[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADVANCING SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
RESEARCH TRUMPS DEPLOYMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-413 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma JERRY McNERNEY, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice PAUL TONKO, New York
Chair BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
December 13, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Jacky Rosen, Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Witnesses:
Mr. Daniel Simmons, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Dr. Martin Keller, Director, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Steve Eglash, Executive Director, Strategic Research
Initiatives, Computer Science for Stanford University
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Mr. Kenny Stein, Director of Policy, Institute for Energy
Research
Oral Statement............................................... 49
Written Statement............................................ 51
Discussion....................................................... 56
ADVANCING SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY:
RESEARCH TRUMPS DEPLOYMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's
hearing entitled, ``Advancing the Solar Energy: Research Trumps
Deployment.'' I recognize myself for five minutes for an
opening statement.
Good morning. I appreciate you all being here. Today we
will examine the status of U.S. research in solar energy and
explore the future of this Administration's effort to refocus
funding on early-stage research and innovative technology.
This September, the Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, announced that the
cost of utility-scale solar power has met the SunShot 2020 goal
of under 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This is an incredible achievement by solar power companies
across the country, including many in my home state of Texas.
More importantly, with this new benchmark, EERE announced a new
direction in solar energy research, prioritizing early-stage
research and emerging solar energy technology instead of cost
reductions for commercially available technology.
This new research will focus on two primary areas. The
first is innovative technology in Concentrating Solar Power, or
CSP, systems which use mirrors to reflect and concentrate
sunlight onto a focused point in order to heat water and create
steam to power turbines and create electricity.
The second research priority relates to power electronics
technologies. This technology connects solar photovoltaic, PV,
arrays to the electrical grid. Advancements in power
electronics will help grid operators and consumers to manage
electricity use.
EERE also recently released the fiscal year 2018-2022
multi-year program early-stage research for PV technology, for
grid integration, PV materials, and for concentrating solar
thermal power.
EERE will focus on advancements in fundamental technologies
and research in materials science that will drive solar energy
innovation forward. For example, at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, NREL, materials science research is
advancing the capabilities of solar energy technology.
As you will hear from NREL Lab Director, Dr. Martin Keller,
linking basic and early-stage research in materials to applied
solar energy research can produce major breakthroughs in this
area of technology. One example is the lab's experiments with
perovskite solar cell technology which uses a low-cost and
high-efficiency material that has widespread application
prospects. Perovskites may provide a low-cost and scalable
material for solar cells or semiconductors and could lead to
more efficient solar technology.
Perovskite solar cells have the potential for a ``roll on''
application, similar to printing newspapers, and research in
materials science at NREL could provide a fundamentally new way
for industry to actually manufacture solar cells. These
research breakthroughs can transform energy markets far more
than using limited research dollars to push deployment of
today's existing solar technology.
Congress should focus on making America the global leader
in research and innovation in the energy sector. We do not need
to pick winners and losers in energy markets to support next-
generation technology.
I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for
testifying today and I look forward to a productive discussion
about the future of solar energy research.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. And with that, I recognize Ranking Member,
Ms. Rosen.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you,
Chairman Weber, for holding this important and timely hearing
today. You know, it's been more than five years since this
Committee last held a hearing specifically on solar energy.
With the expanding deployment of solar power across our nation,
the incredible advances made in this area over the past five
years, I'm very glad we're getting a chance to reexamine these
technologies.
I'd also like to thank this distinguished panel of
witnesses for being here. I'm very interested in what all of
you have to say that will help us further enable the
development of this critical resource and this critical
industry.
Solar energy is an important and growing portion of our
nation's energy consumption. Its success is not only because it
is a clean and renewable energy source, but also because it has
become cost-competitive with other types of energy. In my State
of Nevada we are currently getting about nine percent of our
energy needs from solar technology and have doubled the amount
of megawatts installed in the past year. In fact, a year ago
the City of Las Vegas fulfilled its promise to run all of its
municipal facilities with 100 percent renewable energy.
On a personal level, I know firsthand from my life before
Congress, the enormous benefits of solar energy. As the former
president of Nevada's largest synagogue, I helped facilitate
the installation of one of the largest solar projects by a
nonprofit in Henderson, Nevada, cutting our energy costs by
nearly 70 percent.
I'm optimistic that the growth of solar will continue
because of the research being carried out at our national labs,
universities, and in American solar companies. For more than a
decade, the University of Nevada Las Vegas has engaged in
extensive research on renewable energy, and recently its Solar
Decathlon team took first place for innovation and second place
for both engineering and architecture in the national DOE
competition. UNLV is also leading an initiative to establish a
Solar Solutions Center, designed to employ research, policy
analysis, and the business community to create solar energy
jobs and improve technology. Strong investments in R&D will be
vital to decreasing the cost of solar energy.
However, I'm concerned about the consistent attacks on
solar energy from both the current Administration and the
Republican-led Congress. The Administration's proposed cuts of
over 2/3 to the DOE's solar technology program budget will have
a profound and negative impact on our nation's ability to
utilize this resource for the benefit of our environment and
our economy. Solar energy is less expensive now than it ever
has been, and it can continue to become more affordable, saving
our constituents and small businesses money.
In addition, I am deeply concerned by the Republican tax
bill that, among other incredibly harmful provisions, will hurt
our solar industry by eliminating the ten percent investment
tax credit for large-scale solar projects. I submitted an
amendment to prevent the eventual elimination of tax credits
for solar and geothermal energy, which unfortunately the
majority refused to adopt.
While this Administration and my Republican colleagues are
trying to justify reducing U.S. investments in solar, China is
spending more than double the United States on renewables with
initiatives to continue spending through 2030 at levels that
far outstrip the United States. Without strong support and
investment by the federal government, we are likely to lose
jobs in this growing industry and the opportunity to control
our own energy future.
My State of Nevada currently has over 8,000 solar jobs, and
the projected solar growth is over 20 percent. We should be
continuing to invest in the solar energy sector to create more
jobs, not gutting proven programs that work.
The next breakthroughs in solar energy are coming, whether
here in the U.S. or somewhere else. The only question is
whether the U.S. will lead the way or whether we will pay
foreign companies for our energy needs and lose jobs overseas.
