[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 
    ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Shaheen, Merkley, 
Coons, Kennedy, Hoeven, Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CHARLES P. VERDON, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 
            FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY AND ACTING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 
            NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


             opening statement of senator dianne feinstein


    Senator Feinstein. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water will come to order.
    Today's hearing is going to review the fiscal year 2022 
Budget Request for the Department of Energy. And of course that 
includes the National Nuclear Security Administration as well.
    Ranking Member Kennedy and I will each have a brief 
statement, which I am in the process of making. And then we 
will recognize each Senator for an opening statement, if they 
wish to make one. We will then turn to Secretary Granholm to 
present testimony on behalf of the Department of Energy. 
Welcome, Madam Secretary. It is good to see you again.
    At the conclusion of the witness' testimony, I will 
recognize Senators for 5 minutes of questions each, and the 
usual procedure.
    Secretary Granholm, and you, Dr. Verdon, for joining us 
today, thank you again. I am particularly pleased to see the 
Secretary who got her start at the University of California, 
Berkeley, was a Golden Bear, and later returned to the school 
as a faculty member. So your California roots are there, and I 
thank you for them.
    I would like to just quickly begin by a statement--with the 
statement on the fiscal year 2022 request for the Department, 
which totals $46.2 billion. This represents a more than $4 
billion increase over 2021. And that is a lot of money. I 
applaud the administration's resolve to follow California's 
model and act aggressively to combat climate change.
    We are experiencing a climate emergency today, and 
California is on the frontline of this crisis as evidenced by 
worsening droughts and wildfires. So we need to find those 
solutions that can reverse climate change, if that is possible, 
and promptly respond to climate-related disasters.
    The budget request makes investments in the fields of basic 
research and scientific discovery. We face an increasing 
challenge from China, which is seeking to supplant the United 
States as a leader technology. And so this also must be 
addressed. This budget's investment in research and development 
includes a $414 million increase for the Office of Science to 
make certain advances in priority areas that put quantum 
information science, Exascale computing, and artificial 
intelligence, and machine learning; we should, I think, go even 
further in funding these important areas.
    I will put the remainder of my statement in the record, 
but, we would like to proceed.
    So if I can, let me welcome the witnesses. No, let me 
welcome my Ranking Member. Thank you.


                   statement of senator john kennedy


    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to be 
brief.
    Mr. Under Secretary; welcome Madam Secretary. Welcome. I 
don't know whether to call you Secretary, or Governor, or 
general, as in attorney general, or professor. I think I will 
stick with Secretary.
    I am not going to concentrate as much on the arithmetic 
today, because I think we all know the President, whatever 
President, submits a budget and Congress kind of does what it 
wants. I shouldn't say Congress because I don't know how the 
House works. I have learned a little bit about how the Senate 
works. Senators are like cats. They do what they want. 
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.
    But we are in the process of putting together a budget, and 
I don't think I am going out on the limb by saying it will be 
different than the President's submission. That is not personal 
to President Biden. That is always the case.
    I want to say a word about our energy policy. I know a lot 
of Departments touch on it, but I am pretty much an-all-of-the-
above-energy type guy. I believe in fossil fuels. I believe if 
we can produce wind and so more efficiently, gosh, we ought to 
pursue it. I believe in hydrogen, the potential there, or 
hydroelectric potential, and nuclear.
    And I mean it. I am kind of an all-of-the-above guy. I just 
think we ought to pursue whatever works and whatever is most 
efficient. I will just make two quick points. I get concerned 
about the administration's hostility toward fossil fuels. I do. 
I think, not all, but I think with many members of the 
administration, it is more of an emotional reaction than a 
rational reaction, in my judgment.
    As a result of natural gas, we are one of the few major 
countries that has reduced our carbon emissions. And that is 
just a fact. And we did that because of natural gas. Some 
people who believe that we need to--well, they believe we need 
to start over with our energy policy, and get rid of fossil 
fuels, and if we do that, it is going to be pretty expensive.
    And I think for a fraction of the cost, we can try to make 
our fossil fuels cleaner. And I am talking about carbon 
capture, storage, and utilization. And it makes sense to me to 
pursue that. And I think a rational person will pursue that. 
Now, somebody who sees climate change, I don't mean this in a 
pejorative sense, but somebody who sees the climate change 
issue as a religion, is probably not going to look at that. But 
I don't think that is rational.
    Point two: I think nuclear can be a part of our mix, it is 
expensive but it is clean, and it is much safer. And I hope we 
can talk about that a little bit today. I watched with 
amazement when, Mrs. Merkel in Germany, who I think has done a 
pretty good job running her country. It is not my place to say, 
but I have got an opinion like everybody else; but I looked in 
amazement when she got rid of all of her nuclear and said the 
solution to our energy needs is to buy the gas from Russia. And 
it never made sense to me. But I guess none of us are perfect.
    But I wanted to share those thoughts with you. And I hope 
we can talk about some of them today. And welcome to both of 
you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hyde-Smith, Senator Hagerty, if you would both like 
to make opening statements. And, obviously the woman first, 
please.


                 statement of senator cindy hyde-smith


    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for that 
opportunity because I would, and I will be very brief.
    Thank you to both the witnesses that are here today that 
will testify. And, Madam Secretary, as you are well aware, 
energy issues continue to dominate the national agenda. And as 
Senator Kennedy spoke, you know, it is very much talked about 
right now, and in a concerning way to me as well, but as 
appropriators, it is our responsibility to find ways to keep up 
with the world's ever-extending energy demands, and while also 
increasing our capacity, and our security here at home.
    And one way that we can expand our power capacity is to 
increase the use of nuclear energy in America, in my opinion. 
And I am proud to highlight that the Grand Gulf Nuclear Site in 
Port Gibson, Mississippi, and I hope nuclear energy will play a 
larger role as clean, efficient energy source. And I have 
always supported energy diversification, and the development of 
energy sources that will expand our supply, but Mississippi has 
a diverse energy portfolio. But I believe it is critical that 
we recognize the important role fossil fuel resources will play 
in meeting the demands of Americans.
    But fossil fuels such as coal, and offshore, and oil and 
gas, they have been a main source of power for this country. 
And it is crucial that we find new ways to increase the 
potential by making fossil fuels cleaner, as Senator Kennedy 
mentioned, and to use them, but to not eliminate them 
altogether. That is a great concern of mine. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty, would you like to make an opening 
statement?


                   statement of senator bill hagerty


    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate 
the opportunity. Ranking Member Kennedy, thank you as well; and 
I appreciate your comments.
    I would just like to echo, Secretary Granholm, we have 
talked about this, but echo the points raised by my colleagues 
that our energy security is a critical element of our national 
security. As we have discussed before in my previous role as 
U.S. Ambassador to Japan, I worked very hard to get our allies 
to work with us, to be our partners in energy security. 
America's energy independence is a vital component of our 
national security. And I think that our allies benefit from our 
ability to actually export energy to them so that they are not 
reliant on countries like Russia.
    And as I mentioned to them on numerous occasions in Japan, 
we are not only talking about exporting energy, we are talking 
about exporting freedom. So the national security elements of 
this I think are critically important, and I am very dismayed 
about the posture that the administration has taken against 
fossil fuels.
    The prices at the pumps today have gone up significantly. I 
am from Tennessee. We commute in our State, and the average 
person is seeing prices at the pumps rise more than 30 percent 
since the Biden administration has come into office. This is a 
tax on our middle-class, it is a tax felt by all, and it is 
going to create great economic pain, even if it is not included 
in the CPI (Consumer Price Index), every good has got to be 
transported in America.
    This has inflationary impacts that go well beyond the 
immediate strategy, I think, to make fossil fuels less 
desirable and create an economic subsidy for alternative fuel. 
So I am for all of the above, in terms of energy strategy. I am 
pleased to be from a State like Tennessee that has a great 
background in nuclear energy. And I look forward to talking 
more about Oak Ridge National Lab when I come back to 
questions. Thank you for being here.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Senator Merkley, do you want to make an opening statement?
    Senator Merkley. No, Madam Chair. I think I am happy for us 
to proceed. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. And Senator.
    Senator Shaheen. No. I would like to talk about energy 
efficiency, which I think is one overlooked energy source, but 
I will save that for my questions. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Granholm, please make your opening statement, and 
we welcome you here.


              summary statement of hon. jennifer granholm


    Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much for inviting 
me to testify. Thank you to Chair Feinstein, and Ranking Member 
Kennedy, and to the other members of the subcommittee. It is 
truly an honor to serve as the 16th Secretary of the Department 
of Energy, and to make comments about the President's 2022 
budget request for the Department of Energy.
    I am very pleased to report that since January 20, we at 
the Department of Energy have taken important steps toward the 
Department's priorities. Our budget request, obviously, would 
help us to further the activities that we have already begun.
    So far we have invested $1.5 billion to strengthen our 
national security, and to accelerate progress toward a net-zero 
economy, and much of that has gone toward improving and 
deploying existing market-ready solutions, setting new goals, 
for example, to cut solar in half yet, again, adding 30 
gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. So, that is 
existing, but at the same time we are supporting breakthroughs 
in clean energy.
    So our new Energy Earthshots Initiative will set a series 
of ambitious, achievable targets for commercializing emerging 
zero-carbon technologies. The first one, Senator Kennedy, you 
will be happy to know is our Hydrogen Shot. And that is setting 
a goal of getting the cost of clean hydrogen down to $1, for 
one kilogram, in one decade.
    And I would also note that last week we announced $12 
million funding opportunity to advance direct air capture 
technologies. And yesterday we announced a new $61 million 
investment on nuclear energy, which was distributed throughout 
the country, 30 States, 99 entities got money to advance 
research in advanced nuclear technology. Both of these are 
priorities that have been outlined in the budget proposal as 
well.
    So, Chairwoman Feinstein, these droughts, and these heat 
waves, and these wildfires that are plaguing the west and 
straining our energy system, remind us yet again, of course, of 
the need to enhance our power grid and expand resiliency on 
that grid, especially to all forms of extreme weather. And that 
is why we announced in April that we are making $8.25 billion 
available in loans to improve our Nation's transmission 
systems, and of course the ransomware attacks on Colonial 
Pipeline underscores the need for investment in cyber security 
on our Nation's energy infrastructure as well.
    We are engaging with the private sector around strategies 
for hardening the critical infrastructure against ransomware, 
and these evolving 21st century threats. We are also 
strengthening our energy security through a multi-agency effort 
to bolster domestic supply chains like for lithium batteries 
that we need for storage, and for electric vehicles.
    We released a report and a series of actions on this exact 
topic a couple of weeks ago. Since January 20th, our Vehicle 
Technologies Office has already made $362 million available for 
projects that advance battery technology, and reduce emissions 
from light- and heavy-duty vehicles.
    So we are proud of our work so far. We are grateful to this 
subcommittee for making this work possible through last year's 
appropriations. And we look forward to building on the 
progress. And let me just say, we know that if Congress were to 
pass the American Jobs Plan, or an iteration thereof, we would 
be able to, exponentially, expand on that work.
    But as the Chairwoman noted, in the meantime, our budget 
request would invest $46 billion in these key priorities, 
including a 65 percent increase in our Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and a record $1.8 billion for 
our nuclear energy program, which will, of course, all help us 
to deploy clean and cheap power on a reliable and resilient 
grid.
    The budget would also support greater research in clean 
energy and carbon reduction at the national labs, and usher in 
greater diversity in the STEM (Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. And here I want to thank 
the Senate for passing the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, 
which authorizes the Department $17 billion in support of our 
efforts to keep the country competitive in a global economy.
    And that funding, coupled with our budget request, is going 
to help the Department, and our 17 national labs put America at 
the forefront of clean energy innovation worldwide. And of 
course the budget would also strengthen the Department's 
nuclear security mission. And I am so glad that Dr. Verdon is 
here to talk about that today. And our Environmental Management 
program, for which we have asked for one of the highest levels 
of annual funding, and that would facilitate progress on our 
cleanup sites.
    All told these all represent a down payment on a cleaner 
and more prosperous future, but one that will not truly be 
fulfilled without that American Jobs Plan. The infrastructure 
bill that you all are negotiating, which would position our 
country to compete in a global clean energy market, and it 
would confront the climate crisis and create millions of good-
paying jobs. And it would also, I would say build--lift up 
disadvantaged communities, including Tribal nations and 
communities of color that have been historically burdened by 
pollution.
    And I would say this, too. It would provide the 
Department--it would bolster our Department's ongoing efforts 
to provide fossil energy workers with real opportunities to 
forge careers in cleaner fossil, and clean energy. And that is 
what it means to build back better.
    So I know the request is large. We do believe the need is 
urgent. DOE (Department of Energy) will use the funding 
effectively, if appropriated, to tackle these big challenges. I 
am humbled by the opportunity to lead the Department.
    And I look forward to working with you all. And happy to 
answer any questions you may have.
    [The statement follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm
    Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Members of the 
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the 
President's FY 2022 Budget request for the Department of Energy (``the 
Department'' or ``DOE'').
    It is a privilege to serve as the 16th Secretary of Energy and have 
the responsibility of leading the Department in delivering 
technological advancements, scientific discoveries, and advancing the 
energy, economic, and national security of the United States.
    I am proud to say we have accomplished a lot in my first few months 
at DOE.
    In addition, of course, to continuing to advance our core science 
and security missions, we have jump-started efforts to create jobs and 
build the clean energy economy of the future, an economy that works 
better for American families and an economy that works for all kinds of 
communities with jobs for all kinds of workers. We declared to the 
world that America is back at the table for climate action and followed 
it up with new funding opportunities for technologies ranging from 
carbon capture to geothermal energy to extracting critical minerals 
from coal waste. And we set ambitious new goals to cut solar costs by 
more than half and add 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. 
We will deliver these goals while addressing long-standing and 
persistent racial and environmental injustice and taking action to 
benefit disadvantaged communities.
