[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-53
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-443 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas Islands
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, prepared statement................................ 62
Witnesses
Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy............ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 73
Submitted Material
Report entitled, ``Proposed FY 14 Administration Cuts to Dept. of
Energy Coal and Fossil Energy Research and Development
Program,'' the University of Illinois, submitted by Mr. Shimkus 63
Letter of March 26, 2013, from the Committee to the U.S.
Department of Energy, submitted by Mr. Burgess................. 65
D.O.E. response.............................................. 68
Letter of April 25, 2013, from the Center for Strategic &
International Studies to President Barack Obama, submitted by
Mr. Kinzinger.................................................. 70
Chart entitled, ``Fossil Energy R&D,'' submitted by Mr. McKinley. 72
THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed
Whitfield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall,
Shimkus, Terry, Burgess, Latta, Olson, McKinley, Gardner,
Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush,
McNerney, Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Barrow, Matsui,
Christensen, Castor, and Waxman (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Johnson.
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary
Andres, Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Mike
Bloomquist, General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications
Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Alison Busbee,
Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Annie Caputo, Professional
Staff Member; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy & Power; Andy
Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Vincent Esposito, Fellow,
Nuclear Programs; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy &
Power; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy & Power; Nick Magallanes,
Policy Coordinator, CMT; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel,
Environment/Economy; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member;
Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy
Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member,
Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jeff Baran,
Democratic Senior Counsel; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff
Director; Greg Dotson, Democratic Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Kristina Friedman, Democratic EPA Detailee; and
Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call the hearing to order
this morning. And today's topic and hearing will be on the
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2014 budget. And, of course,
this is the first opportunity that we have had to have our new
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz with us.
And, Mr. Secretary, we are delighted you are here. We know
that you have a lot of experience at the Department of Energy
having served there in the Clinton Administration. And I think
all of us were quite impressed with the way you sailed through
confirmation. I think the vote was 97 to 0. And that is quite a
tribute to you, I would say. So congratulations on that
confirmation.
And I will recognize myself now for a 5-minute opening
statement.
Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Energy in
my view has often taken a backseat to the Environmental
Protection Agency and was all too willing to acquiesce to EPA's
agenda rather than affirmatively assert its own pro-energy
agenda. Particularly, DOE allowed itself to become a part of
the Administration's--for lack of a better word--attack on
fossil fuels when it should have been defending them as a core
component of our energy future and a critical contributor to
job creation, global competitiveness, and affordable energy
prices.
When I think about an anti-fossil fuel movement,
frequently, I think about Europe and what has happened. Europe
has placed so much emphasis on renewables and wind energy and
solar, and when the natural gas prices started escalating in
Europe, all of a sudden in Europe they are burning more and
more coal now. And on the books they have plans to build 69 new
coal-powered plants, 60 gigawatts of new power. And so I think
that it is important that we think about this instead of this
Administration has moved--the budget reflects most of the money
is being spent on renewable rather than the baseload energy
needs.
I will never forget then-Secretary of Energy Chu made the
statement that coal is his worst nightmare. And I don't think
that we need a Department of Energy that sees this Nation's
growing abundance of natural gas and oil as a problem to be
solved rather than an opportunity to be embraced.
The Department of Energy in my view should not treat
conventional energy and renewable energy as an either/or
proposition where the Federal Government actively discourages
conventional energy in order to create an artificial market for
renewable energy. The President says himself that he is for
``all of the above'' and yet, frequently, in his
Administration, that absolutely is not the case.
We need a Department of Energy in my view open to all
domestic energy sources that are economically competitive, be
they conventional or renewable. ``All of the above,'' as I
said, has supposedly been the President's motto, but his
policies have suggested otherwise.
In fact, yesterday, I introduced legislation along with a
Democratic Member that would repeal a provision in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 that would require that
the Federal Government not use any fossil fuel for heating new
or modified federal buildings by the year 2030. So our bill is
in keeping with the President's stated goal of using all of the
above. And yet, that 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act
would phase out the use of fossil fuel in its entirety for any
federal new building or modified building by the year 2030.
I look forward to working with Secretary Moniz, and I
believe that the proposed fiscal year 2014 DOE budget we will
review today, as I said, still reflects the mistakes of the
recent past and is not a forward-looking proposal.
For example, we see in this budget an outsized--and I know
that the Secretary certainly was not there at the time--but we
see an outsized request for the Department of Energy's Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which we all
support, a nearly $1 billion increase. And when you look at
these numbers, you have got batteries in electric vehicles
receiving more money than any other entity, solar energy next,
building technologies next, biomass next, and the conventional
fuels are way down the list. And I don't think there is
anything that reflects an Administration's overall goals better
than its budget request.
So I think the shale gas and oil revolution in America
holds tremendous potential for energy affordability and
security, for job creation, for export opportunities, and for
strengthening America's standing in the world, but it also
poses implementation and innovation challenges for which DOE,
in my view, can play an important role. DOE should be out in
front of this revolution taking steps to facilitate its
development and not creating obstacles to it.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary. We
certainly look forward to your testimony and your answers to
our questions today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
This morning's hearing will focus on the proposed Fiscal
Year 2014 budget for the Department of Energy. But it is also
this subcommittee's introduction to the nation's new Secretary
of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz. Congratulations Dr. Moniz on your
overwhelming victory in the Senate. Hopefully some of the
legislation we will be considering this year will get that kind
of vote. I am genuinely looking forward to working with you to
help fashion an energy policy that benefits the American
people.
It is no secret that I have had my share of disagreements
with the Obama administration and DOE over the past few years.
Under this administration, DOE has often taken a back seat to
the Environmental Protection Agency, and was all-too-willing to
acquiesce to EPA's anti-energy agenda rather than affirmatively
assert its own pro-energy agenda. In particular, DOE allowed
itself to become a part of the administration's attack on
fossil fuels when it should have been defending them as a core
component of our energy future and a critical contributor to
job creation, global competitiveness, and affordable energy
prices.
In my view, the last thing we need is a Secretary of Energy
who says things like ``coal is my worst nightmare.'' Nor do we
need a secretary who sees this nation's growing abundance of
natural gas and oil as a problem to be solved rather than an
opportunity to be embraced. And we certainly don't need a
secretary who treats conventional energy and renewable energy
as an either/or proposition where the federal government
actively discourages conventional energy in order to create an
artificial market for renewable energy. We need a secretary
open to all domestic energy sources that are economically
competitive, be they conventional or renewable. All of the
above has supposedly been the president's motto, but his
policies have suggested otherwise.
Yesterday I introduced legislation to repeal a provision in
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring a
100 percent reduction of domestic energy sources such as coal
and natural gas to be used in new and modified federal
buildings by 2030. This bill would allow the government more
access to diverse energy sources and more cost effective
measures for building structures. It is a simple and sensible
measure that reaffirms the administration's so called ``all of
the above'' energy policy.
Fortunately, I see a positive future ahead in working with
Secretary Moniz, and not a moment too soon. But I also believe
that the proposed FY 2014 DOE budget that we will review today
still reflects the mistakes of the recent past and is not a
forward-looking proposal.
For example, we see in this budget an outsized request for
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a nearly
$1 billion increase. The Obama DOE has wasted too much money on
green energy pet projects that have failed, and we owe it to
the taxpayers not to repeat those mistakes. In sharp contrast,
conventional energy sources receive funding far below their
actual contribution to the energy mix. It makes no sense to me
that DOE's applied energy budget devotes more to renewables
than all other energy sources combined.
And while the budget continues to throw money at things
like electric car batteries and wind energy, it provides little
for emerging issues like electric reliability and
cybersecurity. It's time to get serious about the energy
challenges we face, and this misallocation of resources needs
to be corrected.
For example, the shale gas and oil revolution holds
tremendous potential for energy affordability and security, for
job creation, for export opportunities, and for strengthening
America's standing in the world. But it also poses
implementation and innovation challenges for which DOE can play
a role. DOE should be out in front of this revolution taking
steps to facilitate it, but the proposed budget does not
reflect this need.
Overall, while we do not have an energy budget that
reflects energy reality, we look forward to working with the
new Energy Secretary who understands current energy realities
and management priorities.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. And, with that, at this time I like to
recognize the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Rush,
for a 5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today
to discuss DOE's fiscal year 2014 budget, as well as the
Agency's overall energy agenda.
Mr. Secretary, I believe you are heading one of the most
important agencies in the Nation, as the field of energy will
hold the keys to unlocking America's creativity and innovative
spirit while also taking our economy to another level and
providing an abundance of rewarding jobs and rewarding careers.
In fact, as I have stated many times before this
subcommittee, the country that leads the world in advanced
energy technology, energy production, and clean and renewable
energy breakthroughs will also lead the global race for
economic superiority, and it is imperative that our Nation
remains in the forefront in each of these areas.
I believe in an all-of-the-above agenda that encapsulates
my five core principles: 1) safe and reliable and affordable
energy for all Americans; 2) focus on STEM education and
training; 3) jobs and economic opportunities for all segments
of the American population; and 4) policies to address climate
change; lastly, North American energy independence over the
next few decades.
With the emergence of the shale and natural gas finds, as
well as the Obama Administration's commitment to investing in
new advancements in clean and renewable energy technology, I
believe that it is possible to find the right balance between
protecting the Nation's earth, land, and water supply through
sensible environmental regulations while at the same time
ensuring that all Americans have the chance to share in the
employment, the business, and the economic opportunities that
the energy industry will provide.
Since my ascension as ranking member on the Energy and
Power Subcommittee in 2011, I have held a series of discussions
with top energy leaders in the oil, gas, and renewable energy
and pipeline industry, and we finally began to make some
headway in our efforts to ensure that minorities, that women,
and that historically underrepresented groups are given a
chance to fully participate in the lucrative and vastly
expanding energy sector.
Just 2 years ago when asking energy leaders about the
levels of participation of these underrepresented groups, the
most common response that I would receive undoubtedly would be
sorry, Mr. Rush, we don't have that information. We will get
back to you. Today, I am holding serious discussions with top
industry leaders on what they can do proactively to ensure that
minorities and other groups are aggressively being recruited,
aggressively being trained, and aggressively given the
opportunities to participate in the energy field. Mr.
Secretary, over the past year, my office has worked extensively
with your agency, including your Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity, and together, we are making great strides in our
combined efforts to increase minority participation in all
sectors of the energy field from increasing STEM education and
training opportunities to assessing employment and business
opportunities.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you. I look
forward to working with your department in close collaboration
to make sure that all Americans are afforded the opportunity to
benefit wholly in the energy area.
Mr. Secretary, I am delighted to have you before this
subcommittee. I believe that your department will play a vital
role in pushing America towards greater innovation, greater
prosperity, and greater energy independence.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today, we do
welcome the new Secretary, Secretary Moniz, to the Committee to
receive his testimony on the Department of Energy's fiscal year
2014 budget.
You know, it has been over 30 years since Congress enacted
the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. That was a
different time, a time of dwindling oil and gas supplies,
rising energy prices--we remember those gas lines--and
overreliance on energy imports from unfriendly nations. In
short, it was a time of energy scarcity and uncertainty.
Fast-forward 3 decades and our energy landscape is
dramatically different. We have entered a new era of energy
abundance, providing a level of energy security and certainty
that was simply unimaginable just a few years ago.
American ingenuity and innovative technologies have powered
an incredible energy transition, turning the trends in domestic
oil and natural gas production upside down. And according to
the International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now the world's
leading producer of natural gas, and we have a chance--and I
think we will--surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil
producer by 2020.
And while we should all support a diverse and balanced
energy strategy, including renewables and energy efficiency,
unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget for the
Department of Energy ignores a number of new energy plans in
the landscape. The President's energy budget doubles-down on
some failed policies of the last 4 years, continuing to risk
taxpayer dollars on ``green energy'' programs that have proven
costly, ineffective, and failed to deliver on the jobs that
were promised.
Notably, the President calls for $2.8 billion for the DOE's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 56 percent
increase over prior years. The amount is nearly double the
budgets of the Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and
Electricity combined. Such a disparity in funding levels
directly conflicts with the President's stated commitment to an
``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy.
The President's energy budget isn't just about dollars and
cents; it is about priorities for the country, and the
priorities set forth in his budget are a little bit out of
touch with today's energy reality and present a stark contrast
from the energy priorities being pursued by this committee.
Our vision for the Nation's energy future is a true, open,
``all-of-the-above'' strategy that would promote greater
production and use of our new energy abundance, facilitate
private sector innovation to develop advanced energy
technologies and manufacturing, and ensure that U.S. consumers
indeed have a long-term supply of reliable and affordable
energy. It should also include a global perspective on how
North America's abundant resources can be used to launch
strategic international diplomacy and geopolitical stability
around the world.
To achieve those objectives, I believe that it is time to
repurpose the Department of Energy to reflect the opportunities
of today and meet the challenges of tomorrow, and I am very
happy to see the Secretary's testimony reflect these new ideas
in both organizational changes, as well as the overall mission.
Our transforming energy landscape requires a DOE for the
21st century. We need an agency that is ready to shed its
culture of scarcity and instead embrace a mindset of abundance
and opportunity. We need a department that will take full
advantage of our newly discovered energy resources and
capitalize on private sector expertise to modernize our energy
systems, and that includes continued oversight regarding U.S.
export policies that impede U.S. participation in international
energy projects and commerce, not true just for LNG and coal
but for nuclear suppliers, equipment, and renewables as well.
Such a transition, if done properly, will spur dramatic
economic growth, create thousands of good American jobs, make
us significantly more energy secure, and in fact set the U.S.
down a path of becoming a global energy superpower.
So, Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your appointment. We
certainly look forward to working with you over the next couple
of years to achieve our common objective.
And I would yield the balance of my time to nobody. I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today we welcome Secretary Moniz to the committee to
receive his testimony on the Department of Energy's FY 2014
budget.
It has been over 30 years since Congress enacted the
Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. That was a
different time--a time of dwindling oil and gas supplies,
rising energy prices, and overreliance on energy imports from
unfriendly nations. In short, it was a time of energy scarcity
and uncertainty. Fastforward three decades and our energy
landscape is dramatically different. We have entered a new era
of energy abundance, providing a level of energy security and
certainty that was simply unimaginable just a few years ago.
American ingenuity and innovative technologies have powered
an incredible energy transition, turning the trends in domestic
oil and natural gas production upside down. According to the
International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now the world's
leading producer of natural gas, and has a chance to surpass
Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020.
While we should all support a diverse and balanced energy
strategy, including renewables and energy efficiency,
unfortunately, the president's FY 2014 budget for the
Department of Energy ignores our new energy landscape. The
president's energy budget doubles-down on the failed policies
of the last four years, continuing to risk taxpayer dollars on
``green energy'' programs that have proven costly, ineffective,
and failed to deliver the jobs as promised. Notably, the
president calls for $2.8 billion for DOE's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--a 56 percent increase over
prior years. This amount is nearly double the budgets of the
Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity
combined. Such a disparity in funding levels directly conflicts
with the president's stated commitment to an ``all-of-the-
above'' energy strategy.