I am looking forward to what the witnesses have to say
about how we keep these jobs in our country and achieve the
clean energy future that our citizens deserve. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ms. Rosen. I now recognize the
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, the
Subcommittee on Energy will examine the Department of Energy's
efforts to refocus the solar energy program on early-stage
research and breakthrough solar technologies.
This hearing specifically will consider the rapid
integration of solar energy technology in the energy market and
discuss the appropriate role of DOE investment in solar energy
research in the future. Fundamental science and technological
capabilities still challenge solar energy advancement, but it
is crucial that the Department focus on basic and early-stage
research that cannot be conducted by the private sector.
For too long, the American public saw their taxpayer funds
pick winners and losers in the energy market. The previous
Administration often played favorites and invested heavily in
the deployment of photovoltaic technology into energy markets.
While this approach may have sped the deployment of today's
solar energy, it did not lead to the kind of breakthrough
technology in solar energy, manufacturing, and energy storage
that is needed to help solar energy compete without tax
credits, mandates, or subsidies.
This committee supports DOE's role in funding basic and
early-stage research that the private sector is truly unable to
explore on its own.
It is these kinds of breakthroughs, in new materials,
electrochemistry, and advanced manufacturing that will lead to
the next generation of solar energy technology.
The President's fiscal year 2018 budget request also
supports investment in early-stage applied research in solar
energy. The budget request directs federal investment into the
kind of research that industry cannot support and that can lead
to new solar energy technology. This clearly signals the
Administration's push for American energy dominance and
independence.
I want to welcome Mr. Daniel Simmons, the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for EERE to testify today. It is critical
that we hear directly from the department of policy changes and
the direction of DOE research programs.
I thank our witnesses today for testifying about their
valuable efforts in renewable energy programs, research, and
for sharing their insights into emerging solar energy
technology. I look forward to a productive discussion about
early-stage research at DOE and the right approach to federal
research investment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee for a statement. Ms.
Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you holding this hearing. It has been several years
since this Committee has held a hearing that closely examined
solar energy research and development activities carried out by
the Department of Energy. These years have been a very
consequential time for this sector. We have seen the price of
solar energy decrease dramatically, and solar deployment
continues to grow here in the U.S. and around the world.
The Solar Energy Technologies Office within DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has stewarded key
research that has resulted in important innovations in the
diverse commercial market for solar energy. Moreover, due in
large part to investments enabled by the Loan Programs Office
of DOE, the United States now has a vibrant and growing
utility-scale solar industry.
In that regard, I would like to congratulate the scientists
and researchers at the Department of Energy, the national
laboratories, and their private sector partners that helped us
achieve a key milestone in the SunShot Initiative. Just this
past September, DOE announced that the program achieved the
cost reduction goals for utility-scale solar three years early.
These smart government investments have resulted in significant
private sector investment here in the U.S., which has led to a
vibrant solar industry and well-paying jobs for Americans
across the country.
Unfortunately, this Administration and some of my
colleagues in Congress do not recognize the realities of this
industry. If we do not invest, others will. In fact, our
international competitors have been investing and will continue
to prioritize solar technology development. China is clearly
beating us at our own game. Meanwhile we are quibbling about
whether the federal government should invest in late-stage
research or just early-stage activities, whatever that means,
instead of supporting robust R&D investments across the
innovation spectrum that will make the U.S. more competitive.
The Trump Administration's budget proposed major cuts in
solar energy R&D, including a 66 percent cut from prior year
funding for the Solar Energy Technologies Office within EERE.
It also called for an outright elimination of the Loan Programs
Office, which enabled the commercialization of several first-
of-a-kind, large-scale solar power projects.
Now, I am not going to tell you that every program the
department currently implements is perfect. That wouldn't be
research. I wouldn't tell you that reforms should not be
considered or that reasonable people cannot simply disagree on
the best way to allocate its resources, even after a careful,
rigorous review. One of my primary concerns now is that such a
thoughtful review never actually took place before proposing
these draconian cuts. In fact, Administration officials
confirmed after they released the budget that there was no
engagement with the private sector to determine what industry
would be able or willing to fund in the absence of federal
investment. That is simply unacceptable.
Defunding solar energy at DOE may be a nice political
talking point for some, but when it comes to U.S.
competitiveness and our economic growth, such a proposal is
ill-advised and shortsighted. I am hoping we can have a
productive dialogue today that will better inform us about the
realities of this industry both here and around the world. We
need to know what we have to lose before we are slashing the
R&D budgets that are the livelihood and likelihood of any
future economy.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing, and
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. Today
our first witness is Mr. Daniel Simmons, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Department of Energy. Previously, Mr. Simmons
served as the Institute for Energy Research's Vice President
for Policy, Director of the National Resources Task Force at
the American Legislative Exchange Council, and was a research
fellow at the Mercatus Center. Mr. Simmons received his
bachelor's degree from Utah State University and his law degree
from George Mason University School of Law. Welcome, Mr.
Simmons.
Our second witness today is Dr. Martin Keller, Director of
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Previously Dr. Keller
served as the Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and
Environmental Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He
received his doctorate in microbiology from the University of
Regensburg in Germany. Welcome to you.
Our third witness is Dr. Steve Eglash? Okay. Executive
Director of Strategic Research Initiatives in the Computer
Science Department at Stanford University. Previously, Dr.
Eglash was President and CEO of the solar energy company Cyrium
Technologies as well as a consultant for the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy. Dr. Eglash
received his Ph.D. and MS from Stanford University and his
bachelor's degree from the University of California at
Berkeley, all in electrical engineering. Welcome, Dr. Eglash.
Our last witness today is Mr. Kenny Stein, Director of
Policy at the Institute for Energy Research. Previously, Mr.
Stein worked in policy roles at FreedomWorks and the American
Legislative Exchange Council. He received his law degree from
the University of Houston. You're a cougar. Me, too. Good for
you. Let the record show that Mr. Stein's testimony will carry
a double in credence here today. He received his law degree
from the University of Houston and his bachelor's degree from
American University. Welcome, Mr. Stein.
I now recognize Mr. Simmons for five minutes to present his
testimony. Be sure your mic is on, please.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DANIEL SIMMONS,
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY, US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Simmons. Good afternoon Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber,
Ranking Member Johnson, Veasey, and Ms. Rosen and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting the Department of Energy
to testify. My name is Daniel Simmons, and I am the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy at the Department of Energy.