    We announced over $1 billion in new funding opportunities, grants, 
and awards for projects with the potential to punch through obstacles 
in our way to a net-zero carbon future by 2050. These new funding 
opportunities, grants, and awards for projects include developing 
cutting-edge solar technology, improving vehicle efficiency, 
modernizing water infrastructure, and
    researching everything from microelectronics that can launch the 
next digital revolution, to powerful particle accelerators that can 
help us answer some of our biggest questions about the universe. This 
funding also included $109.5 million in funding for carbon capture, 
critical mineral recovery, and geothermal energy projects that directly 
support job creation in coal communities impacted by changes in the 
energy economy.
    We announced multiple funding opportunities that provided 
demonstration and deployment support to the sustainable transportation 
sector, totaling $224M. This includes funding for bioenergy pre-pilot 
technologies to pilot scale and/or demonstration scale projects that 
support sustainable aviation and marine fuels, CO2 
conversion, waste and underutilized carbon feedstocks. This funding 
will demonstrate efficiency improvement and emission reduction 
opportunities in medium- and heavy-duty trucks and their associated 
freight systems.
    We launched the Energy Earthshots Initiative, an all-hands-on-deck 
call for innovation, collaboration and acceleration of our clean energy 
economy by tackling the toughest remaining barriers to quickly deploy 
emerging clean energy technologies at scale. The first Earthshot 
focuses on hydrogen, sets an ambitious yet achievable cost target to 
accelerate innovations and spur demand of clean hydrogen. We also 
announced new immediate policy actions to scale up a domestic 
manufacturing supply chain for advanced battery materials and 
technologies to accelerate our efforts to decarbonize the economy.
    We kicked off a 100-day plan to address cybersecurity risks to the 
U.S. electric system. And we witnessed Perseverance roving around the 
surface of Mars, powered by tech produced in our National Labs.
    Internally, we held our very first Jobs & Justice town hall, 
spelling out what it means to center job creation and equity in all of 
our work.
    We have kept our country safe by supporting a safe, secure, and 
effective nuclear stockpile, and a continued modernization program. And 
all the while, our labs continued working toward groundbreaking 
discoveries, including in the fight against COVID-19.
    But these investments are really just a down payment on what we 
need to do as a nation. To really build an economy that positions 
American families and American communities to thrive, we need the 
resources the American Jobs Plan and the FY 2022 Budget request will 
provide to take us further.
                         the american jobs plan
    In March, President Biden released the American Jobs Plan. This 
represents the biggest investment in America since World War II and is 
a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation's economy. Especially 
in our energy infrastructure and our ability to win the global energy 
market. This plan will put millions of people to work and lay the 
foundation for economic growth for decades to come.
    Globally, there is a $23 trillion market for clean energy products 
and for products that will reduce carbon pollution. This is a massive 
opportunity for this country. Other countries are seeing that 
opportunity as well, and our economic competitors are working to corner 
the market on those opportunities. The question is: Where are those 
products going to be built, and who will build them?
    Through the American Jobs Plan, our country is going to corner the 
market and lead on manufacturing these products, providing good-paying 
jobs to the American people. It's going to take a lot of work, but the 
pay-off will be worth it. It will provide millions of people in the 
United States opportunities to build clean energy technologies, energy 
products and energy infrastructure that not only will make our country 
stronger, but will allow them to support their families and strengthen 
their local economies. And we all know that, in the 21st Century, 
making sure that we have the right infrastructure is critical.
    Infrastructure is roads and bridges, it is the electrical grid that 
keeps the lights on, it is ports, airports, and trains, it is pipes 
that pump water into our homes, and it is the broadband that both 
brings the world and learning to our children and brings opportunity to 
our businesses. Infrastructure is so broad that it creates jobs in all 
pockets of America.
    I want to work with you to make these investments so that together 
we deploy the energy infrastructure that our economy needs now, while 
at the same time advancing cutting-edge clean energy technologies, 
creating millions of good-paying union clean energy jobs, and building 
an equitable clean energy future.
                   fy 2022 president's budget request
    President Biden's proposed FY 2022 Budget request for the 
Department of Energy invests $46.2 billion to advance key priorities 
including creating jobs through clean energy projects, bringing America 
to the forefront of clean energy innovation, tackling the climate 
crisis with the urgency that science demands, investing in communities 
that have been left behind, and ensuring the safety and security of the 
nuclear stockpile.
Creating Jobs through Clean Energy Projects and Energy Efficiency 
        Retrofits-
    The budget request supports the President's vision of achieving 
carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 while creating good-paying 
jobs by investing $1.9 billion in a Building Clean Energy Projects and 
Workforce Initiative at DOE. This investment will support programmatic 
infrastructure for a new energy efficiency and clean electricity 
standard, a new Build Back Better Challenge Grant competition to 
support novel State-, local-, and tribal-level approaches to clean 
energy deployment that provides benefits to marginalized and 
overburdened communities and streamlined transmission investment. These 
investments will develop and deploy technologies that will deliver a 
clean energy revolution resulting in cheap, abundant clean power 
delivered on a modern energy grid that is resilient and reliable.
Spurring Innovation in Clean Energy Technologies
    Within DOE, the budget request invests more than $8 billion for 
applied energy programs with a focus on clean energy and climate 
innovation. From investing in advanced nuclear, electric vehicles, and 
an Energy Earthshots Initiative, to funding innovative approaches to 
air conditioning and refrigeration, the FY 2022 request puts the Nation 
on a path to quadruple clean energy research in four years, emphasizing 
U.S. pre-eminence in innovating the technologies needed to tackle the 
climate crisis.
    Applied energy investments include:
  --$4.732B for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to 
        jump-start progress toward the goal of a carbon pollution-free 
        electricity sector by 2035 and net zero emissions, economy-
        wide, by no later than 2050.
  --$1.851B for the Office of Nuclear Energy, a 23% increase over FY 
        2021 funding levels, to extend the impact of research, 
        development, demonstration & deployment funding by leveraging 
        mechanisms such as competitive awards, technical assistance, 
        and programs targeted to small businesses. This enables the 
        commercialization of climate change and clean energy 
        innovations.
  --$890M for the Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Research and 
        Development program to conduct research, development, and 
        demonstration projects for technologies that help to ensure 
        clean and affordable energy for all Americans; facilitate the 
        transition toward a carbon-pollution-free economy, including by 
        addressing the emissions and other environmental impacts of 
        fossil fuel; rebuild a U.S critical minerals supply chain; and 
        retain and create good paying jobs.
  --$327M for the Office of Electricity to lead the Department's 
        efforts to strengthen, transform, and improve energy 
        infrastructure so consumers have equitable access to resilient, 
        secure, and clean sources of electricity.
    The Budget also includes $201M for the Office of Cybersecurity, 
Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), which leads the 
Department's efforts to secure U.S. energy infrastructure against all 
hazards, reduce the risks of and impacts from cyber events and other 
disruptive events, and assist with restoration activities.
    These investments will leverage the tremendous innovation capacity 
of our 17 National Laboratories, America's universities, and 
entrepreneurs to transform our power, transportation, buildings, and 
industrial sectors to clean, emissions-free power sources and help 
achieve a net- zero emissions economy by 2050. The budget request 
advances us toward these goals by building on the basic science 
breakthroughs at our National Laboratories; and employing the resources 
that turn those science breakthroughs in energy and deployable 
technologies like those supported by the Advanced Research Projects 
Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
    Meanwhile, the Department's energy programs, which run the gamut 
from renewables to efficiency, carbon capture to hydrogen, and grid 
technology to storage are going to make it their mission to bring clean 
energy solutions to life. Building on ARPA-E's success, the budget 
request also includes funding to establish the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency for Climate (ARPA-C), to develop transformative 
solutions for the climate crisis through R&D support for high-impact 
innovative technologies to address adaptation and resilience 
challenges, as well as non-energy emissions mitigation. ARPA-C will 
work with other Agencies to lay the foundation for future climate 
change solutions across the Federal Government.
Revitalizing the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management while 
        Supporting Coal and Power Plant Communities
    The budget request supports increased funding for a revitalized 
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management that will advance carbon 
reduction and mitigation in sectors and applications that are difficult 
to decarbonize, including the industrial sector, with technologies and 
methods such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and direct air 
capture--all while ensuring the reduction in pollution and cumulative 
impacts to overburdened communities.
    The budget request also helps DOE build the energy economy back 
better in a way that lifts up communities who have not yet seen a 
future for themselves in the energy transition and those who have just 
been left behind for far too long. This includes funding DOE's role in 
supporting the newly established Interagency Working Group on Coal and 
Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization. By supporting the 
POWER+ Initiative, DOE will help communities impacted by the energy 
transition and ensure their success. DOE programs can support fossil 
fuel workers translating their skills to new positions in various 
areas, from extracting critical minerals from coal mine sites and 
upgrading pipelines to reduce methane leakage to building carbon 
capture and hydrogen systems on existing industrial and power plant 
facilities; from building zero-emissions buses and upgrading the power 
grid to drilling for geothermal energy. Their predecessors built the 
U.S. economy of the 20th Century; they will power the economy of the 
21st Century.
    The Department will also support communities of color living with 
the toxic legacy of air pollution, those who are still paying too much 
for their energy, and who are often the first and worst impacted by the 
climate emergency. With targeted investments, DOE will help communities 
impacted by the energy sector and advance environmental justice and 
equity.
Expanding Foundational Research, Emphasizing Climate and Clean Energy 
        Science
    The budget request invests $7.4 billion, an increase of more than 
$400 million over 2021 levels, in the Office of Science to better 
understand our changing climate, identify and develop novel materials 
and concepts for clean energy technologies of the future, advance 
artificial intelligence and quantum science, as well as the world's 
most advanced computing to enhance prediction and decision-making 
across numerous environmental and scientific challenges, and of course 
to support the national research community with cutting-edge scientific 
facilities. This investment in foundational research will support 
America's first-rate scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, who 
develop and deploy technologies that improve our lives and jumpstart 
new industries.
Investing in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority 
        Serving Institutions
    The FY 2022 Budget request creates and enhances research funding 
opportunities and invests in infrastructure such as laboratory 
facilities upgrades for Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
(HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). It also 
increases resources for workforce development programs to augment 
pathways to good-paying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 
(STEM) careers for students attending these schools. New grant awards, 
including a research center focused on climate, will expand research 
capacity, and create new opportunities at HBCUs and other MSIs. The FY 
2022 Budget request will build on the Department's existing 
relationships with HBCUs and MSIs, establish new partnerships with 
these institutions, and include them in our efforts to target 
disadvantaged communities for new clean energy investments, jobs, and 
businesses, while doubling down on our commitments to racial justice.
Cybersecurity Activities
    The FY 2022 Budget Request proposes to invest $642 million in 
cybersecurity activities, an increase of $189 million over the FY 2021 
Enacted level. This will enable the Department to make significant 
contributions toward modernizing cybersecurity defenses by protecting 
federal networks and strengthening the United States' ability to 
respond to incidents when they occur.
    The Department will be guided by the key areas, as identified in 
Executive Order 14028, which include; remove barriers to threat 
information sharing between government and the private sector; 
modernize and implement stronger cybersecurity standards; improve 
software supply chain security; improve investigative and remediation 
capabilities; and improve cybersecurity threat hunting and response 
through improved logging and data analytics.
Sustaining Investment in Environmental Cleanup
    The Office of Environmental Management (EM) supports DOE to meet 
the challenges of the Nation's Manhattan Project and Cold War legacy 
responsibilities. The FY 2022 Budget Request includes $7.6B for EM to 
continue making progress in addressing millions of gallons of liquid 
radioactive waste, thousands of tons of spent (used) nuclear fuel and 
nuclear materials, large volumes of transuranic and mixed/low-level 
waste, huge quantities of contaminated soil and water, and thousands of 
excess facilities.
    Building on past successes, the FY 2022 request supports EM as it 
enters a new era of cleanup. The request includes approximately $2.5B 
for cleanup at the Hanford site in Washington state, and supports 
continued progress to initiate tank waste treatment by the end of 2023 
through the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste approach. The request will 
also enable progress in key risk reduction activities at Hanford, 
including work to transfer radioactive capsules to dry storage and work 
to remediate contaminated soil under the 324 Building.
    The request includes $1.75B for cleanup activities at the Savannah 
River Site in South Carolina, which supports efforts to ramp up tank 
waste treatment, as well as the safe storage, stabilization and 
disposition of EM-owned nuclear materials and other risk reduction 
activities.
    At the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, integral to both 
the Department's legacy cleanup mission and ongoing national security 
work, the request would provide $437M for facility operations and 
continued infrastructure activities. The request would provide $334M 
for legacy cleanup activities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    At the Oak Ridge site in Tennessee, the request would provide $561M 
to support slab and soil remediation activities at the East Tennessee 
Technology Park, along with work to address high-risk excess facilities 
at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 
and continued efforts to disposition the remaining uranium-233 stored 
at the site, among other activities. The request also includes $381M 
for cleanup activities at the Idaho site that will complete buried 
waste exhumation and treatment of contact-handled sludge waste, ending 
a decades-long effort to treat legacy waste at the site.
Strengthening the Nation's Nuclear Security
    The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) is responsible for maintaining a safe, secure, 
and effective nuclear weapons stockpile; reducing global nuclear 
threats; and providing the U.S. Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers 
with militarily effective nuclear propulsion. The President's FY 2022 
Budget Request of $19.7 billion, maintains the historic level of 
investments in NNSA and includes an increase of $10.8 million over the 
FY 2021 enacted level.\1\ This reflects this administration's 
commitment to maintain and modernize the nuclear stockpile through our 
life extension and alteration programs; make substantial progress on 
maintaining, repairing, and recapitalizing NNSA's deteriorating 
infrastructure; provide policy and technical leadership to address all 
aspects of the nuclear threat reduction mission; and deliver nuclear 
propulsion that meets the U.S. Navy's operational requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The FY 2021 Enacted level does not include the mandated 
transfer of $91 million from Naval Reactors to Nuclear Energy for the 
operation of the Advanced Test Reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Weapons Activities
    The FY 2022 budget request for the Weapons Activities account is 
$15.5 billion, an increase of $139.3 million, or 0.9 percent, over FY 
2021. This request supports stockpile management to maintain our 
existing weapons; design and production work on five programs of 
record; production modernization; and stockpile research, technology, 
and engineering (SRT&E).
