[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-725 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 27
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy. 68
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:18
a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon.
Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will reconvene. Welcome to today's hearing entitled
``Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities.'' I
will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the
Ranking Member.
To many, the Department of Energy is typically not regarded
as a ``science agency,'' but from its origins with the
Manhattan Project to its current programs and mission, science
has always served as DOE's foundation.
Approximately $8.5 billion, or 1/3 of the Department's
budget, is focused on civilian science and technology
activities that fall under this Committee's jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I want to thank our witness, Dr. Ernie Moniz, for
joining us today. His presence here continues our tradition of
hearing from the DOE Secretary on a regular basis.
Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy policy,
particularly regarding the scientific and technical issues that
are the focus of this Committee.
Dr. Moniz's tenure begins at an extraordinary time in our
Nation's energy history. We are now just a few years into an
energy revolution driven by hydraulic fracturing that has
enabled dramatic increases in oil and natural gas production.
The notion of true American energy independence, long
dismissed as unrealistic, is now attainable, perhaps even by
the end of this decade. These developments will greatly benefit
not only our economy but also geopolitics and our national
security.
The shale boom has been accompanied by important energy
policy debates. These include whether the Federal Government
should regulate fracking, whether the Keystone XL pipeline
should be built, and how best to handle liquefied natural gas
exports. These issues are all of critical importance and all
connect to the scientific and technical jurisdiction of this
Committee.
Also of major importance is how we prioritize Federal
efforts to advance development of alternative forms of energy.
In an era of budget constraints, we need to set priorities.
I believe that the best approach is to place a higher
priority on fundamental research that will enable new energy
technologies to become more cost-effective. This makes sense
not only from a fiscal perspective but also from a global
perspective. It is widely agreed that any effective solution to
climate concerns must be global in nature. And while the United
States has reduced carbon emissions in recent years, developing
countries have shown little desire for voluntarily switching to
more expensive forms of alternative energy.
For example, China and India are expected to build a
combined 200 coal plants in the next three years. Global coal
use is expected to increase 50 percent by 2035, which will
dramatically increase carbon dioxide emissions. This won't
change unless alternative forms of energy become more cost-
effective. So we should shift from costly subsidies to research
and market-driven technological solutions that will be used
around the world. To me, this is the only practical, long-term
solution.
That concludes my opening statement, and the Ranking
Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
To many, the Department of Energy (DOE) is typically not regarded
as a ``science agency.'' But from its origins with the Manhattan
Project to its current programs and mission, science has always served
as DOE's foundation.
Approximately $8.5 billion, or one-third of the Department's
budget, is focused on civilian science and technology activities that
fall under this Committee's jurisdiction.
Accordingly, I want to thank our witness, Dr. Ernie Moniz, for
joining us today. His presence here continues our tradition of hearing
from the DOE Secretary on a regular basis.
Dr. Moniz has a deep knowledge of energy policy, particularly
regarding the scientific and technical issues that are the focus of
this Committee.
Dr. Moniz's tenure begins at an extraordinary time in our nation's
energy history. We are now just a few years into an energy revolution
driven by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that has enabled dramatic
increases in oil and natural gas production.
The notion of true American energy independence--long dismissed as
unrealistic--is now attainable, perhaps even by the end of this decade.
These developments will greatly benefit not only our economy but also
geopolitics and our national security.
The shale boom has been accompanied by important energy policy
debates. These include whether the Federal government should regulate
fracking, whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should be built and how best
to handle liquefied natural gas exports.
These issues are all of critical importance, and all connect to the
scientific and technical jurisdiction of this Committee.
Also of major importance is how we prioritize Federal efforts to
advance development of alternative forms of energy.
In an era of budget constraints, we need to set priorities.
I believe a better approach is to place a higher priority on
fundamental research that will enable new energy technologies to become
more cost-effective. This makes sense not only from a fiscal
perspective, but also from a global perspective.
It is widely agreed that any effective solution to climate concerns
must be global in nature. And while the U.S. has reduced carbon
emissions in recent years, developing countries have shown little
desire for voluntarily switching to more expensive forms of alternative
energy.
For example, China and India are expected to build a combined 200
coal plants in the next three years. Global coal use is expected to
increase 50 percent by 2035, which will dramatically increase carbon
dioxide emissions.
This won't change unless alternative forms of energy become more
cost-effective.
So, we should shift from costly subsidies to research and market-
driven technological solutions that will be used around the world. To
me, this is the only practical long term solution.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
the hearing today.
And I would like to welcome Secretary Moniz and express my
appreciation for his willingness to serve the Nation again, as
he has several times before.
Secretary Moniz, you are obviously extraordinarily well-
qualified, and I believe that you are the right person to lead
the Department of Energy at this critical time.
Let me start by saying that, overall, I am pleased with the
Department's budget request this year. If approved, the Office
of Science, ARPA-E, and the Office of Electricity, and the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would all
receive a much-needed boost to advance the development of clean
energy technologies that will be vital to our national
security, our economy, and our environment in the decades to
come.
It is worth reminding my colleagues here today that we have
seen how government research can pay off when it comes to
energy development. DOE-supported research was key to
development of higher-efficiency gas turbines for coal plants,
nuclear reactors developed at the Federal labs, and the
directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices that
have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should remember
that those achievements required decades of Federal investment,
the overwhelming majority of which were focused on fossil and
nuclear energy.
I continue to support research to make today's technologies
cleaner and more efficient, but I believe that it is time to
level the playing field and introduce real competition to the
markets. That is where the priorities set by this budget
request come into play.
We have to find the greatest value for our investment of
the taxpayers' dollar, and today, it is the emerging energy
technologies sectors that will most benefit from our
government's support.
I think it is also important to note that DOE's Office of
Science is actually the largest supporter of basic research in
the physical sciences in the country, and it operates more than
30 national scientific user facilities whose applications go
well beyond energy innovation. Our Nation's top researchers
from industry, academia, and other Federal agencies use these
facilities to examine everything from new materials that will
better meet our military needs to new pharmaceuticals that will
better treat disease to even examining the fundamental building
blocks of the universe.
I believe this stewardship of unique scientific research,
including the Nation's major national user facilities is
another important role that I hope the Department will continue
to make one of its highest priorities.
It is no secret that Congress' inability to date to come to
an agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some
devastating cuts to many of these important programs with
serious impacts on our Nation's future. I think this budget
request is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Secretary, and my colleagues across the
aisle to provide you with the direction, the tools, and the
resources that you need to get us back on track.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Chairman Smith for holding this hearing today. I would also like to
welcome Secretary Moniz and express my appreciation for his willingness
to serve the nation again, as he has many times before. Secretary
Moniz, you are obviously extraordinarily well-qualified, and I believe
you are the right person to lead the Department of Energy at this
critical time.
Let me start by saying that, overall, I am pleased with the
Department's budget request this year. If approved, the Office of
Science, ARPA-E, the Office of Electricity, and the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy would all receive a much-needed boost
to advance the development of clean energy technologies that will be
vital to our national security, our economy, and our environment in the
decades to come.
It is worth reminding my colleagues here today that we have seen
how government research can pay off when it comes to energy
development. DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-
efficiency gas turbines for coal plants, nuclear reactors developed at
federal labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing
practices that have led to the shale gas boom of today. But we should
remember that those achievements required decades of federal
investment, the overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil
and nuclear energy. I continue to support research to make today's
technologies cleaner and more efficient, but I believe that it is time
to level the playing field and introduce real competition to the
markets. That is where the priorities set by this budget request come
into play.
We have to find the greatest value for our investment of the
taxpayer dollar, and today it is the emerging energy technology sectors
that can most benefit from government support.
I think it is also important to note that DOE's Office of Science
is actually the largest supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences in the country, and it operates more than 30 national
scientific user facilities whose applications go well beyond energy
innovation. Our nation's top researchers from industry, academia, and
other federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from
new materials that will better meet our military's needs, to new
pharmaceuticals that will better treat disease, to even examining the
fundamental building blocks of the universe. I believe that this
stewardship of unique scientific research, including the nation's major
national user facilities, is another important role that I hope the
Department will continue to make one of its highest priorities.
It's no secret that Congress's inability to date to come to an
agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some devastating cuts to
many of these important programs, with serious impacts to our nation's
future. I think this budget request is a step in the right direction,
and I look forward to working with you, Secretary Moniz, and my
colleagues across the aisle to provide you with the direction, the
tools, and the resources you need to get us back on track.
With that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Our only witness today is Hon. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of
the Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz
was a Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he was a faculty
member since 1973.
Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the
Department of Energy where he oversaw the Department's Science
and Energy Programs. From 1995 to 1997 he served as Associate
Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology
Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
Dr. Moniz received a bachelor of science degree in physics
from Boston College and a doctorate in theoretical physics from
Stanford University. He brings both impressive academic
credentials and practical skills to a very demanding job.
Dr. Moniz, we welcome you today and look forward to your
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ,
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Johnson, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today for my first time and in this
incarnation and to lay out my vision for the Department of
Energy path forward over the next few years. And I certainly
look forward to working with this Committee during that time.
I am pleased to be back at the Department. As noted, I
served as Under Secretary during the Clinton Administration as
well as at OSTP. At MIT, I would just add to the Chairman's
description that I also served as head of the Department of
Physics and, perhaps of direct relevance here, as Director of
the Bates Linear Accelerator Center, which was, at that time, a
Department of Energy user facility. So I have seen the
Department from that end as well. More recently, I was the
founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative.
So today, again, I will lay out a bit of my vision for how
the Department can meet some of the pressing challenges before
us and touch on some of the initiatives in the President's
Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for the Department.
Clearly, I will start by discussing the science programs,
and I want to thank, again, both--actually both the Chairman
and the Ranking Member for pointing out the critical role that
Department of Energy plays in the science enterprise of this
country and also how science and technology really is the
thread that runs through all the diverse missions of the
Department.
The science programs are crucial to fostering scientific
and technological breakthroughs, especially in the physical
sciences. The Department provides the national science
community with unique research opportunities at major
facilities for nuclear and particle physics, for energy
science, for materials research and discovery, for large-scale
computation, and other disciplines. And the President is
committed to making investments in R&D that will grow the
economy and enable our country to remain competitive.
A couple of weeks ago I made my first trip as Secretary to
Oak Ridge National Laboratory where I saw Titan, then, the
world's fastest supercomputer. I was told today that yesterday
China has now fielded a machine that is now number one, and I
might say this area of large-scale computation, modeling, and
simulation, one in which the Department of Energy has helped
this country in its leadership role for many, many decades, is
fiercely competitive with China, the EU, Japan, others
investing large resources, and, in fact, also of interest in
China, a stated goal of training 1 million students in the use
of high-performance computing for various applications.
While at Oak Ridge, I also visited the Consortium for
Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors along this theme of
large-scale computation. This is the first of MIT--of MIT--of
DOE's, excuse me, existing energy innovation hubs. I made that
slip because MIT is a partner in that hub.
In its first three years, CASL has already released
software that simulates a virtual operating physical reactor.
And the President's budget continues support for this and other
hubs and proposes a new one in electricity systems following
the recent awards to Argonne and Ames for batteries and energy-
critical materials respectively.
The President's budget also continues support for DOE's
Energy Frontier Research Centers run out of the Basic Energy
Sciences office, and these are working to solve specific
scientific problems that are barriers to clean energy
technology development.
The budget request also supports the continuation of DOE's
three Bioenergy Research Centers, which are very successfully
pursuing basic research underlying a range of high-risk, high-
return biological solutions for energy applications.
Within science, nuclear and particle physics continue to
shed light on fundamental properties of matter at the subatomic
level. In the nuclear program, we have a robust program
operating the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, continuing the
major upgrade of Jefferson Lab in Virginia, and initiating a
new facility at Michigan State.
In particle physics, we clearly have to consider what is
going to be our direction, particularly with Fermilab, our
flagship facility, right now, pursuing the Intensity Frontier,
and this will be an important development over the next three
years, how we see the vector for high-energy physics.
Let me turn, if I may, briefly, to energy technology and
policy. As the Chairman noted, in the last four years since
President Obama took office, the global energy landscape has
undergone a profound change. The United States oil and gas
production has increased each year, while oil imports have
fallen to a 20-year low. At the same time, renewable
electricity generation has doubled and should double again in
the next several years, and carbon emissions have
simultaneously fallen to the lowest level in the United States
in nearly two decades.
But even with the increase in domestic oil and gas
production, high gasoline prices still impact American families
and businesses every day and remind us that we are still too
reliant on oil. The President has emphasized there is no silver
bullet but we continue to pursue a multipronged approach in
terms of efficient vehicles, alternative fuels, and vehicle
electrification.