Solar energy technologies are an important source of energy
for our nation, and I thank you for the opportunity to discuss
our research to advance these technologies.
Ten years ago, the solar market looked very different than
it does today. There were only 1.1 gigawatts installed in the
United States, representing less than 0.01 percent of the
nation's energy mix. Now, there are more than 50 gigawatts
installed, providing nearly one percent of U.S. electricity and
growing rapidly. Over 80 percent of the solar ever installed
was installed in the last five years, and in the next five
years it is projected to triple.
Over the past ten years, solar costs have declined
dramatically. For example, earlier this year, as Chairman Weber
noted, the Solar Energy Technology Office announced that the
industry met the SunShot utility-scale cost goal of 6 cents per
kilowatt hour three years early.
While there are many reasons for solar prices to have
declined and installations to have risen, federal research and
development plays a role. This Administration is committed to
developing a wide range of energy resources through R&D and
believes that federal funding should prioritize basic and
early-stage applied research. As stated in the joint Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology
policy memo on R&D priority areas for the fiscal year 2019
budget formulation, ``American leadership in science and
technology is critical to achieving this Administration's
higher priorities: national security, economic growth, and job
creation. American ingenuity combined with free-market
capitalism have driven and will continue to drive tremendous
technological breakthroughs.
Development of domestic energy sources should be the basis
for a clean energy portfolio composed of fossil, nuclear, and
renewable energy sources. Agencies should invest in early-
stage, innovative technologies that show promise in harnessing
American energy resources safely and efficiently. As proposed
in the President's fiscal year 2018 budget, federally-funded
energy R&D should continue to reflect an increased reliance on
the private sector to fund later-stage research development and
commercialization of energy technologies.''
DOE's Solar Energy Technologies Office focuses primarily on
reducing the cost of various solar technologies, including
photovoltaic and concentrating solar thermal power.
The dramatic cost reductions in solar technology provide an
opportunity for the Administration to re-focus the solar
office's research on a longer-term challenge, grid integration.
In the long term, the primary challenge facing solar is not
necessarily cost but reliability and integration of solar power
into the grid. While lower prices have helped drive new
capacity installations, more work is needed to make solar a
reliable, on-demand energy resource.
This year, DOE has approved over $100 million in financial
assistance to advance our early-stage research priorities
around solar reliability and grid integration. Examples include
up to $62 million to support advances in concentrated solar
power technologies. Up to 20 million is dedicated to early-
stage projects to advance power electronics technologies. That
is the interface between the grid and solar panels. And up to
10 million to support improved solar forecasting.
Each of these research areas will help make it easier to
integrate solar energy into the electric grid. In addition to
this work, EERE works with the Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability through DOE's Grid Modernization
Initiative. One important focus is researching solar plus
storage. Energy storage allows variable sources of energy, such
as solar, to be used when it's needed the most. Making solar
power available when energy is needed is the most critical
challenge for the solar industry today. DOE's solar R&D is
focused on these critical energy challenges of grid
reliability, resilience, and integration. EERE will continue to
focus on early-stage research and development to advance solar
technologies, while forging strong partnerships with the
private sector to maximize the impact of federal funding.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. You ended right on
zero. Dr. Keller, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARTIN KELLER,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
Dr. Keller. Chairman Weber, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Veasey, Rosen, Johnson, and our own Congressman Perlmutter,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
address the future research opportunities for solar energy and
the many benefits that advanced solar technologies can deliver
for our nation.
I'm Martin Keller. I'm the Director of the U.S. Department
of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or commonly
called NREL, based in Golden, Colorado. My career has included
research positions in the private sector and more than a decade
within the national lab complex. I previously was an Associate
Lab Director at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and before that
led the technology development for a San Diego-based start-up
company. I hold a doctorate in microbiology from the University
of Regensburg in Germany. And my entire career has been about
integrating foundational science into important new
applications.
In my view, the subject of today's hearing could not be
more timely nor more important to the energy future of our
country. Although solar energy accounts for about 1.8 percent
of U.S. electrical generation today, it is on a remarkable
trajectory of growth. Last year, solar was the nation's leading
source of new electric generation capacity. It's also an
economic force. More than 260,000 Americans are employed in the
solar industry with 51,000 jobs added just in 2016. This marked
the fourth consecutive year of more than 20 percent growth.
Our research has made incredible progress on bringing solar
technologies into the mainstream. And solar is in fact becoming
competitive with conventional power from the grid. This said,
we cannot afford to slow our progress on innovating solar
technology.
To achieve solar potential, an ongoing program of federally
supported early-stage research is needed. NREL and other
national labs have the greatest expertise and the unique
facilities to lead this effort.
I would like to share with you examples of how early-stage
research can deliver potential game-changing breakthroughs in
solar research. Fundamental material research in the solar area
expanded into a new class of PV materials called perovskites.
These materials hold a great promise to increase efficiency by
cutting costs. One of the benefits of these materials is the
potential of extremely high-speed manufacturing. Just imagine
solar cells being produced at the rate of speed that a
newspaper is produced on a commercial printing press. What is
now needed is a federally supported hub for perovskite
research, coordinating the work of industry, universities and
national labs to deliver breakthroughs needed to swiftly bring
this technology to the market.
Other examples are further development of lightweight PV
materials and new production methods for very high efficient
layered solar cells. Lightweight PV materials are becoming
increasingly important to the U.S. military to power the
computers and communication systems of our soldiers on the
ground. Very high-efficient solar cells manufactured through
much cheaper processes may eventually give our military--the
commanding power of perpetual flight. We're optimistic that the
several research efforts I just outlined could bring about a
revolution in PV technology and inject new vitality into U.S.-
based solar manufacturing.
Even with advances in grid integration technology, we will
certainly need storage technologies. Because of this, storage
for solar energy warrants complimentary research dedicated to
its own unique requirements. As distributed solar generation
becomes a larger part of the generation mix, our electric grid
systems have the potential to become even stronger, with
greater flexibility and resilience. Energy integration at this
complex level presents a deep scientific challenge. This
research path is crucial not only for solar but for the entire
U.S. electric grid.
As solar power becomes more prevalent in the United States,
we will be able to use surplus solar power to enhance economic
competitiveness. The potential is to convert solar electricity
or heat into viable products like fuels, hydrogen, or other
chemicals. It can provide an economic advantage to U.S.
industry through a sustained scientific research effort along
these multiple pathways.