    NNSA's major stockpile modernization programs stand at different 
levels of maturity, each one responding to a different Department of 
Defense (DoD) requirement. Some programs, such as the W93/Mk7 are in 
the initial phases of feasibility and design, while others are in 
production phases, such as the B61-12 gravity bomb. Together, these 
programs bolster the United States' long-term commitments to allies and 
partners while ensuring safety and reliability. NNSA continues to focus 
on the production capabilities of nuclear weapons components critical 
to weapon performance and is requesting funds to support the urgent 
need to recapitalize plutonium pit production fabrication at Los Alamos 
and Savanah River. SRT&E covers many critical programs for the nuclear 
security enterprise that allow the nuclear deterrent to be certified 
without the need for nuclear explosive testing. Capabilities include 
the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments (ECSE), the 
Exascale Computing Initiative (ECI), and the Inertial Confinement 
Fusion (ICF) program. Each of these are needed to support weapons 
design, warhead assessment and certification, and continued development 
of the underpinning science needed to support the nuclear stockpile 
long-term.
            Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
    NNSA's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) is critical 
to implementing the President's call to ``lock down fissile and 
radiological materials around the world.'' The FY 2022 budget request 
for the DNN account is $2.3 billion, an increase of $4.0 million, or 
0.2 percent, over the FY 2021 enacted level.\2\ DNN works worldwide 
with our partners to prevent state and non-state actors from developing 
nuclear weapons or acquiring weapons-usable nuclear or radiological 
materials, equipment, technology, and expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The FY 2022 amount does not include the proposed cancellation 
of $330 million of prior year balances from the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Fabrication Facility project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complementing the work of DNN is the Nuclear Counterterrorism and 
Incident Response (NCTIR) Program, which includes the Emergency 
Operations and Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation subprograms. 
NCTIR provides capabilities to counter and respond to nuclear incidents 
and accidents worldwide. The FY 2022 request for NCTIR is $370.8 
million, a decrease of $6.7 million, or 1.8 percent below, the FY 2021 
enacted level.
            Naval Reactors
    The Office of Naval Reactors remains at the forefront of 
technological developments in naval nuclear propulsion, with an 
unparalleled record of over 169 million miles safely steamed on nuclear 
power and over 7,300 reactor-years of operation. The FY 2022 budget for 
Naval Reactors is $1.9 billion, an increase of $182.7 million, or 10.8 
percent, over the FY 2021 enacted level.\3\ The budget request supports 
Naval Reactors' three major projects--COLUMBIA-Class reactor plant 
development, the refueling overhaul of a research and training reactor 
in New York, and the construction of the Naval Spent Fuel Handling 
Facility in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The FY 2021 Enacted level does not include the mandated 
transfer of $91 million from Naval Reactors to Nuclear Energy for the 
operation of the Advanced Test Reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NNSA Workforce
    To manage this broad portfolio, NNSA depends upon recruiting, 
training, and retaining a highly technical Federal and M&O workforce. 
The FY 2022 budget request for Federal Salaries and Expenses (FSE) is 
$464.0 million, an increase of $20.8 million, or 4.7 percent, over the 
FY 2021 enacted level.
                               conclusion
    In conclusion, I am humbled to reaffirm my commitment to lead the 
Department of Energy. I look forward to our continued partnership to 
achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to 
answer your questions.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Verdon, my understanding is that you are here today to 
answer questions. If you wish to make a brief statement, we 
will entertain that now.
    Dr. Verdon. That is okay. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Let me then begin the questions. Madam Secretary, this 
budget puts a heavy emphasis on deployment of climate 
solutions. There is $2.5 billion or a 45 percent increase in 
funding across the Department's applied energy programs 
compared to fiscal year 2021, and a $400 million request to 
create a new office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
    Could you please explain to us, with as much detail as you 
can; how these new funding requests will translate into more 
clean energy development?
    Secretary Granholm. Sure. Thank you for the question. You 
know, we know that there are a lot of technologies that are on 
the shelf and that can be deployed. And so your question about 
a deployment is a key one, as well as demonstration. Those are 
the latter two stages, obviously, in the development of these 
clean energy technologies, and we should be really doing 
everything we can.
    So, for example, in the budget, you will see an almost 1000 
percent increase in the Federal Energy Management Program. And 
that of course helps to guide and ensure that all of our 
Federal agencies are deploying the best solutions for reducing 
our Federal carbon footprint. And that is a significant 
priority of the Biden administration, to make sure we lead by 
example, and make sure that our procurement also creates a 
market for clean energy products that are made in America. So 
that is a big example of deployment that we intend to do.
    Second, we see a significant increase as well in the 
Weatherization Assistance Program. That is a deployment 
strategy as well. We will be able to weatherize thousands more 
homes using again, we hope, products that are made in America, 
again creating markets for American businesses to be able to 
provide for weatherization of homes.
    In the budget as well, we have a component that is 
providing grants, State-based energy grants to States, and 
those energy grants will be tied, again, to making sure that 
demand is created in those States for clean energy products 
made in America, but also to help them achieve higher 
standards, whether it is on clean energy standards, or on 
building, building codes, et cetera.
    So we want to reward the States and localities for taking 
action. And that is also a deployment component that is in this 
budget. Bottom line is you will see this big plus-up in all of 
these lines. We have a whole deployment strategy for each of 
them. That is just three examples.
    Senator Feinstein. One other quick question, if I may? 
Congress included $20 million in last year's appropriations for 
consent-based siting of nuclear waste. This is something that 
concerns me a great deal. And I would like to ask if you can 
briefly elaborate on how you intend to break the stalemate on 
nuclear waste disposal, and what you plan to do in the near 
term to move that forward.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. As I know you are aware, there was 
a 2012 commission on nuclear waste, and that that Blue Ribbon 
Commission recommended a consent-based siting strategy. And we 
are beginning that process this summer, we will be issuing a 
Request for Information, obviously, the States or localities 
that are willing, because we want to work with them, who are 
willing to be able to house this waste, it will----
    Senator Feinstein. I don't mean to stop you.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. But what I am asking for is: What is the 
administration's plan to deal with nuclear waste?
    Secretary Granholm. That is the plan is to get another 
site, not Yucca Mountain, but to get another place that is 
willing to be the home of nuclear waste. Obviously it will 
require some compensation for that local entity to be able to 
do that. There is some interest out there. We just have to make 
sure we complete this consent-based siting process and, 
hopefully, near term rather than long-term.
    Senator Feinstein. And when will that be developed into a 
proposal?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, the Requests for Information are 
going out within the next month. And so, hopefully, in the fall 
we will have a sense of what the landscape looks like, but this 
year we want to solidify the strategy.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you could 
probably guess from my opening comments, Madam Secretary, I see 
the climate as a discrete scientific issue. I think it is a 
mistake to approach it with too much emotion. Passion is good, 
but not when it interferes with your judgment. I have got a 
couple of 30,000-foot--feet questions.
    How much money in public and private dollars does the 
Department think it would take to make the world carbon 
neutral?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't have a number for that, but 
probably a lot.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Hundreds of trillions of dollars, do 
you think?
    Secretary Granholm. It would be a lot, for sure.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. How much money in public and private 
dollars does the Department think it would take to make the 
United States carbon neutral?
    Secretary Granholm. Again, it would be a lot.
    Senator Kennedy. Hundreds of trillions?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know about hundreds of 
trillions, but it would be a lot of money.
    Senator Kennedy. It would be in the trillions?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. Mid-trillions?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kennedy. I understand. Here is my question, to make 
the United States carbon neutral based on the administration's 
plans, I think it would be fair to say it is going to cause 
displacement, major displacement. Now, I don't use that in a 
pejorative sense. I think it is just an accurate description. 
It is going to change our economy dramatically. Many people are 
going to gain, and many people are going to lose. And that is 
what I mean by displacement.
    If we, today, spent these, to be fair, tens of trillions of 
dollars that I think many members of the administration would 
like to spend, and make the United States of American carbon 
neutral, and nobody else has our aggressive--adopts our 
aggressive approach, and they only make modest gains in 
CO2 emissions. How much is it going to lower the 
world temperature, and how much of it--how much are we going to 
reduce carbon emissions?
    Secretary Granholm. I want to say that the administration 
has a really firm commitment to communities to be able to take 
advantage of that economic opportunity and in energy that means 
the----
    Senator Kennedy. I know, Madam Secretary, forgive me for 
interrupting, but we both know--now I really want to try to 
probe your mind here--we both know this is going to cause major 
displacement, let us don't kid each other. You are not going to 
turn coal miners into coders overnight, and you are not going 
to turn fossil fuel workers into solar experts overnight, and 
there are not as many solar jobs as in oil and gas. So I don't 
want to get off into that. And I am not trying to be critical 
of the administration, but these are important questions.
    If we become carbon neutral, and we don't get cooperation 
from China and India, what have we accomplished?
    Secretary Granholm. The goal is to get cooperation from 
China and India.
    Senator Kennedy. I know, but what if they don't?
    Secretary Granholm. Well----
    Senator Kennedy. What if we go spend these tens of 
trillions of dollars and President Xi Jinping--the people of 
China are wonderful people, by the way--President Xi, lies like 
he breathes. We know that. The Communist Party, they are 
gangsters. What if they--I mean, they have probably built a 
coal power--a coal-powered power plant while you and I have 
been talking. What have we achieved?
    Secretary Granholm. The administration has a strategy to 
make sure that all of our--all of the people who have signed on 
to this Paris Agreement meet the goals that they have 
articulated. And that means working with allies, and that means 
the strategy, and amount that----
    Senator Kennedy. I get it. I get it, but I am asking a very 
practical question. My son, who I love dearly, has a strategy 
to have his dad buy him a 911 Targa Porsche. It is not going to 
happen. And I am raising a very legitimate question I think. If 
we spend these trillions of dollars, and we go through all this 
displacement, and we don't get cooperation from China and 
India, what--is the pain worth the gain? And how do we know?
    Secretary Granholm. I would say, we have a strategy to get 
those countries on board. And if we don't pursue this strategy, 
what then? Then you have climate disasters that are upon us. 
California is now--could be on fire again this summer. And if 
we don't take action, then where are we with respect to the 
other disasters? So we have to approach our allies with the 
strategy----
    Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you one last question.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. And do our own.
    Senator Kennedy. I get it. I get it. Yes.
    If you can indulge me, Madam Chair? If we spend all the 
money that the Biden administration wants to spend, let's take 
in its current infrastructure bill to reduce CO2 
emissions, what percentage of the increase in carbon emissions, 
worldwide, not the United States, is going to be reduced?
    Secretary Granholm. All of these countries have signed on, 
all of them have.
    Senator Kennedy. No. I am talking about--I know when you 
are trusting----
    Secretary Granholm. No, verified.
    Senator Kennedy. But I believe in metrics.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. If you spend a lot of taxpayer dollars, 
you ought to know, first of all, what you expect to get, and 
realistically assess whether you are going to get it. I don't 
want a go to--let me ask you one last question. How come your 
budget doesn't request any funding for the Yucca Mountain 
licensing?
    Secretary Granholm. The President's--the administration 
doesn't support Yucca Mountain as a solution for nuclear waste.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today, and 
for all of your hard work. And Dr. Verdon, we are delighted to 
have you here as well.
    As I said I really want to talk about energy efficiency, 
because I think it is the stepchild of energy use. It gets 
short shrift, and yet it is the cheapest, fastest way to deal 
with our energy needs. I was really glad to hear you talk about 
reducing the Federal carbon footprint, because the Federal 
Government is the biggest user of energy in the country. And we 
have got to do a better job.
    I would start with the Architect of the Capitol and see if 
he can't get climate controls in all of the rooms on Capitol 
Hill, because it is ridiculous that we can't control the 
temperature in the rooms, in this building, and throughout The 
Capitol. So that is just an aside.
    But one of the things that I would urge you to look at is 
the scoring for Energy Savings Performance Contracts, ESPCs. 
When I was Governor, we were able to significantly reduce the 
cost of heating our buildings and save on carbon emissions 
because we used ESPCs, and yet the way we score those here is a 
cost, not a savings. It is nuts that we don't recognize that we 
can bring in private contractors to do that and save us 
significant dollars. And yet when we do it, the scores charge 
us for that rather than looking at savings. And that is why it 
is so difficult to get done.
    But I want to go to the budget, because this budget calls 
for $16 million for building codes within the Building 
Technologies Office, and we know that our buildings use about 
40 percent of energy use in this country. Percentage-wise, that 
number is a big increase from the $10 million provided in 2021, 
but it is still a relatively small program. And when we know 
there are substantial energy savings being left on the table, 
it seems to me that that is an area that we ought to really 
take a hard look at. So can you talk about what we could do if 
we can increase that amount in terms of energy savings?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thanks so much for that question 
and for your leadership in this energy efficiency space. This 
is a plus-up for this, and we want to be able to take it to the 
next level with respect to not just the Federal buildings, but 
State and local buildings, and assist those State and local 
entities in how they can achieve greater efficiency with new 
building codes, upgraded building codes, which we are in the 
final process of putting out through our Building Technologies 
Office.
    But you are right that it is a drop in the bucket, and if, 
for example, we were able to achieve the kind of investment 
that is seen in the American Jobs Plan, for example, that would 
allow us to really push this much further providing incentives 
to States, to really up their game on building codes and 
allowing us to up our game on advising and giving the technical 
assistance that is necessary to all of these local units of 
government to do the same.
    And as we know, I agree with you on your ESPCs, but this 
whole thing is such a big job provider upgrading the building 
envelope footprints.