Another important focus, one that I have emphasized quite
strongly as well, is that on energy efficiency. The President's
goal is to double American energy productivity by 2030, saving
consumers and businesses money and increasing competitiveness.
Efficiency really is the fifth fuel.
And of course, we will continue our cutting-edge science
and technology research R&D to accelerate the transition to a
low-carbon economy through cost reduction as the principal goal
of innovation.
Given the time, I will just say a few words about moving
forward with programs like ARPA-E, which I consider to be a
critical part of this country's energy innovation system and
also noting how it suggests that we continue to have an
enormous amount of untapped innovation capacity that we should
try to bring to bear.
Finally, in discussing energy, I will note that I also
served on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, PCAST. And PCAST, at the end of 2010, recommended a
new process called the Quadrennial Energy Review for weaving
together the many strands that must go into a coherent energy
policy. This will require much stronger analytical capabilities
which will be a focus for me in these years, and I look forward
to working with others in the Administration, the Congress,
industry, NGOs, and others to advance this new approach to
Quadrennial Energy Review.
In concluding, I would just say that in addition to these
mission areas--and of course we also have the nuclear security
and environmental remediation areas--but I want to say that
improving the management and performance of the Department is
one of my top priorities as Secretary. I intend to pursue this
in at least four areas: better integrating science and energy
programs; elevating the focus on management and performance as
an enterprise-wide requirement; increasing the analytical
capability, as I said, as an essential underpinning for energy
technology and policy; and creating clear lines of authority
and responsibility for security across the Department.
So in summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department has significant
responsibilities that bear on America's economic, energy,
environmental, and nuclear security future, and I am fully
committed to working with the Congress in search for solutions.
I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Moniz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Secretary Moniz.
Let me recognize myself for questions.
And my first one goes to the loan guarantee programs. The
Government Accounting Office says that there are eight new loan
guarantee programs under consideration at a total cost of about
$2 billion. Is that accurate, and if not, what is the right
figure as far as the loan guarantee programs that might be
announced, say, this year?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I am not quite sure what that figure
refers to specifically.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. But there is the 1703 program, which I
think is probably being referred to, the one that has a
conditional agreement for a loan for the nuclear reactors in
Georgia at about $8 billion, so that still remains to be seen
where that goes. And there is consideration as authorized for
developing a potential program in the fossil fuel area.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And those are the only loan guarantee
programs you are aware of that might be under consideration?
Secretary Moniz. To my knowledge, that is what the--what
are being considered. The other area where there is additional
authority is in the Advanced Vehicle program, but currently,
there is no----
Chairman Smith. What about alternative forms of energy,
wind, solar, and so forth?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I will go back and check, Mr.
Chairman, for sure, but what I am aware of right now that is
active is the conditional loan on the nuclear reactors and
considerations about a fossil program.
Chairman Smith. Okay. No imminent announcements on any of
these?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I had better check that to be sure--
--
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. --but that is my knowledge of it.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Fair enough. The other question
relating to that is that will the loan guarantee programs put
the interest of taxpayers ahead of the interest of others?
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely. I believe the program has
always striven to do that.
Chairman Smith. Okay. So if the company fails, the
taxpayers would be paid back first?
Secretary Moniz. Well, yes, sir. I mean the overall
judgment will be to protect taxpayer dollars.
Chairman Smith. The reason I ask that was Solyndra, you had
the situation that before bankruptcy was actually declared, the
loan was restructured and the taxpayers were put second instead
of first, but you don't envision that happening again?
Secretary Moniz. We have no such plans for that----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. --but I can guarantee always putting
taxpayers' interests----
Chairman Smith. Great. Thank you.
Let me move on to the subject of climate change and ask you
what percentage of climate change do you think is attributable
to human activity and what percentage to other causes?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, I wouldn't know how to put a
percentage on it but I believe the science is clear that
manmade activity----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --is a major contributor to the global
warming that we are seeing.
Chairman Smith. Right. Assuming that, though, is there any
way to estimate what percent? Is it over half, you know, 50
percent, 75 percent, 90 percent is attributable to human
activity or is that not----
Secretary Moniz. Well, what I would say is that in my
scientific view the--what we are seeing is consistent with
being driven by manmade activities. Clearly, there are
background variabilities----
Chairman Smith. Would the natural cycles--you have solar
influence and so forth----
Secretary Moniz. Correct, but the--basically, my statement
is based on the fact that if one simply looks at the amount of
what one knows as one has known for over a century how CO2
in particular drives global warming through the greenhouse
effects, we know how much CO2 we emit from
combustion, and we know how much CO2 is accumulating
in the atmosphere, and we know that time trajectory of those--
--
Chairman Smith. Right. But still no way to know what
percentage is attributable to human activity?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I don't know how to make a
percentage, but again, I think there is no doubt in my mind
that the anthropogenic causes are major----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. --probably the major driver of climate
change.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. And then the last question
is this--and this is asking you to speculate and be creative, I
guess.
Secretary Moniz. Uh-oh.
Chairman Smith. And it is for this reason--suppose we were
looking at possible breakthrough technologies that would reduce
carbon emissions, and we were looking for breakthroughs that
did not involve increase in taxes or subsidies. What are some
possible breakthroughs that we might see in the next five to
ten years that would allow us to reduce carbon emissions
without raising taxes and without subsidies? Do you have any
idea on that? I am thinking about batteries or maybe more
efficient buildings, things like that, but any other ideas that
you might have?
Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, in the area of efficiency
I think there remains enormous opportunity, and buildings, as
you have said, are a major focus area. Seventy percent of
electricity goes into our buildings. On the supply side--well,
in about ten years we hope to have the first small modular
nuclear reactor deployed, which could be the beginning of an
interesting new industry for us. Solar energy has come down
enormously in cost, and I believe that within ten years we will
be surprised at its level of deployment. And very critically,
battery as energy storage, which you also mentioned, is
critical. Costs have come down very dramatically.
There remains a significant way to go to get what I would
call mass-market vehicle technology there. But it has been
tremendous progress. In fact, I just mentioned the Tesla as--
for example, has dropped its base cost by nearly a factor of
two in about 4 years.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Secretary Moniz. And let
me apologize to you. I am on another committee that is having
an all-day markup that has already begun, so I am going to need
to excuse myself. I hope to be back in about an hour. And Dana
Rohrabacher, I think, is going to take the Chairmanship. And I
will look forward to seeing you later.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. [Presiding] I finally got it in my hands.
Ms. Johnson. This is frightening.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, even with that, you are recognized
for your five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. This is a gentleman that
I have served on this Committee with now in the 21st year, so I
do know him pretty well.
Secretary Moniz, I understand that in your previous job as
Director of MIT Energy Initiative you played a major role in
examining the impacts of energy development on water use and
vice versa, so I am sure you already know that this is a
significant issue for my State. And I appreciate your
responsiveness to my recent letter to you on the subject.
Can you briefly describe the Department's current
activities to address the critical link between energy and
water and are there further actions you plan to take in this
area, now that you are the boss?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The energy-water nexus is clearly one of greatly increased
attention, and rightly so, because this is a very, very
challenging problem. In fact, it is often not recognized that
approximately half of the United States' water withdrawals are
just for thermal power plants alone. And, of course, water
issues have become very prominent in hydrocarbon production.
So at the Department we have a task force that has been put
together on the--on energy and water. They have been developing
ideas. There are some collaborations, for example, with EPA and
DOI specifically on the water issues with hydrofracking. The
issues of addressing lower water use, particularly as drought
comes across much of our country, are critical.
I have asked our task force to develop a draft program plan
for this fall that would give us an idea what might be a new
direction that we could then discuss with the Members and of
course in the Administration to see how we might shape a
program more forcefully aimed at energy and water.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
As one of the Nation's most respected physicists, can you
briefly describe how greenhouse gas emissions trap heat in
Earth's atmosphere?
Secretary Moniz. Okay. I could use a blackboard then. But,
no, I mean, quite briefly, the issue is that incoming sunlight,
especially, let's say, in the visible range, obviously we see
the sun, so that sunlight comes through to the earth; it is
absorbed. It is then re-radiated as infrared and then certain
molecules like carbon dioxide trap that infrared radiation and
that creates the greenhouse effect which then leads to warming.
And this has been--I might say this has been known since the
nineteenth century.
Ms. Johnson. What are the major risks to our Nation if we
don't reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and are there any
increased risks if we delay action?
Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, I think, the risks of
global warming are very, very considerable. Of course, this
does--it is an issue in the end of I should--of global
greenhouse gas emissions. With an increase and continued
warming, we will--we are seeing of course already indicators
such as the dramatic effects on sea ice, but also I think here
in this country we are seeing statistically the expectations
written down 20 years ago playing out such as droughts,
wildfires, storm intensity increases. Again, one can never
assign any specific event to the warming, but statistically, it
seems to be there. So--and the problem is it is happening very
rapidly compared to historical natural cycles.
Also, I should have talked about sea level rise, which then
couples with storms to have storm surges, the kind of thing
that we saw with Sandy.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And the Chair now recognizes me.
First of all, welcome aboard.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I am sure we are going to enjoy our
kibitzing, as I have enjoyed it with your predecessor as well.
Let's--we are talking about global warming. Let me get this
straight. You don't know what the natural production of
CO2 is compared to the human production? Is that
what your answer to the Chairman was?
Secretary Moniz. No, sir, I said to the--I know how much
CO2 we are producing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. --from anthropogenic causes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you don't know the percentage of what
is in the atmosphere is caused by human beings versus the
natural production?
Secretary Moniz. So the amount of CO2 from
anthropogenic sources actually significantly exceeds, in fact,
the amount that is not remaining in the atmosphere, as the
oceans reabsorb some of it. So actually one could argue that--I
mean anthropogenic sources really is a very, very major driver.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the ocean doesn't absorb the CO2
that is produced by man, but it does absorb what is produced by
nature, and you don't know----
Secretary Moniz. No, you can't----
Mr. Rohrabacher. --how much is produced by nature?
Secretary Moniz. No, I mean the CO2 molecule is
a CO2 molecule----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
Secretary Moniz. --and there is a carbon cycle, and in that
carbon cycle there is a net--at least today there is a net
absorption in the oceans and in the land masses.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I would appreciate if you could,
when you go back and check--I mean it is surprising you don't
have the answer on top of your head exactly what percentage of
the CO2 that we are talking about with greenhouse
effect here, what percentage of CO2 in the
atmosphere is caused by human activity and what is caused by a
natural activity?
Secretary Moniz. Again, we know the overall fluxes
because----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But what is it?
Secretary Moniz. --in the carbon cycle--I would have to go
back and really get my numbers straight.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. All right.
Secretary Moniz. But----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Go back and get that.
Secretary Moniz. The--okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's fine. Now, let me ask you this.
Now, I am from Long Beach State and you are from MIT. But I
have----
Secretary Moniz. Good at basketball.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But there are other people with
credentials, like Richard Lindzen from MIT, who are very
skeptical of some of the research that has been going on and
have articulated that, yet we have just a few weeks ago, an
offshoot of President Obama's reelection campaign listed
climate deniers. The only other use of that term is a Holocaust
denier. Do you use the term denier for those people who
disagree with you on climate science, and do you think that
term is appropriate in engaging in a civil discourse over a
scientific issue?
Secretary Moniz. I much prefer a civil discourse and that
is what I hope we are engaging in.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you very much.
Now, I certainly am very pleased to hear your commitment to
small modular nuclear reactors. I am rather concerned in the
development of those small modular reactors that new technology
is being focused on rather than light water technology, which
is not new technology. Is there some way we are going to meet
that challenge that these new small modular reactors are going
to be based on a new concept, which I think is much safer and--
to the public by going with--not going with the old light water
reactor system?
Secretary Moniz. Well, of course, the first award that was
made, as you know, was for a light water reactor-based system,
and that is the one that we anticipate being deployed about--by
2022 or so assuming the licensing goes well, et cetera. And, of
course, light water reactors will have an advantage in terms of
NRC familiarity with that technology----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --for licensing. In the call that is out
now, there will be--I am sure, although I don't actually know
this; we are in the middle of it--but it is certainly open to
both light water reactor and other technologies.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now, let me note that I think if we are
going to be moving forward with new technologies, shouldn't
that be based on old concepts when--if there are new ones
available? And I am looking forward to working with you and
seeing that we can try to develop this new type of small
modular reactor that is going to serve our purposes decades
into the future.