In addition to solar photovoltaic technologies,
concentrating solar power, or CSP, has significant potential as
well. Here, we need to develop systems that run at higher
temperatures and boost operating efficiency. And since CSP can
use thermal energy to expand the period in which it produces
power, CSP could give grid operators considerable flexibility
from providing base load to peaking generation.
As we contemplate the research portfolio for the years
ahead, we should remember that other nations are currently
ramping up their own government-supported solar research. If we
fail to maintain our innovation leadership in solar, others
will be happy to take our place.
In conclusion, I am not exaggerating when I say that
researchers at my laboratory and around the country are excited
and eager to tackle these challenges and bring us the important
advancements in solar technology that we need for our nation's
energy future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Keller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. All right. Thank you, Dr. Keller. You were
one second over. Dr. Eglash, you've got to get with the
program. You're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVE EGLASH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES,
COMPUTER SCIENCE FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dr. Eglash. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Rosen, Chairman
Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
There's tremendous benefit to continued federal investment
in research in solar energy and other fields because this
investment improves U.S. industrial competitiveness,
strengthens our nation's economy, and creates jobs. Industry
often can't afford this research on its own because the
technologies are too numerous and broad, each individual
project too risky, and in some cases the time to payoff too
long.
Federally funded research must be appropriately focused and
effectively managed if it is to lead to good return-on-
investment and benefit for U.S. industry. Fortunately, we can
turn to exemplary models and identify best practices. The U.S.
government, academia, and industry each have unique roles and
have to work together across the entire innovation pipeline.
Government has the resources to fund research, act as a
bridging institution, and convene across academia, national
labs, and industry. Universities and national labs are
excellent places for innovative research. Industry has insights
on real-world opportunities and challenges, as well as the
resources for commercialization and large-scale impact.
Recent progress in reductions in the cost of solar
electricity has accelerated the deployment of residential and
utility-scale solar. But as impressive as this is, it is only
the beginning and there is a need to go further. Further
reductions in the cost of solar electricity will lead to higher
levels of penetration and will lower the average cost of
electricity.
The next steps in solar panel research are higher
performance through new and improved materials, larger panels
leading to reduced cost of manufacturing and installation,
reduced capital equipment costs for factories, and improved
reliability for longer lifetimes.
Further DOE-funded research in solar energy is important
for another reason. It is critical to U.S. competitiveness. If
the U.S. develops technology for the next generation of
improvements in photovoltaics, then we have an opportunity to
expand manufacturing and increase jobs. If the U.S. doesn't do
this research, then other countries will and they will reap the
benefits instead of us.
The Bay Area Photovoltaic Consortium is an exemplary model
for federally funded research. It was created in 2011 by the
U.S. Department of Energy, Stanford University, and the
University of California at Berkeley. The objective of the Bay
Area PV Consortium is to perform industry-relevant, cutting-
edge research on photovoltaic modules enabling high efficiency
and low production costs, thereby strengthening the U.S.
photovoltaic industry. The Bay Area PV Consortium established a
new structure where industry sets the research priorities,
professors at universities develop research proposals and
conduct the research, and the DOE, academia, and industry work
together to manage the program. The nature of the research is
foundational to develop the knowledge base. It's not industrial
policy, subsidies, or the government picking winners and
losers. Rather, it's research that the industry will not
undertake by itself because of the risk and time to payoff.
The Bay Area PV Consortium developed innovative
technologies in close cooperation with industry that
facilitated technology transfer and commercialization. It
educated and trained a large number of graduate students and
post-docs, thereby contributing to workforce development. The
Bay Area PV Consortium created an interactive ecosystem
comprising leaders from government, universities, national
labs, and industry. The resultant interactions and
collaborations catalyzed a generation of disruptive ideas.
The success of the Bay Area PV Consortium is due in part to
a seamless integration of research and application that was
responsive to the needs of industry, the ideas of researchers,
and the priorities of the DOE. Of course, the BAPVC is just one
piece of a larger research infrastructure where support for
innovative and impactful research is contributing to our
nation's success.
Federally funded research on technologies such as solar
energy helps U.S. competitiveness and creates jobs. Continued
U.S. Department of Energy funding for solar energy research
will strengthen and expand the U.S. solar industry, reduce
energy costs, and improve our energy independence. Public-
private partnerships assure that federally funded research
targets the right problems and results in successful technology
transfer to U.S. industry.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eglash follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. You guys are good. Mr. Stein, you're up for
five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. KENNY STEIN,
DIRECTOR OF POLICY, INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH
Mr. Stein. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
participate in this Subcommittee hearing on federal government
involvement in solar research. My name is Kenny Stein. I am the
Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research.
The purpose of federal government funding for research in
any industry should be clearly defined. The justification for
such funding is that research in emerging or novel technologies
would not otherwise be provided by private interests, whether
companies or individuals. This is a reasonable role for the
federal government to play. However, this cannot be a license
to spend money.
Federal support should not go to projects that private
interests already have a clear incentive to develop. Far too
often it is the case that the federal government provides grant
money to companies to subsidize activities that they would
already be undertaking.
A perfect illustration of this failure of mission is the
SunShot Initiative. Launched by the Department of Energy in
2011, this move sought to reduce the cost of solar energy
systems so that they could become cost competitive with other
forms of energy. Simply put, that is a political goal, not a
research goal. It is not the federal government's
responsibility to support the success or spread of a given
technology or way of operating. Any solar manufacturer or
operator already has an overwhelming market incentive to lower
costs. Offering government money in addition to existing
economic incentives does not add to the well-being of the
American people or address some unmet need of the federal
government itself. It simply subsidizes activities which
private interests are already doing. Indeed, government funding
often crowds out private funding when it enters a given area,
limiting the overall level of investment and spurring calls for
even more government spending to make up for the exit of
private investment.
The federal government, slow and process-constrained as it
is, cannot adjust rapidly to technological developments. As new
operating processes or products enter the market, it can be
left funding old or obsolete initiatives. Getting locked in on
lowering the costs of existing solar technologies does nothing
to support emerging or novel technologies. Indeed, in another
form of crowding out, this federal focus can lead an industry
to spend its time trying to meet federal benchmarks rather than
asking the question whether alternatives might make more sense,
which ironically limits innovation in a given industry.
