[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]