-the-above approach,
    but I know that there are predictions by Next Era, the world's
    largest utility company, that solar plus storage will be
    cheaper than coal, oil, or nuclear even after the federal tax
    credits expire.
        I think just yesterday Los Angeles Municipal Utility
    approved a contract for the cheapest solar and energy storage
    to date. It is like, I think, a 400-megawatt facility.
        What do you think of this renewable storage point that we
    are leading to, and the competition with these other fuel
    sources that are going to still be on the table?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question.
        And as you are aware, this is precisely why we've chosen
    PNNL for the grid storage launch. It's to do precisely what you
    described, and PNNL will be the location.
        And so, one of the reasons that you saw me out there at the
    Business Leaders Meeting--we then spent a good portion of two
    days at PNNL because, as you know, we fund a lot of the PNNL
    from the applied side and, particularly, with combining storage
    and renewables.
        We, I think everybody will agree that if we can figure out
    the breakthrough technologies in storage at grid-scale, we will
    accomplish an awful lot of some of our energy challenges. But
    that still is a tremendous challenge.
        Lithium, is it lithium-ion in battery? You know, we don't
    recycle lithium-ion. That's why we started a recycling lithium-
    ion program. But it's storage.
        When you look at the intermittency of solar and wind it can
    be combined with load following, whether it's hydro, whether
    it's nuclear, whether it's natural gas. But if you have storage
    that can load follow, follow or provide energy, I think that's
    what, as someone described is, you know, it's the Holy Grail,
    if you will, of the energy technology.
        But----
        Senator Cantwell. So you think it is cost-effective? You
    think it will be this cost-effective, which is about how
    successfully can you scale those solutions.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, and as you know, in EERE, the Office
    that looks at this stuff, we always have goals to achieve.
    It's--and typically, whether it's cost, whether it's
    efficiency, whether it's production, it has to be economic.
    Affordability is a key to everything we do. If we can develop a
    technology but no one can afford it, as some of the battery
    technology is, we're not really accomplishing a whole lot. So
    the goal is to bring down the cost and to make it very
    efficient.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, sorry I went
    over there. Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy. I will ask my questions now and if you can
    keep your answers tight, I will try and get a lot of questions
    in.
        Mr. Porter, obviously my bill concerns how do we get
    workforce out there. Your testimony pertained to that.
        You referenced the average salary in Washington, DC, for
    petroleum engineers in the private sector versus FERC, but
    economists are also important in this.
        Do you have figures available to share with us on the
    average private sector salary for economists versus that which
    FERC offers in Washington, DC?
        Mr. Porter. Yes, Chairman, I do.
        The rate offered by Washington area firms for the services
    of economist is 13 percent above the median rate paid by the
    Commission.
        Senator Cassidy. And in absolute dollars what is it?
        Mr. Porter. In absolute dollars we're looking at what is
    offered in the private sector, $138,600 versus $122,600 by the
    Commission.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        And what is the current attrition rate for economists?
        Mr. Porter. The current attrition rate for economists is
    roughly 19 percent.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay. Really? That's a bad attrition rate,
    man.
        Mr. Porter. Yes, it is.
        Senator Cassidy. In your testimony you share that there are
    limited contractors who can assist with liquefied natural gas
    inspections because the contractors also work at private
    industries and you say FERC is concerned regarding the conflict
    of interest. However, working with outside contractors was
    originally cited in 2018 as a benefit by the revised
    environmental schedules FERC announced for 12 LNG projects.
        Can you tell me what is the average cost to contract with
    one of these engineering firms to conduct these site
    inspections?
        Mr. Porter. I don't have specific data relative to
    individual inspection cost, but I can provide a little light on
    recent issues with contracting.
        In 2018 we awarded $200,000 to cover services for these
    inspections. We went through a competitive procurement process.
    Unfortunately, engaging in that process we only had one capable
    provider. The provider could not staff up to a sufficient level
    to support our activities and, thus, we moved away from that
    specific strategy.
        We met the workload requirement by engaging the LNG staff.
    Those staff worked additional overtime to meet the mission.
    That is not a sustainable strategy, however.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it.
        So then, that begs the question, what is the average salary
    FERC can offer to someone who does these inspections versus
    what they would earn in the private sector?
        Mr. Porter. Well, I would select, for example, petroleum
    engineers and petroleum engineers in the area earn
    approximately $176,000. FERC can only offer roughly $123,000.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay. I know what I want my son to study
    in college.
        Mr. Porter. Petroleum engineers, a very profitable field,
    sir.
        Senator Cassidy. And you have implied this, but can you
    tell me how this attrition rate and inability to fill openings
    has impacted FERC? Have you had to lower qualifications in
    order to get these positions filled? Should we be concerned
    about that or no, it is actually an inappropriate response?
        Mr. Porter. No, we have not lowered qualifications. In
    fact, what has happened, we've advertised positions multiple
    times because we didn't identify desirable candidates. But we
    have not lowered qualifications in any way which, you know, if
    we did, I would think would have a negative impact on our
    responsibilities.
        Senator Cassidy. Obviously, my legislation and that of
    Congressman Olson, Senator Murkowski, et cetera, hopes to help
    with this.