The SunShot Initiative has tried claiming victory as the
costs of solar installations have indeed fallen. But how much
of that cost decline is because of federal research spending
rather than Chinese manufacturing innovation, tax support from
the Investment Tax Credit, state renewables mandates, or the
simple financial imperative to make money? The fact that is an
impossible question to answer suggests the folly of the SunShot
Initiative. SunShot was not about research. It was about
picking winners and losers, arbitrarily seeking to improve the
economics of certain solar applications because of the
political preferences of the Administration at the time.
A more appropriate role for the Department of Energy can be
found in the earliest days of solar energy generation
technology. Early solar panels with poor efficiency found
little uptake for terrestrial uses. However, the burgeoning
space program identified solar as a potential energy source for
spacecraft. Government funding from NASA helped develop nascent
solar technologies to the point where it was usable in space
applications. And years later, solar companies built on that
foundation to develop the generation technologies that are now
being applied to terrestrial electricity generation.
The lesson here is that the federal government didn't
choose a solar technology and then try to commercialize it or
reduce its costs. The basic technology was developed for a
specific national purpose, with private innovation later
finding applications for the private market. This is how the
process should work. The federal government does not have the
characteristics or competency to be a startup incubator, but it
can effectively provide a base level of data and information
for private innovators to build on.
Thus a better path forward for the Department of Energy
would be focusing on the original mission that I suggested
above, funding emerging or novel technologies and applications
not otherwise supported by private interests. There is a
legitimate federal role in supporting such basic research that
has the potential to improve the overall well-being of the
American people or is required to meet a specific federal need.
The current Administration has indicated an interest in
reorienting federal policies to early-stage research. I applaud
this goal and look forward seeing how that initiative develops.
In closing, I will note, however, that this pivot should
not just be a branding exercise, with anything called early-
stage eligible for funding. Federal research spending should
focus on truly novel technologies or applications. Further,
this should not be a license to spend more money. Clearly
focusing federal priorities means discarding some spending
areas to hone in on truly basic research, a case where less is
better.
Thank you for the invitation to participate in this
evolving discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir. The Chair will now
recognize himself for five minutes. Mr. Simmons, how
specifically has the DOE changed its priorities to fund more
early-stage research and technological development?
Mr. Simmons. In the areas that I outlined, it makes sense
to spend money, say, on concentrated solar power for the value
that it can have to grid reliability for things like power
electronics because power electronics are really the bridge
between power cells and the electric grid, and better power
electronics can help provide important services to the grid.
So those are two ways as well as working for solar
forecasting to make sure that we're focused on these--making
sure that we have better solar forecasts so that solar is
better integrated into the grid.
So it is making sure that we focus very much on this, you
know, earlier stage projects and less on deployment.
Chairman Weber. All right. Thank you. Dr. Keller, you've
heard the Department's announcement to focus more on early-
stage research within EERE.
Dr. Keller. Yeah.
Chairman Weber. Okay. So what impact could this refocus
have on the direction and projects undertaken at your lab?
Dr. Keller. So as I outlined in my testimony, we have a lot
of early-stage research going on. So I applaud the department
for focusing on the early stage. This said, I think it's also
important that we have a balanced portfolio. I think it's very
important that we looking into this holistically into this
research because you need to look at this in an integrated way.
So I think we need to continue to throughout early-stage
research to de-risk some of these new technologies what
industry cannot do. And then you also have to have a research
portfolio to help to transition this technology to industry.
Chairman Weber. You mentioned several areas of fundamental
science in your testimony.
Dr. Keller. Yeah.
Chairman Weber. Can you explain how these areas help the
solar industry?
Dr. Keller. I give you perovskite as an example. This is a
very early-stage research. If we are successful to overcome
some of the limitation on this material, their stability
concerns, for example, and moisture sensitivity, this will lead
to a revolution in the way we're making solar cells.
So I showed you this, that you can use the so-called roll-
to-roll. You can produce solar cells in the way you're doing
newspapers because this will lead to an ink. So suddenly you
can have solar panels in ways, in areas where we even have no
chance right now to go into.
So this is one of this what I call game-changing
technologies.
Chairman Weber. Not to mention the rapid production.
Dr. Keller. That's exactly what this is, roll-to-roll. So
you--it's almost like an ink. So you bring this down to a
carrier like you would bring down ink onto a newspaper. This
can be revolutionary in the way of making solar panels.
Chairman Weber. Sure. Mr. Stein, you talked about the
proper role of federal government. So in your opinion, what is
the proper role of the federal government when it comes to
funding priorities for applied energy research?
Mr. Stein. Well, I think the category that I sort of
outlined is the idea that this is something that is not being
funded and will not be funded by private interest or
individuals.
Chairman Weber. Well, should we preempt that with the need
for it first?
Mr. Stein. Well, the need for it--I think that----
Chairman Weber. You have to have a need before you decide
you want to go and research how to fix that need. True stuff?
Mr. Stein. Well, that's, well, yes. That's certainly true.
But the part of the problem with the government funding all
these things is knowing what that need is.
Chairman Weber. Right.
Mr. Stein. The government isn't necessarily good at
identifying those things.
Chairman Weber. Heck, you say.
Mr. Stein. You could have private companies can think of
novel applications for some of these things that the government
just doesn't have the capacity or the management process to
come up with those.
Chairman Weber. So when that need's identified, when that
process is identified, should the federal government fund late-
stage consortiums where industry is already involved in
developing solar energy technology?
Mr. Stein. Well, I would say no, simply because once it's
already--the technology is proven once the data and research is
there. Really, it's private companies going out and finding a
way to economically produce that and apply it in the private
market.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. I've got about 30 seconds left,
and I want to just make a couple of observations. I think
there's about four steps to this. And Dr. Eglash, you may be
the best one. You have the degrees in engineering, right?
It seems like there's four steps to solar: concentrate it,
capture it, store it, and then release it efficiently. Is that
fair?
Dr. Eglash. Yes, that's fair.
Chairman Weber. Okay. So where do you think--very quickly.
I'm out of seconds here. But where do you think the most
innovation needs to happen out of those four?
Dr. Eglash. There's still a lot of opportunity for
innovation in making solar panels better, more efficient, and
lower cost and longer lived.