And one last note, one last question is that is we are
spending billions of dollars in wind-related research, and this
is--I mean across the board here. I think it is $4 billion in
82 different federal wind-related initiatives. For a small
fraction of that cost, there are people who are--this Committee
also receives NASA. There are people at NASA who suggest that
we might be able to develop a space-based solar system that
would again be clean energy coming from space and the--and be
able to be unloaded on a grand receiver that is a lot less
obtrusive than a refinery, et cetera. Do you have any
inclinations toward--or do you know about this concept of
space-based solar power and what are your--what is your
reaction to it?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I was certainly aware of the
concept, which has been around for quite a long, long time. I
have not studied it. The last I knew that it was felt by many
at least to be rather impractical in terms of the resource
requirements, but I would be happy to look at that again if you
think it is an area to look into.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I will be looking forward to going
through that with you.
And now, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today. I think
your confirmation 97 to 0 in the Senate is a great testament to
you and your work. We rarely see anything like that up here on
Capitol Hill these days, so I think that really shows a great
respect for not only the work you do but how you do it.
So the first thing I wanted to bring to your attention is a
topic that I raise a lot in this Committee, which is the
National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps program. As you
may know, the I-Corps program is an entrepreneurial education
program developed by serial entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley
teaches scientists how to be entrepreneurial. And, as I am sure
that you understand that this is something that does not come
naturally or has been taught to a lot of scientists or some of
our great researchers out there.
Now, the program is already having an impact because, as we
saw three months ago, a team that went through the I-Corps
program founded a company called Neon that secured seed funding
from a private venture capital group. And the founders of Neon
have credited their current market strategy to the lessons that
they learned, the connections that they made through the I-
Corps program.
In April, I wrote to the Department of Energy about this
program and Dr. Holdren has testified before this Committee
that the Administration sees a lot of promise in
entrepreneurial education programs like I-Corps. I think
researchers funded by the Office of Science and other areas of
DOE will benefit from participating in this program as well. So
this is more of a comment that a question, but I would urge you
to take a look at the I-Corps program because I think
entrepreneurial education for energy researchers can have a
tremendous impact on getting new energy technologies to the
market more efficiently.
And that is I think a perfect lead-in to the----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. --what I wanted to address next and ask you
about. Argonne National Lab, which is in my district, is the
proud home of an energy innovation hub on energy storage and
battery technology, as you mentioned in your opening remarks. I
supported strongly this application by Argonne and I am very
proud of the work that they are doing because I think it has
the potential to be transformative both for the transportation
sector and for renewable energy.
Now, at the same time, there is more to Argonne than just a
battery hub. Resources like the Advanced Photon Source, the
Mira supercomputer, and a nuclear energy program, among others,
all have worldwide renown.
So I would like to get your ideas, Dr. Moniz, for how the
innovation hubs will work moving forward, and along the same
lines, how can DOE ensure that the United States maintain the
right level of commitment to national laboratories and all
their world-leading scientific facilities, as well as the
science and energy challenges in close cooperation with the
industry?
I think the energy hubs, innovation hubs are fantastic. We
also face the challenge of how do we balance this with all of
the great work that is being done at these facilities. I wanted
to get your views on this.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. There are several parts to the
question. If I may just make a note that your discussion about
storage for both vehicles and grids that actually I sent a
letter just this week to Senator Wyden and his request
looking--that lays out a schedule for us to develop a plan for
grid-scale storage. So that is something you may be interested
in as well. I would be happy to share that with you.
With regard to hubs, I personally believe that the hubs are
a very important way for the Department to do business. The
assembly of multidisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers
work across the innovation chain as it fits the mission
purpose, and it is something I would like to support strongly.
Of course, we have to make sure that they are also being
managed well and heading to their goals, and I intend to carry
out a review of the existing five hubs to see how we can
strengthen them and strengthen future hubs.
I might say that with the national labs--you mentioned the
national labs broadly--frankly, I think this is the way the
national labs in my view should do more of their business with
significant teams focused for an extended time on an important
problem. I think that is what the labs can do really uniquely
much more easily than a typical university environment.
And I have had the pleasure of now meeting twice with the
lab directors, once by video, once in person, and I think they
are on the same page as I am and that last statement. And very
importantly, I think I have said that I would like to work with
the leadership of the labs in a much more strategic way than I
think has been the case for some time now. As my friend George
Schultz likes to say, when you want people there on the
landing, you should have them there on the takeoff, and I want
the lab directors up front talking about our strategic
directions.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. I think it is important
that, you know, we continue on and pursue these innovation
hubs, but we can't lose sight of what else is going on at the
labs. I thank you very much.
Secretary Moniz. If I may just add a comment. I have said
not only the labs but also the universities where the issue of
a lot of smaller groups and single investigators is very, very
important. We need to have the right balance.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
And, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank you and the former Chairman of 15 minutes ago.
And, Secretary Moniz, I thank you for appearing. You
appeared before us last week, I believe, to discuss Department
of Energy science and technology priorities.
Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware, the process of
hydraulic fracturing has revolutionized the energy industry
helping really put our country America on the course for
becoming the world's largest producer of oil and gas by the end
of the decade. I think those may be partially your words. And
you have previously and consistently stated that the
environmental impacts from fracking are ``manageable.'' I think
that is too weak, and I want you to improve on that. And I'm
going to try to give you a chance to. And that it ``certainly
was not clear to you'' that there have been major consequences
from fracking. That is positive, too, but it is not quite far
enough. Can we go a step further? Let me help you.
Last week, you concurred with earlier testimony from former
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson of all people that there had not
been a single instance in which fracking has been found to
contaminate drinking water. That ought to put to rest whether
or not fracking has caused drinking water to be bad, shouldn't
it? That ought to be enough.
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, I think, as I said last week as
well, I mean that--
Mr. Hall. Well, if you don't think it ought to be enough,
tell me and I will go on to another paragraph for you.
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I think I need to clarify my
statement. So what I said is the fracturing process, as far as
I know, I know of no incidents. But, as I also said, it is the
conventional activities like well completion, cement jobs where
there have been problems. Water management on the surface,
methane emissions, all of these are manageable in the sense
that we know the solutions; we just have to put the solutions
in place all the time.
Mr. Hall. They are self-manageable because they are
thousands of feet apart, aren't they, normally?
Secretary Moniz. Well, no, but the real issue is in the
penetration to the ground, the well, it is the first 200 feet
as opposed to 7,000 feet below in the fracturing.
Mr. Hall. Okay. As you know, in the well-publicized
instances, the EPA has claimed that fracking caused drinking
water contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming; Parker County,
Texas; in Pennsylvania, and all these claims turned out to be
unfounded and almost dishonest.
Several experts have appeared before the Committee and
confirmed that there had been no evidence or history of
hydraulic fracturing affecting usable quality of water. Even
Dana, the Chairman right here today, asked the last question of
an administration member that came here to testify, left the
President's desk to come here and testify, and the last
question Dana asked him was do you know of anywhere, anytime in
the history of the United States of America that fracking has
caused drinking water damage? And his answer was no. Are you
aware of that?
Secretary Moniz. I wasn't aware of that specific answer but
it is very consistent with what I have said, yes.
Mr. Hall. And given the EPA's poor track record, how can
the Federal Government repair its reputation on fracking?
Now, we could work on that reputation if it had been a
different president appointed and elected last year but it
wasn't. So we have a president that thinks different to what
the president we offered I think would have had on fracking. I
think we would have looked into some of the testimony that they
came here and gave under oath. And will you work with the EPA
to assure ``good, objective measurements and analysis'' that
you have stated are needed? You are going to do that, aren't
you? We think you are and we hope you are.
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, first, I have to say, I mean,
the President in my view has been--is all-of-the-above energy
policy and he has been very supportive of the developments of--
in--of the gas industry. With regard to EPA----
Mr. Hall. Well, I don't have enough time to go into it with
you as to whether or not he has been supportive. I have a very
100 percent different opinion that you have about the
President's support of energy.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. Well, that could be a longer
discussion.
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. With regard to the EPA, as I said,
clearly, they are the ones responsible for the regulatory
arena, but we will certainly be happy to collaborate in
technology and analysis. In fact, I mentioned earlier we are
collaborating on the water issues involving fracking.
Mr. Hall. Quickly, I want to ask you this: Do you agree
that the funding mechanism creating the Royalty Trust Fund is
an appropriate way to ensure a dedicated funding stream for
unconventional and also deepwater natural gas? Yes or no?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think the----
Mr. Hall. Yes or no, please. If you can't say either, why,
just tell me you----
Secretary Moniz. Well, the Administration, as you know, is
not supportive of that, but the Energy Security Trust proposed
has a very, very similar mechanism.
Mr. Hall. And you are familiar with Section 999? I know you
are----
Secretary Moniz. I am indeed.
Mr. Hall. --according to your background.
Secretary Moniz. I am indeed.
Mr. Hall. How does Section 999 program fit within an all-
of-the-above energy strategy?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I believe the program executed under
999 has been very effective in looking at R&D and particularly
on environmental impacts of unconventional production, ultra
deep unconventional, onshore, and also helping with research
for small producers.
Mr. Hall. And I close with this: If our Nation wants to
move closer to energy independence, shouldn't the Federal
Government be pursuing technology solutions to facilitate
energy production rather than pursuing regulatory actions that
restrict production? I hope you will say yes, and if you don't,
why, it is okay. I thank you, and I yield back my time.
Secretary Moniz. I think we should do both.
Mr. Hall. Okay. And we have great hopes for you to tell us
the truth.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hall. And we want to be supportive of you.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, sir. And I would be happy to
follow up with our longer discussion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And now, Ms. Edwards from Maryland.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us here today.
Over the couple of years that I have been on this
Committee, we have been round and round about climate change.
Is there human causes to climate change and what do we do about
it? And so I just want to get really clear for the record. Mr.
Secretary, do you disagree with any of the scientific
conclusions of the vast majority of climate--the climate
science community that an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere leads to a warming of the Earth's surface
temperature?
Secretary Moniz. I certainly agree with that, yes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Ms. Edwards. And, again, to be clear for our record, we
have heard from economists, lobbyists, lawyers, lots of folks,
not a lot of climate scientists, but I wonder what your
response is to the argument that mankind cannot impact the
climate or that several thousand scientists signed a letter
indicating that climate change is not real?
Secretary Moniz. I think there is no dispute in my--as I
said earlier, the anthropogenic activity has been a major
contributor to the recent global warming.
Ms. Edwards. Great. I hope we put that to rest so we don't
have to revisit it over and over again in this Committee.
And then I want to ask you about renewables because in
Maryland we just incentivized a program for offshore wind
capacity, and I wonder how the Department is engaging with the
States that have made these commitments to boosting solar,
wind, and other renewable energy sources, and if you have a
comment, if you will, about--I have a pet peeve about electric
vehicles and it is that our Department of Energy and other
departments haven't actually worked with local planners and
regional planners to develop the kind of infrastructure that we
need to fully implement these new technologies.
And then I wonder if you could also comment on the impact--
you know, as we see an increase in production of natural gas,
the impact on our ability to commit the resources that we need
in an environment where a lot of fuel costs are pretty stable
and so we don't have the anxiety about energy in the same way,
and how that impacts your ability to drive an agenda that is,
you know, results in us making the investment in technologies
for energy efficiency?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. There are several questions
there, I think.
Well, first of all, let me say that I think offshore wind
is a very important, very important area to pursue. Costs are
still significantly too high, but it is a great wind resource
and especially if we can push out to deeper waters. And we do
have work going on in that area.
Secondly, you mentioned in the context of EVs, but more
broadly I have been very clear, I think, in my confirmation
process and more recently that one of my goals is to
significantly upgrade our interaction with States and
localities. In fact, I have--I feel that if you look at our
country, different regions have very, very different energy
opportunities and needs, and I think we need to do more
recognition of that so that we can work with regions and
develop the appropriate approaches to a future low-carbon
economy.
The third, natural gas and the implications of natural gas,
again, I view the natural gas bounty that we have as a real
opportunity and a plus. I believe it is an opportunity
ultimately for getting that bridge to a low-carbon future.
In fact, one of the things we, I think, have not done
enough of is looking at the integration of renewables, wind and
solar, with natural gas, which is a good way of balance, but,
in the absence of affordable storage so far, a very, very good
way of balancing supply and demand.
So, clearly, I mean, the natural gas bounty and low-cost
natural gas has very much changed the marketplace, and that is
why, in fact, we have lower CO2 emissions. It is the
substitution of gas for coal. It has also revitalized much of
our manufacturing sector. So I think the issue is to integrate
gas, recognize gas as part of the solution going forward.