The president's energy budget isn't just about dollars and
cents; it's about priorities for the country. And the
priorities set forth in his budget are out of touch with
today's energy reality and present a stark contrast from the
energy priorities being pursued by this committee. Our vision
for the nation's energy future is a true, open ``all-of-the-
above'' strategy that would promote greater production and use
of our new energy abundance, facilitate private sector
innovation to develop advanced energy technologies and
manufacturing, and ensure U.S. consumers have a long-term
supply of reliable and affordable energy. It should also
include a global perspective on how North America's abundant
resources can be used to launch strategic international
diplomacy and geopolitical stability around the world.
To achieve these objectives, I believe it is time to
repurpose the Department of Energy to reflect the opportunities
of today and meet the challenges of tomorrow, and I am happy to
see the secretary's testimony reflect new ideas in both
organizational changes and overall DOE mission.
Our transforming energy landscape requires a Department of
Energy for the 21st Century. We need an agency that is ready to
shed its culture of scarcity and instead embrace a mindset of
abundance and opportunity. We need a Department of Energy that
will take full advantage of our newly discovered energy
resources and capitalize on private sector expertise to
modernize our energy systems. This includes continued oversight
regarding U.S. export policies that impede U.S. participation
in international energy projects and commerce. This is true not
just for LNG and coal, but for nuclear suppliers, equipment,
and renewables as well. Such a transition, if done properly,
will spur dramatic economic growth, create thousands of good
American jobs, make us significantly more energy secure, and
set the United States down a path of becoming a global energy
superpower.
Secretary Moniz, once again, congratulations on your
appointment and, on behalf of the entire Committee on Energy
and Commerce, we look forward to working with you over the next
several years to achieve our common objectives.
# # #
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Waxman, the ranking member of the full committee, for a 5-
minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want
to thank you for being here today. The Department of Energy
will benefit from your expertise and leadership and we look
forward to working with you as the Nation continues its
transition to a clean energy economy.
The Department has a host of challenging responsibilities--
from cleaning up Cold War-era nuclear sites and maintaining our
nuclear weapons stockpile, to managing 17 national labs and
operating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Running the
Department of Energy is a big job and you have the experience
to do it. But I want to tell you how I view your role. I look
at your responsibilities through the lens of climate change.
Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face. There
is no debate about the science. Climate change is happening
now, it is caused by humans, and the impacts are real.
The paramount responsibility of the Secretary of Energy is
advancing the Nation's response to this existential threat.
For decades, experts have talked about the potential future
impacts from climate change. They have warned that in the
future we will face extreme heat waves, floods, droughts,
wildfires, ocean acidification, and dramatic sea level rise.
These are no longer future threats; they are happening
today. Climate change is spawning extreme weather across the
country from the Texas droughts to the Colorado wildfires to
Superstorm Sandy.
And as the impacts mount, the window for effective action
to address climate change is closing. And just this week, the
International Energy Agency warned that, unless the world acts
to reduce carbon pollution before 2020, global temperatures
could rise by more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit, which would ``be
a disaster for all countries.'' IEA found that taking key
actions now to reduce emissions could be done at no net
economic cost, while delay would impose trillions of dollars in
costs on society.
Mr. Secretary, your job would be a lot easier with support
from Congress, but don't count on it. This committee, and the
Republican-controlled House, has become one of the last
remaining refuges of the flat-Earth society. We have the
jurisdiction to do so much to protect future generations, yet
we won't even hold a hearing to learn from the scientists about
their concerns about climate change.
So you will have to act without us. President Obama got it
exactly right in his State of the Union address when he said
that if Congress did not act, he would.
Some of the most important authorities are those in the
Department of Energy. You need to act aggressively to
strengthen energy efficiency standards for appliances and
equipment. That will save consumers money while reducing energy
use and carbon pollution.
You should implement the President's proposal for a ``Race
to the Top'' on energy efficiency and grid modernization to
encourage States to voluntarily adopt forward-leaning policies.
And you can invest in research and development and provide
other support for promising clean energy and energy storage
technologies.
Mr. Secretary, you also can play an important role in
educating Congress and the public about the threat of climate
change and the urgent need for action.
We are at a critical crossroads. We face great peril if we
ignore the science and cling to the fuels of the past. Or we
can listen to the scientists, invest in the clean energy
technologies of the future, and lead the world in energy
innovations.
Mr. Secretary, I am confident you will help us choose the
right path and I look forward to your testimony and to working
with you on all the issues that you confront where we can be of
help. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. The
Department of Energy will benefit from your expertise and
leadership, and we look forward to working with you as the
nation continues its transition to a clean energy economy.
The Department has a host of challenging responsibilities--
from cleaning up Cold War era nuclear sites and maintaining our
nuclear weapons stockpile to managing 17 national labs and
operating the strategic petroleum reserve. Running the
Department of Energy is a big job, and you have the experience
to do it.
But I want to tell you how I view your role. I look at your
responsibilities through the lens of climate change. Climate
change is the biggest energy challenge we face. There is no
debate about the science. Climate change is happening now, it
is caused by humans, and the impacts are real.
The paramount responsibility of the Secretary of Energy is
advancing the nation's response to this existential threat.
For decades, experts have talked about the potential future
impacts from climate change. They've warned that in the future
we'll face extreme heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires,
ocean acidification, and dramatic sea level rise.
These are no longer future threats; they are happening
today. Climate change is spawning extreme weather across the
country, from the Texas droughts to the Colorado wildfires, to
Superstorm Sandy.
And as the impacts mount, the window for effective action
to address climate change is closing. Just this week, the
International Energy Agency warned that unless the world acts
to reduce carbon pollution before 2020, global temperatures
could rise by more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit, which would ``be
a disaster for all countries.'' IEA found that taking key
actions now to reduce emissions could be done at no net
economic cost, while delay would impose trillions of dollars in
costs on society.
Mr. Secretary, your job would be a lot easier with support
from Congress, but don't count on it. This Committee--and the
Republican-controlled House--has become one of the last
remaining refuges of the flat earth society. We have the
jurisdiction to do so much to protect future generations, yet
we won't even hold hearings to hear from the scientists.
So you will have to act without us. President Obama got it
exactly right in his State of the Union address when he said
that if Congress did not act, he would.
Some of the most important authorities are those in the
Department of Energy. You need to act aggressively to
strengthen energy efficiency standards for appliances and
equipment. That will save consumers money while reducing energy
use and carbon pollution.
You should implement the President's proposal for a Race to
the Top on energy efficiency and grid modernization to
encourage states to voluntarily adopt forward-leaning policies.
And you can invest in research and development and provide
other support for promising clean energy and energy storage
technologies.
Mr. Secretary, you also can play an important role in
educating Congress and the public about the threat of climate
change and the urgent need for action.
We are at a critical crossroads. We face great peril if we
ignore the science and cling to the fuels of the past. Or we
can listen to the scientists, invest in the clean energy
technologies of the future, and lead the world in energy
innovation.
Mr. Secretary, I am confident you will help us choose the
right path and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
That concludes the opening statements, so, Secretary Moniz,
we will recognize you for 5 minutes for your opening statement
and look forward to your testimony. And be sure and put the
microphone on. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
Secretary Moniz. Great. So, Chairman Upton and Whitfield,
Ranking Members Waxman and Rush, members of the committee, I
thank you for this chance to appear before you today to lay out
some of my priorities and vision for the next few years of the
Department of Energy. It is my first opportunity to appear in
the House as Secretary of Energy, and I look forward and hope
to use these brief remarks to at least partially introduce
myself to the committee as a basis for our work going forward.
I have been working on energy science and security issues
for most of my professional career, and I think it is known I
served as DOE Under Secretary during the Clinton Administration
after serving as associate director in the Office of Science
and Technology Policy.
Most of my professional career has been at MIT where I have
been on the faculty since 1973, including serving as head of
the Department of Physics and founding director of the MIT
Energy Initiative in 2006.
So today, I will lay out some of my vision for how the
Department can be best positioned to address the pressing
challenges before us and touch on some of the initiatives in
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the
Department of Energy. And I will organize some brief remarks
around the DOE mission areas, starting with energy technology
and policy.
Since the President took office, it has been already said,
in fact, by Chairman Upton, the global energy landscape has
undergone a profound change. In 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 carbon emissions have
fallen to the lowest level in United States in nearly 2
decades. But even with this increase in domestic oil and gas
production, high gasoline prices impact American families and
businesses every day and remind us that we are still too
reliant on oil, and the risks of global climate change, as Mr.
Waxman said, threaten the health, security, and prosperity of
future generations.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request will help
us double American energy productivity by 2030, save consumers
and businesses money by saving energy, and support
groundbreaking research innovation to leverage every domestic
source of energy from hydrocarbons to nuclear to solar and
wind, and other renewables as well like hydro and geothermal.
The President's budget increases investments in DOE's
applied energy programs. Among these are the Energy Innovation
Hubs which bring together top scientists and engineers pursuing
game-changing energy goals and also the Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, supporting high-impact,
early-stage technologies on the way to the marketplace. And I
very strongly support both of those programs.
I also served on the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, and 2 \1/2\ years ago, that group
recommended a new approach to try and integrate various threads
of energy policy, environment, security, economy specifically
by launching an Administration-wide process termed the
Quadrennial Energy Review, and I plan to work on that across
the Administration but clearly also with input from the
Congress, from the industry, from NGOs and others. This will
build on the Quadrennial Technology Review carried out in the
Department in 2011. And to do this work, I feel it is very
important that we beef up our analytical capabilities as the
underpinnings of a fruitful discussion with all of the
stakeholders.
In science, DOE science programs really are a key part of
the backbone of basic research in the physical sciences in the
United States. Earlier this month, I took my first trip as
Secretary. I went to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Among other things,
I saw Titan, the world's fastest supercomputer. By pursuing the
research that is necessary to enable and build the next
generation of supercomputers, we can help ensure continued U.S.
leadership in this area. But we certainly cannot be laid back
about it. International competition, especially from China, is
closing in quite rapidly.
While I was at Oak Ridge, I also visited the first hub
called Castle applying these large-scale computational tools to
nuclear power reactors. It is producing product already, a
virtual environment for reactors.
The President's budget also continues support for the
Energy Frontier Research Centers, which have been, in my view,
a great success at many universities and laboratories across
the country.
On nuclear security and environmental radiation I will be
brief, although these are clearly pretty important missions for
the Department. The President's budget proposes, I think, a
strong basis for transitioning to a smaller but always safe,
secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile. It also strengthens the
science, technology, and engineering base to maintain the
safety and reliability over the long-term.
Environmental remediation at the many sites involved in
decades of nuclear weapons production during the Cold War
remains a major mission for the Department. This is a legal and
moral imperative, and the President's budget proposal provides
resources to clean up this legacy and continue the world's
largest environmental remediation effort in the Department.
Next week, I will visit the Hanford site where we have some of
our most difficult challenges in trying to reach eventual
closure of all of these sites.
Finally, improving the management and performance of the
Department really is one of my top priorities as Secretary. I
believe we need to do this to enable our pursuit of mission
effectively. And I will just say I have identified now
particularly four areas where I would like to focus attention
on improved management performance. One is better integration
of our science and energy functions; second, elevating the
focus through organizational change unimagined in performance
as an enterprise-wide requirement; third, security. We need
clear alliance of authority and responsibility and we will
pursue that organizationally. And finally, I have already
mentioned beefing up the analytical capacity in the Department
and our laboratories as part of our analyzing policy.
So in summary, the Department of Energy, I think, does have
very significant responsibilities that bear on America's
economic, energy, environmental, and nuclear security future. I
have appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with members of
this committee and with other Members of Congress both in my
previous tenure at DOE--some of you were here then--and in the
years since, and I am committed to working with Congress in
search for solutions to this country's energy and nuclear
security challenges.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a longer statement for the
record and I look forward to your observations, suggestions,
and questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We
appreciate your comments and look forward to working with you
as you move forward at the Department of Energy.
I think today's opening statements reflected the divergent
views here in the Congress about energy and its impact on
economic growth and job promotion. And Mr. Waxman talks about
climate change, and I know that he genuinely is concerned about
that issue, as we all are. And I think one of the key issues
that many of us that are elected to represent over 700,000
people each is our economy has been very sluggish. We are
trying to promote economic growth, we are trying to create
jobs, we are trying to increase revenues for the government so
we can do more programs.
And many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, as I
said, are very sincere in their views, and they would like to
see us go right down the road the European Union has gone down,
and we know that the European Union has pursued a broad range
of climate policies, including renewable energy subsidies for
wind and solar power. They had a cap-and-trade system. But the
results of this, it appears quite clearly, is not working.
As I said, The Economist just a few months ago had a big
article talking about ``Europe's energy policy delivers the
worst of all possible worlds.'' And their gas prices are so
high, you have companies leaving Europe. They closed all their
nuclear power plants in Germany. They were backing away from
coal, and now, they are planning to build 69 new coal-powered
plants in Europe.
And then recently, we had this article in the New York
Times, ``high-energy costs plaguing Europe.'' And they talk
specifically about how the head of the European power and
carbon at the energy consulting firm in Paris said we embarked
in Europe on a big transition to a low-carbon economy without
taking into account the cost and without factoring in the
competitive impact.
And I know many of our friends on the side of the aisle
view us as we are too far this way and we think they are too
far that way, so we hope that you can help lead this country in
a more balanced approach on energy.
I am a fan of the Sierra Club in that it has done a lot of
good things for America and protecting our environment, but
when the president of the Sierra Club says we want to get to a
place where we do not use any fossil fuels, and next week, the
Sierra Club is going to be in Louisville, Kentucky; they are
going to be demonstrating and protesting against the use of
coal. And I don't think anyone realistically can say that we
can meet our electricity demands in this country and remain
competitive without a strong fossil fuel presence. You can't
build enough windmills and solar panels to meet that need.
And I talked to you soon after your confirmation and you
are certainly not involved in it, but right across the line in
Tennessee from my home State of Kentucky, Hemlock Corporation
built a $1.4 billion plant to make some component parts for
solar panels, and they said it was going to be 2,500 new jobs.
There was government stimulus money in the project, and they
announced in January after they got up to 400 employees that
they were going to close the plant down. They were never even
going to open the planet. So now they are down to 20 employees.
They built a $20 million railroad line into that plant, and
they are not going to move one product out of there. It is
being closed down.
So I think the challenge we face in this country is just
having a balanced approach without someone saying, hey, we
don't need fossil fuels at all. I do believe what the President
said. We need an all-of-the-above policy, but frequently, my
view is that this Administration says one thing and does
another in that arena.