Chairman Weber. So that's the storage part, that could
release it efficiently?
Dr. Eglash. That's the process of converting sunlight into
electricity, the amount of electricity that we can produce for
a given panel or a given dollar invested and then integrating
that electricity with the rest of the electric grid with
storage, with loads in buildings----
Chairman Weber. That's the releasing it efficiently part?
Dr. Eglash. That's right.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. Then I now recognize Ms. Rosen
for five minutes.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you. So many questions, but I'm going to
focus a little bit on our national security and safety, our
dependence on foreign sources of energy, and the jobs that
would be lost if we lose this industry.
So as a matter of national security and safety, we want to
reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, reduce our
carbon footprint, and the solar energy industry provides good-
paying jobs.
Last year, there were over 260,000 solar workers in
America, over 8,000 in Nevada. Jobs, of course, vary from
installation to installation, manufacturing, sales,
development, our own local IBEW, Local 357 with apprenticeship
programs to train future electricians to work on solar, wind,
all kinds of future things.
So to all the panelists, I want to tell you at the end of
the day what my constituents care about are two things, our
national security and safety and their ability to get good-
paying, forward-facing jobs of the future.
So if we cut this DOE, this proposal to drastically cut the
funding, these loan guarantee programs that finance these large
energy projects, especially in Nevada, how is that going to
impact your research and our jobs and essentially our security
if we rely on China for our solar energy?
Mr. Simmons. If I may?
Ms. Rosen. Yes.
Mr. Simmons. One of the important things that we are doing
is focusing on the early-stage research and development. What
that means and what we want to do is that's not the end of the
story. We do not want these technologies just to be developed
in the labs and to stay in the labs. That's why I'm glad that
Martin is here today because NREL has done a very good job of
filling the next part, and that is for--what we would very much
like, and we as the Department of Energy would like, is to then
work with industry in making sure that we get those
technologies out of the labs. So at the Department of Energy,
there's the Office of Technology Transitions that works with
that to help bridge that technology and get it out of the labs.
Also, in the labs, and Martin can speak to this, is that
the labs can and do engage with industry and strategic
partnerships. They do work for industry and very much we would
like to bring more industry dollars to the labs to be able to
get these technologies out of the labs and into the market, to
grow the workforce so that we have more solar jobs in America
than in other places.
Dr. Eglash. If I could add something to Mr. Simmons'
comment? I think it's important to realize that these
technologies are not static and fixed in time. These are
technologies that are evolving. And so even though there has
been recent progress, there's still room for considerably more
improvements in performance, cost, manufacturability, and
reliability.
If America does this research, then we'll have the IP and
know-how. We'll be in a position to translate that into
stronger companies, a stronger economy, greater energy
independence, and more jobs. If we don't do the research,
someone else certainly will. The research is there waiting to
be done, and then we won't have the opportunity to reap those
benefits ourselves.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you. I want to build on that because our
critical grid infrastructure, it does rely on a combination of
technologies. And how do you know what's early- or late-stage?
Because like you said, things aren't static, they're dynamic.
And sometimes you are doing research, you hit a dead end one
time but that becomes a solution and the next research.
So please tell me, Dr. Eglash, can you discuss a false
dichotomy between early-stage and late-stage research?
Dr. Eglash. I think this distinction that some people like
to draw between early and late stage or basic and applied is
frequently misleading and not helpful. What's needed in most
cases is understanding fundamentally what's going on in areas
that can be inspired by and informed by real-world problems.
That's why having the federal government and industry and
our scientists and professors all involved in this dialogue and
this effort can be so helpful.
If we think of the future of the energy system,
communications and information technologies and energy are
frequently going to come together around things like smart
cities, electric vehicles, and so on. We can't predict that
trajectory. We want to make sure that we have the know-how in
technologies to allow us to control it and benefit from it.
Ms. Rosen. So we need those on-ramps and off-ramps through
all stages of research and development to continue to grow in
every single way, would you say?
Dr. Eglash. I would say.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. She was right on the money, too. I tell you
what. You all are going to spoil us. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Rohrabacher from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let
me just note that I think that your testimony today is a reason
for optimism. And we've actually had the government do some
things that seem to be bearing fruit now. So that's great.
But the trouble is, and I will just have to say, whenever--
Ronald Reagan used to say--and I'm wearing Reagan brown today
by the way--Reagan used to say that a government program is the
next best thing to eternal life on this planet. And Dr. Eglash,
I'm sorry, but at some point, we've got to say the private
sector can do this. And I certainly buy onto the evidence that
we've heard today that we have made great advances so that we
now know there are billionaires in the private sector who could
put money into this and make it real. The idea that you did
suggest, however, which I thought was important, was there are
government policies--now that it is real, now that it can be
commercialized, that we need to make sure that the government
policies of how to get onto the grid--and in fact, there's big
debates here over the years as to whether or not the electric
companies should be forced to take electricity when it's being
produced by a private sector, and thus we would be able to give
incentives for even more solar energy production of
electricity. I've always thought that was a fairly good idea
myself.
I'd like to ask you guys about--and I say all of you. I've
heard that there's a major technology breakthrough in
batteries, and I understand that there's been a lot of money
put into it and various approaches. But that at the
University--Mr. Chairman, your university down in Austin,
Texas, I understand has had a breakthrough with the fellow in
charge of the--I think he was the inventor of the lithium
battery, Dr. Goodenough. Now, he says, and what I understand,
is that now they're capable of producing a type of battery that
would be based on sodium rather than lithium. Have you heard
about that? And if you have, does that have promise or is there
something wrong, it's just being hyped? Maybe a little bit from
each one of you on that.
Mr. Simmons. Sure. So the Department of Energy, we fund
research on batteries for--a wide variety of batteries, that we
do not want to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to
battery technologies because of, you know, the value of energy
storage, both for automobile applications, which is one of the
areas where we fund research and the Office of Electricity
funds research for grid scale storage.
So we fund a large number. I have heard about this
technology.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You don't have any----
Mr. Simmons. I don't have--I don't know any specifics.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Yes.
Mr. Simmons. But there is great opportunity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Keller. You know, Professor Goodenough, is as you said,
godfather of lithium.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Keller. So the technology you're describing I think is
very exciting. It also depends on batteries and what
applications are using batteries. The design of batteries are
very different if you're going to automotive or if you go for
example----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Have you heard anything about the sodium
battery?