In the meantime, what is critical is continuing the
investments in innovation because what we have to do, just like
gas prices have come down, we have to lower the costs of
alternative technologies.
Ms. Edwards. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Neugebauer?
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to have you here.
In lobbying for his clean energy agenda, President Obama
frequently states that the United States should follow the
clean energy examples set by other countries such as Germany
and Spain. However, in Germany the cost of electricity has
risen nearly 40 percent in the last five years, and electricity
prices for industry are 15 percent higher and the average for
other countries in European--15 percent higher than the other--
the average in other European countries.
And just last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
announced at an energy conference in Berlin that spiraling
costs of renewable energy are damaging the country's economic
competitiveness and need to be scaled back.
Spain is expected to announce next week cuts between 10 and
20 percent to its subsidies for wind and solar projects. The UK
has already trimmed some of the low-energy subsidies. It is now
saying that Europe's European Union's target of getting 20
percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 was a
costly mistake. So what have we learned from the Europeans?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think there are certainly some
important areas that we can learn from, although clearly, I
think the most important thing is what we do here at home in
terms of our own energy policy.
But, as one example, you mentioned Germany. I would give
two examples from Germany. One is--and they are both driven in
a certain sense by their approach to standards. Their building
efficiency is certainly extremely good, and that saves them a
lot of money, especially when the costs are high for
electricity.
Another area where they are frankly much better off than we
are is in the so-called soft costs for things like installing
solar, 40 percent of our costs. So I think there are lessons we
can learn there as well.
Mr. Neugebauer. But, you know, I think one of the issues is
we are pursuing an agenda that is really being detrimental in
many cases to the consumers of this. And so I think one of the
things that we want to be extremely concerned about is making
sure that we let the marketplace determine what are the best
alternatives and not the government.
I would like now to yield some additional time to the
Chair, Mr. Rohrabacher from California. I think he wanted a
follow-up question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you very much.
Just to note with your earlier statement about the
intensity of weather conditions and how that reflects on the
overall climate of the Earth, I heard a story about a week or
so ago about the ship that they found in the Great Lakes, and
it had disappeared, I think, in 1910. Do you remember that?
Secretary Moniz. No, I do not.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. It was a big story----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --and that ship sank in 1910 in one of the
great storms of 1910, and ships disappeared in Great Lakes and
everything else where----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --and it was interesting that we had such
a massive storm in 1910 which indicates that we are not now
going through massive storms that are any different than
massive storms that we had in the past. Roger Pielke, I think
is how you pronounce his name----
Secretary Moniz. Pielke.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Dr. Pielke, thank you very much----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --head of there at the Colorado State has
done a study of the statistics and says, yes, floods have not
increased, hurricane frequency in terms of their landfall or
intensity have not increased, the tornadoes especially the
strongest ones have not increased at least since the 1950s when
we had many of these tornadoes, drought has not--drought has
actually decreased since the middle of the century, since
especially, the 1930s, East Coast storms, there is no trend
there, and he said, quite frankly, that this idea that we are
now--every time a heavy storm comes through and we get it--you
see it on TV for someone to suggest that this is something new,
that it is wrong, I mean that we are--we have always had these
intense storms. That is part of living on the planet.
Secretary Moniz. Well, I would certainly agree that we have
always had these intense storms. I think--and there is--
certainly, here, there is more scientific discussion needed
than in some of the other areas, but the issue is many very
reputable scientists analyzing the data----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --not tornadoes but more----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. --it is in cyclones because of the water
issue. The--that it is the statistics; it is not any
individual----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. And you are aware that the--we--my
colleague, Ms. Edwards, unfortunately is gone, but when we
heard this over and over again, oh, the vast--you know, the
overwhelming number of scientists disagree that it is manmade
activity that is causing this increase in temperature, which I
believe the temperature has stayed steady for 16 years now,
long after----
Secretary Moniz. That is in dispute.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. All right. But do you think the
Russian Academy of Sciences is it to be taken seriously?
Secretary Moniz. I would not offer an opinion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Well, I hope that while you are
in your office that the Russian Academy of Sciences is someone
that you would be conferring with. They totally reject this
theory. And I was just over there recently, spent a day with
the scientists over there and talking to them.
And one last thing in terms of wind and the rest of them,
people--aren't there a lot of birds that are killed by these
windmills as well? I mean I understand more birds are killed by
these--by this wind power--this attempt to use wind power than
we have polar bears in Alaska or in the Arctic.
Secretary Moniz. I wouldn't know how to compare that but I
must say, if I go back to the--what I tried to emphasize is
that where I am coming from is actually much simpler. We know
what the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide is and we have
known that, again, for--since the 19th century. We know how
that translates into average temperature increase. We know
that--we know how much CO2 is emitted from
anthropogenic sources. We know how much CO2 remains
in the atmosphere. And this is all consistent with a track that
would have us in the multiple degrees centigrade average global
warming. The more one goes into localized expectations of
consequences, the more scientific debate there is.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you.
Secretary Moniz. But the macro is just clear by counting.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, with all those charts--you are
looking at the charts, do they also juxtapose solar activity
like solar flares and solar things that also may have an
impact----
Secretary Moniz. It is a long discussion.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We will have a long discussion on that.
Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Yes, thank you. And I thank my colleague from
California for letting me jump ahead.
Dr. Moniz, thank you for being here today. My questions are
simple. You know, the public expects us to address issues and
solve problems, so I will ask some simple questions.
Dr. Moniz, do you believe that the climate is changing?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I do.
Mr. Bera. Okay. And do you believe that, regardless of
percentages, that there are both natural causes of climate
change as well as human causes of climate change?
Secretary Moniz. Certainly.
Mr. Bera. And do you believe that, given the trajectory
that we are on, that at some juncture the climate change is
going to become irreversible or be very difficult to----
Secretary Moniz. Well, yes, because basically carbon
dioxide stays in the atmosphere for many, many centuries so it
is cumulative. And yes, we have kind of set the agenda for
decades in advance already.
Mr. Bera. And the longer we delay in dealing with this, the
more difficult it will be?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Mr. Bera. So given that and given that all of us agree that
you are one of the most qualified scientists, you know, the
Senate overwhelmingly confirmed you, do you think our focus
should be on those areas that we can actually impact climate
change which would be the human causes of climate change?
Secretary Moniz. Well, yes, I think we should--I think
prudence calls for us to take prudent steps today, and I might
add that the difference of the--again, the anthropogenic over
these last decades is the rapidity with which we are--it is not
a natural timescale the way we are increasing CO2
emissions.
Mr. Bera. Great. So this body can debate percentages, they
can debate causes, but we all acknowledge that regardless of
the percentage, there is a human factor here that leads to
increased CO2 emissions----
Secretary Moniz. Well, I certainly--and a very strong one
in my opinion.
Mr. Bera. --that impacts our ability. Giving us advice,
what recommendations would you like to see this body enact and
the Administration enact so we start to slow this down?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think certainly from the
Department of Energy and for this Committee's jurisdiction I
think a key is to really push hard on the science and
technology that underpins a transition over time to a low-
carbon economy. I mean I think that is the innovation agenda.
And, as I have said, I think not all of my entrepreneurial
friends like this, but I think the fundamental goal of this
innovation is cost-reduction of these technologies.
Mr. Bera. And----
Secretary Moniz. So that they will all be marketplace
competitive and drive--the policy will be a lot easier with
lower costs.
Mr. Bera. And specific recommendations for how we actually
reduce the cost, what you would like to see us do?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I mean, again, the targets I think
are across-the-board efficiency. I mean efficiency is where
today we still have many opportunities that are at least
lifecycle-cost beneficial, whether that is vehicles, buildings
of course are an enormous opportunity, industrial processes.
Then, we need to go to low-carbon, carbon-free alternatives
in the power sector, which is probably the leading sector for
getting carbon out of the sector. We have three options: We
have nuclear, we have renewables, and we have carbon capture
and sequestration. And I believe we need a multipronged
approach on all of these, and that is what, in fact, the
President's budget proposes. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Bera. Great. As a scientist myself, a life scientist,
certainly this is critical.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Bera. You know, we certainly are seeing the changes
that are occurring. Again, the vast majority of the public
understands that the climate is changing. The vast majority of
the science community understands that the climate is changing.
And it is about time that we move past debating percentages and
addressing the root cause issue where we can address that root
cause issue.
So, you know, we on this Committee look forward to working
with you. We look forward to working with the Administration,
and we look forward to working with the broader community to
start addressing our children's future.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. And, again, as I think you are saying,
sir, there is lots of debate in terms of how we address it.
Mr. Bera. Absolutely. But, yes, we can have that debate on
how we address it.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Bera. But let's move past the debate of whether the
climate is changing or not. We know the climate is changing.
And let's focus on those areas where we can have impact and we
can actually, you know, ensure our children's future and our
grandchildren's future.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank you very much.
Mr. Hultgren?
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Moniz. Very good to have you here, and I
really am looking forward to working with you and do feel like
this is a pivotal time for so many issues dealing with science
in particular, and so I just want to say how much I am looking
forward to that.
It has not been a secret that I had some strong
disagreements with your predecessor and also with the President
specifically with funding choices. And it is interesting even
the discussion today and I appreciated your comments in your
statement that the challenges we face, specifically some
climate challenges, are not just our challenges; it is world
challenges. And when you look at the impact, much of it is
happening beyond our borders.
And questions we have to ask is at what cost? There are
things we can do but at what cost? And what other things suffer
when we have limited resources? So that is the type of debate
we need to be having, and I am looking forward to having that
debate with you as well.
I really have been frustrated where I feel like some
important scientific work, specifically with our national
laboratories, has been undercut under this Administration. And
the opportunity to continue that funding and that priority and
how it all fits in. I talk about really an ecosystem of science
and how our laboratories and our universities and our
commitment to STEM education all fit together with ultimately
what type of nation are we going to be? Are we going to be an
innovative nation, cutting-edge nation? That is what I want to
make sure during my time here, whether that is short or long,
and I hope to be able to work with you on that in finding areas
where we can agree to move that forward.
Secretary Moniz. Me, too.
Mr. Hultgren. I do want to start questioning of really
asking about DOE stewardship in discovery sciences. As you
know, the DOE is responsible for things like particle physics,
excuse me. My tongue isn't working today--that are not
immediately related to its energy mission but have a long
history of successes in improving our understanding of the
universe. How will you make sure that we maintain the vitality
of these fields and remain among the world leaders in things
like high-energy physics at a time when the overwhelming
priority of the Department has been on subsidizing existing
energy technologies and addressing climate change?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I believe these, as you call them,
discovery sciences are an absolutely critical part of our
stewardship. I think the--I mentioned--you mentioned, excuse
me, particle physics. This is a place where--and this is also
my approach--where frankly I think the community needs to come
together and decide what is the next direction?
Clearly, the center of high-energy physics right now is in
Geneva, but Fermilab, for example, is emphasizing some
precision physics and high-intensity physics. Is that the
direction we go?
So, Congressman, I think the community has a so-called
Snowmass meeting this summer or--yes, summer, which happens to
be in Minneapolis.
Mr. Hultgren. It is not quite Snowmass.
Secretary Moniz. But I think that that is a critical
meeting because, frankly, I think the particle physics
community has not had as clear a strategic plan in the last
years as some of the other fields have had.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, I agree with you, and I really do
appreciate what you had said earlier, too, with my colleague
from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, of the work that you are doing of
bringing lab directors together to make sure that we have a
strategy, that we are not just floundering. And also there have
been times where we have kind of pitted labs against other
labs. I don't believe it should ever be that way. It is one of
the reasons we started up the National Science and Laboratories
Caucus, just to help educate other members of how important
these are and how each play an important role.
We need to hold them accountable with the funds they have,
but let's make sure that we are committed to them and telling
the story among ourselves and to the world of how important
this is.
You mentioned--and my time is going to run out, but you
mentioned how the focus of physics really has changed and
focused on Geneva, and that is part of the discussion we have
to have as well is big projects, big science projects and how
we are going to do that into the future. I want to have that
discussion also and look forward to maybe a time where we can
sit down, hopefully, and talk about that.
In my last remaining seconds I do want to switch gears to
something else you talked about in your opening statement, and
that was recent news from China on the fastest computer coming
out of China. I am currently working with several of my
colleagues on this Committee on legislation that will
reauthorize some of the Department's high-speed computing
research programs to push us towards the exascale of computing
systems.
With that news out of China, where do you think we--there
are opportunities to shift funding at the DOE where we could
get more bang for our buck with exascale computing instead of
existing expenditures in other areas. And to what extent would
you hope to coordinate the activities of the Office of Science
with NASA on some of that work?