Now, I meant to ask you some questions. I don't know how I
got so worked up here, but one thing I would just ask you
quickly on the Paducah plant. Hopefully, it is the Department
of Energy's policy to try to maintain the viability of that
plant and protect the 1,200 jobs there. Would you agree with
that?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We do agree with that.
Mr. Whitfield. And you are going to consider requests for
proposals for expressions of interest to continue to operate
the plant?
Secretary Moniz. Correct. In fact, if I may, I can even
reflect on a little history in terms of the history with the
Portsmouth plant where USEC ceased operations there in 2000.
And the plan, which I think is a good model going forward with
Paducah, is that we go into cleanup. That prepares the way for
decommissioning but on a parallel track we look for new
business opportunities to use the site, the people at the site,
the resources that the site.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Thank you. My time is expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as I stated in my opening remarks, it is a
huge priority for me to ensure that all Americans, especially
those who have been historically underrepresented in the energy
field, have access to the employment, business, and economic
opportunities that this industry provides.
I stated in my previous statement that I have had talks
with various industry leaders on the issue of jobs from both
the demand and the supply side, and they have spoke of and they
are very concerned with the fact that up to half of the current
energy workforce in some sense will need to be replaced due to
retirements and attrition over the next 5 to 10 years. And in
order to replace these energy workers, the industry leaders are
beginning to recognize that minorities and other historically
underrepresented groups will need to be called upon to help
fill these jobs. So we must therefore be proactive in ensuring
that future workers are being trained with the necessary
skills.
Are you, Mr. Secretary, confident in your capacity and your
programmatic trust, are you confident that your department has
the resources, including the budget and staff, the authority to
effectively engage the minority communities and help them enter
into all aspects of the energy sector by helping them, creating
access through training, STEM education, jobs, and other
business opportunities?
Is there anything that your department needs from the
Members of Congress to make sure they assist you in your pro-
activity in terms of outreach to minorities?
Secretary Moniz. Congressman Rush, thank you for the
question. I think you raise a really important issue. As you
say, the energy industry, I think, is booming and I think it
has every indication that it will in the future from fossil
fuel production to hopefully our leadership role in producing
advanced technologies for the future. If you look at the
demographics of our country and where they are heading, we will
need to draw upon all of our people, women, minorities who have
not yet played a sufficient role. So I think this is a place
that I would really like to work with you on this.
I might note that, recently, at the White House there was a
focus on women in clean energy. Perhaps we could talk about
doing some similar things with underrepresented minorities in
that regard. I think we should focus on also what we do with
small and minority businesses. We do have a program there.
What I will do is I will go back and scrub where we are in
terms of resources and authorities, and after I understand
that, I would like to come back to you to discuss some
specifics of what we might do.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to our discussions
and our working together.
I would like to just ask you a question about the impact
that sequestration--sequestration is harming our
competitiveness. In the race to see which country will lead the
clean energy economy, your department has an important role.
The ARPA-E has had several major technological achievements and
commercial successes. These technologies have affected over 450
million in follow-on investment from private sector after
receiving just 70 million of initial investment from ARPA-E.
How will the funding cuts due to sequestration effect the ARPA-
E in its mission to continue its support of research and
development for breakthrough technologies?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, clearly, the sequestration has
had an impact. I believe the impact is about $1.9 billion
across the Department, across all the missions. And, as of
today, we are at about 1,500 workers laid off or with
substantial furloughs. This obviously is affecting our work. I
want to thank the Congress for working with us in some
reprogramming, which has ameliorated the impacts in various
sites. But clearly, we cannot avoid those impacts. So it is
everything from putting at risk milestones in some of our
cleanup programs to diminished research capacity in programs
like ARPA-E.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Barton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, welcome. You are no stranger to the
Committee, and certainly in the past few years have been a very
forthcoming witness and decent representative for the
Administration. So with that, we look forward to working with
you.
Secretary Moniz. Is ``decent'' praise?
Mr. Barton. Decent is good. Decent is good. There are other
D words that I could use that are not good, but decent is good.
In your immediate position at MIT, you were an author or
co-author of the study entitled, ``The Future of Natural Gas,''
and it recommended that the U.S. should not erect barriers to
natural gas imports or exports. I share that.
You are now the Secretary of Energy, and as Secretary of
Energy, you are going to have some decisionmaking authority on
whether to approve permits to export LNG to nations that do not
have a Free Trade Agreement with this country. There is a
rebuttable presumption in the law that the Department of Energy
should authorize the permit unless they can find that it is not
in the national interest. There is apparently a finding
document, which, if it is public, I don't know that it is
public. Could you enlighten the Committee on the evaluation
process you are using on these permits and also enlighten us as
to whether you still agree with the study recommendation that
the U.S. should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or
exports?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Barton. And we have had
many opportunities to talk before in the past. I should clarify
one thing and then I will go directly to the answer. In terms
of the study, I just want to emphasize that those statements
were in somewhat different context in terms of they were
addressing the potential for imports in about 25 years.
But fundamentally, I think as the guidance, which you have
stated, that there is a presumption of approving licenses
unless there is something that would jeopardize the public
interest, I think, reflects the kind of philosophy that you
have just stated. So the question then becomes how do we judge
the public interest? And there, I think there has been a whole
set of criteria put forward as guides. They are not statutory
but have been put forward by the Department, and certainly,
these issues of balance of trade, of job creation,
environmental considerations, energy security, domestic need,
impacts on the economy are all part of that.
Perhaps I can say what I am today. First of all, I am 3
weeks----
Mr. Barton. So far, you are doing a good answer at not
answering the question.
Secretary Moniz. Well, I am----
Mr. Barton. I am assuming that at some point in time there
will be a pony in all of this that you are giving us, and we
will get an answer.
Secretary Moniz. So I am 3 weeks and 2 days into the job.
Mr. Barton. You are learning quickly.
Secretary Moniz. And I have said that I have been reviewing
assiduously the processes used to date and I am intending to
move now expeditiously into evaluating the license
applications. That will be done case-by-case, go right through
them with the order, as has been stated by the Department in
terms of the filing requirement.
Mr. Barton. OK. Now, I want to make sure in the remaining
minute, this study, this was when you were at MIT, ``the U.S.
should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or exports.''
I am quoting that study correctly, correct?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Mr. Barton. OK. So that we haven't abused you there?
Secretary Moniz. No, no.
Mr. Barton. All right. You are now the Secretary of Energy.
You have a different hat you have to wear. You did agree,
though, that the presumption is that the project should be
approved unless you believe it is not in the public interest.
Now, I think you agreed with that statement?
Secretary Moniz. That was----
Mr. Barton. You agreed with that?
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Barton. And you just did say that you are going to look
at these in an expeditious fashion, which, in my dictionary,
means as quickly as possible.
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Mr. Barton. So could you give us a time frame, the next 3
months, the next 6 months? And I know you have got multiple
projects, but would you be expecting to make some decisions in
this calendar year? We don't want another Keystone pipeline
thing.
Secretary Moniz. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Barton. OK. Thank you. Perfect timing, zero time.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you can play an important role in educating
Congress and the public about the threat of climate change and
the urgent need for action. There is no debate about the
science that indicates that climate change is happening now and
it is caused by humans and the impacts are real.
Mr. Secretary, you are an esteemed scientist. You were
unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Can you take a moment and
explain why it is important for us to act now to address
climate change?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, thank you, Mr. Waxman.
Well, first of all, I certainly agree that it is
indisputable that we are experiencing warming and that the
pattern of consequences that has long been expected--in fact
are appearing around us--are unfortunately typically at the
higher end of the predicted ranges, whether it is melting ice,
which is easily visible, to the issues I think that you raised
earlier, be they storm intensities, droughts, wildfires.
Now, clearly, this is a statistical result as opposed to
something that applies to any one event, but the fact is the
pattern is completely consistent with that expected prolonged
time only, unfortunately, accelerating faster than we expected.
Mr. Waxman. Does that mean we should do something now?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. And a key reason is that, in
particular, especially carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse
gas associated with energy supply, resides in the atmosphere
for many, many centuries. So it is a cumulative impact, not
something that we can just kind of turn on and off very easily.
And we are building up an irreversible momentum. So prudence
suggests that I think we need to start talking about how,
within the all-of-the-above energy philosophy, we manage the
transition to a low-carbon economy.
Mr. Waxman. Our chairman and others have said that, look,
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are at their lowest level in 20
years. The implication is that no further action to address
climate change is necessary. I don't believe that is the case.
What matters is not whether U.S. emissions have declined; it is
whether we are on track to decline in the future by the amount
needed to prevent dangerous climate change.
Mr. Secretary, are you aware of any reputable expert who
believes we are currently on track to avoid dangerous climate
change?
Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, the overwhelming
preponderance--I mean nearly unanimous in the scientific
community of relevance certainly expects that we are on a
pathway to very negative consequences.
Mr. Waxman. That is a mild way of putting it. Look, we are
told that the market is working, that we are doing more than
our share in the United States. The Europeans and others aren't
doing nearly as much. And I just wanted to cite for you some
information that I think is worth noting. This was all in a
letter dated March 11, 2013, that Mr. Rush and I sent to
Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield.
We pointed out that the European Union is committed to
reduce all greenhouse gas emissions from its member states by
20 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels and is on track to
meet this target. The European Union has pledged to achieve
even more reductions if the United States and other developed
countries would agree to do more.
The President pledged, when he was in Copenhagen in 2009,
we are going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 17
percent below 2005 levels by 2020. This is equivalent to a
reduction of just 3 percent compared to 1990 levels. Several
European countries outside the European Union have made more
ambitious pledges than the U.S. Do you think we are the best in
the world in reducing these emissions? You would think that
recent carbon dioxide emission reductions in the U.S. is due to
the marketplace. Now, it is certainly due to the fact that we
are in a recession. It is due to the fact that we have more
renewables. It is due to the fact that natural gas is playing a
better role and that we are promoting renewable energy. Is that
happening because of the marketplace or U.S. laws and policies?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think, as you have said, I mean,
it is a mixture of drivers. Certainly, the large increase in
gas use for the electricity sector has been a market-driven
approach, but of course policies at the state and federal level
have stimulated this, for example, this doubling of renewables
only in the last 4 years, which is a major, major, major
advance.
Mr. Waxman. And we need more policies to accelerate the
transition to a clean energy economy. Do you agree?
Secretary Moniz. I think we need more technology and more
policy to move towards the low-carbon economy.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
Louisiana, vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Scalise, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you having
this hearing.
And, Mr. Secretary, welcome to our committee. Thank you for
coming to testify before us and talk about some of the issues
that we work on here in the Energy Subcommittee.
I know over the years a lot of us have been pushing for a
true all-of-the-above energy strategy to open up more areas
that are right now blocked for exploration in America to try to
green-light projects like the Keystone pipeline so that we can
bring in more energy from a trusted partner and friend like
Canada that gives us less reliance on some of these Middle
Eastern countries who don't like us, help our trade imbalance,
and just many other things that are needed to expedite the
process of producing American energy, keeping agencies like EPA
from trying to interfere with the hydraulic fracturing process
that has been so successful and opened up so many of these
shale plays across the country that are not only creating a lot
of American energy but a lot of jobs, really a bright spot in
our economy.
Your predecessor in this position had made comments over
the years that we should have gas prices at the levels of
Europe and really pushed for an energy policy that, I think,
the President shared that actually has led to making less
American energy, made it harder for us to open up areas and do
more exploration in America.
I am curious to see what your overall strategy is on energy
in general but also specifically things like gas prices as
families still pay over $3 a gallon right now, and with the
summer approaching, likely to be paying higher. Do you have a
plan to try to lower gas prices, to try to increase American
energy, to try to keep the Federal Government from making it
even harder to produce in this country than it is right now and
create those jobs? If I can just throw that out to you.
Secretary Moniz. Quite a few questions in there, thank you.
So, first, again, I very much subscribe to the President's
all-of-the-above strategy and I think----
Mr. Scalise. We disagree with the President's definition of
``all of the above.'' It seems to be more focused on above and
nothing below, which is not all of the above.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I mean, with all due respect, I would
have to say, the ground truth is, as we all know, that oil
production is up dramatically. In fact, we had a little----
Mr. Scalise. And, I mean, I have actually had a
conversation with the President about this because he says that
a lot. He says oil production, energy production, has never
been higher under his Administration. When I pointed out to him
in fact on federal lands it is actually dramatically down; on
private lands it is up. And so in the areas where the President
has no control it is up, but in the areas where he has had
control, it has been down in many cases because of his
policies.
So I do think it is disingenuous for the Administration to
go out and say, you know, and the President himself to say
since I have been President, energy production has never been
higher, when in fact his policies on federal lands have
actually reduced production. And that is a fact that the Energy
Department has actually confirmed.
And so, as you say that, you can say it because it is an
accurate statement across the board to say it is higher, but on
federal lands, energy production is down in many cases because
of the Administration's policies. And that is why we disagree
with this connotation of all of the above.
I mean, you can't be for all of the above when you are
saying no to Keystone, when you are making it harder to
actually explore on federal lands for American energy. And so I
hope you understand that distinction.
Secretary Moniz. No, I understand. I was trying to address
it. I think the reality is it is a question of what choices are
made by private companies where they want to go to drill. There
are many leases--this is a Department of Interior issue----
Mr. Scalise. Right.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Not Department of Energy, but
there are many leases going unused on federal lands. The fact
is the industry is moving hard and producing more oil, moving
hard and producing more gas. There are some infrastructure
issues which will involve both state and federal permitting,
but, I mean, the ground truth is we are producing more oil. We
are producing more gas. We are----
Mr. Scalise. But do you recognize that where we are
producing more gas is primarily on private land and on federal
land, production is lower?
Secretary Moniz. These are facts but all I was saying is--
--
Mr. Scalise. But as Secretary of Energy, though, would you
encourage a change in that policy where we can actually open up
some of those federal lands that are right now closed? I mean
so many areas of our federal lands across the country are
closed to production where you have got very rich reserves. You
know, we have been trying to get the Administration to be an
all-of-the-above administration and open some of that up. Would
you be open to kind of promoting that as Secretary of Energy
where you have a bully pulpit to push for that kind of increase
in production on federal lands where it is down?
Secretary Moniz. Again, we both understand that is a
Department of Interior responsibility----
Mr. Scalise. Right, but I mean you are the Secretary of
Energy. And you have the President's ear on energy issues in
general.
Secretary Moniz. In terms of where I am is, A) supporting
the idea that the country pursues what we call ``all of the
above.'' That is, we will continue to produce more oil,
decrease our exports, help our balanced trade. The Department
of Energy will be supporting that certainly in trying to
advanced technologies for environmentally sound production. We
want to work with our other sister agencies like DOI and EPA in
terms of getting better data. There are issues such as methane
emissions and beneficial reuse by the companies. I had a
meeting this morning in fact which was very, very interesting
in that regard.