    Senator Shaheen. Absolutely.
    Secretary Granholm. A huge opportunity for putting people 
to work.
    Senator Shaheen. And as you point out, building codes are 
really a low hanging fruit that we ought to be taking a look 
at. And it is disappointing to me that we have seen efforts in 
Congress blocked, Congress after Congress, by the home builders 
who don't want to spend a small additional amount, which over 
the lifetime is going to really provide savings to consumers.
    I want to talk about appliance standards also, because the 
appliance standards program has saved consumers, tens of 
billions annually on their utility bills. By 2030, it will have 
avoided a cumulative 7.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide 
emissions. That is an amount in excess of a year's worth of 
emissions for the entire U.S. economy. So going forward, 
updating standards could save an additional 1.2 to 2.9 billion 
metric tons, and achieve cumulative utility savings of another 
1.1 trillion by 2050. That is according to the American Council 
for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
    Unfortunately we saw the previous administration did not 
keep pace with the statutory deadlines to update appliance 
standards. So can you talk about what the status is of your 
review of that, and where you expect to go to make sure we get 
back on track with respect to appliance standards?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I agree a thousand percent on this 
as well. We have, I think, so far filed over 50 notices in the 
Federal Register of rolling back the rollbacks, essentially, 
and continuing the progress that was made. You listed a number 
of statistics in terms of savings. And for the average family, 
just on the basics, it is about $400 per year. And then you add 
another $400 perhaps for LED lighting. You can see significant 
savings from these on a very granular basis as well. We are 
completely committed to progressing significantly on the 
appliance standards issue.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I look forward to working 
with you, and the Department on improving support for energy 
efficiency in the country.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, the Gulf of Mexico is one of the Nation's 
most important regions for energy resources and accounts for a 
large portion of our crude oil, our Federal, offshore, natural 
gas production. What efforts are being taken by the Department 
to advance cleaner technologies for domestic fossil fuel 
resources?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have a program that really 
works with the private sector to ensure that the existing 
production is both efficient and clean, as clean as it can be, 
including making sure that there is integrity at the wellbore, 
making sure that produced water is clean, et cetera. And we are 
going to--that is under our Fossil Energy Office, and we will 
continue to work with the private sector on making sure that 
that happens even as we transition to more, not just fuel 
efficient, but electric vehicles, et cetera.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for that answer. And I am 
addressing my next question to both of the witnesses. And as I 
mentioned earlier, Mississippi is home to the largest U.S. 
nuclear power reactor, in terms of generating capacity, and 
with the administration's heavy agenda on cutting carbon 
emissions, what do you believe are the most promising nuclear 
efforts in our Nation right now?
    Secretary Granholm. First of all, I agree with everything 
that has been said about nuclear. That nuclear must be a part 
of our strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and 
that we also should be doing everything we can to keep existing 
nuclear plants online. And we also need to be doing research 
into advanced nuclear demonstration projects, which we are. Our 
nuclear request in the budget is significantly more than last 
time. I want to say, it is maybe 28 percent, or something like 
that, above last year's effort, because we want to continue to 
work on these advanced nuclear designs.
    The modular reactors, the small modular reactors, as well 
as making sure that we can assist in whatever way possible to 
keep these plants online. Let me say, our budget doesn't 
subsidize existing nuclear plants that are already running, 
but, you know, if in the infrastructure package that is being 
negotiated, there is, or at least in the American Jobs Plan, 
there was a provision to help keep existing plants online, and 
as well as making sure that nuclear is part of the clean energy 
standard which would----both of which would be significantly 
for ensuring that we continued to keep the existing fleet 
operating as well as create new.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. And Dr. Verdon.
    Dr. Verdon. The Secretary covered it. There is nothing more 
to add.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Feinstein. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. And it is so good to have you 
here, Madam Secretary. Following up on my colleague from New 
Hampshire's point about energy efficiency, the fiscal year 2020 
Appropriations Bill required a study to lay out the investments 
needed in energy efficiency, and conservation to give us kind 
of a comprehensive view to help us guide legislation. And we 
have not received that report. The Trump administration dropped 
the ball. We have been in contact with your Department about 
it. Can you pick up that ball and, and help us get that clear 
understanding?
    Secretary Granholm. It was an energy efficiency study?
    Senator Merkley. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm. I have not--read in on it, but I will 
definitely get back to you on it.
    Senator Merkley. And conservation. Thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. And conservation.
    Senator Merkley. Second, my colleague from Louisiana talked 
about displacement. I saw displacement first-hand last year 
when we had fires sweep through the west side of the Cascades, 
and town after town was burned to the ground, and it was like 
walking in on the towns that had been firebombed in World War 
II, or something. It was just incredible. And we are seeing a 
huge impact on our rural communities from the impact on 
forests, on farming, and on fishing.
    And, so I just wanted to note that displacement is real 
right now, and not just from the fires in Oregon, but also from 
all kinds of other economic effects that are taking place, and 
more severe storms. So those costs are going to be 
extraordinary and it is only by the U.S. setting an example, 
and then working in partnership with the world that we have 
some way of turning the curve on this.
    I was very disturbed at the increasing pace of carbon 
saturation in the atmosphere. We hit a record last month of 419 
parts per million, way up from the 180 to 280 parts that 
characterized the last 800,000 years. We haven't been this 
level for 8 million years. The planet is in big trouble. I just 
want to keep emphasizing that. I know you understand that.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you for that.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Turning to a piece of that 
clean electricity standard, do you think natural gas should be 
included in that standard?
    Secretary Granholm. I think that if you combined natural 
gas with carbon removal so that it really was clean and that 
you had zero carbon emissions, then it could be.
    Senator Merkley. But only under that condition?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. The condition is that it is not carbon 
capture just to redeploy in gas fields where it will leak out, 
but true absolute capture?
    Secretary Granholm. And sequestration, yes.
    Senator Merkley. Yes. Thank you. And I doubt the costs of 
that are going to be less than the costs of renewable energy 
from solar and wind, plus battery storage, if you will. So I am 
certainly hoping that we don't create some false solution, 
research on it, great, pursue it if it is economical, and it is 
truly effective. But that is my concern.
    I am excited that Oregon is pioneering the use of electric 
tractors, we have three of them in operation. I invite you to 
come out and see them, see them in operation. And I am trying 
to figure out how electricity can start to be used in places 
where diesel has been used, is another piece of this frontier 
of conversion. And can DOE support efforts like that on new 
uses of electricity?
    Secretary Granholm. Of course, a thousand percent, that is 
what we do. In fact, as I speak, I think we have a funding 
opportunity request out for off-road vehicles, tractors would 
qualify for electrification.
    Senator Merkley. I think you are going to see a request in 
that regard from my State. Turning to plastics: plastics are 
not reduced, reused, recycled; they are burned, buried, and 
borne out to sea with huge environmental consequences. Because 
plastics are primarily a stream of natural gas, because a 
natural gas system leaks enormous amounts of methane, because 
methane is an incredibly powerful global warming gas, plastics 
are a climate problem, as well as a direct problem for human 
health, and great problem for ecosystems. I just wanted to 
raise this and see if you have some thoughts on that topic.
    Secretary Granholm. We are--the administration is looking 
at this methane issue very seriously. You are probably aware 
there was a vote, and a reversal of a rule that was lessened in 
the last administration on methane. Obviously this is in the 
EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) jurisdiction in terms 
of the regulatory side. But in terms of the technology side, we 
want to be partnering to make sure that, oil and gas companies, 
one, do monitoring of methane leakage, and two, do closing of 
methane leakage. And this whole issue of methane is extremely 
high on the priority list, both of the Department of Energy, 
and of the EPA, and of the Biden administration as well. So 
stay tuned on that for more.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Because I think it is 
an under-recognized part of the challenge and is inherent in a 
system with millions of miles of joints in pipes, as well as 
abandoned wells, the leak never properly sealed, and so forth. 
And I know the administration is working on that. So thank you.
    I will just close by shifting to nuclear weapons. People 
forget that nuclear weapons are a huge part of energy 
portfolio. And we haven't had the nuclear evaluation, the 
Nuclear Posture Review, yet. But the administration has put 
forward in its budget funding for the W76 low-yield warhead, a 
warhead President Biden called a bad idea because of its impact 
on potential nuclear war.
    And also on the B83 mega weapon, if you will, and we are 
not talking about small dollars, we are talking about the 
administration proposing $100 million to fund the program. I 
hope that many of these projects, which seemed to have, kind of 
a nuclear industrial complex momentum, get evaluated very, very 
carefully, both because of their costs, and because of their 
risk.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, clearly then, because as you have 
noted, the Nuclear Posture Review is just starting. That will 
be looked at, they will be looked at, but I am wondering if Dr. 
Verdon has any follow-up on the two specific programs that you 
mentioned.
    Dr. Verdon. Yes, both programs will be looked at for a 
posture review, but right now we had to put forward----
    Secretary Granholm. You have to turn on your mic, I think.
    Dr. Verdon. Is it on?
    Secretary Granholm. There you go.
    Dr. Verdon. Both will be looked at as part of the posture 
review, and we put forward the budget that was required by the 
current program or record, to support the weapons that the 
STRATCOM commander identified were necessary. So that is why, 
you know, they are in the budget right now, but they will be 
examined. The whole portfolio will be looked at.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. I believe the next few names, based on 
arrival, Senators Hagerty, Coons, Murray, and probably there is 
more.
    But Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank 
you Under Secretary Verdon, and Secretary Granholm. I 
appreciate your being here today.
    As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I would like to turn 
our conversation Oak Ridge National Lab, which is the largest 
multipurpose energy and research laboratory that the Department 
of Energy supports. It is a true gem of Tennessee, $5.6 billion 
of economic impact every year is the estimate, and some 34,000 
jobs are supported by Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee, 
touching 50 of the 95 counties in my State.
    So it has an incredible economic impact. And I think a 
tremendous impact on advancing our Nation in terms of basic 
research. Beyond the great work that happens in Tennessee on 
nuclear energy, which I look forward to working with you on, I 
would like to talk for a moment about supercomputing.
    And one of the critical missions of Oak Ridge National Lab 
is the Summit supercomputer. It is the second fastest 
supercomputer in the world. And I am very pleased at Oak Ridge 
is going to unveil this year, an exascale computer called 
Frontier, which will be the fastest in the world, right in my 
home State of Tennessee.
    And we have talked about this before Madam Secretary, but I 
would like to join with my colleagues, Senator Blackburn and 
Congressman Fleischmann, to invite you to come and visit us at 
Oak Ridge National Lab, to see what is happening there, and to 
deepen our working relationships so we can continue to make 
these advances. So I hope you will be able to find time in your 
schedule soon to join us there.
    Secretary Granholm. I would very much like to do that, 
especially with the unveiling of the exascale computer. And I 
know that that is scheduled for early fall, and I am excited 
about seeing the incredible complex that is there.
    Senator Hagerty. Well today the fastest computer in the 
world is in Japan, and I have a fondness for that nation, but 
also a highly competitive nature. So I am delighted that we are 
going to retake the high ground on this, and given where the 
world is headed in computing, I think it is more than fitting 
that we be a leader in the world, and that Tennessee be at the 
forefront there.
    Speaking of Tennessee, I would like to share with you some 
insights from my predecessor, Senator Lamar Alexander, I know a 
good friend of the Chair, and many people on this committee. He 
has talked with me at length about what he has called the Oak 
Ridge Corridor. It is a way to capture the tremendous brain 
power that exists in Oak Ridge and the surrounding area.
    In fact, when you land at the Knoxville Airport near Oak 
Ridge, it welcomes you as the gateway to the Smokey's and to 
the Oak Ridge Corridor. It is something I think that we should 
market as an innovation hub. We have such incredible 
technologies. We draw from the Federal Government, we draw from 
my alma mater, Vanderbilt University, from the University of 
Tennessee, from the Tennessee Valley Authority, State and 
private industry.
    What I would like to ask you, is what role you see, 
Secretary Granholm, the Department playing as we recreate 
innovation hubs like the Oak Ridge Corridor, in a way that will 
support economic growth in underserved communities?
    Secretary Granholm. That is a great question. In fact, I 
was just on call with all of the lab directors yesterday, on 
this very subject.
    Senator Hagerty. Perfect.
    Secretary Granholm. Is how the labs--and some are doing 
more of this, and some are working on it. But how the labs can 
really connect, whether it is--you have talked about this as 
being a geographic hub, there may be some communities that are 
slightly outside of the immediate adjacency that are also 
underserved that could benefit.
    So one of it, one strategy of course, involves workforce 
development. A lot of these labs are looking to develop that 
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) 
pipeline and really want to be in the community to talk about 
the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math, 
both, you know, starting in high school, through college, 
partnering with local colleges and certainly partnering with 
the universities that are already there.
    So pipeline issues are one, economic development, 
technology transfer from the labs to--you know, to perhaps sort 
of technology hubs that are related to lab, but could be 
commercial--using products that could be commercialized outside 
of the lab. So we have a fantastic new leader of our Office of 
Technology Transfer, who is really focused on what are those 
opportunities to create, perhaps, incubators, either inside the 
lab structure or outside in adjacency, to be able to create a 
whole cluster of dynamic innovation, creating an innovation hub 
in an area that may be seen as often cloistered because it is 
inside of, perhaps, fencing, et cetera.
    Senator Hagerty. Well, may I extend our invitation to your 
head of Office of Technology Transfer to join us as well?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Hagerty. Because we are working very hard in 
Tennessee to try to create just that type of innovation hub.
    Secretary Granholm. Oh.
    Senator Hagerty. Bringing the private sector together, 
transferring technology more efficiently. It is hard to do, and 
it always has been hard to do, but if we can find ways to make 
it more efficient, more effective, I think it has a great, 
great potential in terms of leveraging the massive investment 
we are making in basic research and translating that into 
applied results that can make a real difference for our economy 
and keep America at the forefront of innovation.