Secretary Moniz. That is a very interesting question. First
of all, we are well along in putting together an exascale plan
that we hope to bring to the Congress shortly. I think, by the
way, a key direction for the United States in this kind of
international competition is to lower the energy requirements
dramatically.
Mr. Hultgren. I absolutely agree.
Secretary Moniz. I mean our target is like a 20 megawatt
exascale machine and not a gigawatt exascale machine. So that
is an example of a very important area.
I think working with NASA could be very interesting. By the
way, not only on that as an enabling technology, but another
place is robotics. I think where we could have a lot more use
of robotics in our difficult nuclear security and cleanup
missions, and NASA, of course, is a pioneer there.
Mr. Hultgren. Good. Well, I wondered if maybe I could get a
copy of the bill we are working on to get your thoughts on
that, the exascale computing bill that we are going to be
presenting here in the next couple of days. And you are right;
there are some significant challenges. I know just the Chinese
system, I think it has got over three million cores and about
18,000 kilowatts of power, so these are the challenges we are
going to have to face to really get to exascale. But I know we
can do it but I want to be intentional on that and strategic--
--
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Hultgren. --whether it is with the labs or whether it
is with our computing. So thank you. I will look forward to
working with you.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Hultgren. I do hope it is positive. I think this is a
pivotal time.
With that, I yield back. Thank you for your generousness
with the gavel.
Secretary Moniz. And if I may just comment, I wasn't aware
of this caucus with labs, and I would be happy to meet with
that----
Mr. Hultgren. We would love to have you. It is bipartisan
and we are working together across the aisle seeing how this is
important and how we really haven't done as good of a job as we
should have telling the stories of what our labs have done and
continue to do and how important they are. So thank you. I
yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. And I am going to have to
unfortunately give up this gavel and--but Mrs. Lummis, who is
the Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee here on Science and
Technology, will be taking the Chair, but for--in the meantime,
Ms. Bonamici from Oregon will have her time.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Moniz, for your testimony today. I am going
to ask about three issues: electric vehicles; solar energy,
especially domestic manufacturing; and wave energy. And because
my time is short, I am going to ask the three questions and
then give you time to respond.
I was pleased to see significant increases in the energy
efficiency and renewable energy budget proposal, particularly
in the area of vehicle technologies. Oregon is a national
leader in this area. We have a high number of electric
vehicles. In fact, your department recently found that in
Oregon the cost to operate an electric vehicle is the
equivalent of running on gasoline that costs 96 cents a gallon.
I think many of my colleagues would appreciate that in their
districts.
So can you describe the Department's plans to replicate
this type of success in other communities that don't yet have
the same deployment levels as my State of Oregon?
And then secondly, on solar energy, you highlight solar
energy as a priority. I am glad to see this reflected in a
proposed budget increase. In my district in Oregon we have
SolarWorld, employing about 800 people, providing the
installation industry with a high-quality product while also
supporting domestic manufacturing. But SolarWorld's ability to
compete domestically is being threatened. Last year, the
International Trade Commission unanimously found that U.S.
solar manufacturers had been injured by unfair trade practices.
So will you please discuss the impact of such trade
practices, especially on domestic solar manufacturing? And can
the Department of Energy do more to support domestic
manufacturing?
Finally, Oregon has made a strategic decision to work with
the Federal Government to become an international leader in
wave energy. Many countries, especially in Europe, have already
deployed viable operating electricity-generating projects using
the emission-free power of ocean waves and currents and tidal
forces. In fact, the U.K. has spent more than US$780 million on
wave energy R&D over the past decade. I believe it is critical
that the United States send a clear signal to the rest of the
world that we are a strong competitor in and serious market for
this emerging sector.
There is a need for some investment related to development
of an offshore testing center, which I of course hope will be
in Oregon and wonder does the Department plan to pursue an
increase for water and wave power in the Fiscal Year 2015
budget request to Congress?
Thank you very much and please respond in the remaining
time.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. The--so first on the electric
vehicles, let me actually first note that in the 2011
Department of Energy Quadrennial Technology Review, the lead
recommendation was to shift emphasis relatively speaking more
towards advanced vehicle technologies, and that is reflected
now in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget. That Quadrennial Technology
Review is in the first step towards the Quadrennial Energy
Review that I mentioned earlier, which I hope will have similar
consequences on a broader playing field.
In terms of the deployment of electric vehicles, clearly,
today, the number of vehicles deployed is modest, but the rate
of deployment is actually faster than it was for hybrids at
this stage of their deployment. And partly it is because they
are really high-performance vehicles, a little bit expensive at
the moment, but very, very high performance.
The eGallon you referred to in terms of the operating costs
of such a vehicle in your State it was below $1; the national
average is $1.14. And we have a tool now where somebody can
find the price of operating a vehicle the same way they can at
the local gas station seeing the price up there.
So the goal here is A) get the capital costs down for the
batteries; B) in programs like our Clean Cities and our
strengthened emphasis on States and localities that I am
bringing in. And I have--I can't say right now but I think we
will have--an excellent person will be coming in to head this.
She is very, very--been very prominent in state energy issues
that we will be looking to help localities in terms of the
infrastructure development.
Secondly, on solar, clearly, I mean many, many policy
instruments are not in the realm of the Department of Energy,
but what I would say is, of course, again, we come back to the
cost reduction----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --not only in the, let's say, a module per
se but in the manufacturing processes, very, very important.
The President's Manufacturing Initiative, I think, is going to
be very important here, advanced materials. The new one that is
up for bid right now involves power electronics. That is part
of a system for solar. And, again working with the States, we
have got to find a way to get the soft costs down----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --which, right now, are driving things
very, very heavily.
On--what was the third? Wave energy, wave and tidal energy,
that is a program that I have to say I have not yet gotten to
review. I know it is a small program right now. I have received
strong encouragement to look at the--what have been called the
forgotten renewables beyond wind and solar and that would be
waves, micro hydro, geothermal. So we will be looking at that
in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget preparation. Clearly, I can't
make a commitment on any specific number now.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. We look forward to working with you----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. --and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Mrs. Lummis. [Presiding] I thank the gentlelady, and I wish
to add my warm welcome to you----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. --Secretary Moniz.
Next, you will be hearing from the gentleman from Indiana,
Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. And thanks for being here. A couple
of questions that I have about worldwide CO2
emissions, what percentage of the world CO2
emissions from a human source come from the United States? Do
you have any idea?
Secretary Moniz. Oh, it is--I would say approaching 20
percent.
Mr. Bucshon. About 20 percent?
Secretary Moniz. We are number two after China.
Mr. Bucshon. Right. Okay. So if we hypothetically
eliminated all CO2 emission in the United States,
would that have any effect on the world--on the global
atmospheric CO2 situation?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I--it certainly would because I
believe it would be in the context of others doing the same.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay. And you think--what is the likelihood,
you think, that others would do the same as some of the things
that are being proposed?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think, you know, I am cautious
about speculating. I think what we need to do is to take care
of our business, lower the costs of low-carbon technologies and
create industries, hopefully, that can be profitable in selling
to the world as the world goes to low-carbon. So I think we
have plenty of incentives, but clearly, in the end, we need to
bring along all the major emitters.
Mr. Bucshon. Right. And so the question I have, I mean,
first of all, I do believe the climate in the world is
changing; I am just very skeptical about the role of human
CO2 production in that based on historical climate
change over the course of the history of the world. And so do
you think that the United States should economically
disadvantage itself with that end goal when it is pretty clear
to me that it is very unlikely the rest of the world will do
what you are proposing to do?
Secretary Moniz. I think we should advantage ourselves and
then we may have a discussion about what it means----
Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
Secretary Moniz. --to advantage ourselves today, ten years
from now, 30 years from now. The energy scene, no matter what
the drivers are, is not going to look the same as it does
today, and I think we need to have a robust----
Mr. Bucshon. Now, is that your opinion or do you have--how
do you know that that----
Secretary Moniz. That is my opinion.
Mr. Bucshon. That is your opinion? Okay.
Secretary Moniz. And I would say, sir, if I may that----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. --I think when we look back in time ten
years, 20 years, we are always amazed at how the world looks so
different. But when we look forward, we tend to think it is
going to look just the same.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, can I talk about Germany right now? What
is Germany doing with their energy production? What is--
currently, I mean what are they doing, for example? Do you have
any idea?
Secretary Moniz. Germany has--of course, one thing is they
are phasing out their nuclear power.
Mr. Bucshon. Right, which is what you are proposing that we
use as a different source in the United States. So they are--
why are they phasing that out?
Secretary Moniz. In my view it is their decision----
Mr. Bucshon. And what are they phasing in?
Secretary Moniz. The issue is what they phase in, exactly.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, they are phasing in coal-fired power
plants----
Secretary Moniz. And right now----
Mr. Bucshon. Is that true or not true?
Secretary Moniz. There is some additional coal and a lot of
additional gas.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Bucshon. Do you know----
Secretary Moniz. I am sorry. And wind also.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I understand.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Bucshon. Do you know--have any idea where venture
capital is going when it comes to renewable energy sources? Do
you know private investment, venture capital, because what they
are doing as it relates to wind and solar right now, do you
have any idea?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think it has come down a bit from
the peak but it is still a pretty large----
Mr. Bucshon. And why would that--why wouldn't then--why
would private sector venture capital be leaving renewables? And
I am not saying I am against renewables because I am for
everything, okay----
Secretary Moniz. Well----
Mr. Bucshon. --but why would that be?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I don't know in detail. I mean,
certainly, one of the reasons has been the large uncertainties
in the wind case around the tax.
Mr. Bucshon. And you would have to--you may or may not
agree that it is because that at this point in our history,
they are not economically viable and--without the Federal--
massive Federal Government infusion of cash into those
industries, is that true or not true?
Secretary Moniz. Wind certainly in many cases is
competitive. In fact, earlier, the gentleman from Texas raised
an issue. Well, just recently, our site--DOE's site Pantex
signed a fixed power purchase agreement with Siemens from a
wind farm and they are saving $30 million.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay. My point is----
Secretary Moniz. I believe it is competitive.
Mr. Bucshon. I think that--you know, I--from an R&D
standpoint, I would probably--you and I would probably agree
that continued R&D in these areas is critically important going
forward.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Bucshon. The question is is are we getting ahead of
ourselves by--at this point without R&D showing that these are
economically viable, getting ahead of ourselves essentially?
When venture capital is leaving those areas of our economy,
should the Federal Government, other than R&D in those areas,
continue to put this kind of money into those when it is clear
that the private sector and venture capital are leaving them
because they are not economically viable? That is the bottom
line.
Secretary Moniz. Well, as I have said, we clearly agree on
the R&D. But, today, costs are dropping and in many instances
are already competitive. That is not a universal statement but
in many instances competitive. That is both wind; the Pantex
example is one; and solar, particularly when solar is helping
to shave piece at times of large----
Mr. Bucshon. My time is expired. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
And now, you will have some questions from the Ranking
Member of the Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
And welcome, Dr. Moniz. I am actually very glad you are
here because I had a town hall in my district on Saturday back
in the Bay Area of California, and a number of my constituents
could not believe that in this Committee some of my friends on
the other side still have questions and deny that humans play a
role in climate change.
So theire questions here today that illustrate that I am
not crazy, that that is still a debate in this Committee. And I
put up for you on the screen something from the NASA website
called ``Climate Change: How Do We Know?'' And there is a graph
there of CO2 parts per million on the left side of
the graph and on the bottom side you see over the period of
time starting at about 400,000 years ago going up to about
25,000 years ago, you see a spike. And then, of course, it
really spikes around where 1,700 would be. And I am wondering
is there any correlation between the industrial revolution and
the CO2 parts per million in that graph?
Secretary Moniz. Well, it is quite direct actually.
Mr. Swalwell. And what is the correlation, Dr. Moniz?
Secretary Moniz. It is a very positive correlation.
Mr. Swalwell. And what can we assume the cause of the
CO2 parts per million going up?
Secretary Moniz. Well, this is exactly what I was referring
to earlier in terms of, roughly speaking, counting CO2
molecules. We know how many molecules are emitted. We know how
many were in the atmosphere. It tracks quite closely.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Dr. Moniz, do 97 percent of scientists--
climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the
past century are very likely due to human activities?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I have seen 97, 98 percent, those
numbers, yes. Um-hum. I am not sure how that number is arrived
at, but yes. Um-hum.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. And, Dr. Moniz, are you familiar
with the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore
laboratory?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, in general terms. I have not had yet
the chance to drill down into it since I have been in the
office the last 3 weeks but----
Mr. Swalwell. Well, better than drill down I would like to
invite you to come visit the facility. It is in my district. It
is also in wine country so after the tour we would be happy to
show you around.