So I think we are totally supportive of this vision of
pushing all of the above.
Mr. Scalise. I look forward to working with you on that
and----
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Scalise [continuing]. I know that we will have more of
this. I know I am out of time.
Secretary Moniz. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Scalise. I appreciate that. I know we will have more of
this conversation in the future but thanks for coming----
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. I would be happy to discuss
that.
Mr. Scalise [continuing]. And I think congratulations on
getting this new position. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming today. It is a good
thing to get to know you a little bit. I haven't been on the
committee long enough to see your testimony before, so I
appreciate your coming forward.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. I want to talk a little bit about fracking.
We are going to be producing a lot of natural gas and oil using
that technique, and that may be beneficial, but there is a
significant risk in my opinion of natural gas escaping into the
environment, which is a strong greenhouse gas, and potential
for groundwater contamination, which is very important in
California and many Western States.
I see a budget request of $17 million for research into the
safety of fracking. Do you think that is going to be a
sufficient amount to help guide us through this boom in the
fracking that we are going to be seeing?
Secretary Moniz. Well, of course, the $17 million request I
think is very important for getting engaged in this but of
course there is a lot of work as well going on through
industry. There is work going on in a cost-shared way using the
Royalty Trust Fund. So I think the DOE component and also
Interior and EPA, so the DOE component is one part. I think a
key will be for us to make sure that we are kind of integrating
what we support with that of what other agencies and the
private sector are doing.
Mr. McNerney. OK, good. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. And I would just add the methane emissions
that you alluded to is something we clearly need to get our
arms around. Currently, the estimate is that about 2 \1/2\
percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States
is CO2 equivalent of methane emissions in fossil
fuel production, so it is about 2 \1/2\ percent, but the data
are not very good, number one.
And, number two, we believe there are many opportunities to
capture and beneficially use that methane in the production.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. To change the subject a little
bit, what do you think are the biggest barriers to financing
clean energy projects today?
Secretary Moniz. Oh, there are lots. I think one issue is--
well, turning it around, how can one mobilize a lot of private
capital that is kind of on the sidelines today to come in in
terms of clean energy and clean energy projects? This is
something that I have brought in some new people. We are trying
to analyze these issues.
But I will give you as an example it is very difficult to,
say, in the renewable space, say distributed solar, we have a
lot of small projects. You have nothing like what I would call
the standard contracts as you have in the mortgage business,
and therefore, it is very difficult to aggregate them and be
able to get access to the kinds of capital markets that one can
in other parts of the energy industry. So these are the things
we need to discuss, I think.
Mr. McNerney. And you are going to be aggressively moving
to find the solution?
Secretary Moniz. And, as part of this Quadrennial Energy
Review, we will be working with Treasury and OMB and others
trying to see what are the right mechanisms to stimulate
private capital coming into these markets more strongly.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I understand that the DOE has a
stated goal of wind energy producing 20 percent of our
electricity by the year 2020. Is that a realistic goal? Can we
make that goal?
Secretary Moniz. That is the President's goal.
Mr. McNerney. Can we make that goal?
Secretary Moniz. We are going to try. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. So part of the barriers are financial
barriers?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. I would have to check this, but I
think we are about halfway there so we have to pick up the
pace, and moving private capital in would be important.
Mr. McNerney. And then moving on to electric vehicles, what
are our barriers in terms of getting electric vehicles accepted
in the marketplace?
Secretary Moniz. Well, electric vehicles clearly have a lot
of promise. In fact, the Tesla was--of course, it is an
expensive vehicle, but Tesla was rated by Consumer Reports as
the best car they ever tested, not in that year, but ever. I
mean I think often what we forget is electric vehicles are very
high-performance vehicles.
Now, clearly, the biggest barrier right now is getting the
cost of the batteries down because if you want to have a long
range on electric drive, you are talking today a battery that,
you know, is literally in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Mr. McNerney. And there is some promising technology in the
DOE in that area?
Secretary Moniz. And so there has been about a 40 percent
drop in net cost in the last few years. We have got to keep
driving down. The goal is to get to $100 to $200 per kilowatt
of storage. Today, we are in the 5, $600 range.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Waxman has made a statement that, as I understood
it, climate change is caused by people, and I like to agree
with him sometimes, but the closest I can get to that is it
punishes people. It punishes taxpayers. It punishes taxpayers
to the extent of $34 billion and we haven't gotten anything
yet, nothing that alludes to getting the benefit of the money
that the taxpayers have had to pay out. I don't think you
disagree with that, do you?
Secretary Moniz. I am sorry, Mr. Hall, if you could clarify
the question. I didn't quite understand it. I apologize.
Mr. Hall. It wasn't a question. It was a statement.
Secretary Moniz. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Hall. That Mr. Waxman said climate change caused by
people--and the Sierra Club, and I am certainly not a fan of
the Sierra Club; I want that to go on the record. I think they
are an enemy of anybody that is 18 years old or older that
needs a job or is looking for a job. But climate change has
cost the taxpayers $33 to $34 to $35 billion so far and we have
gotten very little out of that. How can you disagree with that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, the----
Mr. Hall. And what have we got out of it?
Secretary Moniz. I am sorry? Oh, OK. So, well, I would say,
first of all, as we said before, the United States, among
industrialized countries, is unique in having decreased our
CO2 emissions; but secondly, I think we have laid
the foundation for a new technology enterprise in this country.
Mr. Hall. You laid the foundation that nobody is following.
Russia is not, Mexico is not, India is not; no one is helping
us. They want us to clean the world. You are not recommending
that, are you?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I would be happy if we are----
Mr. Hall. If we could, I would be happy, too.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Of exporting technologies to
those countries.
Mr. Hall. Let me get to my real questions. New York Times
earlier this year related the power shortages in New England
and noted the importance to the region of being able to import
power from the Indian Point nuclear facility quoting one
individual as saying, ``without Indian Point, New England would
have been toast.'' The situation in New England was due to an
overdependence on gas. Would you agree this reflects why it is
important to have fuel diversity?
Secretary Moniz. Definitely.
Mr. Hall. All right.
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Hall. And in your view do nuclear facilities play a
critical role in ensuring the reliability of the grid?
Secretary Moniz. Well, clearly, nuclear power is 20 percent
of our electricity today, and it is carbon-free.
Mr. Hall. And did you know that, Mr. Secretary, during your
confirmation hearing, you promised to review what is out there
before approving any additional LNG export applications? And I
think Mr. Barton got into that a little bit. Let me ask you a
little bit more. Can you update the Committee on the progress?
Secretary Moniz. It has gone very well. Frankly, tomorrow,
I have perhaps the key summary meeting on the review and also
we have had the EIA look at how developments in the markets in
the last few years might influence this, but I think, as I said
to Mr. Barton, we are getting pretty much ready to start
evaluating the dockets on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Hall. At an event in Palo Alto this last week,
President Obama reportedly said, ``we believe in a light touch
when it comes to regulations.'' Would you characterize EPA's
wave of rules affecting the energy sector during the
President's first term as a light touch?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, again, I am at the Department
of Energy. We are not doing those regulations. I look forward
to working with the EPA as appropriate in terms of providing
analytical basis, technical advice, but it is clearly their----
Mr. Hall. And you should. You have a tough job. For one, it
has been working on energy science and security issues for most
of your professional life, served on the MIT faculty beginning
in 1973, included as head of the Department of Physics. You
were the founding director of MIT Energy Initiative in 2006.
That seems like that knowledge that you have gleaned there and
that you have departed makes it pretty tough for you to agree
with the person that appointed you?
Secretary Moniz. Well, sir, I completely agree with the
President in terms of, again, all-of-the-above energy approach,
and I think the facts on the ground support----
Mr. Hall. Would you characterize EPA's wave of rules
affecting the energy sector during the President's first term
as a light touch?
Secretary Moniz. Again, I think the EPA is statutorily----
Mr. Hall. And you agree with that, the way the EPA has
handled their business?
Secretary Moniz. That is not for me to judge.
Mr. Hall. But I will just ask you one last question.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. In that case, I will yield back my time.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from California,
Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And congratulations on your confirmation, Secretary Moniz,
and thank you for your testimony.
The Department of Energy has been doing great work in
recent years, particularly in the development of renewable
technologies. Basic research is obviously critical to
developing these technologies and I know you understand this
coming from MIT.
The fiscal year 2014 budget clearly prioritizes this
research, and I commend the Administration for making a firm
commitment to this critical work even in these tough fiscal
times. I am fortunate to have to world-class research
institutions in my district--Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and UC-
Santa Barbara--that have benefited from DOE funding.
For example, UCSB is one of DOE's Frontier Energy Research
Centers and has produced numerous local spinoff companies. Just
earlier this year, a Cal Poly research team received a DOE
grant to further advance its research in reusing the wastewater
used in the production of algae-based biofuels. This research
project could produce technologies that could save Californians
hundreds of millions of dollars in water recycling costs each
year. These research dollars are creating tangible economic
benefits in my district, and I am sure there is quite a similar
impact at other universities throughout the Nation with their
surrounding communities.
Could you elaborate briefly on this? I want to ask you a
couple more questions as well, but what are some other examples
of DOE research dollars being turned into tangible benefits for
taxpayers?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you for the question.
Well, those are two outstanding institutions, and as you
say, actually our great research universities across this
country are really engines of innovation, particularly when
they are embedded in a broader system of investors, et cetera.
So if one just looks at ARPA-E as an example----
Mrs. Capps. Yes.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. We are getting close to about
300 projects, which have been funded, and you take a subset of
less than 20, you have a multiplier of like a factor of five in
terms of private capital coming in to follow those investments.
That is just one example of this multiplier effect.
Mrs. Capps. Let me try another topic. I know you probably
have several other examples you could cite immediately, but
meeting our renewable energy needs is going to require more
than just research. So many great ideas are developed in the
lab that never make it into the marketplace due to a lack of
investment. The biggest issue I hear from these energy
innovators in my district is the difficulty they have in
bridging what they call the valley of death.
What is DOE doing, if you are doing anything at all, to
address this problem and help move more technologies out of the
lab in the research institution out into that marketplace?
Secretary Moniz. I might just add that many, many of them
would say there are actually two valleys of death. They have to
get through both of them to scale in the market. But I think in
particular at the Department I would highlight three programs
there. One is ARPA-E, as I already mentioned, which I think is
developing a strong track record of getting things into the
economy. Another, which I think will take a little bit more
time to judge, but the Energy Innovation Hubs, these are
structured so that they can work on a specific problem but
anywhere across the innovation chain as it makes sense for that
problem to move out into the marketplace.
In California, there is one on Sunlight to Fuels, for
example. And of course a third has been the loan programs, for
example, which started in the last administration, came to this
administration and have helped move some of the world's largest
concentrated solar plant, for example, in California is about
to have first light.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you. I do want to get one further
question out on a solar technology. There are so many roofs and
parking lots and homes, businesses, nonprofits, government
buildings that are perfect for solar, yet go unused because the
owners can't afford the high cost of installation. I faced this
same challenge when I wanted to do something in my own private
home in Santa Barbara.
Thankfully, my county, Santa Barbara County, has a program
that they call emPowerSBC in Santa Barbara County. It helps
secure low-cost financing and rebates for homeowners that want
to install solar and other energy-efficient programs. These
programs are not very common yet. Is there anything you are
doing to encourage the development of programs like emPowerSBC
help make small- and medium-scale solar more widely available?
Secretary Moniz. Well, part of that, as I alluded to
earlier in terms of looking at how to move private capital off
the sidelines----
Mrs. Capps. Yes.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Is that I think we need to
find ways of better aggregating small projects into ways with
uniform contracting that can attract, you know, market capital
into the game. That is one point.
A second point is what I did not mention earlier but I have
emphasized in the Department that one of the kind of shifts in
philosophy a little bit that I want to emphasize is much more
work with States. I think States have been a center of
innovation in advancing energy. One of the issues, however, is
we have enormous variability and so we could not do one-size-
fits-all.
Mrs. Capps. Right.
Secretary Moniz. I think we need to work with the States
and then build up from the States to a more national.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Mr. Whitfield. Time is expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary.
The Administration's proposed budget cuts 46 million from
the Office of Energy's carbon storage research line. This is
down from 107 million it was funded at last year. This program
funds research at the Carbon Sequestration Project in Decatur,
Illinois, which is already halfway to injecting a million
metric tons of carbon. The University of Illinois, as a part of
the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, has great
concern that these cuts will leave the research incomplete,
compromising the 3-year monitoring phase demonstrating the
project's safety and viability.
I have a letter here from the University of Illinois that
goes into greater detail on the project, its progress and
success to date, as well as recommendations for moving forward,
and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous consent for the
letter to be submitted for the record.
And for you, Mr. Secretary, I will provide you with a copy
of that letter directed to you and your staff for review and
consideration. So if I could do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. And then to my favorite topic, Mr. Secretary,
as you are aware, the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
has a pending case before with regard to whether the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission must review the Yucca Mountain repository
license application mandated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
If the court orders the NRC to resume the license review, will
you honor the court's decision and support the NRC process?
Secretary Moniz. We will follow the law, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Good answer. I wish we were following it now.
That is the problem. This past April, Assistant Secretary Peter
Lyons testified before the House Energy and Waters
Appropriations Subcommittee that DOE currently has 18.5 million
from nuclear waste fund carryover that are unspent from prior
appropriations. Is that your understanding?
Secretary Moniz. Sir, I will have to explore that. I am not
aware of that specific number.
Mr. Shimkus. It is a similar question that I asked before
so I think your staff should be pretty well in agreement with
that. So if you would get back to us if that is the case.
Secretary Moniz. It appears to be correct, I think.
Mr. Shimkus. Good. Good answer. If the Court rules and you
find that DOE has insufficient funding to fully support the
license review process, will you commit to prepare and submit a
supplemental budget request this fiscal year if needed? Now,
remember, the court has ruled that they have to finish the
study. You have got some money available. If you are going to
comply with the law, if you need additional funds, would you
then let us know what that would be?
Secretary Moniz. I presume that would be the path forward.
Mr. Shimkus. I will take that as a yes, thank you. Are you
aware of any technical or scientific issues that would prevent
Yucca Mountain from being a safe repository?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think the answer to that question
really would come out from a detailed look. To be
straightforward, I am on the record many, many years ago as
pointing out that there are some issues in terms of, to be
mildly technical about it, it is an oxidizing environment, and
one would probably prefer a chemically reducing----
Mr. Shimkus. Well, and that is the importance of the final
report which will make a judgment of whether it is safe for a
million years or not and that is what we await and hopefully
the court----
Secretary Moniz. And obviously, that is what I said. That
is an NRC decision ultimately to be taken, but there is that
little scientific factoid.
Mr. Shimkus. DOE's document strategies for management and
disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
issued on January 11 of this year and dictates legislation is
needed to deploy that strategy. Why hasn't the Administration
sent legislation to Congress yet?