    Secretary Granholm. So, with your permission, I will have 
her reach out to your office to do a briefing and discussion 
with you.
    Senator Hagerty. Perfect.
    Secretary Granholm. Her name is Vanessa Chin.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Granholm. All right. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Madam Chair.
    Senator Feinstein. Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Feinstein. 
Good to see you, thank you for being here today.
    Secretary Granholm, let me start with, no surprise to you, 
the Hanford Site in Central Washington. As you know, the 
Federal Government has both a legal and a moral obligation to 
clean up the Hanford Site, and to work in partnership, of 
course, with my State of Washington in doing so.
    I was really pleased to see this year's request, which is a 
rejection of some of the dangerous cuts that were proposed in 
the last administration. And I think this year's request is, is 
much more realistic and closer to current year enacted levels. 
So thank you.
    But that being said, there is a laundry list of projects to 
be done at RL (Richland Operations Office) and ORP (Office of 
River Protection), not to mention the Tri-Party Agreement 
milestones already in place that require substantial funding 
and prudent financial stewardship. I remain concerned about the 
long-term projections for this site. A 2019 DOE report 
estimated that the lifecycle cleanup costs could be up to $677 
billion. And the work would not be completed until 2078. If 
those numbers are accurate, it would mean an average annual 
appropriation over $11 billion a year for the next 57 years. 
That is a long ways off the roughly $2.5 billion is funded out 
right now.
    Do you have any thoughts for us on, if there are 
opportunities to bring down these lifecycle costs while still 
safely, and effectively, and in compliance with the Tri-Party 
Agreement, and other legal requirements, to completing this 
cleanup?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. This is a great question because, 
obviously, as we progress in our research and development, new 
strategies become available that we might not know of right 
now. There is a lot of being done at the labs, as I am sure you 
are aware, on how to best contain, how to reduce, how to 
mitigate, et cetera. And we are looking at that all the time.
    Right now I don't have the silver bullet that would bring 
it, you know, down to a much lower funding level at a much 
shorter time. What I can tell you is that we--and I appreciate 
you acknowledging that this is in fact the highest amount we 
have ever asked for cleanup at Hanford, but we have got a lot 
of work to do. I am glad we have been able to achieve some 
milestones. I look forward to coming to celebrate some of those 
milestones.
    Senator Murray. Great.
    Secretary Granholm. But milestones are just that. It is not 
the end goal. And so it is our desire as well to accelerate. It 
is our desire to find solutions that are less costly, but also 
safe. The point is we will continue to work with you and the 
community, which is really important to us that we do it in 
partnership and not in opposition with the community so that we 
can achieve our mutual goals.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you for that. And of course we 
will be working with you on that goal. Let me turn to a related 
Hanford question. The payment in lieu of taxes, PILT: This 
year's request specifically propose to eliminate PILT funding, 
and just for the Hanford and Savannah River DOE sites. PILT 
funding is intended to compensate local governments for taxes 
they cannot collect because the land is Federal property. And 
they use that money to support their schools, and their 
hospitals, their libraries, emergency services, things like 
that.
    I have heard a lot of great things about your, and the 
Department's support for communities adjacent to DOE sites, so 
that was really surprising to me, and just not acceptable. PILT 
funding has long been an issue here, and I want to be clear, it 
cannot be eliminated or cut back in any way. The Tri-Cities 
really rely on that funding, and they are owed this funding, as 
a result of the sacrifices and commitments that community made 
during World War II, it is simply not their fault that hundreds 
and hundreds of square miles in Washington State are not 
taxable, lowering their ability to fund basic services.
    So can you explain to me what DOE's rationale for proposing 
to eliminate PILT payments, and why were Hanford and Savannah 
River specifically targeted?
    Secretary Granholm. I would say that, I know that 
historically the Department presents a budget that doesn't 
include PILT, and that Congress, that your leadership insists 
that it is included. And all I want to say is, I look forward 
to working with you on that.
    Senator Murray. Okay. And we would like to see it in the 
budget.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Murray. Let me just finish by saying, I really want 
to thank you for spending some time with Pacific Northwest 
National Lab during your virtual visit.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Murray. I hope you can come and visit in person 
someday. They are really a leader in climate science, and I was 
pleased to see the robust funding increases to the Biological 
and Environmental Research Program. As well as the--final year 
funding for the Grid Storage Launchpad. They are a leader 
nationally in the fight against climate change, and I really 
look forward to working with you on that. So thank you for 
that.
    Secretary Granholm. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Murray. And Senator Coons, thank you for graciously 
allowing me to go ahead of you. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. I believe it is Senator Hoeven's turn.
    Senator Feinstein. Yes. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Fine. Senator Hoeven, thank you. I am happy 
to take the opportunity. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Feinstein, and absentia Ranking Member Kennedy. 
Thank you, Senator Granholm, and Dr. Verdon for testifying.
    And Madam Secretary, it is great to be with you in person. 
And I am so grateful for the job you have been doing as part of 
the Jobs Cabinet. Helping the American people understand the 
connection between combating climate and creating good, high-
paying jobs.
    I enthusiastically support the President's vision, 
particularly with regards to the Department's budget and look 
forward to making sure that it is adequately funded to meet the 
challenges of this century. Just a few things I might, first on 
carbon capture utilization and storage. I was encouraged to see 
a revitalized Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, 
CCUS, as a critical part of our strategy for moving forward.
    I have a bill with Senator Cassidy, the SCALE act, which 
would support wide-scale CCUS deployment by connecting sites of 
carbon dioxide capture to places where it can be stored and it 
would create thousands of jobs. Could you briefly discuss: the 
importance of carbon dioxide, transport, and storage 
infrastructure for both meeting our climate and job creation 
goal?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for asking this because 
I think it is--I agree with you. It is very important. It is 
important for the U.S., and I would say it is important around 
the globe. There is a lot of our allies across the world who 
want to know how they can take this kind of technology and 
affordably use it.
    So it is one of the reasons why the American Jobs Plan had 
in it these 10 projects, demonstration projects, for carbon 
capture use and sequestration, because the point is you can use 
it on a variety of different carbon sources, whether it is 
heavy industry, whether it is power plants. And we want to be 
able to show that it can be done, that it can be taken to 
scale, that it is affordable, and that it solves the problem.
    So, thank you for your leadership in it. Our Fossil Energy 
and Carbon Management Office currently has five demonstration 
projects running; one of them, Project Tundra, one of them--we 
want to make sure that we continue to demonstrate that ability. 
The five is great, but we need more to be able to take this 
to--and we need it quickly. We need to, because these are big 
projects.
    And let me just say one other thing is, American Jobs Plan 
is called ``Jobs Plan'' for a reason, which is that this kind 
of technology, especially with the pipelines that need to be 
installed, et cetera, is a huge job creator. So it is a win-
win, and it makes sure that fossil communities are not left 
behind.
    Senator Coons. Senator Cassidy had an interesting 
perspective on it. He said: I have got lots of folks in 
Louisiana today working on building and maintaining and 
servicing pipelines that pull things out of the ground and put 
them into our economy. Why can't the same folks have jobs 
building and maintaining and servicing pipelines that take 
carbon dioxide and put it back out, under the ground and stored 
permanently? A simple, but powerful insight I think.
    Let us move towards one of the things that I think is a key 
component of a clean energy economy, hydrogen. The Department 
recently announced its Hydrogen Shot Initiative to bring down 
the cost of clean hydrogen. You traveled to Texas to visit an 
Air Liquide facility there. Their, I would say preeminent 
research facility in North America happens to be in Newark, 
Delaware. We would love to have you come visit there as well. 
And Air Liquide is teaming up with Bloom Energy and Chemours in 
Delaware, to look at the future of clean hydrogen. Could you 
just talk about your vision for the role of hydrogen, 
particularly in decarbonizing the hard to abate sectors, like 
industry and transportation?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I can't emphasize this enough, is 
that this technology is a technology that can be the game 
changer for the toughest areas, but also generally, I mean, we 
want to be able to, for example, right now we can't export 
renewable energy. We have to use it here. But clean hydrogen 
could do that. It could convert hydrogen into green ammonia, 
and be able to transport it. And the ammonia distribution 
system globally is already in place.
    So this is another reason why all of these other countries, 
I mean, if Senator Hagerty were here, he would know Japan, for 
example, shutting down their nuclear facilities, they have no--
they don't have a whole lot of options. And so they are super-
interested in hydrogen. We have been talking to Australia who 
is also doing a lot of experimentation in hydrogen. The 
American Jobs Plan has 15 demonstration projects that it would 
fund in clean hydrogen, that is very exciting, whether it is 
green, or blue, and the blue ends up being sequestered--the 
CO2 ends up being sequestered from natural gas.
    I am just--there is a huge opportunity here for us to 
create jobs and to lead the world in the solution that could 
actually allow all of these countries, especially those who 
have significant fossil communities, to be able to be net 
carbon zero.
    Senator Coons. Well, in terms of net carbon zero base load, 
I think next-generation nuclear is also an important part of 
the suite of approaches we need to take. Right at the end of 
last year, something big happened in energy policy. It didn't 
get much notice because there were other things going on with 
the election, but Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin, at 
the time of the Energy Committee, finally got passed the Energy 
Act of 2020. It had a lot of different bills in it.
    One of them that I had worked on for years, was a 
Modernization of the Weatherization Assistance Program, another 
was the Nuclear Energy Renewal Act, to sustain our nuclear 
fleet, but also invest in R&D (research & development) and 
advanced nuclear. Could you just discuss briefly the role of 
nuclear energy in ensuring the balance of decarbonizing base 
load power generation and our economy as a whole, and ensuring 
energy security for the United States?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have to do--I was mentioning 
before you arrived, I think Senator Hyde-Smith had a similar 
kind of question, which was, we have got to do both research 
and development on next generation, nuclear, advanced, modular, 
et cetera. And we have to make sure that we keep our existing 
fleet operating, because the existing fleet provides such a 
significant part of our clean electricity today. And if we take 
it offline, it is going to be that much more difficult to get 
to the goals of net-zero, as well as 100 percent clean 
electricity.
    In the American Jobs Plan, as you are aware, the clean 
energy standard includes nuclear. And that would be one way to 
help the existing fleets maintain their status. A second thing 
would be to help to subsidize those who are ready to go offline 
so that they stay up. Those are both important, so both 
research for the future, as well as helping the existing 
nuclear fleet. Those are both really important aspects of what 
the clean energy mix must entail.
    Senator Coons. Well, and our national labs are an 
absolutely critical part of doing this R&D. I look forward to 
supporting the appropriations request for the national labs, 
both in nuclear technology, and in clean energy technology, 
more broadly.
    I appreciate the indulgence of the chair, and, very much 
look forward to working with you both. Thank you, Madam 
Secretary.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Madam Chair. And I am actually, 
Madam Secretary, going to pick up right where Senator Coons 
left off, and that is referencing the Energy Act of 2020. And 
you actually have touched on some of the things in your 
responses to him that I wanted to go into for just a minute.
    That legislation actually included six carbon capture 
projects, including two retrofits of coal-fired plants. You 
have mentioned one, which is the Minnkota Plant and Project 
Tundra, where DOE has already provided, I think, more than $43 
million. The company has put in a lot, and the State of North 
Dakota has put a lot of money in, and they are effectively 
moving forward on large scale carbon capture.
    And so I just want to ask if you support those carbon 
capture demonstration projects, and are committed to seeing 
them through, because it is a huge endeavor, a huge 
undertaking. And in fact, Matt McLennan, the CEO of the 
company, will be here today, because in our Energy Subcommittee 
of the full Energy Committee, he is testifying on carbon 
capture and talking about Project Tundra. Of course, that is 
one of the projects we want to take and show you, you know, in 
August when you come to visit.
    Secretary Granholm. Great, great. Well, yes, I support 
that. The CarbonSAFE (Carbon Storage Assurance Facility 
Enterprise), which is where the demonstration projects come out 
of----
    Senator Hoeven. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. For Fossil Energy and 
Carbon Management, we are asking for a 48 percent increase in 
that budget to be able to continue and further those 
demonstration projects, and add to them. But I will say, you 
know, if we were able to get this funding in the infrastructure 
American Jobs Plan, that there would be a significant more 
funding for carbon capture, which I fully support. And I think 
would be enormously helpful to getting, not just to net-zero, 
but to also making sure that these communities are able to 
continue to function.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. And the key pieces there are, I 
mean, it is the frontend investment, like we are talking with 
CarbonSafe, and Project Tundra, those kinds of things, it is 
the loan guarantees, which you have, and also Rural Utility 
Services have, and then it is enhancements to 45Q and 48A.
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    Senator Hoeven. So I agree that, very much, we can include 
those things in our infrastructure/energy packages, I think 
that really advances the ball on carbon capture.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I agree.
    Senator Hoeven. The other thing is, that you answered, 
could you just talked about, is the CO2. So we have 
projects like we are talking about fossil-based projects, but 
we also have biofuels projects that are stripping 
CO2, and they need these pipelines. For example, in 
North Dakota, we can put the CO2 down hole, but in 
Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, you can't because you don't have 
the EPA regulatory regime in place. So they want to build 
pipelines to bring CO2 up to North Dakota, and put 
it down hole. So how do we get more of these pipelines built? 
You know how challenging that is to move CO2.
    Secretary Granholm. Another opportunity to make sure that 
the pipelines for CO2, and I would say pipelines 
eventually for hydrogen are in the infrastructure American Jobs 
Plan that you are negotiating, that too is a huge jobs creator, 
that too provides solutions, and you--obviously North Dakota 
has a unique geology that is----
    Senator Hoeven. Right.
    Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Positioned to be able to take 
a lot of that. And I think it is a big opportunity for the 
State. It is a big opportunity for employment as well.
    Senator Hoeven. Right. I mean, you need the geology.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. You need to have the regulatory and legal 
regime in place. So we are going to have to have those 
pipelines to move that, the CO2.