Secretary Moniz. Before the tour?
Mr. Swalwell. Do you support the National Ignition
Facility's dual goal of maintaining our nuclear weapons
stockpile and providing scientists with the physics
understanding necessary to create fusion ignition and energy
gain for future energy production?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I mean, I have to say I think
clearly the principal purpose of the facility has been for
stockpile stewardship, and even without ignition, which remains
a goal for a few years from now, presumably, that has to be the
major focus. Now, clearly, a lot of that work certainly getting
to ignition will, by definition, be useful for the ICF purpose.
Mr. Swalwell. And you mentioned that just this past week
Oak Ridge's supercomputer is a no longer the world's fastest, a
mantle once again claimed by China. Does it trouble you that
Russia and China are also beginning to outpace us when it comes
to fusion ignition projects?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think it is more of an across-the-
board issue. I think, you know, we are in a different world,
highly competitive in terms of technology innovation, and we
have just got to keep out in front.
Mr. Swalwell. Would you agree, then, that the President's
Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for the National Ignition
Facility, a cut of $110 million, will set us back in achieving
ignition and will cede of leadership in the area of fusion
ignition to Russia and China?
Secretary Moniz. Well, clearly, there were lots of
difficult choices that needed to be made, and the Department of
Defense, with the Department of Energy and OMB, just felt that
the needs in stockpile stewardship and stockpile reliability
just had to be met in a very tough budget environment.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Dr. Moniz, the Lawrence Livermore
National Lab Director has told me and Congresswoman Lofgren,
who has also been an advocate and champion for fusion ignition,
that if the President's budget for NIF stands, it will
essentially either shut down NIF or set back all of its major
goals by at least ten years. Since NIF began operating in 2009,
they were a factor of 1,000 away from achieving ignition.
Today, they are a factor of 10 away, which would be equivalent
of taking a road trip from Denver, driving to San Francisco,
and then when you get to Oakland deciding to stop and turn
around and go back to Denver.
So my question is will you let NIF shut down on your watch
or will we see it continue to march forward toward ignition?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I will have to talk with Mr.
Albright about that statement. Certainly, the intent is to have
NIF--we need it strongly engaged certainly in our Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Dr. Moniz. And thank you
for interpreting that graph on the fly without any warning
ahead of time. I appreciate it.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Right.
Mr. Swalwell. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Chair Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and the Ranking Member,
and I hope that you will include us on this tour that you were
discussing with the Secretary.
Next is the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. Schweikert. Madam Chairwoman, is it the tour or the
wine country part?
Mrs. Lummis. The former and the latter--
Mr. Schweikert. Yes, yes.
Mrs. Lummis. --yes.
Secretary Moniz. You know, it is an incredible machine.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Secretary, first off, congratulations.
You have actually one of the positions in government that, on a
personal basis, I find absolutely fascinating because of the
things you get to touch and influence. But you have actually
seen some of the nature of the conversation here today, and I
come with you--at you from a certain philosophy saying, you
know, the arrogance of really smart people sometimes we think
we know more than we do.
If I were to hop in the literature right now and go back a
dozen years ago, whether it be you or many of the smart people
who you hang around with, what would you have written about
peak oil? The fact of the matter is the next incremental barrel
of oil, you know, much of the literature in the very late '90s,
very early 2000 made it very clear that the next incremental
barrel of oil or fossil fuels would be less.
Small problem is we got it wrong. And we built tax codes
here, we built environmental codes, we built regulatory codes,
actually even foreign policy based on a premise that was
absolutely wrong. I have been very pleased on a couple of your
comments saying you are going to try to focus policy on a broad
optionality----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Schweikert. --because the arrogance that you and I know
what tomorrow is is the great fault around here. And I know
this is starting to sound more like a speech and I don't mean
it to. 2007 around here we all knew that compact fluorescent
bulbs were the future except for the fact they are not. As of,
what was it, December LEDs crashed in price and now I can do
LEDs for less money than compact fluorescent. But we had the
arrogance that we all knew what the future was.
Can I beg of you, as you are doing your policy sets, as you
visit with policymakers here, to maximize that discussion? I
know you come from a physics background, which is often very
linear in thinking and saying, policy-wise, who knows what is
being developed in someone's garage right now that you and I
have never thought of that is tomorrow's manufacturing
technology breakthrough. Can I beg of you with this position
you have in the next couple years you will maximize that
optionality for the next great breakthrough?
Secretary Moniz. Sir, that is exactly along the lines of
what I was trying to emphasize that I think we don't know the
future. We always think of the future, again, as a linear
extrapolation of the present, and it is not. And it is those
innovations that do so much to change the future.
I will just say one thing, however, in terms of peak oil. I
have witnesses; I was never a peak oil believer.
Mr. Schweikert. You will be happy to know, I really
couldn't--I Googled you and I did not see you pop up. I did see
the guys just down the hallway from you at MIT writing huge
articles about how, right now, we should be about $200 barrel
in oil as of this month.
Secretary Moniz. Well----
Mr. Schweikert. We didn't even get close.
Secretary Moniz. --certainly predicting oil prices is a
loser's game----
Mr. Schweikert. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. --but on peak oil, I mean, our view was
always that----
Mr. Schweikert. But it is----
Secretary Moniz. --it is not molecules you run out of; it
is at what cost can you get the molecules?
Mr. Schweikert. But you have to agree it is a brilliant
example of technology is faster-moving and smarter than we are
because someone out there is coming up with it. It is--you
know, when I hold up the book of--you know, the Population
Bomb----
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Schweikert. --from 1968, the only thing they got right
was the author's name. Everything in the book got wrong because
the arrogance of not knowing what the next breakthrough is.
Secretary Moniz. And also just to reinforce your point, in
natural gas, of course, it was----
Mr. Schweikert. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. --very recently when major heads of major
corporations not only got it wrong----
Mr. Schweikert. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. --but put their money in the wrong place.
Mr. Schweikert. Well, yes, but that should be in markets.
Look----
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Schweikert. --for just a bit of fun trivia before I
bounce on my next really important thing, what is the only
major industrialized country not to sign the Kyoto Accords?
What is the only major industrialized country to actually hit
its allocation?
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum. Well----
Mr. Schweikert. Because we did not overregulate natural
gas, we had massive adoption because we didn't stop it. And all
of a sudden, we have had our Kyoto Accords because of market
pressures driving us there, not a command-and-control
regulatory environment.
There is one thing I will do very quickly. You actually
have a lot of regulatory authority within your agency over
things like showerheads. Believe it or not, I have a little
constituent in my district that manufacturers froufrou
showerheads. He had enforcement officers from the Department of
Energy walk in his door, hit him with a $470,000 fine because
the flow restrictor took too little pounds of pressure--and I
hope I am describing that correctly--to yank out.
Please be somewhat circumspect on the law enforcement
functions you have within your agency and how they affect small
businesses and our communities and our manufacturer. It is one
thing to say you need to change the pounds of pressure to
remove the flow restrictor; it is another thing to walk in and
hit someone and scare the out of them, you know, with a
$470,000 fine. And with that----
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Mr. Schweikert. --I yield back.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman from
California, Mr. Takano, is next.
Mr. Takano. I thank the Chairwoman, Mrs. Lummis.
Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for your testimony before the
Committee this morning.
I was thinking about a joke I could make about 90 percent
of the scientists and how my side of the aisle stands with the
98 percent versus the two percent alluding to our economy and
98 percent of the population versus the two percent, but I am
not going to go there even though I just went there.
Anyway, I am fortunate to have UC Riverside, a top-notch
university research facility. I frequently hear from my
constituents and researchers at the university about the key
role that the Department of Energy plays in fostering
innovation and funding basic research. Since 2009, UC Riverside
has received more than $20 million from the Department to fund
research ranging from high-energy physics to the hormonal
regulation of plant growth.
This fall, the university plans to open an experimental
solar and battery smart grid, the largest at any university in
the Nation. The smart grid research lab will allow researchers
to study innovative ways to improve smart grid power
management, link large computing data centers with the grid,
study smart grid cyber security, and better understand ways to
link energy from renewable sources with the grid. And that is
just a snapshot of the work being done at UCR.
DOE funding has also contributed to biofuels research and
solar energy research at Bourns College of Engineering, which
is part of the leading edge of research in pushing down on the
costs and driving up the efficiency of solar energy collection.
This kind of research and innovation not only creates jobs; it
leads to the scientific breakthroughs that will allow us to
face the challenges of the 21st century. And I appreciate
hearing from you today about the Department's strategy as we
work together to meet those challenges.
Now, just to be clear, we--you, I believe, counsel moving
forward with the best scientific knowledge that we have. I
realize I want to be humble and not presume that we know the
future, but 98 percent--or 97 percent of the scientists do seem
to have a consensus that global climate change is real, that
the carbon contribution is coming from human sources, and I
don't want to keep beating that drum, but I think we have amply
made that point.
I want to go to one of my priorities as a former K-12
teacher--STEM education. I believe you mentioned that the
Chinese have a goal of educating one million students in the
high-performance computing?
Secretary Moniz. High-performance computing, yes, um-hum.
Mr. Takano. Can you tell me the significance of that goal
and do you think it is a prudent goal of the Chinese and what
does that pose as a challenge to us as Americans?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I don't--I can't judge whether it is
prudent or not in China, but it does catch my attention in
terms of the importance of training scientists and engineers
and mathematicians, et cetera, for the--for our future.
And another issue, in fact, I would raise is that I think
we need still, after many years of working at it, to do a
better job in terms of using all of our talent. Women and
minorities certainly in the energy field, we are not as well
represented as we need to be. So I think we need to just keep
our eye on the ball. Human resources are the key in the end. We
have got to use all of our human resources. And it is something
that I certainly would like to work on in the next few years.
Mr. Takano. I recently ran into a high school classmate of
mine who was one of the, I don't know, innovators in terms of
all of these games that people play on the Internet.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum. Um-hum.
Mr. Takano. He was taken with this idea--this 1 million
students caught my attention because he really thinks it would
be beneficial if we started as early as prekindergarten to
teach students the fundamentals of code writing. What do you
think about that? Is that something----
Secretary Moniz. I think I am not qualified to judge on
that, but clearly, science, mathematics, and computer literacy
are just clearly essential skills I think for young people to
succeed in the future. Well, I mean, they can succeed in other
things, too, but as a country we need more students succeeding
in those areas.
Mr. Takano. So----
Secretary Moniz. And I may just add, one of the things that
I have talked about that I would like to look at as a
Department kind of along these lines is I think that we may
want to look and come to the Congress for discussions at what I
would call a traineeship program where we support--so it is not
broad necessarily like scholarships; it is focus on areas of
national need where we aren't producing enough young people for
our missions.
So, for example, in our nuclear security mission, you know,
actinide chemistry; for our energy mission, power electronics.
So I think that is something that would be a good discussion to
have with this Committee and other members about mission areas
for the Department, targeted programs to get more people
trained.
Mr. Takano. This has to be with workforce. But, Madam
Chair, my time is up. I am sorry I went over.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and yield to the
gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Madam Ranking
Member.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us and being
so generous with your time.
I--rather than beating the dead horse, I am going to accept
it for a moment. And I was--appreciated a couple of things you
said. You referred to three priorities of how to deal with or
how to push science and technology investment in the--toward a
low-carbon economy. You mentioned nuclear, you mentioned
renewables, and the third thing you mentioned was carbon
capture and sequestration, and I don't think we have spent any
time specifically on that today as a priority, and I would like
to explore that.
Coming from North Dakota where we enjoy the lowest
electricity prices in the country due to the low cost of coal
and the fact that we burn it right there and generate
electricity and the fact that we enjoy a good economy as a
result of the very high price of oil, I want to talk about the
Department's strategy in terms of investment in capturing
carbon and using it and injecting it into oilfields for
enhanced oil recovery. Your commitment to that, what do you see
as that--in--as a possible future scientifically and in
research and development in that arena?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Actually, I would say that--in
fact, I think two years ago when I was at MIT with the
University of Texas at Austin we had a workshop specifically on
CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Maybe for others not
as familiar, I might just say that, today, it is not a widely
known story that we are using today 60 million tons of CO2
annually to produce 300,000 barrels of oil per day from
enhanced oil recovery.