Secretary Moniz. I believe the Administration's position is
that it will be working with the Congress to develop it, and I
might say that I have personally been working with some
Senators on their draft and I would be happy to work with
Members in this chamber.
Mr. Shimkus. I would suggest, since we have a bicameral
legislation, a legislative body, and there are two chambers
that might be helpful if you would have ideas of how to move
forward, that you would come and talk to us.
Secretary Moniz. If I was asked to come and join the
discussion, I would be most delighted to accept an invitation
here as well.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I will
yield back my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Secretary Moniz, on your appointment and
confirmation. You will bring a fresh perspective to the
Department, so good luck to you. I look forward to working with
you.
I want to bring to your attention an important issue
relating to the economic well-being of our country,
particularly jobs in American shipping, our ports and related
businesses. It involves the Jones Act and the excessive numbers
of waivers that the Administration and the Department of Energy
have granted to that important federal law.
Mr. Secretary, the Jones Act requires that cargo that is
shipped between U.S. ports, domestic ports be transported on
American vessels. The law is vital to our Nation's economic and
national security because it supports the core maritime
industries of our country, American shipbuilding and American
jobs.
In 2011 when the Administration tapped the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and a few other times, the Administration
agreed to almost 50 waivers of the Jones Act. This is more than
all in American history combined, and it was excessive. The law
says that in order to grant a waiver, there must be a national
security emergency and domestic carriers must not be available.
They must be unavailable.
At that time, that was the time of the Libyan conflict and
I guess the powers that be decided that it was more important
to get that oil delivered. But it was an excessively high
number of waivers. It took jobs from American maritime
industries, American cargo vessels. The work went instead to
foreign shippers, and I just think this is very poor public
policy, particularly at a time when we had a high unemployment
rate. The only ones that really benefited at that time were the
oil speculators and foreign-owned oil companies and foreign
shippers.
So I wanted to ask you at the outset of your service, can
you assure me that you and the Department will stand by
American workers and American businesses, support the Jones
Acts and the related American jobs and U.S. maritime industries
and look very skeptically upon further waiver requests?
Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly supporting American jobs
is obviously one of our key objectives. And so we are totally
committed to that. On this particular issue, I was not aware of
these particular waivers, but I can assure you that to the
extent to which I am involved in that discussion--and I am not
entirely sure at the moment--that we clearly will follow the
law and the guidance in terms of only emergency waivers of the
Jones Act.
Ms. Castor. I appreciate that. And I thought that might be
the case and just wanted to bring that to your attention at the
outset of your services, Secretary.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. On another topic, as we look at all of the
various sources of energy, the power of America, it seems like
the one big area that is out there that is clean, that would
save consumers money, is in energy efficiency. And I don't
think that we have done enough to unlock the power of consumers
to implement smart technology to be able to pick up their
smartphones and change the thermostats to do things on set
clock stops on table. I think that technology is changing
quickly and I think there is significant energy savings.
It seems like the entire business model for electric
utilities is outdated now, and we should be looking at
incentives for them to promote conservation to a greater
extent. What are your priorities? What do you see in the
future? What do you think the Congress should be focused on to
move in that direction?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. First of all, I think
immediately after I was sworn in, within 2 hours I was speaking
at an efficiency meeting, which was symbolic in a certain sense
of the very high priority. This will be a major focus area. For
the Department, there are several threads and I would be happy
to come and discuss this in more detail.
Of course, one is that the Department does have compliance
with efficiency standards responsibilities. Frankly, we need to
accelerate getting a number of those out, which are in various
stages of review in the Department and in OMB.
Number two, I think we need to really advance the enablers,
and I think you already alluded to it, particularly the
integration of information technology, smart grids, controls,
sensors, consumer choice. So that is second.
And third, I would say this is very much in the line of the
emphasis I want to give to working with States because, for
example, you mentioned utilities and we need to talk about the
utility of the future, which is not the same thing as the
future of the utility because there may be very many different
services involved in the utility of the future. But the
regulatory structures are very different in different States,
and so the programs again cannot be a one-size-fits-all. But I
think we need to work with the States in providing assistance
in moving in a direction that you outlined.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time is expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr.
Burgess, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to our humble little committee,
appreciate you being here today, look forward to lively
exchanges with you during your tenure.
This year in December will mark the 60th anniversary of
when President Eisenhower went before the United Nations and
gave his very famous ``Atoms for Peace'' speech. The United
States Congress the following year took up that concept and
passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and declared that we
should use atomic energy to make the maximum contribution to
the general welfare. One of the purposes of the Act was to
provide for ``a program of international cooperation to promote
the common defense and security and to make available to
cooperative nations the benefits of peaceful applications of
atomic energy as widely as expanding technology and the
considerations for the common defense will permit.''
So in light of the challenges that we have in developing
domestic nuclear energy, would you agree that nuclear exports
can help maintain a sustainable commercial nuclear
infrastructure in the United States?
Secretary Moniz. Certainly, and in addition, support our
nonproliferation aims.
Mr. Burgess. Correct, which was part of the intent of
President Eisenhower's appearance at the United Nations that
day. So as a committee, can we look forward to you working with
us to explore and examine ways to increase the United States'
competitiveness in the nuclear trade?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, indeed. And I might add also if I
may, sir, that Deputy Secretary Poneman has also been very,
very committed to this same issue.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. One element of the atomic energy
mission involves the Department's role in the export of nuclear
technology. Probably preceding your tenure by just a little bit
in March, the Committee wrote the Department of Energy for
detailed information concerning how the Department implements
its nuclear technology export reviews. The response from the
Department was received last week, probably was not adequate,
and I think your staff is aware of the Committee's feelings on
that.
So as a committee, can we count on you providing a more
robust response to our requests on this important issue?
Secretary Moniz. I will certainly look into that and get
back to you, sir.
Mr. Burgess. I have copies of our original letter and the
response, and, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to
enter these into the record.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Burgess. We will make them available to you before you
leave today.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. And then one important benefit of increased
United States nuclear exports is to ensure that the United
States' know-how on safety and security is implemented
worldwide. Will you help us by taking a close look at the
Department's and the National Nuclear Security Agency's current
activity regarding export controls to ensure the process
continues to work for the benefit of the United States?
Secretary Moniz. I would be happy to work with you on that.
It is an important issue, yes.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I thank you for your responses to those
questions.
I had a question on the actual line item of the budget that
we received. I guess it was referred to as the highlights. And
under the section dealing with fossil energy--I apologize for
not having turned to it earlier so I would have the page number
for you--but you look down the line. All the numbers are
negative in the--oops, sorry. That is renewable energy. Let's
just skip ahead, shall we?
Fossil energy, page 33, if you look at the line items, they
are fiscal year 2014 versus fiscal year 2012. For fiscal year
2014 all of the numbers are negative and substantially
negative, and yet the total fossil research energy and
development is reported to be plus $83 million. I guess the
line item that confuses me on that page is the line that says
``adjustments'' about halfway in the page under total fossil
energy, last line item that is entered and there is a line that
says ``adjustments.'' Can you tell me what ``adjustments'' is
referring to? Or, if not, can you possibly get back to us and
let us know what that represents?
Secretary Moniz. I think I had better get back to you on
that and not give an incorrect answer. So we will do that
promptly. I do want to note that, of course, in addition to
what is here, there was several billion dollars already put in
to the currently going Carbon Capture Utilization and
Sequestration Demonstration project. So that is not captured
here in this budget.
Mr. Burgess. Very well. And just to note, I appreciate your
comments on the fracking issue, the fact that it can be done
environmentally in a safe manner. The United States should be
the leader in developing that technology, and indeed, we should
be exporters of that technology to other places in the world.
And I thank you for that.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary,
congratulations.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. It is great to have you here before the
Subcommittee.
I represent a district in New York in the capital region of
New York, which has incorporated much wind opportunity into the
State's supply of energy. Can you give us an overview of what
the Department of Energy is doing to spur the ongoing
development of advanced wind energy?
Secretary Moniz. Well, there are obviously two major
directions. One is on the technology side. There is, for
example, a focus on helping simulate the technology for
effective use of lower wind speeds, which would greatly
increase the deployment possibilities. And another one is to
basically try to drive down the cost of offshore wind, which
where, of course, you have a great resource but it is a
difficult environment to work in. So that is on the technology
side.
And the other dimension I would say is some of the loan and
assistance projects have helped deploy substantial amounts of
wind and solar.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I have had legislation that will
deal with efficiency in terms of wind turbines and their
assembly, how they are manufactured, how they are placed in
order to get the maximum for the investment.
Not only are we using more and more wind power, I am told
we are building more of it right here in the U.S. The wind
components such as turbines and towers, blades, gears are
increasingly being built by United States' manufacturers. My
understanding is that the percentage of wind components that
are domestically manufactured has doubled from 35 percent in
2005 to 70 percent today. Do you find that accurate?
Secretary Moniz. I don't know the precise numbers but I do
know the trend is in that way. And by the way, in addition,
wind I believe was the largest capacity addition over the last
year in the American system.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And is DOE's wind program on target to
reduce the average cost of utility-scale onshore wind power to
around 5 cents a kilowatt hour by, I believe it was the year
2020?
Secretary Moniz. Yes, I think. Of course, it depends upon
the location, et cetera, but in good wind locations the costs
are dropping dramatically. Five cents is a very reasonable
expectation. Of course, there is the other issue up sometimes
those good wind locations are far away from the load center and
we have to solve the transmission problem.
Mr. Tonko. Right. And what about the interconnect systems,
too, because I am told that much of the capacity for wind--
especially wind, perhaps solar--but we have interconnect
situations that are still of major concern?
Secretary Moniz. Well, you mean in terms of the
transmission?
Mr. Tonko. The transmission or the actual technology that
needs to be perhaps better developed or more high-tech in
nature.
Secretary Moniz. Well, I am not certain of that, sir, but
what is an issue potentially is, for example, if you have
remote, high-quality wind farms, you might want to go to high
voltage direct current lines, and for that, technology in terms
of the power electronics is very important because----
Mr. Tonko. Right.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. With D.C. it is the ends that
kill you.
Mr. Tonko. Absolutely. Now, you somewhat alluded to this,
Mr. Secretary, in that there are some barriers out there, long
distances by which to get wind over to the source that is
required. What is the Department doing to address those
barriers to widespread wind development?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, on the technology side a key
issue is large-scale storage. And, for example, the Department
supports some very interesting work in terms of efficient
compressed air storage. So if we can have storage that meets
the scale of intermittent resources, then you have the
opportunity to dispatch it and you solve that problem. In the
nearer term, until these costs come down, I think we have a lot
more to do, and NREL in particular is looking at the
integration of natural gas in renewables. That is another way
to balance the load-serving function.
Mr. Tonko. In terms of the storage issue, what are the best
hopes there for the development of battery types that will
store incremental type powers?
Secretary Moniz. Well, it is not only batteries. I mean, in
fact, today, if you are in the right place, for example, in the
TVA service territory, they have some very good pumped hydro as
a way of storage. In general, hydro is a very good way of
balancing renewables. There are more far-out things. ARPA-E
funded a so-called liquid metal battery, a whole different
architecture. There is compressed air. There are flywheels. So
all of these technologies are being pushed. A lot of them are
materials problems.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman, Mr.
Terry, from the State of Nebraska.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moniz, I appreciate
you being here. You have an impressive resume and you are doing
a good job today.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Terry. I have focused on natural gas as an energy
transportation fuel, and I appreciated your comment in your
written statement that domestic natural gas production over the
past 5 years has helped contribute to market-led reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the expansion of
manufacturing and associated jobs. We have actually held a
hearing that I chair in the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade
Subcommittee especially in the steel industry the importance of
natural gas. And Ed and I are going to be doing, I think, next
week in other manufacturing areas as a combined hearing. So I
appreciate your comments and support, particularly for the
manufacturing.
But my questions are going to focus more on the
transportation side. Would the same hold true if more semis and
straight trucks and large fleets were to change from diesel or
gasoline to natural gas? Would we see reductions in
CO2 emissions?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. So if we convert gas to liquid fuels,
typically, we do not see a reduction. But if we directly use
the gas, then we can----
Mr. Terry. So you are saying compressed versus liquid would
have a benefit?
Secretary Moniz. No, liquefied natural gas is fine.
Mr. Terry. OK.
Secretary Moniz. No, but I mean the other direction is to
convert gas to a liquid fuel to convert it to a liquid fuel.
That does not give typically any clear benefit.
Mr. Terry. Doesn't it?
Secretary Moniz. But CNG or LNG----
Mr. Terry. It would.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Would benefit as long as
methane leakage is controlled.
Mr. Terry. At the pump side or at the side of production as
you had mentioned with talking about with McNerney?
Secretary Moniz. If you use LNG for your Class A truck, you
are going to have some boil-off, and so the question is how you
control for safety reasons. And so the question is it is a
quantitative issue.
Mr. Terry. Right.
Secretary Moniz. But the potential is there to save carbon.
Mr. Terry. That is part of our intent, as well as not
importing OPEC fuel or oil. So it then concerns me a little bit
when I see this $17 million set aside for natural gas
technologies, and we have $356 million in batteries and
electric vehicles--is actually 575 million. So there seems to
be a real disparity, a gap between natural gas technologies and
battery technologies, electric vehicles. So the first thing
that pops into my mind is that is DOE implementing the Sierra
Club's Beyond Natural Gas campaign in any way?
Secretary Moniz. No, sir. I think the point is that the
research funding is for technologies of tomorrow. I think in
terms of natural gas vehicles, you know, the technology is
largely here. There is research also in ARPA-E, I believe, in
terms of getting new materials for better storage tanks so that
you can put more in because----
Mr. Terry. So there is DOE funding on the tank side?
Secretary Moniz. Correct.
Mr. Terry. And is that part of the 17 million?
Secretary Moniz. I think that may be in ARPA-E but I will
get back to you on that.
Mr. Terry. OK. I would appreciate that.
Secretary Moniz. I will clarify that for you and for me.
Mr. Terry. So from the cynical side when we see such a gap
between the funding, we are assuming that there is a
legitimate, logical conclusion that there is not much interest
in natural gas.
Secretary Moniz. I think the issues are, for example, if
you take the LNG trucks, the Class A trucks, and there are
trucks out there now using LNG.
Mr. Terry. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. In many ways, the issue is the OEMs to try
to get the capital cost difference. A Class A truck capital
cost----
Mr. Terry. Oh, no, I am well aware of the cost and that is
one of the barriers is----
Secretary Moniz. Yes, and then it is the infrastructure.
Mr. Terry. And that is coming despite our best efforts.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, the open road use is very difficult,
but I think the market is going to be station-to-station.
Mr. Terry. Yes, and I have so many other questions on that,
but in the last 8 seconds, have you formed a position on
Keystone pipeline in regard to your position from DOE?