        How would this legislation impact FERC's requirement to
    offset its appropriation from Congress through fees?
        Mr. Porter. I would treat any increases associated with
    additional salary similarly to any other increases we request
    in our budget. I think we already have appropriate coverage
    with regard to existing legislation that supports our ability
    to recover our full cost.
        So what we would attempt to do is manage this in such a way
    that it wouldn't impact our jurisdictional entities whom we
    recover costs from in any one given fiscal year.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it.
        Mr. Under Secretary, nuclear for non-electric applications,
    let's talk about that.
        As the costs of electricity declines with natural gas and
    renewables, some experts, including those at MIT and the
    International Energy Agency, think that the future of nuclear
    may be in applications outside the electric power sector or in
    a hybrid energy system coupling nuclear energy with other
    resources. One particularly interesting area is industry where
    nuclear could provide high temperature heat.
        How much work is DOE conducting on non-electric, nuclear
    energy research and hybrid energy systems and do you plan to
    expand this?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question.
        Indeed, it's thermal heat. We have been looking for other
    uses for nuclear thermal heat, as you mentioned. And we just
    announced this week a new award to demonstrate hydrogen
    production at an existing nuclear plant at $9.2 million--it's
    FirstEnergy's Besse plant in Ohio--as illustrative of our
    efforts to try to take advantage of this very clean-generated,
    emission-free generated thermal heat.
        So whether it's water desal, whether it's making hydrogen,
    whether it's using the heat for, you know, high heat, high
    intensity manufacturing processes, we're looking very carefully
    at that.
        One of our labs, Idaho National Labs in particular, also
    has a project underway to look at using thermal heat generated
    from nuclear facilities for these other uses.
        Senator Cassidy. And so, if you will, the payoff in terms
    of avoidance of carbon emissions is a little greater in this
    application than it would be for run-of-the-mill electricity
    production.
        Mr. Menezes. Right, precisely.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        Well, I thank you all.
        Mr. Menezes. Can I just add something on the bill?
        Senator Cassidy. Sure.
        Mr. Menezes. Just to give you a real-life example. So, you
    know, FERC is within DOE an independent agency. This shortage
    of man power was very real over there and, as you know, we have
    expertise at our national labs that can help with some of the
    modeling that is required here.
        And Senator Heinrich, I want to give you this example. On
    some of the LNG applications, for example, it's beyond just the
    engineering of the facility itself, it's some of the modeling
    that what happens if in fact the facility is constructed and is
    operating in an area.
        And so, you do consequential modeling in the event, you
    know, for safety concerns like this. Well, so I think they had
    lost some of their expertise. This is, you know, fairly highly
    specialized, this type of modeling. So we decided to canvas our
    labs to see if we had anything. Well, sure enough, at Sandia,
    you know, we have some of the world preeminent consequential
    modelists, and they have developed very sophisticated modeling.
    So as a sister agency you think you can offer that service to
    FERC. Well, you know, as it turns out it's government-owned. I
    mean, it's a private contractor that runs the lab and so as a
    consequence, it's not the fed salary that they would pay or the
    time but it's the contractor's pay which is probably three
    times the federal pay.
        So even though a sister agency had the resources, now they
    were very busy at Sandia, they couldn't drop everything that
    they were doing to turn to this, but within time and six months
    they said they could probably do it.
        But the expenses were still very, very steep for FERC, even
    though we had that ability in a national lab. But they really
    had no way to be able to utilize that. So I'll just give you
    that as a real-life experience on when we tried to, you know,
    come and help because we really are losing a lot of government,
    even at our labs, we had the same thing. We're losing a lot of
    qualified people to you know, we compete in the private sector.
        And so, the workforce bills that you have here are very
    helpful and we just wanted to weigh in with that.
        Senator King. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting subject. It seems
    to me what you have demonstrated here today is that federal
    employees are underpaid. I suspect you could have a hearing
    exactly like this with virtually every other agency of the
    Federal Government.
        What bothers me about this bill is this one little section
    of one agency and yet, the problem exists everywhere in the
    Federal Government.
        I understand the problem you want to fix in a particular
    area, but you have opened up a big box here. I am sure the
    Administration will be very excited to learn that the Congress
    thinks the federal employees are underpaid, but that is what
    this hearing is all about. That is what you just demonstrated
    with the data.
        But we could have 20 hearings like this with the Pentagon,
    with the Department of the Interior, with the Department of
    Justice, comparing legal salaries on K Street to legal salaries
    at the Department of Justice. It would make this look like a
    walk in the park. So I just make that observation.
        Senator Cassidy. I will say my intuition is that STEM-
    related fields are fields which are math intensive or those
    which are most competitive, both whether it is education or
    whether it is government or whether it is the private sector
    which is not to say that if there are people at the Department
    of Education that they may not be doing less well than their
    colleagues in the private sector. But STEM does seem to be that
    which is highest demand no matter where you go.
        I think ours is kind of more focused on those people with
    that background, but your account is well taken.
        Thank you very much.
        Questions for the record will be due by close of business
    tomorrow.
        Thanks to our witnesses.
        And our meeting is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]