Dr. Keller. Yes. Yes, I saw----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thumbs up or thumbs down?
Dr. Keller. I think it's thumbs up. So the key is there's
energy density thing we have to work on.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Keller. But overall, I think it's very encouraging.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thumbs up? Thumbs up or thumbs down
on Goodenough's sodium battery?
Dr. Eglash. I wanted to put it in the broader context,
echoing what some of the previous witnesses have said. The
improvement in battery technology is dramatic and continuous,
and it's going to help storage for electricity on the grid as
well as automobiles.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's clear. Now, what about this sodium
breakthrough?
Dr. Eglash. Very promising.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you give it a thumbs up as well?
Dr. Eglash. Sure.
Mr. Stein. I'd give it a thumbs up as well. It's always new
breakthroughs are wonderful to hear about. The one thing I'll
just highlight is that battery and storage technology I think
is an example of something that--the private sector already has
a very enormous incentive to already do this. So I think that's
one area that we can think about backing off federal funding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you gave it a thumbs up. So we've got
three thumbs up and one not so sure but maybe. And let's just
note again--and I agree with the last witness who said we put
in, somebody put a lot of money into that research. And I know
that it's a little basic and applied. I understand your point
there. But definitely the basic research has been done, and it
seems to me that we should be applauding anybody who invests in
things like Dr. Goodenough's new sodium battery. And we should,
Mr. Chairman--I would hope the job of--our job is to see what
we can to goose the private sector into investing in it and to
actually commercializing some of these breakthroughs like Dr.
Goodenough has done at the University of Austin in Texas. Thank
you.
Chairman Weber. Well, I'm not sure the right word is goose
the private sector in this setting. Maybe it's charge the
private sector with getting that done. Maybe that's a better
word. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey of Texas.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanted to ask
questions to Dr. Eglash and Dr. Keller. The President's budget
request declared some research as early stage and therefore
worthy of federal support. Other activities, such as later-
stage research, also should be immediately eliminated,
according to this, given that the private sector's supposedly
better equipped to carry them out. However, Administration
officials confirm to Committee staff that they did not engage
with the private sector at all while compiling the budget
request to determine what industry would be able or willing to
pick up.
In your experience, I wanted to know, are the cuts proposed
in the fiscal year 2018 budget research areas of the private
sector is willing to simply start funding after the federal
government cuts them?
Dr. Eglash. The private sector is in most cases unable and
unwilling to make up for those cuts for a number of reasons.
Much of the research that still remains to be done is across
diverse technologies and risky and very difficult for any
single company to justify investing in.
In addition, the balance sheets of most U.S. solar energy
companies are not strong enough right now to support the level
of investment that would be needed to bring solar energy to the
next level.
As you know, government has a long tradition of helping to
support technologies like energy in particular where the costs
of projects and the time to pay out can be quite long.
Dr. Keller. So I think the problem that I'm seeing is was
the industry taking over. But you have to understand, where is
the new technology? Let's come back to the battery example. If
somebody invents a new anode or new cathode which is really
promising, the way that you bring this to market is a long,
very risky process. And I think this is where we from the
research community can work together with companies to deal
with some of this technology to further move it down the
market.
If this is a tiny little improvement, I would agree that
this should be done by industry. But if you have some game-
changer, so for example, you go from lithium to sodium, this is
not just done overnight. So this is a very risky and a very
long process. And I think we need to have a balance there to
help industry to deal with some of this technology, to move it
further down the market.
Mr. Veasey. So I mean with that, do you think the federal
government should engage with stakeholders in the private
sector to understand what research areas they're likely to fund
before it proposes to completely eliminate or drastically
reduce funding for R&D programs?
Dr. Eglash. I think there's huge benefit to the kind of
dialogue with industry you're describing. I think that industry
has the real-world experience and perspective and insight that
can help inform the research agenda. I think also the fact that
we're arguing for federal funding, it's also true that industry
should have some skin in the game. This doesn't need to be in
the spirit of handouts, and of course, many of these federal
programs involve different models for cost sharing. And that
can be one of the best practices for doing this kind of thing.
Dr. Keller. Another example is if you look at industry, I
think industry is very, very good to take current products and
fine optimize the current products, but I think a lot of times
you don't see that industry is changing and doing the step
function.
So I'll give you this example from my prior job, and we
started this idea to what about if you would 3-D print the
whole car. Current automotive industry would not do this
because it potentially disrupts the whole business models. So
but now when you show that research is opening up this venue,
then you come, you bring--then work with industry and then help
to transition this new technology, this 3-D printing over which
can completely change the way we're doing molding, for example.
So this is an example where I think there's a very good
synergy by de-risking and helping to push technology into the
market and keeping U.S. companies competitive because a lot of
this research innovations goes on around the whole world. And
we here in the U.S., I think we are the world champions in
innovation. And I think we have to continue to drive innovation
forward, to keep our U.S. companies on the forefront of
innovation. And I think this is what the federal support to
research can do.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, for five minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have so
little time and so many questions. I'll try to be brief, and I
urge you to do the same.
Dr. Keller, first up. In your testimony, you explained the
multi-junction solar cells that are in the satellites, too
expensive for terrestrial applications but you're trying to
bring them back to earth. What are the material structural
properties of these cells that are so desirable? Briefly.
Dr. Keller. So very briefly, it's almost like a sandwich.
You're stacking all the different materials on top of each
other, and the way we're doing this right now is very
expensive, to lay down all this material, make the
intermediate. So the idea really is how to bring the technology
we have running around on Mars, how do we bring this back on
Earth? And this is where we need new innovation to make this
next step of the manufacturing. And that's again what I talked
about----
Mr. Dunn. So it's a manufacturing thing?
Dr. Keller. The process of the multi-junction cells will
stay the same, but the way we make it, we have to make it in a
much cheaper way to put this onto our drones----
Mr. Dunn. Okay. That sounds promising.
Dr. Keller. --and satellites.
Mr. Dunn. Could you describe the advancements in battery
again, Dr. Keller, battery sciences, and are there actually
batteries now or in the near-term future that are capable of
meeting utility-scale power demands?