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And then, Dr. Verdon, as far as the, W80-4, and also the 
W87, one of which goes on the LRSO (Long Range Standoff), the 
other which goes on the new GBSD (Ground Based Strategic 
Deterrent). Update me on the schedules. And are you going to be 
able to--are the labs going to be able to keep up? Because, as 
you know, they are developing the rocket systems, the LRSO is 
progressing quite well. Are you going to be on track with the 
warhead piece?
    Dr. Verdon. Right now we are on track with both the W80-4, 
and the W87-1. But we do recognize that we have COVID impacts 
on the 80-4 that we are working with the Air Force, so there is 
no near-term impacts with that, but there could be a schedule 
adjustment, but we have a lot of margin if we have to do that. 
But we haven't reached a final conclusion yet. We are still 
working with external vendors who have--we stay in constant 
contact with about potential delays, and due to COVID issues in 
our institutions, as well as our own. So we are studying that. 
No final answer. But right now everything is on target, and we 
are supporting the services as required.
    Senator Hoeven. Both for the W80-4 and the W87-1?
    Dr. Verdon. For both systems. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 
Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I believe we have 
another round coming. So, Madam Secretary, please bear with us. 
I wanted to talk with you just a little bit about the 
increasing temperatures, the intense heat waves, and western 
wildfires, really becoming very, very dangerous. Last year in 
California, 4 million acres burned, 10,000 structures, 5,000 of 
them homes, burned. And one out of ten wildfire ignitions in 
our State is related to energy equipment. A lot of which, as we 
know, is decades and decades old, and it is big State, 40 
million people, big geography.
    What role do you see micro grids, renewables, and 
distributed power in making power grids more resilient? And I 
don't know what we do about those things that hit them and 
spark fires. And maybe you have some thoughts on that too.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, thank you for that. I think 
microgrids are an important piece of resilience. And so making 
sure that we have them, especially in areas where we know we 
continually see problems with the major distributed system--the 
major system, is important. And our Grid Modernization 
Initiative, a funding that you all have appropriated for that, 
microgrids are a piece of what we are doing. I also think that 
it is really important in States like California, States that 
are above sea level, that we consider undergrounding these 
wires.
    Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. I missed it. That we 
consider a?
    Secretary Granholm. Undergrounding the wires to the extent 
possible. It is expensive to underground transmission wires. 
However, other countries are doing it, we are doing research on 
it. And we are also doing research on how best to identify, in 
these old grids, where the weaknesses are.
    Senator Feinstein. So you think--if we could just have a 
bit of a back and forth.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. If you think a State as big as 
California, geographically, as well as population, can have a 
sufficient new grid structure, I don't see that happening 
statewide for a long time. There may be some of it. So what I 
am looking for are those things that can solve these problems, 
and really prevent fire from happening, if at all possible.
    Secretary Granholm. I agree a hundred percent. And I think 
that microgrids are one piece in some areas. Obviously there is 
not a one-size-fits-all solution for a State like California 
that is so diverse, but you do--you know where the pockets of 
intense fire problem are. And so in those areas, if we could 
look at solutions like microgrids, like undergrounding the 
wires, so that they are not exposed to create those sparks and 
that danger, the solutions like the--there are AI (Artificial 
Intelligence) drones that can identify where the weak spots are 
on the grid that are the most, have the most fire danger. These 
are all things that our Office of Electricity and our labs are 
working on, but we need more investment to make sure that this 
grid is resilient, and particularly targeted to areas where we 
know we have great problems.
    Louisiana, we have got a different kind of problem, right? 
We need to make the grid resilient from hurricanes, we need to 
make the grid resilient in both places. And in Louisiana, in 
New Orleans it is below sea level. So you wouldn't consider 
undergrounding, so a different kind of solution. But the bottom 
line is in the bill that is being negotiated, the American Jobs 
Plan, or the Energy Infrastructure Plan, there is a component 
that has a grid deployment authority that would be under the 
Department of Energy, where we could really target solutions in 
a granular way to areas where we know we have the biggest 
problems, both transmission, capacity, resilience, and I would 
say cyber issues as well. All of them could be, if we 
centralized, at least how these decisions are being made and 
the technologies to help to address them.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, would you be willing to let some 
of your people take a look at our State?
    Secretary Granholm. Oh, yes.
    Senator Feinstein. In terms of the grid structure.
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
    Senator Feinstein. And make some recommendations. Now 
obviously the big problem is cost, and how do you redo an old 
structure that is huge? And I would certainly welcome any help 
that we could get from the Federal Government by way of advice 
and consultation. And so I am taking the opportunity of this 
hearing just to ask if you would be willing to take a look at 
it.
    Secretary Granholm. Of course, absolutely.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate 
that?
    Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Put that up real 
quick.
    Madam Secretary, does the administration support, if you 
know, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. We have got a lot of vacancies at 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And if you look at the 
website, I know this isn't your--you just got there, but the 
website says this page was last updated on December 15, 2017.
    Secretary Granholm. Oh.
    Senator Kennedy. Could you take a look at that for me?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I certainly will.
    Senator Kennedy. My understanding is that they are--they 
are understaffed there. I have watched you, Madam Secretary, 
for years on television, before you became Secretary, and you 
are very intelligent. And even though I don't always agree with 
you, you make very cogent arguments. Does your proposed budget 
include money for geoengineering?
    Secretary Granholm. No.
    Senator Kennedy. How come?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, it has not been a solution that 
we--I am not--I don't think it does. No? No, it does not. I 
think we want to address and mitigate as best we can, adapt 
where we can but we don't have geoengineering as part of our 
budget.
    Senator Kennedy. But if there is--I mean, geoengineering, 
my understanding of it, it is global cooling. There are things 
we can do to cool the earth that had--based on science. And 
cloud whitening, for example, that is just one--I mean, it 
would just seem to me, and there is a whole science out there. 
There is a lot of private dollars in R&D being spent on 
geoengineering. And if there is a way to cool the earth 
without, let's say, destroying the fossil fuel industry, why 
wouldn't we want to pursue that, if the objective is to reduce 
temperatures?
    Secretary Granholm. We are interested in all kinds of 
technologies to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 
to reduce our warming. But I will say, and I wanted to say this 
to you when you had the first engagement with me, that this 
administration is interested in carbon capture use and 
sequestration, is interested in hydrogen, is interested in 
direct air capture, and is interested in controlling or 
managing the emissions off of fossil fuels. So I just want you 
to understand that we are there with you on that.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes. And I know, you are being truthful 
and accurate, but there are a lot of members of the 
administration, I think, that don't see the climate as a 
discrete scientific problem, they see it as a religion, and 
they see it as a vehicle through which they can remake American 
society. And I think they are approaching the issue with more 
zeal than wisdom.
    I believe in metrics, I believe in the prudent allocation 
of scarce resources. You know what I am talking about. 
Governors have to balance their budgets. And I believe in 
metrics, and if we are going to spend, I don't know how many 
squillion dollars the President lately wants to spend on--that 
we don't have even 5 percent of--on the environment. And I 
believe in the environment, we all do. We all want clean air 
and bright water, but at some point you have to ask--you have 
to judge the expenditure of taxpayer dollars with metrics.
    And what I worry about is that we are going to turn the 
American economy upside down. We are going to turn a lot of 
American lives upside down. We are going to make them a bunch 
of promises, just like we made them with--made them promises 
with globalization. ``Don't worry. Your life will be better.'' 
And think about that when you are in the unemployment line. 
That is what we tell a lot of Americans.
    That we are going to do this without a big picture in terms 
of where we are going to end up. Toward that end, let me ask 
you this question. If you know, and maybe the Under Secretary 
knows if you don't, because I know you can't know everything. 
Tell me five concrete steps that India is taking today to 
reduce its CO2 emissions.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I know--I mean, India is looking 
at wind, looking at solar, looking at hydrogen, looking at 
carbon capture, and is trying to replace its coal with natural 
gas.
    Senator Kennedy. I know they are looking at all that stuff. 
President Xi, says they are looking at it too, as he 
continually builds----
    Secretary Granholm. I know they are deploying--excuse me 
for a minute. I don't mean to interrupt you.
    Senator Kennedy. That is okay.
    Secretary Granholm. But they are deploying those methods, 
including distributed strategies, like we were discussing where 
they don't have to have the grid, but some kind of distributed 
microgrid.
    Senator Kennedy. How much money did Modi spend last year in 
India?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know.
    Senator Kennedy. To reduce CO2 emissions?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know, sir. I don't know the 
answer to that.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. It was under a billion, was not it?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know the answer.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. What you do is what you believe, 
everything else is just conversation. And, that is what worries 
me about this whole approach. Of course, President Xi, and Mr. 
Modi are going to say the right things. But you have to judge 
people by what they do. And I asked our EPA Administrator a few 
weeks--a few months ago, maybe weeks ago, time kind of runs 
together; I said, if we pass the President's infrastructure 
bill, only 5 percent of which is true traditional 
infrastructure, the rest is the Green New Deal and other 
things. How much is it going to reduce CO2 emissions 
in the world?
    And he couldn't answer that question. So we are going to 
spend, you know, how many trillions of dollars, and we don't 
know what the end game is. That is my problem.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We spent, I believe, $90 billion 
last year, cleaning up after these extreme weather events.
    Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
    Secretary Granholm. So if we don't take action, it will be 
far more expensive as these events escalate. I would also say 
that there is a $23 trillion global market for the products 
that reduce CO2 emissions, $23 trillion.
    Senator Kennedy. Right.
    Secretary Granholm. And the question is, are we going to 
take advantage of that? Can we create economic opportunity for 
the people who work in the fossil fuel industry to be able to 
create energy 2.0?
    Senator Kennedy. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm. By managing the emissions.
    Senator Kennedy. And look. You made very good points, but 
here is my point. I am going to say it again, President Biden, 
what is the latest cost of his infrastructure bill, $2.5 
trillion?
    Secretary Granholm. $1.3, I think, is what we are 
negotiating.
    Senator Kennedy. Let's call it $2 trillion, to be fair. 
President Biden says, spend $2 trillion, a big chunk of that is 
the Green New Deal, and my question is very simple: If we spend 
this money to reduce CO2 emissions, how much is 
going to be reduced worldwide? Doesn't matter in the United 
States, it matters the world wide. And we don't have an answer 
to that.
    Secretary Granholm. The entire world has signed on to the 
agreement in the----
    Senator Kennedy. The entire world is not spending $2 
trillion.
    Secretary Granholm. The entire world is spending more than 
that.
    Senator Kennedy. But the entire world is not--most of this 
is lip service. You and I both know it.
    Secretary Granholm. Well, that is not what we are seeing. I 
agree that we have to verify, and that we have to make sure 
that people are living up to their commitments. And that is 
what these agreements are all about. But I understand your 
skepticism because you have to verify.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. And what I have verified is, 
that we are being asked to spend $2 trillion. And the world's 
biggest emitter of CO2 is China, third biggest is 
India and their attitude seems to be: Go get them. We will hold 
your coat while you do that. Meanwhile, President Xi keeps 
building power plants fueled by coal. And he has been known to 
reside on the scarce side of being honest.
    I went way over. I am in big trouble. I am sorry.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for your forbearance. 
I want to just ask one thing that perhaps we might be able to 
talk about a little bit, and that is the $2.6 billion in 
funding for the ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy) area, and included in the budget is a new request for 
another ARPA focused on climate. And it is unclear exactly how 
that would work and why it is needed. And so I just like to put 
that on your agenda. I am very interested in what the answer 
is, and if I could get that answer, I would appreciate it very 
much.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Just briefly, there is $200 
million in our budget for this proposed ARPA-C (Advanced 
Research Projects Agency--Climate), and $300 million in other 
agencies. There are six other agencies that would be involved. 
So it would be a cross-departmental effort, housed at DOE in 
partnership with ARPA-E, but the C part means that they would 
be looking at technologies that impact climate, that are not 
necessarily energy.
    So, for example, the items that we were discussing about 
how to identify ways to mitigate wildfires, how to make 
communities more resilient, and the technologies associated 
with that, that is what ARPA-C would be looking at, in 
partnership with ARPA-E. We want to negotiate this and work on 
it with Congress, with the Senate, and the House. And it could 
be that there is a dotted line to both, so that they work in 
tandem with one another, because obviously they are related. 
But the C part, as we are seeing on a regular basis, is really 
necessary given the increasing amount of these energy events.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just say thank you for 
that. Perhaps we could meet, and with some of your staff, 
develop that a little bit further. I am very worried about what 
the weather brings for the West Coast.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Feinstein. And obviously, particularly the biggest 
State there, and 40 million people, and a lot of old 
infrastructure, very little of which in this area is new, I 
find. What do we do for the future? So that is long range. And 
I would not ask you to respond to that now, but if you would 
ask your people to look at that, and if we could have a meeting 
and discuss it, I would be very grateful.
    Secretary Granholm. Great. You got it.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. And thank you for being here; 
and your staff as well.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    The hearing record will remain open for 10 days. Senators 
may submit additional information or questions for the record 
within that time, if they would like. And the subcommittee 
requests that all responses to questions for the record be 
provided within 30 days of receipt.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
             Questions Submitted to Hon. Jennifer Granholm
              Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
           renewable fuel standard//small refinery exemptions
    Question. There is growing bipartisan consensus that the Renewable 
Fuel Standard (RFS) is broken. The 2005 law mandates an increasing 
percentage of transportation fuel be renewables, but as fuel economy 
drastically improved and refiners ran into the ``blend wall'' the 
mandates became untenable.
    As part of the RFS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
assigns refiners annual quotas for ethanol they must blend into 
gasoline or diesel fuel. The businesses get tradeable credits known as 
renewable identification numbers (RINs) for each gallon of renewable 
fuel. Those that don't meet their quotas have to buy RINs from other 
parties to comply.
    Ethanol RINs alone this year have hit their highest price in 
program history nearing $2 a gallon. Gasoline across the country is 
hitting 6-year highs and this is in no small part due to the broken 
RFS.