Secretary Moniz. That is a Department of State decision----
Mr. Terry. Well, other agencies have input and DOE will be
one of them.
Secretary Moniz. We will make input certainly in technical
analysis but the decision is in Secretary Kerry's hands.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired.
At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. I think for my colleague from Nebraska I think
the Secretary has enough on his plate to pick a fight, but I
appreciate you.
And congratulations, Mr. Secretary, again. And I know we
have met before. And in Texas they would say you know where I
come from, but you know the area I represent, and I appreciate
and look forward to working with you.
I would ask you some questions about LNG exports but our
Natural Gas Caucus is actually holding a briefing now with
Chris Smith, a bipartisan briefing, so I think that will handle
a lot of the questions I have.
Let me talk about something that has come up over the
years. Carbon capture and storage is consistently discussed in
context that it is used possibly as carbon control technology
under EPA rules on utilities and refiners. The problem is it is
still too expensive commercially to be used, and I ask DOE this
question every budget hearing so I could continue to monitor
the progress. Can you please describe current DOE CCS
activities?
Secretary Moniz. Yes. Well, we have about a half-dozen now
major projects going forward, some are power plants, some are
industrial facilities, for example, a large ethanol plant of
Archer Daniels Midland plant. And I think the majority of them
actually also is what is called CCUS--utilization and
sequestration--specifically using it for enhanced oil recovery.
So today, I think a story not well known is that today we
are using about 60 million tons per year of CO2 to
produce 300,000 barrels a day of oil from enhanced recovery,
and a Department of Energy study a few years ago estimated that
could go up by a factor of 10. So 3 million barrels a day is
getting pretty serious.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Secretary Moniz. And to do that----
Mr. Green. That is two more than we would ever get from
Keystone pipeline.
Secretary Moniz. Yes. And to do that we would need to use
CO2 from power plants or industrial facilities.
There is not enough natural CO2 for that scale.
Mr. Green. OK. And is there any idea when CCS may be
commercially viable? I know these plants wouldn't be there
where they are now without the assistance of the Department of
Energy.
Secretary Moniz. Right. I think this is the case where
government funding is the only way to get to the demonstration
phase. The goal is to demonstrate it at the level where the
regulatory requirements can be settled such that the private
sector knows what the game is. But, of course, that will only
come as well when carbon emissions are being limited and/or we
have enough use of the CO2 like enhanced oil
recovery or other applications.
Mr. Green. OK. OK. I am a strong supporter of smart grid
technology and I noticed that the Administration is
recommending a 37.9 percent decrease in smart grid funding. Is
that because we are moving these activities elsewhere or are
they truly reducing the activities for smart grid?
Secretary Moniz. No, our intention is to increase the focus
on smart grids, so I will clarify, Mr. Green, that budget issue
for you.
Mr. Green. OK. In the President's budget for fiscal year
2014, the budget request for ARPA-E is 379 million, an increase
of 38 percent above enacted levels. He mentioned one of the
strategic areas that funding will go toward is providing
greater reliability and security in delivery of electricity.
Electric reliability is a priority of mine and I am wondering
if you could elaborate on some of the projects or what projects
are going on within the space?
Secretary Moniz. There is a whole bunch of projects; some
of them are very much in the technology development area. I
mentioned earlier power electronics. That is a new focus area
which is a critical component of that. Another different cut on
it is of course cyber security. You can't forget cyber security
very long when you are talking about the grid and the smart
grid----
Mr. Green. And reliability. I understand.
Secretary Moniz. And that is a huge focus. Another area is
the proposed race to the top, which is for both energy
efficiency and grids. We are----
Mr. Green. OK. I only have about 19 seconds. Do you have
flexibility with current revenue funds for that race to the
top?
Secretary Moniz. No, that is a proposal to the Congress in
the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Mr. Green. OK. But you don't have the current funds? You
can't put current funds toward this and this would not happen
without those additional funds?
Secretary Moniz. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Green. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time I recognize the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for being with us
today. It is good to have you before us.
And I think you have heard a wide range of questions from
members on both sides of the aisle. And, if I could, maybe just
to kind of reiterate a little bit here, just kind of give you a
background.
I think that we talk a lot about all-of-the-above energy
policy, and I know it was in 2008 that Republicans put forward
our plan for an all-of-the-above energy policy, and that is
really going through, you know, everything that we have today
you have been hearing from nuclear to clean coal to oil to
natural gas to hydro and all of the alternatives. We want to
make sure that those are being used.
And at the same time, I look at my district. I represent a
manufacturing district with 60,000 jobs. I also represent the
largest ag district in the State of Ohio. And so it comes down
to we use a lot of energy in my neck of the woods. And so when
we use energy, we talk about baseload capacity because when
those factories are running three shifts a day, they have got
to make sure that they have that energy straight through the
day. And at the same time, to get that energy, we have to make
sure that we have that ability.
On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal we had the
report showing that we have about a million barrels more of oil
being produced in this country every day, which is very, very
important because again we want to get our reliance off of
foreign countries. And I think the last number I saw we were
importing about 43 percent of the oil that we are using every
day into the country.
So, when you look at what is happening out there and it is
great that what we are doing in production here in the United
States, and I think that Dr. Burgess had asked a little bit
about it, but really what has really helped us get there is on
the whole the means that we are using to bring this oil and
natural gas up. And it is a known technology which is fracking.
And there are reports from several weeks back of OPEC
countries that some of them are getting into a panic and they
are saying it is all because of fracking that is going on in
the United States that is bringing up our ability to bring up
this oil and to really get this into the United States market.
Can I just ask you again, what is your stand on fracking?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I am not sure it is a stand, but
what my view is that, as we have said, that I would say all of
the environmental issues that have arisen I believe are
manageable. I think we know what to do. They may be challenging
in some cases but we know what to do; the issue is doing it.
And there, of course, has not been--we have had obviously
incidents.
As an example, the biggest problem in terms of the number
of incidents has been, frankly, just poor well completion, bad
cement jobs. You know, again, you would know what to do in
principle but you just have got to have best practices done all
the time. Another example which is slightly more challenging to
address but again I think we know what to do is methane
emissions.
Now, we are moving more than half I believe now of the
frack jobs are so-called green completions where the methane is
captured and is for economic benefit. In fact, if I may just
add one more, just this morning I was speaking with someone
from a company where it is interesting. They are capturing the
methane in the frack job not using 30,000 horsepower diesel
engines anymore to drive the hydraulic fracturing but using
gas-fired engines. And that then in turn is greatly improving
air quality issues by displacing the diesels. So I think there
are solutions there; we just have to make sure we are using
them.
Mr. Latta. OK. In my last 40 seconds here, another issue
that is a real concern out there is on cyber security. And I
know I have had several events in my district on cyber
security, and it is a big issue out there. But one of the
questions is that, when we are looking at really protecting the
grid out there, can you justify right now when I am looking at
your budget numbers here that the cyber security for the
electric grid would be only about 38 million is what your
department is asking for? And shouldn't there be more dollars
out there to make sure that the grid is protected?
Secretary Moniz. Well, the cyber security activity in the
budget actually appears in many different places in the
Department, and I have pulled together a council bringing
together the various entities. So the Office of Electricity has
a cyber security budget. The Office of Intelligence; the NNSA,
the National Nuclear Security Administration, has a big program
on cyber security. And I am forgetting one. Oh, and the CIO of
course is heavily involved.
So what we are trying to do is to make sure we bring all of
these assets together to look at everything from grid
reliability and resilience to frankly protecting our own
national security secrets.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired and
I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize Ms. Matsui of
California for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Moniz, for joining us today. And I
congratulate you on your new position.
I appreciate the Department of Energy's continued
commitment to clean energy technology, energy efficiency, and
the reduction of carbon emissions.
The American manufacturing sector has an essential role
when it comes to U.S. competitiveness. It accounts for 12
percent of GDP, 70 percent of private sector R&D investment,
and 60 percent of exports. And the manufacturing sector added a
half-a-million jobs in the past 3 years. The President has
emphasized the importance of investing in American
manufacturing to build on this momentum.
My district of Sacramento boasts nearly 14,000 clean
energy, clean technology jobs and more than 230 clean
technology firms. I am keenly interested in advancing our clean
energy manufacturing sector and have introduced legislation
that would assist these companies in exporting these products
abroad, thus allowing them to create jobs and better compete in
the global market.
Mr. Secretary, the Energy Department's Clean Energy
Manufacturing Initiative is focused on improving the
manufacturing of clean energy products and increasing
manufacturing energy productivity more broadly. Why is this
initiative important and what benefits are we going to see?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think the initiative is important,
frankly, for the reasons that you have already stated, that
this is the way of getting the next cutting-edge technologies
moved into the manufacturing environment in this country so we
can capture those immediate jobs. But then, we should not
forget the spillover in the sense of capturing important parts
of the supply chain, that supply chains like to go together,
and so you have a multiplier effect.
The project in Youngstown, Ohio, for example, on the 3-D
manufacturing--or additive manufacturing sometimes it is
called--is a good example. This is a technology that is already
penetrating the manufacturing sphere but it is only just kind
of a toe in the water. So that is a place where we have got to
put that into our manufacturing environment quite solidly. The
next one will be on some semiconductors. That is out there
right now.
So again, I think we really need to think about in the end
we need to capture the high-margin parts of the supply chains
of clean technologies.
Ms. Matsui. OK. This market is going to be worth trillions
of dollars in the next decade. What needs to happen for the
United States to lead in this market?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think much of this will happen in
the private sector, but I think the Federal Government does
have a role, as we just described. This is a good example in
the manufacturing initiative. But I would go back to what may
be even more important and that is developing our human
capital. I mean this is absolutely essential and, in fact, one
of the things that I would like to perhaps at some point--and I
think about it more--talk with members of this committee and
others in the Congress is I think at the Department of Energy
we should maybe think about doing traineeships that focus right
in on the key parts of energy technologies, energy activities
where perhaps we are not producing enough young people, and to
go back to Congressman Rush's point in making sure we are
drawing upon the entire range of our human capital.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, that is good.
First of all, I want to talk a little bit about ARPA-E. Can
you tell us about the work ARPA-E is doing to invest in
potentially breakthrough technologies and attract private
capital support to the development of these technologies?
Secretary Moniz. ARPA-E is, I think, was a wonderful
initiative. And I really credit Secretary Chu for pushing that
both before he was Secretary in a report of the National
Academy and then as Secretary. I think ARPA-E, in many ways, I
think it is the face of innovation for the Department of
Energy. It does business in a different way. It is targeting
specific areas.
For example, going forward, there will be a much bigger
focus on advanced transportation options coming forward and
soliciting ideas that sometimes are a little bit out there,
pretty risky. I think, you know, we will have to judge
ultimately 7 years down the road whether these technologies
scale up to be major marketplace players. But every indicator
is extremely encouraging, certainly, lots of lots of patents,
disclosures, startup companies coming out of it.
I will note we shouldn't forget I think if you go back to
the very first request for proposals or concept papers, there
were more than 3,000 concept papers put in for 37 awards. I do
not think we are tapping our full capacity to innovate in this
country. We need to do more of it.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time is expired.
At this time, recognize Mr. McKinley from West Virginia for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, earlier in the remarks, Chairman Whitfield
noted about your predecessor and his aversion to fossil fuels,
very clear, and he made that throughout the 4 years he was
there making that clear with that. It manifested itself in the
budget with increasing money is being spent on renewable energy
sources, on R&D, but it decreased in fossil energy R&D. So I
have got a chart that shows that what happened in the time
preceding his administration and then in the last; you see the
direction we have gone and in fossil fuel research.
So I am just concerned with that, not only the direction
but also because I found that I am trying to reconcile the
information that your office up here only had provided from
your predecessor, and that was over the $421 million, as
indicated there at the end. It says that is a 24.8 percent
increase. Mr. Secretary, just saying so doesn't mean it, so I
am trying to understand if your office would get back to me to
explain why they think that is a 24 percent increase when in
reality you can see that it is a fairly significant decrease in
funding for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. I am
sure that Mr. Doyle, Murphy, and all of those of us that have
an interest in those facilities that we don't see that money
cut any further.
So my point here with this a little bit is that during your
Senate confirmation there were statements to that effect and
newspaper articles how you are supporting the CCS research and
R&D, and I applaud you for that because we need to have that. I
am a little concerned whether you will be able to carry that
out if we continue to have a lessening amount of money in R&D
with NETL.
So the question that I would ask is do you support or are
you supporting the President's proposed decrease in funding for
NETL or will you make an effort to alter or work with us to
alter it so that we can get that money back up to a more
reasonable level?
Secretary Moniz. First of all, I think there is again--I
think not shown on this graph is the $3 plus billion of
Recovery Act funding that has already been put out there for
the CCS projects. So that is----
Mr. McKinley. This all came from the Congressional Research
Service.
Secretary Moniz. But I think that is separate. But I think
we need to look at the whole picture. The other thing--and I
just don't know from this picture--NETL also receives $12 \1/2\
million a year for research from the Royalty Trust Fund. Now, I
think the bottom line is, however, frankly, back in 1999 we
were part of forming NETL from the previous FETC----
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. And I think that NETL is our
lead laboratory for fossil energy research----
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. And I have worked with----
Mr. McKinley. If I could--and I appreciate you--we are
going to have more of a discussion, but there were some other
remarks earlier, and I want to maybe parse the words a little
bit. You said that it is indisputable that there is global
temperature change. I don't know too many of us who disagree
that there has been some global temperature change, but my
question, do you agree with Congressman Waxman that it is
primarily manmade? Or is it natural and cyclical?
Secretary Moniz. I believe in my view there is no question
that a major component is anthropogenic.
Mr. McKinley. Interesting.
Secretary Moniz. And that comes from----
Mr. McKinley. Is that from a consensus?
Secretary Moniz. It is practically--I would say 98 percent
of scientists involved in this area----
Mr. McKinley. You are aware of the petition process has
32,000 scientists and physicists who have disagreed that it is
manmade?
Secretary Moniz. But sir----
Mr. McKinley. They say it is contributing. I think it would
be irresponsible to say we don't contribute, but is it
primarily----
Secretary Moniz. If I may say, and I would be happy to come
and have a long discussion, but a few facts that, first of all,
the rise in CO2 emissions in the last half-century
is clearly tracked to our global increased energy use.
Secondly, I know how to count. I can count how many
CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel
combustion, and I know how many additional CO2
molecules are in the atmosphere.
Mr. McKinley. Let me just close with saying in terms of
consensus, I think consensus has a place in politics but
consensus doesn't have a place in science.
Secretary Moniz. Again, sir, I just want to clarify. My----
Mr. McKinley. I yield back my time.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Judgment is based on numbers
on data and not on the consensus. And I would be really
delighted if we could have a discussion.