And, you know, it is a little bit shaky, but an analysis
done for the Department two years ago indicates there may be a
factor of 10 still to be had. That would be three million
barrels of oil per day. But to have enough CO2, we
need to capture it from power plants or industrial facilities.
Today, largely using the stimulus funds of several billion
dollars went into the--I think we have now 6 major projects
moving forward on carbon capture and storage, and I believe--I
can check the exact numbers, but I believe four of those will
use enhanced oil recovery.
Mr. Cramer. Um-hum.
Secretary Moniz. So, clearly, getting the economic value of
the oil helps you with the cost of capturing the carbon.
Mr. Cramer. Precisely. One of those projects is called the
Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership in North Dakota at
the University of North Dakota----
Secretary Moniz. Yes, head of one of the regional
partnerships.
Mr. Cramer. Yes, that is exactly correct.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. And so I guess I want to use the opportunity to
encourage you to continue that investment there because we
really--first of all, geologically, there are lots of
opportunities obviously----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Cramer. And when you have eight billion or more barrels
of recoverable oil at current technology like we have in North
Dakota and an 800-year supply of coal that we would like to
burn for a very long time and generate low-cost electricity, if
we could find this opportunity to capture that CO2,
which we know--understand is a challenge and yet we do it. We
do it quite effectively up to 50 percent of it in our coal
gasification facility at least. I would encourage that type of
an investment where there is already proven--a proven cost-
benefit and, as you said, of the potential for much, much
greater.
One other area of----
Secretary Moniz. Could I just interject?
Mr. Cramer. Yes, please. Please do.
Secretary Moniz. And of course the Great Plains plant you
referred to was an old DOE investment.
Mr. Cramer. It certainly was, and boy, what a history it
has. Thank you.
One other area I just want to pursue since we--since I have
the time is that you have been quite specific about your plans
for dealing with LNG export and approving applications for LNG
ports on a case-by-case basis, which seems prudent. But
realizing that there are a number of applications in front of
you where the comment period has ended and some have been
waiting for months, is there any chance of expediting some of
that in a responsible way? Given the demand in the world and
the fact that global markets are--you know, kind of present
this window of opportunity for us as a country, could you just
comment a little bit on that? I realize it is a little outside
the scope, perhaps, of science----
Secretary Moniz. Well, that is fundamentally my plan. Of
course, the second license was granted shortly before I became
Secretary. As I said in my confirmation process, I need a few
weeks to--and I am still just three weeks--basically a few
weeks to go over the process, look at the inputs, et cetera,
not commissioning new studies or anything.
I think, you know, we are getting kind of to the place
where I think this kind of review--my personal review period is
maturing and then I plan to go expeditiously as I have
committed.
I understand some of the frustrations and some of the
market opportunities, and we also realize that even with a
conditional license granted, of course, there is still a lot of
work that companies have to do in terms of assembling the
capital, getting the customers, getting the suppliers all lined
up. So I want to move expeditiously. I have certainly committed
to having strong review process this year.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you for your access today and your
willingness to be so frank with us. I appreciate it. Thank you.
My time is obviously expired.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and yield to the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for joining us today.
The Administration recently announced its proposal to
create a national network for manufacturing innovation meant to
serve as regional hubs for accelerating the development of
manufacturing new innovative technologies. The Department of
Energy, through its Advanced Manufacturing Office, has played a
direct role in supporting these innovative manufacturing
initiatives.
I have certainly found that when most people think about
innovation, they tend to think of Mr. Swalwell's district or
Silicon Valley, but even in more rural areas, including my neck
of the woods on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, we
have advanced composite materials manufacturers that are
developing very high-end, high-quality materials that have
enormous potential.
I was hoping you could speak a little bit about what steps
the Department is taking to ensure that fair consideration is
given to innovation that is taking place in rural areas where
the injection of key support could not only help support our
long-term global competitiveness but could really revolutionize
local economies?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. As you say, the Department is a
participant along with other agencies in the Advanced
Manufacturing Initiative, and had we partnered with DOD and I
think a third agency in the 3-D Printing Manufacturing
Initiative. And we have one out now in large bandgap
semiconductors.
I can certainly assure you that, first of all, proposals
will certainly be evaluated fairly from rural areas or others;
number two, that my emphasis on doing more with the States I
think that lead to a very interesting dialogue about what we
can do with--maybe to stimulate additional activity in rural
places.
Like I say, today, I would be delighted to have that
dialogue, and if you have ideas as to how that might go
forward, whether it is the Manufacturing Initiative or other
initiatives, I would be delighted to have that conversation.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that. I sure appreciate that. And
certainly, I have my office and a number of other Members
would, I think, be keen to be part of that happening.
Secretary Moniz. If that could be a group that we could get
together, well, that would be great.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that.
If I may ask also what role do you see for the national
labs in that broader discussion of impact at the local level
and local economies?
Secretary Moniz. Well, okay. Let me answer one question you
didn't ask and one you did ask.
Mr. Kilmer. Sure.
Secretary Moniz. The--first of all, the labs are connected
to this Manufacturing Initiative, so, for example, in the 3-D
printing, there is a pilot scale project at Oak Ridge and, of
course, now we have the manufacturing facility in Ohio there.
In terms of your question, I have spoken with the labs
already, the lab directors. I mentioned earlier I met with them
about--because we are going to be developing this Quadrennial
Energy Review process with a much more state and regional
focus, while our labs don't cover quite the entire country, I
would like them to become centers of that regional outreach. So
that is a process we are going to have to invent. It isn't
really there now that well, but we have to do that. That is
number one.
Number two is when it comes to technology transfer from the
laboratories, I will be honest; I think it is not at a level
that we should expect. I think we need to do more. I believe
part of that will also come by working with the States because
I think it is the innovation ecosystem you need around the lab
then to draw all those technologies out. So that is kind of in
general terms the kind of vision I have at least for this.
Mr. Kilmer. I think that is very true and certainly in my
part of the world you would find a private sector that would be
very interested in having stronger integration between the lab
and private industry.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, that would be great. Again, I would
be--I would love to follow up on that.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Secretary, it is eight minutes past noon. Are you able
to hang in there with us for a few more minutes?
Secretary Moniz. A few more minutes, I am sure.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Texas has graciously yielded his place
in the queue to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you, Mr. Weber, for allowing me to jump in here.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Once in a while,
you will read someone's resume and you think, wow. That guy is
a lot smarter than I am and----
Secretary Moniz. Don't believe what you read.
Mr. Stewart. Unlike climate change, this is a matter of
fact, not speculation, and your resume is really quite
impressive.
I worked a little bit in the energy and environment sector.
I am not an expert on it. I have never claimed to be, but I do
know a little bit about it. And I think by far the most
important story that we see in the energy world right now, it
is not wind, it is not solar, it is not biomass; it is really
hydraulic fracking. That has changed the energy world, and
frankly, it has changed the world in very significant ways.
It has reshaped the energy map, and as a former military
officer--and I can tell you that from a strategic point of
view, it has changed the way that I think we view many of the
challenges that we face from not just the energy sector but
also from a national security point of view.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Stewart. You know, I just want to comment that the
United States will surpass Saudi Arabia and also Russia to
become the top global oil producer in the next decade. I think
that is great news for us. But, Mr. Secretary, by DOE's own
report, very, very little of this increased production has
happened on Federal lands.
I come from Utah. There are some counties in my district
that are 97 percent controlled by the Federal Government, and
many of these counties have enormous natural resources. They
have resources there that we could be taking advantage of but
they unfortunately don't lie on state lands or private lands;
they lay underneath Federal lands.
And I am wondering would you commit to us that DOE would be
willing to support greater access to Federal lands to take
advantage of some of these natural resources?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, I think, you know, first of
all, of course, I actually said our production overall is going
up dramatically. With regard to the Federal lands, that is
clearly something for the Department of the Interior and not
something that we have--
Mr. Stewart. Right.
Secretary Moniz. --any direct engagement with.
Mr. Stewart. I understand that but I am just wondering, you
know, with your background and with your expertise, would you
say that that was--that would be an appropriate response for us
to try to encourage Federal Government to make more available
on these Federal lands?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think, again, the President
supports all-of-the-above, and I think the issue is to see that
we continue to grow our domestic production.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. And thank you for that. And I hope the
President takes that approach as well.
And then one other comment very quickly knowing that you
are extending your time, and this is not something that
involved you directly knowing that you are, of course, new in
your position and, by the way, have enjoyed, I think, broad
bipartisan support. And your--the vote that you had for your
nomination, I think, is an indicator of that.
But one thing that I think troubled several of us was this
idea of the crony capitalism. If you go back and look over the
last four years, you know the Solyndras of the world. And if
you look at the very, very high percentage of those people,
those companies that had renewable energy companies were backed
by the Energy Department, and by some reports as much as 80
percent of them were run by or primarily owned by Obama
financial backers.
And I am just wondering if you would respond to that and
tell me if you think that is a great idea, which I am supposing
you don't and make a commitment once again that there would be
not a political influence that would be played into some of
these financial backings that the Department takes----
Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, I think I want to
start by referring back to the Allison Report that suggested
that the program in fact has been quite well run. And I have to
say in my three weeks I have been impressed with the quality of
the people recruited, their financial knowledge in terms of the
loan program.
Clearly, we have to evaluate the loans, loan grants under
merits. Of course, right now, much of the job is really
stewarding the loans that have been made.
As I noted earlier, there are still some outstanding issues
like the loan commitment made for the nuclear power plants in
Georgia and a possible additional FOA that we might do in
fossil that we are considering.
Mr. Stewart. I think you and I can agree, though, that if
it is true in the previous four years that 80 percent of these
companies had some type of financial ties to the President that
that would be an inappropriate measuring stick to whether they
would receive DOE funds?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the motivation for the award clearly
has to be on the merits--
Mr. Stewart. On the merits, exactly.
Secretary Moniz. --of the budget.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you for that because that is obviously
very true.
And I am going to cede the last 8 seconds of my time. Thank
you, Madam Chairwoman.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. The gentleman from Massachusetts thanks you
kindly and we now turn to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to see you. Thank you
for your patience. Thank you for----
Secretary Moniz. Your constituent.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, I know. I am thrilled about that. I hope
you are, too. But, nevertheless, we have a bit of a similar
background. We both went to Stanford. I hesitate to compare my
physics report card with yours, but nevertheless, glad to see
you where you sit and glad that I am here as well.
So three points that I just wanted to--or two questions and
really one point; I will start with the point first.
Intrigued a little bit, Mr. Secretary, by your response to
one of my colleague's questions earlier about STEM and the
importance of STEM education really for that foundation going
forward for that next generation of engineers and that skill
set that we need for whatever those jobs of the future are. I
am very intrigued by that training program.
The district that I represent, you are very familiar with,
spanned the spectrum in terms of economic outlook.
Massachusetts has struggled a bit getting the low-skilled to
middle-skilled while we have done well with the high--the
middle-skilled to the high-skilled. So I would be thrilled to
learn more about and support any of those efforts that you have
for a mentorship or trainee program.
Secretary Moniz. Great.
Mr. Kennedy. So please just keep us in mind----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mr. Kennedy. --as that develops.
Now, for the two questions.
First, Mr. Secretary, MIT, as you mentioned and you spoke
about this briefly, it is home to one of the world's foremost
plasma fusion energy science programs, the C-Mod facility,
which I had the pleasure of touring a couple of months ago.
Ultimately, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2014 budget
request terminates that facility and while proposing an overall
increase to the Fiscal Year 2013 enacted levels. The increase
in funding request will support the U.S. contribution to the
ITER international fusion project.
I know there are sensitivities around this given your
former position at MIT, but I just wanted to ask generally your
thoughts about the importance of making investments in fusion
energy and what that means for that all-of-the-above energy
outlook that you talked about going forward if you can.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Well, okay. Respectfully, I
cannot answer anything with regard to specifics of the program.
Mr. Kennedy. Understood.
Secretary Moniz. General counsel has recused me from that.
In general, in terms of fusion, I think fusion is--
actually, I should say fusion and plasma science I think are an
important area for continued DOE support. Plasma science really
is another kind of phase of matter and then fusion has a long-
term--and it is still long-term possibility as an attractive
energy source. So I support the general idea of continuing
fusion research.
Mr. Kennedy. And again, Mr. Secretary, keeping it general,
as you said, those long-term investments, the--we still--just
because it is a long-term horizon doesn't mean that we don't
make the investment. Would you agree?
Secretary Moniz. No, we have to. If you don't make it
today, we won't have it in the future.
Mr. Kennedy. I would agree with you.
And second, building off a little bit of what you said,
sir, you talked quite a bit about--and there has been numerous
questions today about that all-of-the-above energy strategy.