    It is estimated the ethanol mandate is adding about 30 cents a 
gallon to the cost of gas--Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents. In fact, many 
small and independent refiners --refiners that support vital east coast 
and rural Midwest markets-- spend more on compliance and RINs credits 
than on payroll, electricity and utilities.
    What is the Department of Energy doing to address the skyrocketing 
compliance costs associated with the RFS?
    Answer. DOE supports research in the production of renewable fuels 
to lower the cost of the ethanol and biodiesel that is blended into the 
transportation fuel pool.
    Additionally, DOE consults with EPA in determining which small 
refineries qualify for hardship relief through small refinery 
exemptions (SREs). SREs can influence the Renewable Identification 
Number (RIN) price and therefore the cost of compliance for refineries.
    DOE works with EPA to provide technical input into their efforts to 
set the renewable volume obligations (RVO). Mandated renewable fuel 
blending volumes should be achievable by the refining industry and 
continue to support renewable fuel producers.
    Question. Is the Department of Energy concerned that the volatile 
RIN market is forcing the closure of refineries that are vital to 
getting fuel to markets?
    Answer. RIN price volatility adds to the difficulty refineries have 
in controlling their RIN costs. The rising price of RINs has increased 
purchase cost of RINs for both small and large refineries.
    Question. Will the Department of Energy commit to working with the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to reign in the 
cost of RINs?
    Answer. DOE is committed to working with the EPA Administrator and 
staff to use the tools we have available to ensure that the price of 
RINs is fair and equitable both to refiners and bio-fuel producers.
    The RFS allows small refineries to receive an exemption from the 
RFS, if they can prove compliance would subject them to 
disproportionate economic hardship. There is no statutory definition 
for disproportionate economic hardship, and a small refinery may apply 
for an exemption at any time. When deciding whether to grant an 
exemption, EPA is to consult with the Secretary of Energy.
    Question. Now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the fact that 
small refineries may receive extensions of their RFS exemptions even if 
their earlier exemptions had lapsed, will the Department of Energy 
commit to supporting small refineries showing hardship?
    Answer. EPA is required by the Clean Air Act, as amended, to 
consult with DOE on small refinery exemption petitions. Additionally, 
DOE was required to provide EPA a study to determine whether compliance 
with the requirements of the Renewable Fuel Program would impose a 
disproportionate economic hardship on small refineries.
    DOE prepared a February 2009 Small Refinery Exemption Study and a 
subsequent March 2011 Small Refinery Exemption Study (2011 Study), 
which is the basis for determining disproportionate economic hardship, 
as required by statute. EPA uses the DOE's findings based on the 
metrics set forth in the 2011 Study in adjudicating the small refinery 
petition. DOE is committed to continue to provide EPA the findings from 
its disproportionate economic hardship analysis, as contemplated by the 
Clean Air Act, in the future.
    Question. The hack and subsequent shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline 
highlighted the importance of regional refining capacity. A number of 
refineries have shut down over the past few years with many of those 
directly reporting compliance costs associated with the RFS as being a 
leading factor in their shuttering. Does the dwindling refinery 
capacity as a result of the RFS concern the Department of Energy?
    Answer. In January 2020, ethanol RIN prices were below 20 cents per 
RIN. By March 2021, ethanol RIN prices increased to about $2.00 per 
RIN, greatly increasing RFS compliance costs. During the COVID-19 
pandemic, refineries faced high RIN prices as well as reduced gasoline 
and diesel demands. This placed financial stress on the refining 
industry due to lower refining margins and higher than usual RFS costs.
    Question. As the average lifespan of a vehicle in the United States 
is anywhere from 13-17 years, in addition to a recent Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) report indicating a year-to-year 
gasoline reduction of 14 percent, what is the Department doing to work 
with the EPA on making sure American vehicles are protected from 
increasing renewable fuel mandates?
    Answer. DOE works with EPA on setting the renewable volume 
obligations (RVO) for the current year as well as in setting the RVO 
for future years (2023 and beyond, when Congress has not set renewable 
fuel mandates). DOE works with EPA with the aim that the RVOs and 
renewable mandates that EPA recommends are achievable by the refining 
industry, provide appropriate fuel for the Nation's transportation 
fleet, and support renewable fuel producers per the original intent of 
the statute.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
                             energy storage
    Question. I appreciate for the conversations we have had regarding 
the importance of energy storage research and innovation and was 
pleased to see that the Department's budget request includes funding 
for a multi-year series of competitive solicitations to conduct 
technology neutral commercial-scale energy storage demonstration 
projects.
    As you and I have previously discussed, my legislation to support 
energy storage research and development--the Better Energy Storage 
Technology, or BEST, Act--became law in December 2020 and authorized 
three commercial-scale energy storage demonstration projects. While I 
understand funding is critical to get these demonstration projects 
going, it is important that the Department has the necessary 
infrastructure to solicit proposals once the funding is available.
    What actions has the Department taken to ensure that when the 
funding is available that the energy storage demonstration projects 
will be able to get off the ground as quickly as possible?
    Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to conduct 
stakeholder outreach to better understand technology readiness and 
where energy storage demonstration projects would be most beneficial. 
These efforts have been undertaken in close collaboration with the 
Office of Electricity (OE) and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
(EERE), as well as other offices with a role in the demonstration and 
commercialization of energy storage. For example, DOE, via Sandia 
National Laboratories, hosted a ``Priorities and Pathways to Long-
Duration Energy Storage'' workshop on March 9-10, 2021. Via Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory, DOE hosted an ``Energy Storage for 
Social Equity Roundtable'' on June 28-29, 2021.
    DOE has also conducted energy storage workshops with utility 
regulators, including those from New Jersey, Iowa, Utah, Maryland, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the New England Conference 
of Public Utility Commissioners. In addition, on July 14, 2021, DOE 
announced the second target within DOE's Energy Earthshots Initiative, 
``Long Duration Storage Shot,'' which sets the goal to reduce grid 
storage costs by 90 percent for systems that deliver 10 or more hours 
of long duration energy storage by 2030. Finally, the fiscal year 2022 
Budget Request proposes new funding opportunities in OE, EERE, and the 
new Office of Clean Energy Demonstration.
                             cybersecurity
    Question. I appreciate your response to the letter I sent with 
Senator Risch and others regarding the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy 
Security, and Emergency Response (CESER). As you are well aware, our 
adversaries are seeking to access and undermine our critical 
infrastructure, including our electric grid. The Colonial Pipeline 
cyber-attack by Russian-based hackers was one in a serious of 
significant cyber operations against our country this year. Foreign 
cyber operations against critical infrastructure, however, have been an 
ongoing problem. Russia's cyber-attacks against Ukraine's power grid in 
2015 and 2016 are an example.
    Given the cyber-attacks that have occurred this year, what is the 
Department of Energy doing to strengthen cybersecurity through CESER 
across our country's critical energy infrastructure and national labs?
    Answer. The Department of Energy (DOE)'s fiscal year 2022 Budget 
Request proposes to invest $201 million in the Office of Cybersecurity, 
Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER). As the office 
responsible for executing DOE's Sector Risk Management Agency and 
Emergency Support Function #12--Energy responsibilities, CESER works 
closely with energy sector partners and across all levels of government 
to prepare for and respond to growing and evolving cyber threats and 
attacks to U.S. energy infrastructure.
    The fiscal year 2022 Budget Request will strengthen CESER's ability 
to execute its energy and national security mission by enhancing the 
office's risk management, situational awareness and emergency response 
capabilities. Specifically, the fiscal year 2022 Budget Request will 
advance policies, technologies, and initiatives, including work with 
DOE national labs, to increase the visibility of physical and cyber 
threats in the operational technology environment, mature the 
cybersecurity supply chain, and support exercises and partnerships with 
states and other public and private sector organizations that will 
bolster the nation's energy security and resilience.
    CESER will also lead crosscutting cyber-R&D and ensure that 
cybersecurity is incorporated into the research and development 
activities for all of DOE's technology program offices.
                             offshore wind
    Question. In 2020 alone, Europe added 2,918 megawatts of offshore 
wind power, bringing their total offshore wind capacity to more than 
25,000 megawatts. By comparison, only 30 megawatts of offshore wind has 
been installed in the U.S. I am pleased the Department is making 
offshore wind development a priority, with the goal of deploying 30,000 
megawatts of offshore wind by 2030, and has already acted on this 
commitment through recent approvals for offshore wind projects located 
off the costs of New York and New Jersey.
    A world-class consortium, led by the University of Maine, is 
pioneering a new era of energy independence by harnessing powerful 
deepwater offshore winds in the U.S. through one of DOE's offshore wind 
demonstration projects. When installed, Aqua Ventus will deploy the 
nation's first floating, deepwater offshore wind turbines off the coast 
of Maine. In my state alone, the offshore wind industry has the 
potential to support an annual average of more than 2,000 jobs through 
2030.
    Given UMaine's demonstration project, I encourage the Department to 
focus on floating deepwater offshore wind turbines technology, in 
addition to conventional offshore wind.
    How is the department prioritizing the advancement of domestic, 
innovative clean energy technologies through R&D, specifically in the 
deepwater, floating offshore wind space?
    Answer. The President's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request proposes an 
increase in funding level for the Wind Energy Technologies Office's 
(WETO) Offshore Wind subprogram that reflects the prioritization of 
research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) 
innovations to drive U.S. offshore installations to contribute to the 
achievement of the Administration's goals of 100 percent clean 
electricity by 2035 and a net-zero carbon economy by 2050.
    Targeted funding will support a wide range of RDD&D activities, 
specifically including a focus on:
  --Innovative offshore wind environmental and siting solutions.
  --Cost-effective offshore wind floating platform design development.
  --Domestic offshore wind advanced manufacturing, supply chain 
        development, and recycling.
  --Offshore wind storage hybrids and hydrogen production.
  --Acceleration of cost reductions to offshore wind system 
        manufacturing, installation, and operations through technology 
        innovations and industrialization.
                         advanced manufacturing
    Question. Advanced composite materials and manufacturing methods, 
including large-scale additive manufacturing and the manufacturing of 
bio-based composites, have the potential to revolutionize our 
manufacturing sector.
    Starting in fiscal year 2019, DOE awarded $20 million in funding to 
support an innovative collaboration between the University of Maine and 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Through this partnership, the University 
of Maine has secured the world's largest 3D printer and recently 
printed the world's largest 3D-printed boat at 25-feet, 5,000-pounds. 
According to Habib Dagher, executive director of UMaine's Advanced 
Structures and Composites Center, UMaine hopes to print with 50 percent 
wood products at 500 pounds per hour, producing materials with 
properties similar to aluminum. This ongoing initiative between UMaine 
and ORNL will provide needed opportunities and support job growth in 
the forest products, manufacturing, composites, wind, and boatbuilding 
industries.
    Would you elaborate on how the Department plans to maintain and 
foster these research collaborations between the National Labs and 
universities that will help us maintain American leadership in advanced 
manufacturing?
    Answer. DOE continues to support the innovative collaboration 
between the University of Maine and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to 
deliver novel, low-cost, low-impact bio- based materials for 3D 
printing and other applications. The partnership fosters accelerated 
place-based innovation and collaborative research by linking two 
regional centers of industrial and research expertise together to solve 
shared technical problems and accelerate research and development.
    Current and future research focus areas include: reducing cost and 
energy of cellulosic material refinement methods, development of next-
generation large-format deposition strategies to achieve 500 lbs. per 
hour deposition, development of advanced molecular dynamic modeling and 
other simulation tools, and targeted technical demonstrations for high 
impact applications in wind, buildings, and marine applications. In 
addition to these long-term projects, the partnership allows for direct 
and fast industrial engagement through short, targeted research 
projects that support the technical portfolio.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
    Question. Nuclear power accounts for 60 percent of the U.S. carbon-
free electricity and nuclear power plays an important role in providing 
clean, cheap, and reliable power, especially for important national 
security facilities.
    However, the cost to build and operate today's large nuclear 
reactors is too high. Advanced reactors have the potential to be 
smaller, cost less, produce less waste, and be safer than today's 
reactors. The Department of Energy currently operates an important 
program that allows the Department to partner with industry to build 
two advanced reactors in the next 7 years. While this investment is 
important, one of the crucial aspects that has been overlooked by the 
two existing projects is a partnership with a utility. As the future 
owner-operator of new nuclear plants, utilities will be critical in 
deciding which technology design has the highest chance of success to 
actually be deployed onto the electrical grid and ultimately supplied 
to customers. The Tennessee Valley Authority currently has the only 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission early site permit for a Small Modular 
Reactor.
    Secretary Granholm, can you provide an update on the two Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration Projects currently ongoing at the Department of 
Energy? Are you concerned about them meeting the required seven-year 
time window given that neither has an NRC Early Site Permit, which as I 
understand means they have about 2 years' worth of work compared to 
sites which currently hold that permit?
    Answer. The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has completed 
negotiations and finalized awards to both of the selected Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration Project (ARDP) demonstration awardees; the X-
energy Xe-100 high temperature gas reactor and the TerraPower Natrium 
sodium-cooled fast reactor. NE is now actively supporting and 
overseeing the Federal investment in these projects. While it is still 
early in the project lifecycles, the two lead companies are already 
making significant progress in the design, engineering, and licensing 
of these important technologies and have met initial scheduled 
milestones established within their respective awards.
    The seven-year timeline to commercial demonstration established by 
Congress is very ambitious. To ensure that we selected the 
demonstration applicants best prepared to meet the program goal, the 
Department considered a range of views by subject matter experts 
experienced in the licensing and operation of nuclear plants in our 
evaluation process. The Department also entered into an agreement with 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain their independent expertise 
and consultation on licensing options and pathways, including 
feasibility of advanced reactor licensing timing and schedules. While 
an Early Site Permit provides a schedule advantage in licensing a 
reactor demonstration, it should be noted that the ARDP demonstration 
project selection process considered many factors besides licensing, 
including technology innovation, design diversity, and capabilities 
that exceed that of the existing fleet, as well as potential for future 
sales and fleet-level deployment.