Mr. McKinley. If we could have that, I would like to do it.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger [presiding]. The gentleman's time has
expired. The chair recognizes the member from Virgin Islands,
Ms. Christensen, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Secretary Moniz, and thank you for your
testimony and we look forward to working with you to implement
your and the President's agenda for the Department and the
country.
Some of my questions have been answered. I had some
questions around weatherization because it is such an important
program. It has helped low-income families for over 30 years
now. And in 2012 the funding was at a historic low but the
President's request for 2014 really aims to ensure that the
program can continue providing these important services. And
that would be especially important for every place in the
United States but in my district where we face energy costs of
over five times the national average.
You talked a bit about including job training. Is that
included in the President's budgetary increase or is that
something that you are looking forward to doing? Because I
think that is very important as well as, you know----
Secretary Moniz. This traineeship idea is one that I would
like to start to work to develop.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. And in determining the funding that
goes to the States and the territories--I represent the Virgin
Islands, so I am a territory--you generally have a formula, but
is the funding level ever influenced by need or is it just a
straight formula? And you may not know that at this point.
Secretary Moniz. I believe that at the moment we are locked
into kind of a formula, but as you said, also in the
weatherization case, what was----
Mrs. Christensen. It is the weatherization I am talking
about.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, in weatherization it is absolutely
critical if a Continuing Resolution would have that funded at
70 million. It got so low because of the Recovery Act funding
but it has to now come back up. And the request is for 184 in
fiscal year 2014. At 70 million we could not sustain the
program nationally.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. And I am asking because we have a
letter into your office requesting an increase even just for a
couple of years because of our high energy costs.
And then the other question I had has to do with solar
programs, and as you have said already, DOE is conducting a
range of research development and demonstration and deployment
activities for renewable sources, and could you tell us about
the SunShot Initiative? Did you speak about that already?
Secretary Moniz. Well, no, I have not. So the SunShot
Initiative we feel very good about in terms of where it is
going. It is about driving down the cost of solar, and it is
happening. The solar costs have dropped incredibly. Solar
module cost is now somewhere around $1 per watt, and it wasn't
long ago that that was $2.50. So we are getting into a very
interesting area.
Mrs. Christensen. You have a very ambitious goal of
dropping to 6 cents per kilowatt by the end of the decade. You
think you are on track for that?
Secretary Moniz. I think we are on the technology. Then the
question is to get that, there will be a lot of requirements as
well in terms of local regulations, how you install systems
because installation costs are now getting to be larger than
the solar technology cost itself.
And I might say, you know, in Germany, for example, their
installation costs are about 40 percent of our costs through
some uniform standards.
Mrs. Christensen. I have been interested in OTEC for quite
a while. Is the Department investing in research of that
particular technology, the ocean thermal----
Secretary Moniz. To be honest, I am not sure where the
Department stands right now on that program.
Mrs. Christensen. I have not noticed or seen anywhere where
there is a lot of activity but, you know, for a place like
ours, small islands surrounded by ocean----
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen [continuing]. Some deep water that can
accommodate it, it would just seem like a renewable energy that
we ought to pursue. And, you know, I hope that in your tenure
you will take a look at it.
Secretary Moniz. OK. I will.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Kinzinger. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. The Department of
Energy is fortunate to have somebody with your technical and
scientific expertise. Personally, I am excited to see the
direction you take regarding nuclear policy considering your
background. As we are all aware, your time is short in office
but the course that you take now has the potential to steer the
Department for years and decades to come. I hope you choose
nuclear policy as one of your priorities.
I am concerned with the current direction of our nuclear
energy policy as nuclear is a reliable and clean source of
massive amounts of energy both domestically and through the
world. In fact, in Illinois 50 percent of our energy is from
nuclear. With our infrastructure and experience, the U.S.
should be the leader in the realm of nuclear know-how and
operation, but our current nuclear energy strategy is
unstructured and without clear goals. This lack of direction
leaves our scientists and labs vulnerable when appropriators
are looking for areas to cut.
With the closure of a number of nuclear plants in just the
past few months alone, I am afraid the U.S. is going to see a
vacuum of nuclear energy experts in the very near future, and
as those individuals and their knowledge are snatched up by
foreign competitors, there is no getting them back.
An effective nuclear energy policy should look to use the
best resources available to us in order to lead the world in
this area. In your written testimony, you mentioned that our
national labs have unique capabilities and expertise to provide
technical assistance. I was happy to read this, as I also
believe that our national labs such as Argonne National Lab in
my home State of Illinois can play a key role in devising an
enhanced nuclear energy security strategy. Collaborative
partnerships among our national laboratories to develop such a
strategy are going to be key to U.S. nuclear energy leadership
in the future, and I hope that you will look towards developing
the unique capabilities of those labs as you look to improve
innovation and effectiveness of the Department of Energy's
energy programs.
Just a few questions: A number of DOE national labs, Idaho,
Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Argonne--have begun talks with one
another in order to gain full advantage of their collective
expertise in nuclear energy. Do you have any plans or what are
your plans to help with this collaborative process moving
forward in order to get the most of what each of them has to
offer?
Secretary Moniz. Thank you. First, more generally than
nuclear energy specifically, I have met already with all the
lab directors. We met down in Oak Ridge actually in my first
week in office basically. And so I am working with them to
engage the laboratory leadership much more what I would call in
a strategic partnership for the Department as to where we are
going. The phrase I would use is if you want people there on
the landing, you should have them there on the takeoff. And so
we are working to try to talk about what are the strategic
technology directions that we are going.
Among those is clearly nuclear, and you have named to the
labs that are leading it. Actually, others; Los Alamos also
contributes, but clearly, Idaho and Argonne historically and
Oak Ridge were probably the three largest.
Mr. McKinley. And what are your goals for the growth of
nuclear energy overall and how do you believe the budget put
forward by your agency can successfully accomplish all of those
goals?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think in my view the way I have
always looked at it is our job is to make sure the marketplace
in the end has the choices that it needs. Among those choices
should be nuclear power. I think now there are several issues.
I mean one is, as you know----
Mr. McKinley. I have got a couple more so I will just cut
you off if that is OK.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, sure. Sure, sure.
Mr. McKinley. We have done high-level comparisons with this
Administration's budget proposal for the Office of Nuclear
Energy. What we found is a decline since 2010 of actually
almost 28 percent. What is a little more striking is that
during that time DOE moved some additional line items into the
nuclear energy budget that seem to mask even a sharper decline.
Given the environmental benefits of nuclear energy and its
contribution to energy security do you think such a decline is
appropriate or could it cause any problems? And will you commit
to examine this apparent decline knowing that you are new in
this position and respond to this committee with a full
explanation of it?
Secretary Moniz. I would be happy to, and I have spoken
with Pete Lyons. I am committed to maintaining a healthy
nuclear energy program. SMRs are an important direction, for
example. Also, we should note there is the commitment at least
made on the very, very large loan guarantee to help stimulate
the construction of reactors in Georgia.
Mr. McKinley. Wonderful. Thank you and I yield back.
And the chair recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back for your inaugural visit in a
different capacity, but we are happy you are here and we look
forward to working with you. I just want to get some clarity to
some of the remarks that my friend Mr. McKinley made on CCS.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for
research related to CCS is 376.6 million, which is a decrease
of 23 percent below the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. Now, I
heard you make mention of stimulus money, some $3 billion, and
I am curious. That is back in, what, 2009? How much of that $3
billion has yet to be spent or is currently being--you know, is
that $3 billion gone?
Secretary Moniz. No, it is not. I can't give you the exact
number. I can get it later on. But in some cases much of the
funding has been expended. As an example, the industrial
project which I believe is in Illinois is well along. On the
other hand, another project in Illinois actually, I think the
FutureGen, is still in the second phase prior to the major
construction, and they are, to be honest--and it is well known
that we need to pick up the pace in order to have those funds
expended prior to the end date for recovery funds.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I would be curious to see how much still
exists in the 3 billion.
Secretary Moniz. OK.
Mr. Doyle. The other thing I am just curious about when you
look at the subprograms within CCS, in the carbon capture part
of this subprogram there is an increase of 62 percent in that
budget from fiscal year 2013, but in the storage subprogram,
that has been decreased, almost been cut in half. I am just
curious why the increase in the money is going into capture and
then a decrease in funding on the storage end? What is all of
that?
Secretary Moniz. I think the reason is that--I think I like
to just think about it as these two fundamental problems. One
is we need to demonstrate the storage with substantial
injections over an extended period of time. That is what those
recovery-funded projects are going to do using conventional
capture technology. But for power plants in the long-term, the
big cost driver is the capture technology. So the research is
looking at the cost reduction of new capture technologies while
the big demonstration projects will address the storage side.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, over the past 10 years, my colleagues and I
have been championing efforts to support the development and
commercialization of fuel cell technologies to promote our U.S.
energy independence. And in particular, I am deeply committed
to promoting the success of the Solid State Energy Conversion
Alliance, SECA, under your fossil energy section.
SECA is a successful partnership, as you know, between the
government, academia, industry, and the national labs in
developing solid oxide fuel cells that are capable of cleanly
and efficiently utilizing our domestic energy resources, most
notably natural gas, in the coming years. In fact, SECA has met
or exceeded every benchmark that has been set for it by
Congress and the DOE.
Now, you have spoken of the importance of natural gas as a
bridge to a cleaner energy future. Solid oxide fuel cells such
as those under development in SECA are the cleanest, most
efficient way to use natural gas, as well as a range of
domestic energy sources. So in light of your support for
natural gas, what are your plans for ensuring the continued
success of the SECA program to ensure we develop technologies
that make the most efficient use of that fuel?
Secretary Moniz. To be honest, I will have to go and look
at that in detail, but I can make a few comments because I have
not been briefed on this to be honest in the last 3 weeks. But
one, I do know that certain costs have come down, perhaps
partly through SECA, I mean, 35 percent kind of cost reductions
in the last few years. And secondly, I think also solid oxide
fuel cells could be very interesting for combining power
applications because of their higher temperatures. So I will
look into that and get back to you on the specifics.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wish you well and I
look forward to working with you. I yield back.
Secretary Moniz. I do as well.
Mr. Whitfield. Sorry. I was thinking about something else
there for a moment. Your comments are so insightful that it
makes me think about other things.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Olson of Texas, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
And welcome to Secretary Moniz. Congratulations on your
nomination by the President to be the 13th Secretary of Energy
and by being confirmed by the Senate with an impressive 97-to-
nothing vote.
Mr. Secretary, my home State of Texas is the fastest-
growing State in the Union. Texans want to sustain that growth
and they know that one of our challenges is reliable power
being available. Federal and state regulators agree that we
could see a crisis on our grid if we have another hot summer
like the August 2011.
One of the most significant areas of fossil fuel research
in the DOE's budget is carbon capture and sequestration. And
since I gathered this information on sequestration at MIT.edu,
I assume you are aware of a DOE-supported--I guess you would
call it--CCUS project at the W.A. Parish power plant outside of
Needville, Texas, in my district. The goal of this project is
to decrease CO2 emissions by 90 percent with
appropriate reductions in SOx, NOx, and
mercury emissions. The captured CO2 will be used for
enhanced oil recovery operations in nearby old oil fields.
DOE issued its final EIS on March 15 of this year with the
finding of negligible to minor environmental impacts. The W.A.
Parish plant is leading the CCUS research but they will tell
you, like you said here, CCUS is not ready for prime time.
Well, let me step back. CCUS is not realistic for many
power plants. We are unique because we are so close to a former
oil field. Unfortunately, EPA is not waiting for DOE to do the
research and the proposed regulations that essentially mandate
the use of unproven CCUS technologies on any new coal-fired
power plant. My State needs power but the EPA is effectively
banning a major source of new generation by requiring unproven
technology in our power plants. In a sense, W.A. Parish has
committed to invest $163 million in this project. Will you
commit to work with them to see that their unique circumstances
for CCUS are economically viable from a market perspective?
Secretary Moniz. I should be happy to be briefed by them
and to discuss with them, yes.
Mr. Olson. And help them get EPA out of the way?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think that we will have to see
what the situation is.
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. I appreciate your commitment.
And as you know, another tool you have to help my home
State avoid blackouts is Section 202(c) of the Federal Power
Act. Under Section 202(c) DOE has the authority to order a
power plant to run during an emergency even if that would cause
a brief violation of environmental laws.
Unfortunately, EPA environmental groups have usurped DOE's
202(c) of authority by bringing lawsuits which have resulted
with power plant owners paying fines for complying with DOE
regulations and orders. Two weeks ago, the House passed my
bill, H.R. 271 to prevent this regulatory trap. The last
Congress it was favorably discussed by the FERC commissioners
and your predecessor Secretary Chu.
The Senate has yet to take up the bill, so I am going to go
Texan and shoot straight. Do you support my bill, H.R. 271?
Secretary Moniz. Sir, I will have to study it first but it
sounds like an issue I should get up to speed on. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And finally, your department has some critical decisions
ahead of it on LNG exports. My support for LNG exports comes
from a strong belief in free markets and my State's booming
energy production. But most importantly, LNG exports can
sustain our national security, strengthen it, by developing
relationships with countries that are important to the United
States of America.
One of those countries is India. There is a vibrant Indo-
American community in my district. Our relationship with India
is key and our Indian allies can either buy gas from us or by
gas from nations like Iran.
My first question--and I am running out of time here--is do
you support energy exports? Yes or no?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I will be evaluating the
export applications on a case-by-case basis expeditiously. I
might also add I will be in India in two weeks.
Mr. Olson. Great. Great. Bring this up. They will bring it
up with you; I can guarantee you. I am out of my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. At this
time, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Following up on LNG, multiple studies of LNG exports have
pointed out that the U.S. projects are in a race to meet
worldwide demand for LNG with international projects all around
the world. Do you agree the delays in the DOE permitting
process are putting U.S. export projects at a disadvantage
compared to competing projects in the Middle East, Russia, and
elsewhere?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I am not sure I characterized
delays. I mean I am starting my own process now----
Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Expeditiously, but I do want
to point out the pitfalls of litigation, et cetera, are there
so we have to do it right. So I want to be very, very
systematic, transparent, and march through these as
expeditiously as I can.
Mr. Griffith. And I would also be remiss being a
representative from Virginia--even though I am a long way from
the shore--that Virginia believes that we have a lot of natural
gas offshore, and we would love to be able to get to that and
any oil that might be out there as well. And that has been the
policy of at least the House of Delegates in Virginia since
2004 when I was there and has been the policy of the State as a
whole, I think, for about the last 45 years. But if you could
expedite that, that would be great. We are ready to get
started.
Secretary Moniz. It is not in my lane.