The Fiscal Year 2014 administration budget includes 2.78
billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, which proposes a number of increases to its programs
across the board.
You also mentioned in your testimony, sir, the ``Race to
the Top'' initiative as part of your larger focus on national
energy policy.
You touched upon this a little bit earlier, sir, but if
there are parts of our across-the-board energy portfolio that
are not yet cost-competitive because of barriers to
technological advancement, how would you propose going forward
to lower those barriers to make the technological advances to
make it cost-effective?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think we need a portfolio of
instruments. At the foundation is the basic R&D, which gives
us, you know, the new possibilities.
But then, of course, we have something like ARPA-E, which
takes promising but still high-risk technologies and moves them
hopefully to the place where they become market-attractive for
investors. And I think we are seeing a lot of success now
developing there and that the program is still new. I mean it
is about 3-1/2 years old, well, going on 4, I guess. So that is
very, very encouraging.
We also have them in programs and the applied energy
programs in selected areas for large-scale demonstrations. The
gentleman from North Dakota, for example, mentioned carbon
capture and sequestration. That is a place where demonstrating
the viability of large-scale storage is just not credible
without DOE, without government investment.
And then when it comes to deploying or helping the
deployment, then we have things like the loan programs, for
example, where--by the way, I didn't get the chance to say this
earlier so I will say it now. The fact is that this loan
portfolio, even if we project with uncertainty on some of the
remaining loans going forward, we are talking about no more
than ten percent loss against the congressionally approved loan
loss reserve. That is a pretty good performing portfolio, not
to mention things like Tesla paying back a half-a-billion
dollars nine years earlier, et cetera, et cetera.
And by the way, Tesla, next year, their announced plan is
they are going to become an exporter of vehicles now next year.
So that is a great story.
But also, the world largest concentrated solar plant in the
California desert just had a ceremony a few weeks ago.
So I guess our view is that we are moving inexorably, as we
have for a century, towards a lower-carbon future, and if we
want to sit around and not have those technologies developed
here, well, we are going to be buyers and not sellers. I
believe that we still are the strongest innovation engine. It
is a question now of capturing that innovation in our
marketplace.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back. Thank
you for the time.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman and yield to the Vice
Chair of our Energy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair. They have obviously
saved the best for last.
So I am from Texas, the Keystone--the vaunted XL Keystone
pipeline would terminate in my district, Mr. Secretary, so we
will have a little bit of a discussion about that.
Candidate Obama running for president made the statement
that under his energy plan, electricity prices would, of
necessity, skyrocket. Do you remember that, ever seen that
video?
Secretary Moniz. No, I did not.
Mr. Weber. Google it; it is out there.
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Mr. Weber. So my question to you is are you doing
everything you can to make electricity prices higher?
Secretary Moniz. Definitely not. As I have said, cost
reduction is my principal goal of innovation.
Mr. Weber. So you are not following the Commander-in-
Chief's edict, then, that electricity prices need to be higher?
So you don't share that vein of thought apparently.
Secretary Moniz. I think we need to have energy costs as
affordable as possible.
Mr. Weber. The things that make America great are the
things that America makes, and we need a low, stable energy
supply, a very reliable one, and I think we have got one. And
doing anything to upset that apple cart would obviously be bad
for the economy, bad for national security.
I will move on. Politico just reported that Representative
Waxman announced in the Energy and Commerce hearing on fossil
fuel export issues that climate change should be a key factor
in considering LNG export applications. I have two plants LNG
applications in my district. Is the Department of Energy
considering climate change in its LNG applications?
Secretary Moniz. As I said earlier, I am still in the
process of getting up to speed, and soon we will be evaluating
the dockets. Clearly, the issue is public interest criterion
and a set of factors coming in there, environment, economy,
security, all of those----
Mr. Weber. That is a great statement, public interest
should be considered. So how would you weight climate change
considerations against what I would call economic
considerations or, to use yours, public interest? How would you
weight those going forward?
Secretary Moniz. I think that is something that we will
have to talk about in our order when we issue an order for the
license applications.
Mr. Weber. Have you had these kinds of discussions with
climate change with the White House?
Secretary Moniz. On the LNG export issue?
Mr. Weber. Just on climate change in general?
Secretary Moniz. Oh, yes, climate change in general,
certainly.
Mr. Weber. How many times--how many trips would you say you
have made to the White House?
Secretary Moniz. You mean in the last few weeks?
Mr. Weber. Sure, in the last few weeks, last year. Is it 2
is it 22?
Secretary Moniz. Three or four times I--yes.
Mr. Weber. Three or four times, okay. Well, kind of given
the sensitive nature of some of the news reports that have been
out lately with some of the revelations, of course, let me just
say that, you know, the President said his Administration would
be the most transparent administration in history; that was his
promise, and it seems like it is getting more and more
transparent and it is not very pretty. I want to hold the
Department of Energy to a higher standard. Some of the
discussion has been about the Solyndras in the days behind us,
and I know you are going forward as the new Secretary. Are you
sensitive to the fact that that agency--DOE I am talking about
specificly--might be used indeed to put pressure on political
enemies? Are you sensitive to that fact? In other words, that
none of the policies in the DOE would give favoritism toward
some of the cronyism that was mentioned here earlier. Do you
have a--have you had that discussion with your staff? Do you
have a plan in place to make sure it doesn't happen?
Secretary Moniz. I--first of all, without just talking
about the past, going forward----
Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
Secretary Moniz. --me--I make it very clear we want to be
A) as transparent as possible and as completely open and fair
and evaluating everything on the merits.
Mr. Weber. Well, the last thing we need is--there are so
many agencies and you can name them--NSA, IRS--you can go right
down the list that have given the public--American public such
a bad taste. The last thing we need is the Department of Energy
or the EPA which already, I will have to tell you, doesn't have
that sterling of a reputation, at least back in my district
because they seem to hamper things more than they help. The
last thing we need is that kind of reputation to be further
promulgated in your agency, so I would charge you going forward
that you make sure it doesn't happen.
Let me switch gears. I am running out of time. You said in
some of your comments earlier that you think gas has--and I
am--this is probably paraphrasing. You said gas has
revolutionized the energy industry and should be part of the
solution going forward, natural gas we are talking about.
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely, um-hum.
Mr. Weber. We have a unique opportunity in the history of
the world for America to take the lead, as you heard earlier
from one of my colleagues. Are you committed to doing
everything you can to get those--that permit process moving
forward, especially LNG, natural gas, and making it expeditious
so that we can maintain our competitive edge so that we can
have that public interest in mind that you yourself talked
about?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, to clarify, I mean we are not
engaged in permitting in terms of production or exploration but
in terms of LNG exports certainly. And I have said repeatedly
and I intend to be expeditious in going through those cases.
Mr. Weber. Are you in favor of allowing the Keystone
pipeline to come to the Gulf of Mexico?
Secretary Moniz. That is an issue for the Department of
State.
Mr. Weber. You haven't looked at it at all?
Secretary Moniz. It is not in----
Mr. Weber. You have had no discussions with the President
or the White House on it?
Secretary Moniz. No, I--it is not a responsibility of mine.
I have not discussed it.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, I was just curious----
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --because I want you to do me a favor. When you
leave here, I want you to go tell him that we want it in Texas.
Secretary Moniz. Okay. But you already have the bottom
half, right?
Mr. Weber. Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the
Secretary for his enormous patience today.
The Chair yields to herself----
Secretary Moniz. Okay.
Mrs. Lummis. --for the final round of questions. And my
questions are going to revolve around uranium, Mr. Secretary.
First of all, does nuclear power add to CO2
emissions?
Secretary Moniz. It is essentially carbon-free, right. Um-
hum.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. I want to visit with you about what
has been happening with regard to the domestic uranium
industry. Sometime ago a ten percent cap was negotiated so that
DOE would only transfer, sell, or barter their uranium
stockpile at a rate below ten percent of current domestic
uranium demand. And that agreement was abrogated and the price
of uranium fell through the floor. And my State, which produces
a great deal of uranium--albeit domestic supply only supplies
ten percent of our uranium for our nuclear power needs--was
hurt badly, badly by the DOE's decision to abrogate the ten
percent cap.
So I apologize that your predecessor left you holding the
bag, but I must ask you now that you are in charge, when does
the DOE plan to comply with the law and submit a new management
plan?
Secretary Moniz. We are working on that very actively, and
I think we can have a plan ready to bring forward fairly soon.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mrs. Lummis. You know, the DOE has the authority, the power
to make or break uranium production in this country because of
prices and their ability to dump excess product on the market
and destroy prices here, thereby making our country actually
more reliant on foreign providers of uranium. So I strongly
encourage you to come and visit Wyoming----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mrs. Lummis. --and our uranium industry to help you better
understand the dramatic direct impact that DOE has on our
uranium industry.
My next question is about USEC. Over the last 18 months,
Dr. Moniz, the taxpayers have been asked to directly subsidize
the U.S. Enrichment Corporation to the tune of over $1 billion
in cash for uranium and other incentives. I want to understand
how big this hook is that the taxpayers are hanging on.
Specifically, is it DOE or is it USEC who is financially
obligated to safely decommission the enrichment facility in
Paducah, Kentucky, and hand it over to DOE? And how much do you
anticipate that costing?
Secretary Moniz. I cannot give you an exact cost estimate
right now, but the USEC will have some responsibilities for the
turnover of the plant, probably in some stages. That is still
to be worked out in detail, but then the Department will go
into cleanup, preparatory to a D&D, decommissioning. And then
the issue, which is not dissimilar to that in Piketon, is what
can we do with those communities to help provide a new
industrial activity that might provide an additional future at
those sites. And for Paducah it is well known we have--we at
the Department did ask for expressions of interest in terms of
what might be done with the site, and that is something we will
have to evaluate this year.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Secretary, what is your opinion about the
efficacy of the technology of the American Centrifuge Project?
Secretary Moniz. Well, that is something that we will need
to judge. The intent is that the demonstration of the cascade
will--should, assuming funding is there--should end at the end
of this year. That is the schedule, and then we have to see
whether that looks to be a promising commercial technology and
then will come some decisions to be made.
What is the case, of course, I think as you know is the--
there is a sensitivity that currently we have no American
origin uranium enrichment technology, and consequently, if and
when we need enriched uranium for military purposes, we will
not have the option.
In fact, if I may comment--maybe a last comment going back
to the uranium market, again, we have this report which is, I
think, coming along and will be available pretty soon, clearly,
I understand completely the issue of balancing the various
equities, uranium producers on the one hand, national security
requirements on the other. So, for example, if you take
Paducah, then a year ago or just--or over a year ago of course
there was uranium used at Paducah for an extra year of
operation. That was for a well-defined national security
purpose to make a tritium reserve for our weapons, whereas the
recent proposal for an extension was declined because there was
no national security purpose.
Mrs. Lummis. Oh, thank you, Dr. Moniz. And there is
considerable interest on this Committee on both sides of the
aisle on small modular nuclear reactor technology and whether
that has promise. I hope that our Subcommittee on Energy will
have an opportunity to visit with you informally about----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mrs. Lummis. --your understanding of the status of that
technology and the viability of that technology going forward.
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mrs. Lummis. And we would invite you into those discussions
at your convenience.
Secretary Moniz. Great.
Mrs. Lummis. I want to thank you so much for your valuable
testimony, and I want to thank the Members for their questions.
The Members of the Committee may have additional questions
for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions for Members.
I would like now to offer Ranking Member Johnson, who has
been so patient, her opportunity for closing remarks. Do you
wish to comment?
Ms. Johnson. Well, thank you. I just want to thank the
Secretary again for coming----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. --and look forward to working with you. And
thanks to you.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. I thank the Ranking Member. I want to
particularly thank you, Secretary Moniz, for joining us today.
As you heard from numerous Members of this Committee, we have
high hopes for a very positive working relationship with you
going forward, and we look forward to that with a very robust
scientific future for our country.
And with that, the----
Secretary Moniz. I do as well even if we have little
arguments sometimes. But I look forward to discussion really.
Mrs. Lummis. And the operative word is little----
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. --because regardless of whether one believes
in the role of mankind in increasing the effects of climate
change, I think there is general agreement that the climates
are changing. The amazing geology of my own----
Secretary Moniz. Um-hum.
Mrs. Lummis. --State of Wyoming bears witness to climate
change over eons of time. And if it has been exacerbated by
mankind or not, we all agree on this Committee that the
importance of giving to our children and grandchildren the best
world that we can is in everyone's best interest.
So with that, the witness is excused and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Secretary Moniz
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]