    Question. Secretary Granholm, have you considered partnering 
directly with a utility with experience building and operating nuclear 
reactors, as your Department works to increase opportunities for new 
nuclear deployment? What would be the central factors of that 
consideration?
    Answer. Initial demonstration projects under the Department's 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) are being executed via a 
Funding Opportunity Announcement that solicited project proposals that 
could potentially result in the commercial operation of the reactor in 
five to 7 years.
    The merit review and selection process employed to evaluate 
proposals included an assessment of the applicant's ability to meet 
specific criteria such as the technical feasibility and likelihood that 
the demonstration reactor could be designed, licensed, constructed, and 
operational within the seven-year window, the robustness of the 
applicant's project management processes, the affordability of the 
design and competitiveness in the commercial market, and the technical 
abilities, qualifications and commitment of the project team. 
Applicants generally teamed with architect and engineering firms and 
utilities that had experience in the construction of nuclear reactors. 
The ultimate demonstration selections under the ARDP were made based on 
a combined scoring of all the above factors.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
    Question. In some areas of Vermont, vermiculite affects 10 percent 
of households eligible for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). 
The fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills included 
language directing the Department of Energy to make $500,000 available 
to current WAP grant recipients via the Weatherization Innovation Pilot 
Program to develop and implement strategies to treat harmful 
substances, including vermiculite. The set-aside for this work 
increased to $1,000,000 in the fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 
bills. It is my understanding that much of this money has been spent on 
developing strategies to remediate vermiculite, rather than the 
implementation of those strategies.
    Please provide the details of how the Department of Energy has 
issued this money to current Weatherization Assistance Program 
recipients specifically to implement solutions, rather than develop 
those solutions.
    Answer. DOE's approach to addressing vermiculite was discussed with 
Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee staff in July of 2018. DOE has 
tasked the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to perform a field 
study to measure the effects of current approaches used by Grantees and 
Subgrantees to weatherize homes with vermiculite insulation. The study, 
which is currently on-going, will include research elements that will 
identify any mitigating actions that may be applicable in performing 
such retrofits.
    DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) envisions the project 
will monitor 50-100 dwellings from 3-5 Grantees, including Vermont's 
(VT) Department for Children and Family's (DCF). Indoor quality testing 
will be done both before and after weatherization activities are 
performed, and any homes that require asbestos or vermiculite 
mitigation will receive it. VT's DCF has agreed to participate in the 
ORNL project to help ORNL better assess current approaches to 
remediating vermiculite in homes, and ORNL will issue contracts 
directly to the Subgrantees, in concert with the VT WAP.
    This field study is focused on data collection that includes, house 
occupant and weatherization worker exposures to asbestos before, 
during, and after the weatherization of the houses containing 
vermiculite insulation using four identified approaches:
  --Weatherizing the house as normal after testing reveals that the 
        vermiculite insulation contains less than 1 percent asbestos by 
        weight.
  --Avoiding areas of the house where vermiculite insulation is 
        installed and weatherizing the remaining areas of the house as 
        normal.
  --Blowing cellulose or other insulation over the existing vermiculite 
        insulation.
  --Weatherizing the areas of the house where vermiculite insulation is 
        installed using unique/alternative approaches developed 
        specifically for that house.
    Completed activities to date for the field study:
  --Initial interview of Grantees and identification of approaches 
        being taken by various states, narrowing down the Grantees of 
        interest based on their approaches
  --Development of the detailed Experimental Plan and its iterative 
        improvement
  --Identification of necessary equipment, sampling procedures, and 
        analytical methods
  --Environmental Protection Agency Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response 
        Act- certified asbestos sampling training of project Principle 
        Investigator
  --Communication and discussions of the Experimental Plan with 
        Weatherization Grantees (States) and Subgrantees (private non-
        profits and local units of government)
  --Institutional Review Board (IRB) review completion.
    Currently, the project is 6-8 months behind schedule based on the 
submitted 2020 Experimental Plan. This is due to two factors. First, 
the IRB full board review required several modifications to the 
procedures outline in the Experimental Plan. Moreover, the 2019 novel 
coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19) pandemic has also delayed 
progress in moving forward due to the stoppage of weatherization work 
at the beginning of the pandemic.
    The remaining tasks to complete the study and their expected 
deadlines are:
  --Identify subcontractors formally and implement a bidding process
    --Completion by late September 2021
  --Subcontracting with asbestos sampling firms or contractors, 
        Subgrantees, and analytical laboratories
    --Completion by November 2021
  --Training of subcontractors based on the standard operating 
        procedures developed for the study
    --Completion by December 2021
  --Data collection
    --Completion by December 2022
  --Sample analysis
    --Completion by June 2023
  --Final Report
    --Completion by September 2023
    Question. How does the Department of Energy plan to build off of 
the vermiculite remediation strategies it has developed to directly 
assist homeowners seeking assistance through state Weatherization 
Assistance Programs?
    Answer. Once the field study referenced above is finalized, Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) will issue a final report on the 
effects of Grantees' current approaches on weatherized dwellings 
containing vermiculite. The study results will be used by DOE to 
develop additional guidance on existing and potential strategies 
identified during the process to address asbestos contamination in 
vermiculite insulation (i.e., how to better approach and complete 
weatherization of dwellings with vermiculite insulation, including 
precautions needed, avoidance criteria, etc.). Appropriations bills 
from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2021 have included report language 
encouraging the Department of Energy, while administering the Clean 
Cities program, to prioritize projects in States where the 
transportation sector is responsible for a higher percentage of the 
State's total energy consumption and is its largest source of 
greenhouse gases. This emphasis is particularly important for rural 
states like Vermont, where transportation accounts for nearly 40 
percent of total emissions--almost 10 percent more than the national 
average--and where progress on vehicle emissions reduction provides a 
significant opportunity to achieve State and national climate goals.
    Question. Can you provide an update on how the Department 
prioritizes projects within Clean Cities, and whether recent funding 
cycles have emphasized States with higher transportation sector fuel 
consumption and emissions?
    Answer. Clean Cities competitive funding opportunities are designed 
to implement and facilitate education, outreach, and training projects 
focused on helping to accelerate the adoption of alternative fuels and 
other advanced vehicle technologies. Funding applications for 
deployment projects include scoring criteria that address impacts on 
fuel consumption and emissions. In addition, a national network of more 
than 75 active coalitions covering nearly every state and 80 percent of 
the U.S. population, brings together stakeholders in the public and 
private sectors to use alternative and renewable fuels, idle-reduction 
(IR) measures, fuel economy improvements, and new transportation 
technologies as they emerge.
    In 2019 these collective efforts resulted in a cumulative impact in 
energy use equal to 1 billion gasoline gallon equivalents and prevented 
nearly five million carbon dioxide equivalent tons of emissions. An 
analysis of the eight states where transportation accounts for 50 
percent or more of emissions shows that for fiscal year 2018-fiscal 
year 2020, there have been 30 Clean Cities projects funded in those 
states representing $22 million of Federal funding. Projects seeking 
funding for fiscal year 2021 are currently being reviewed.
    Appropriations bills from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2021 have 
included report language encouraging the Department of Energy, while 
administering the Clean Cities program, to prioritize projects in 
States where the transportation sector is responsible for a higher 
percentage of the State's total energy consumption and is its largest 
source of greenhouse gases. This emphasis is particularly important for 
rural states like Vermont, where transportation accounts for nearly 40 
percent of total emissions--almost 10 percent more than the national 
average--and where progress on vehicle emissions reduction provides a 
significant opportunity to achieve State and national climate goals.
    I appreciate your focus and commitment to achieving widespread 
national deployment of electric vehicles (EVs) as a cornerstone of the 
President's climate agenda, represented in both the fiscal year 2022 
budget request and in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. In some parts 
of the country where colder temperatures reduce battery range, many 
buyers are apprehensive about purchasing an EV as their primary mode of 
transportation, even as the costs of EVs continue to decrease and 
become more accessible. Particularly in largely rural and car-dependent 
communities, like those in Vermont, reduced battery range during the 
winter poses a significant obstacle for many drivers. Importantly, EV 
charging infrastructure is especially critical to facilitate EV 
adoption in these areas. I am also concerned that a lack of 
standardization in EV charging technology across the sector--including 
unique and proprietary features--remain an obstacle for widespread 
adoption and deployment.
    Question. How will the Department of Energy work with other 
Departments and agencies to ensure that EV charging infrastructure 
funding is appropriately disbursed geographically to allow the most 
car-dependent communities--specifically in colder and rural areas--to 
transition to zero emission transportation?
    Answer. The Department will work with other Federal agencies and 
state offices to ensure that Federal EV charging funding is disbursed 
equitably and across the entire nation to provide access to convenient 
charging to all Americans based on nationwide detailed analyses of 
charging needs and infrastructure placement and on roadmaps built in 
coordination with local stakeholders. A national charging system will 
need to include high-power charging along highways and a combination of 
low and high-power charging in communities to ensure equitable access 
to EV charging for residents who do not have access to private 
charging. This includes investing in workplace charging, curbside 
charging, and public-access locations such as transportation hubs, 
commercial destinations, libraries, and government buildings.
    The department is also studying how to address barriers to 
installing EV charging for residents of multi-family housing through 
innovative charging and management technology, outreach and education 
efforts targeting developers and property managers, and finance models. 
Ensuring equitable access to charging for rural communities will 
require coordination with utilities on electric service capacity and 
demand charges as well as investments in distributed energy resources. 
These are all areas the department will work on as it seeks to expand 
EV charging for all Americans.
    Question. As the Biden administration works to achieve its goal of 
500,000 EV charging stations across the country by 2030, what efforts 
are underway to encourage industry standardization of charging 
infrastructure and systems to ensure access for all communities and 
widespread adoption?
    Answer. The Department believes a seamless charging experience for 
all electric vehicle (EV) users and effectively integrating EV charging 
with the grid will be important for the success of EVs. This requires 
physical interoperability, accessible payment, and open data protocols 
both to provide station data to users and for back-end communication 
between the charging equipment, network operators, and the electric 
utilities. We are ready to work with other agencies and industries to 
develop solutions tackling all these elements. On physical 
interoperability, in particular, we recognize the challenges that are 
created by the existence of two EV Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) 
connector standards, SAE Combined Charging System (CCS) and CHAdeMO (a 
charging standard for EVs), and one non-standardized, proprietary 
connect, Tesla. Tesla has not announced specifics yet. At this point, 
DOE would still stress a seamless and interoperable charging 
environment and it's possible that the Supercharger network could 
provide this in the future.
    Today, in the United States the automakers selling EVs using non-
proprietary connectors are converging on the use of the CCS connector 
and the non-proprietary charging networks are predominantly installing 
DCFC with CCS connectors, with only a small number of CHAdeMO equipped 
DCFC to support legacy CHAdeMO EVs. While these advances are 
encouraging, physical interoperability is only one element and the 
Department will be working with EV stakeholders to develop a National 
EV Charging Technical Roadmap to identify the key system enablers and 
technologies that will allow for a reliable, resilient, and convenient 
charging network that will support the widespread adoption of EVs in 
all communities.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted to Dr. Charles Verdon
              Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
    Question. The Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee is one of 
the Federal Government's largest construction projects. Over the past 7 
years, this Subcommittee has provided significant funding for this 
project, including $750 million in fiscal year 2021.
    The President's budget proposes $524 million to continue 
construction of the Uranium Processing Facility. However, I understand 
that $620 million is needed to keep this project on schedule.
    Dr. Verdon, is the Uranium Processing Facility still on track to be 
completed by 2025 at a cost of no more than $6.5 billion?
    Answer. NNSA completed an independent review the week of February 
22-25, 2021, which identified that the staffing and material 
improvements over the past 6 months have been insufficient to maintain 
a December 2025 completion date. However, multiple opportunities exist 
over the next 4 years to improve schedule performance and potentially 
complete on-time. Since that review, NNSA has increased staffing and 
material deliveries and appears to have improved performance, making 
the December 2025 completion date and the total project cost 
potentially more attainable. We believe that available carryover and 
the $524 million in the President's Budget will address planned work in 
fiscal year 2022.
    Question. Dr. Verdon, has the pandemic had an effect on 
construction and on-budget ability to finish this project?
    Answer. UPF project construction continued throughout the COVID-19 
pandemic, and suppliers were notified that their deliveries to the UPF 
project were part of NNSA's critical infrastructure work and should 
continue. Additionally, enhanced cleaning, staggered shifts, masks, and 
an increase in the bus fleet used to transport personnel to the job 
site limited the overall impact to UPF construction.
    The project continues to take mitigation measures as some 
deliveries have been impacted, and construction execution experienced 
some decrease in efficiency at peak COVID cases during the past holiday 
season.
    It is too early to determine COVID cost impacts as we are still 
operating with pandemic related protocols.
    Question. Dr. Verdon, what lessons have we learned from the Uranium 
Processing Facility that are being applied to the other big 
construction project at the Department of Energy? Specifically, the 
Lithium Processing Facility--another multi-billion-dollar construction 
project slated to begin at Y-12.
    Answer. NNSA will continue to use lessons learned from UPF and our 
entire portfolio to improve early project planning and requirements 
development. For example, NNSA recently started assigning project 
directors immediately after Analysis of Alternatives are complete. NNSA 
also will institute a rigorous change control program to limit scope 
growth.
    NNSA's fiscal year 2022 budget request also asks for appropriate 
staff to ensure that NNSA has the right numbers of qualified 
acquisition and project management specialists to oversee our growing 
portfolio. Finally, NNSA will complete designs before baselining, 
procure long lead materials as early as practicable to optimize cost 
and schedule performance, and break large projects into subprojects to 
better manage scope.
                          subcommittee recess
    Senator Feinstein. So, Madam Secretary, it is wonderful to see you. 
Thank you for being here.
    Thank you so much. And the meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., Wednesday, June 23, the subcommittee was 
recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]