Mr. Griffith. I understand. I will tell you that it is
interesting when you study all of these issues and you look at
the environment and you look at ways and problems and things
that we have to move forward on. And it is one of those things
that I have always loved is that in the 1890s the major cities
of the world, particularly northeastern United States and some
others, were very concerned about the environmental problem
that they were having with dealing with the dead horses. And
through technology, we were able to move forward without having
that problem. They worried about having to deal with manure as
high as 30-story buildings and the environmental impact of not
being able to get the decaying horse carcasses out of the
streets in a timely fashion when the population rose and they
were looking at projections out to 1930 and 1950.
That being said, you were, I believe, the cochairman of a
group at MIT that did a report in 2007 on the future of coal.
And while there are a number of difficulties that people look
at with coal, there is also some really interesting
technological advances that are moving forward. And so I would
ask why, when we look at the budget, do we not see more money
being spent on looking at some of these technological advances
that have come forward?
And I would point to a number of things. One of the things
that was mentioned there is chemical looping and that was
mentioned in that report. And now, it appears that an Ohio
State University professor, whose first name I am not familiar
with how to pronounce but his last name is easy, I think, Fan,
has come up with a way to use coal. Obviously, it is in the
preliminary stages but to burn or to get the energy out of coal
with virtually no pollutants. A little coal ash leftover is
about it. And he is now taking that or they are taking that to
Alabama and DOE has some money in that.
But I am wondering why, when we look at reports--and I am
looking at one of the charts that we were provided, budget for
Applied Energy, I am wondering why we don't have more money
going into projects like that to see if we can't make this
technologically feasible since we are in fact in the United
States, the kings of coal throughout the world?
Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I will repeat but not go into
detail there is of course the huge amount of money sitting
there in advancing the CCS projects, some of which are also
advancing the technologies along the lines you are saying. For
example, one of the projects is a so-called oxy combustion
project as opposed to a conventional boiler, et cetera. The
chemical looping, very interesting.
As was already said, we do have an increased focus on
carbon capture technologies and also advanced materials, very
important for----
Mr. Griffith. I think that means that we can count on you
to embrace, develop, and ensure the success of these types of
programs for transformational coal technologies. All right. And
I just have a few seconds left but I would ask that you
continue to work in those directions and do fund I believe it
is the National Energy Technology Laboratory that has been
working with the Ohio State project even though they have got
$5 million. It was 15 years in the development.
Secretary Moniz. Right.
Mr. Griffith. But I do have to say when I look at this
chart and I see, you know, biomass and bio refineries ahead of
coal, I am disturbed by that because I really believe that with
our great resource out there of coal that finding a way to make
everybody happy and burning it and giving jobs back to the 9th
District that had been stripped away over the last few years is
extremely important, and I would encourage you to continue to
pursue that and count on me in any way that I can be helpful in
moving those projects forward. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Gardner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I don't know. You may
need a little more time to answer this question; I am not sure
yet. But one of the issues that I hope that you would be able
to address is the building of transmission lines to help get
power to and from rural areas. My district in Colorado is the
size of the State of South Carolina. In fact, it is a little
bit bigger than the State of South Carolina. And there have
been significant issues with the building of transmission lines
on federal lands. Are you aware, and if so, what is your view
of the Interagency Rapid Response Team which is housed in your
agency?
Secretary Moniz. You are right; I will have to get back to
you on that.
Mr. Gardner. All right. So I would like to ask a series of
questions----
Secretary Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Gardner [continuing]. If you don't mind on the
Interagency Rapid Response Team and just perhaps get some
examples of successes they have had, some measurements that you
are using to define or determine success. And perhaps if you
could get back with us on specific results of the RRT's efforts
to this point so far and a discussion of the process the RRT
uses, recommendations for improving its effectiveness, and
plans for how to implement those recommendations going forward.
It is very important, I think, to the development of renewable
energy in Colorado and opportunities that we have on federal
lands and resources.
In your testimony you cited that the President's budget
increased investment for Department of Energy efficiency
measures. You also state that you are instituting energy
efficiency measures that reduce energy use in federal agencies
and the industrial and building sectors. I was interested in
your Department's promotion of energy savings performance
contracts. As you know, the President wrote a memorandum to
federal departments and agencies on improving energy efficiency
in our federal building inventory December 2011. It is a
program where private companies take the risk on the upgrading
of federal buildings at no cost to the taxpayer. Can you
provide an update of the use of ESPCs by the Department of
Energy? And you can get back to us if you would like.
Secretary Moniz. Sure. And I can't note also now, well,
first of all, that I am a big fan of ESPCs. Number two, right
now, the commitments are approaching $600 million against the
$2 billion target.
Mr. Gardner. The overall target, right?
Secretary Moniz. The overall target. And I have to admit
the end of this year is going to be pretty tight but I think
that the pipeline that is in there will hit the $2 billion
target in maybe a year or two later.
Mr. Gardner. And I just would like to note that one of my
colleagues on this committee, Peter Welch from Vermont, and I
are going to be working on legislation that will encourage even
more utilization of ESPCs and hope that we could work together
on the use of ESPCs.
Secretary Moniz. In general in the whole efficiency agenda
is one I would love to work with you on.
Mr. Gardner. Very good. And are you consulting the
President on the Keystone XL pipeline?
Secretary Moniz. No, I am not.
Mr. Gardner. Do you think you should be consulting with the
President as Department of Energy Secretary?
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think the Department is prepared,
of course, to provide technical analysis. Of course, the EPA is
involved in terms of the environmental statements. And then
Secretary Kerry, I think, is the lead----
Mr. Gardner. But so far you haven't consulted with the
White House or the Department of State on the Keystone
pipeline?
Secretary Moniz. To date I have personally not. Of course,
Secretary Chu may have.
Mr. Gardner. And what is your opinion of the Keystone XL
pipeline?
Secretary Moniz. I think that it is a decision for
Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Gardner. Well, what would your advice be to Secretary
Kerry?
Secretary Moniz. To evaluate all the factors in the public
interest.
Mr. Gardner. Very good. So no answers on that. That is
quite all right for the time being.
The Americans against Fracking opposed your nomination.
Secretary Moniz. Say that again?
Mr. Gardner. Americans against Fracking opposed your
nomination because you had stated earlier today your position
on fracking. Would you agree with both previous Administrator
Lisa Jackson, as well as Governor Hickenlooper in Colorado, who
have said that they are not aware of any proven case where the
fracking itself has affected water?
Secretary Moniz. That is true to my knowledge as well.
Mr. Gardner. And what did you say or your response to
Americans against Fracking in your support of hydraulic
fracturing? What did you respond to them?
Secretary Moniz. Well, actually, I did not respond. I have
a public record in terms of what I think. I have repeated that
here today and that remains my position. Manageable,
challenging, must be managed.
Mr. Gardner. You know, city did a report talking about
energy independence, North American energy independence is a
real possibility of the American energy renaissance in this
Nation. Can we get to energy independence and continue the
energy renaissance in this country without hydraulic
fracturing?
Secretary Moniz. Well, that is a difficult question. I mean
I think certainly given all of our assets, particularly in
North America, there really is a chance that we could be that
independent. It doesn't mean we wouldn't be exporting and
importing but----
Mr. Gardner. Right, but can we do it without----
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. And have as many BTUs as we
do----
Mr. Gardner. Can we do it without hydraulic fracturing?
Secretary Moniz. Well, today, obviously, it is a huge
contributor for both oil and gas. So----
Mr. Gardner. So the answer is no, we could not do it
without----
Secretary Moniz. No, I have a harder time seeing it clearly
without that. But, you know, we are going to be moving, I
think, increasingly to alternative technologies as well, so I
can't rule it out. But clearly, if you look at----
Mr. Gardner. But hydraulic fracturing is a critical part of
our energy----
Secretary Moniz. Today, it is absolutely critical. Sure, we
would not have the increased oil and gas production without it.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman time is expired. At this time
I will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important committee and for allowing me to participate.
And, Mr. Secretary, congratulations to you for your
appointment and confirmation to what I believe is one of the
most important Cabinet positions in the Nation right now.
As you may know, my colleague from Ohio, Tim Ryan, and I
have formed a bipartisan LNG Export Working Group along with
six Republicans and Democrats. It is a bipartisan group. And a
number of them are on this committee and have already
participated in this hearing today. I am going to stay on a
subject that is familiar, LNG exports for a minute or two.
You know, we did not expect you to be sworn into your new
job and start approving pending applications to export to non-
Free Trade Agreement countries overnight. Many in Congress,
however, believe that the time for review has passed. You have
commented just a few minutes ago in your questions that, I
think if I understood you right, you said you couldn't comment
on the delays or what the delays were. But I can tell you that
almost all of the applications have been pending for over 100
days, and at least one of them has been pending for almost 800
days. The studies have been done.
So my question to you--and I appreciate and I am encouraged
that you have said you are going to be expeditiously evaluating
and planning to take action through the remainder of this year,
but there is quite a bit of time left in this year and there
are a lot of applications out there. So when will you and the
Department start making decisions on what have been languishing
for the better part of 2 years?
Secretary Moniz. Well, as I have said, sir, you know, I
have had to get my head around it, as you have acknowledged. We
are getting, I think, very close to the time. We are going to
start evaluating those dockets.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I would encourage you--and I am sure you
have heard this before, let the market drive this. Our private
sector oil and gas folks, they will make the right decisions
given that all of the evaluations have been done. Let's open
this up and let the market drive it and create the jobs that
are going to come with it.
Do you foresee in the evaluation process the Department of
Energy working through the application list in a different
order than in which they were submitted or filed to take into
account which projects may be more viable than others to build?
And if so, what factors might the Department look at in
determining that?
Secretary Moniz. Well, no, sir. I think we are going to
stay with the order. I think to start injecting new subjective
judgments I think would just kind of confuse the situation and
open up some more criticism and possible intervention so----
Mr. Johnson. Wow. Well, I like that answer. You are one of
the first in this Administration to avoid picking winners and
losers here in Washington. I think that is commendable. I would
again urge you to consider let's just get these approved and
let's let the market drive it.
Let me move to another subject now. I would like to switch
gears a little bit, a subject that one of our colleagues
mentioned earlier, and talk about an issue that is important
not only to my constituents but to our country, and that is the
issue of making sure that America has an indigenous and solely
U.S.-owned enriched uranium producer.
Since the Department and USEC were not able to come to an
agreement to keep the Paducah plant operating, once the
Department's current inventory is depleted, the government is
left without a continued source of enriched uranium for
national security purposes. Given this serious situation, I
commend the Department for conducting a 2-year, $350 million
cost-shared RD&D program to demonstrate reliability of the U.S.
centrifuge project at the Piketon facility. This program has
been very successful to date, constructing over 120 centrifuge
machines and associated plant systems on budget and on schedule
to demonstrate reliability of the technology.
At the same time, the Federal Government is investing about
230 million through the end of the current fiscal year in this
RD&D program and has taken title to the centrifuge machines and
the support facilities. The balance of the 48 million of
federal cost-share funding is needed to complete this critical
RD&D effort by year's end. And while we in Congress will
continue to have the funding included in any appropriations
bills, given the critical role that this program has for
national security and the fact that the government is heavily
invested in its outcome, can you tell me how you are going to
or what your plans are to find the balance of the 48 million
needed to complete by December 31 if the Senate and the House
are not able to come to resolution on an Energy and Water
Appropriations bill?
Secretary Moniz. I think we are going to have to have the
discussion with the Congress in the funding. I very much want
to see that demonstration completed because I think that is a
critical decision point for the path forward. And it would be,
if successful, as you say, our only indigenous American
technology.
Mr. Johnson. Certainly. Well, you know the history that we
have had with working with the Senate to try and get financial
bills--whether they be budgets or appropriations bills--passed.
So have you and the Department begun thinking about how we will
come up with that 48 million in funding?
Secretary Moniz. I don't have a plan for that yet but we
will have to address it as we see how progress comes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time is expired. And that, I
think, completes the questions.
I have one additional question, Secretary Moniz, and I
don't know if Bobby does or not, but we have heard a lot about
carbon capture and sequestration research and funding for that
research at the Department of Energy, and I was glad to hear
you earlier--or someone--not say sequestration but say
utilization because we hope that there will be technologies out
there to use CO2 instead of storing it, maybe use it
commercially in some way.
And so as Secretary of Energy, do you feel like you have
the authority, the ability to direct money into research for
carbon capture and utilization rather than sequestration?
Secretary Moniz. Well, yes. I think we certainly have the
authorities to do that, and I think ARPA-E has some ideas in
terms of novel utilization techniques. But the other one is a
discussion, I think, with industry, et cetera. It is not an R&D
issue as such, but if the utilization through enhanced oil
recovery is to scale-up, we have a big infrastructure issue to
look at----
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Secretary Moniz [continuing]. Probably as a public-private
partnership.
Mr. Whitfield. But even in addition to enhanced oil
recovery, other types of utilization.
Secretary Moniz. Yes, other things, building materials, et
cetera, yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Right, right. And then my final comment
would be I would urge you once again to use all of the speed
that you all have available to you on your request for proposal
for the economic development at the Paducah plant.
Secretary Moniz. I should have mentioned earlier--I
forgot--that, as you know, we have several proposals in and we
will be evaluating those, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rush?
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I was a little disturbed earlier
when the fine gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, would not
allow you to complete your answers. So there were a lot of
questions. It was quite interesting. I am sure you have some
additional comments that you wanted to make regarding Mr.
Scalise's questions that he was asking you.
Secretary Moniz. Well, I think we made our points in the
discussion, so thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Rush. Yes. You know, the drilling on federal lands as
opposed to nonfederal lands, I think that that was a pretty
interesting line of questioning, and I wanted to hear what your
real answers were to that.
Secretary Moniz. Well, I mean I think my answer was what I
am saying, that I think that the industry is, you know, it is
going out there pretty hard in terms of this increased
production. There is a lot of infrastructure to do, et cetera.
Frankly, there are limits to the number of rigs, and there are
a number of leases on federal lands that are not being used. So
I think the issue is to keep your eye on the ball, that oil
production, gas production is going up. It is going up at a
pretty rapid pace in fact. And so I think that is----
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Secretary Moniz, thank you for being with us
today. We appreciate your patience and you answered all of our
questions. We look forward to working with you as we move
forward, and thank you once again.
Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. And this hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Moniz. And all the members, thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Eliot L. Engel
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, thank you for joining us today. I look
forward to working with you on energy policy over the next few
years.
Overall, I am satisfied with the President's FY14 budget
for the Department of Energy. I am particularly interested in
the budgeting for alternative transportation fuels. I commend
you and the President for proposing a $2 billion set aside for
an Energy Security Trust, as well as other investments in
alternative fuels and energy efficiency.
I will soon be re-introducing the Open Fuels Standard Act
with my colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I have done
so for the past several years. I believe that this legislation
will help drive domestic production of all types of alternative
fuels, while greatly decreasing our reliance on foreign oil
from hostile regimes. This has also been the goal of my Oil and
National Security Caucus, which has focused on ways to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, while making the U.S. energy
independent.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]