Dr. Keller. So my personal opinion is that again, what I
tried to say earlier, that batteries are not batteries. So
there's a difference on the architecture. If you're going to a
battery into a car, where's the battery for grid? Because as
you know, when you drive around, you're limited on space what
you can put into a car. So when you have very high-energy
density, you want to try to do it as light as possible.
On the grid side, well, a lot of times room is not
necessarily the limitation----
Mr. Dunn. But I mean, even a battery of size, there's room.
Dr. Keller. Yeah.
Mr. Dunn. Utility scale? Really?
Dr. Keller. So I think we can and I think also I would say
the batteries would depend on what the application is. Will we
have batteries for two weeks of storage, you know, at grid
level.
Mr. Dunn. When you say two weeks of storage, megawatt
hours, day in, day out, for 2 weeks?
Dr. Keller. So I think we will--with different--with
certain technologies in batteries, we will go to a grid-level
storage possibility.
Mr. Dunn. I'm intrigued. So I'm always--again, Dr. Keller,
the potential for solar fuel. What fields--and I will say, I'm
always puzzled that I never--I had this dearth of reporting of
research on hydrogen. It seems like such a simple ladder, you
know, to electrolysis, hydrogen. Am I missing some key?
Dr. Keller. No, you're absolutely correct. When you
forecast where the electricity costs might come in the years,
it might be that the electricity is getting very plentiful.
People might argue it might get so cheap that it's not worth--
anymore.
So the key is what are we doing with electrons? So the idea
is can I take electrons to something else? So you can call this
power-to-x, for example.
Mr. Dunn. Well, I mean, if you can make a lot of hydrogen--
--
Dr. Keller. This----
Mr. Dunn. --you can store that.
Dr. Keller. You could do this.
Mr. Dunn. Right.
Dr. Keller. Or you could go through hydrogen as a platform
molecule to hydrocarbons. You can use hydrogen to go to
ammonia.
Mr. Dunn. Or you can just burn it.
Dr. Keller. So the idea is can you diversify electrons? And
we are doing more with electrons, just putting them into the
grid. So this is I think where we need research and very
fundamental research----
Mr. Dunn. Storage?
Dr. Keller. --to go down this path. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. But it just looked like an obvious one to me. I'm
going to turn to Mr. Stein, if I may. I want to focus now on
the market forces that have decreased the cost of photovoltaic
solar energy. Do you think that's basic science research that's
had the major impact or is that just innovative manufacturing
or perhaps it's government fiddling with tax credits?
Mr. Stein. Well, as far as lowering the cost itself,
there's no question that that has happened. And that's, I mean
that's certainly to--it's incentivized by the tax credits. But
that probably would have happened independently of that. But
the largest portion of it is almost certainly is Chinese
manufacturing innovation because that's why the solar panels
have become so much cheaper is really because they're being
imported from China.
Mr. Dunn. And they're probably subsidizing the manufacture.
Is that your point?
Mr. Stein. Well, they probably are subsidizing at least a
portion of the manufacture but it's also just they have cheaper
labor, they have lower environmental standards, frankly,
because some of the components that go into some of these solar
panels----
Mr. Dunn. I'm going to interrupt you. We're running out of
time. If there were no tax benefits to solar, no investment
credits, no mandatory buybacks, all this stuff, what would--
would solar be economically viable and what do you imagine a
megawatt hour would cost if you could guess that?
Mr. Stein. I think it would be economically viable in
certain parts of the country. I think Southern California?
Mr. Dunn. So--yes.
Mr. Stein. It makes a lot of sense. Massachusetts, it
doesn't.
Mr. Dunn. So, within range. In the 30 seconds left to me,
Mr. Simmons, you mentioned grid integration reliability issues,
the duck curve. Could you describe EERE's focus on utility
scale demand, and is the storage of energy part of that focus?
If so, how?
Mr. Simmons. At EERE, we are focused not on the utility
scale storage so much. That is really the Office of Electricity
at the Department of Energy. However, we work together with the
Office of Electricity through the Grid Modernization Initiative
to bring together both of our offices to be able to look at all
types of storage, whether it is storage at home, storage on the
grid----
Mr. Dunn. The truth here is that I've exceeded my time. And
as we all know, our Chairman is very capable of telling time. I
won't push my luck any further. Thank you very much for all of
the panelists. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Mr. Simmons, would you like to finish that
answer for him?
Mr. Simmons. I'll just finish by saying that we are working
together with the Office of Electricity to look at grid-scale
storage using a variety of different storage techniques and
thinking about the issue holistically as well as being able to
look at integration of building technologies with the grid to
be able to hopefully shift some demand around, reduce peaks.
You know, really, when it comes to storage, I think it's
important to think about storage holistically and everything
that we can do to shift around demand for energy to overall
reduce the cost and really drive economic growth.
Chairman Weber. I thank you. I yield the gentleman another
30 seconds?
Mr. Dunn. Well under 30 seconds. I'm going to ask the
panelists, any of you who think you are capable of this,
please, please, please get back to us with a white paper on
storage. We are not informed well about storage. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from California. Jerry, you're up.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, my good friend
in nuclear power. You know, I spent about 20 or more years in
the wind industry, some of it at NREL's National Wind
Technology Center. Good times. We had developed a theoretical
model that showed diminishing cost-of-energy return as the
turbines got bigger, only to be shown later that that was
wrong. So Dr. Keller, is there a similar theoretical curve for
solar, a model for solar energy that shows diminishing cost-of-
energy return for solar?
Dr. Keller. Look, I don't know if a model like this exists
because like now, we're seeing--and you might have a better
idea there. But look, I think right now we're seeing further
decrease in solar because it's a complex synergy of all this
different technologies working together. But you might have----
Dr. Eglash. If I may add a comment?
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Dr. Eglash. Certainly for a solar cell built out of a
single semiconductor, there are limits in its performance. And
so one of the current areas of research is combining two
different semiconductors together. We've heard a couple of
people today talk about a new class of materials called
perovskites, and one of the things that people are looking at
as a so-called tandem cell that involves a layer of perovskites
and a layer of something else that might in fact be silicon.
It's also true that solar cells don't always work well at
high temperatures. And so there's work involved in trying to
improve the performance of solar cells at high temperatures
because they're often used in environments where obviously the
ambient temperature can be quite high.
Mr. McNerney. So there's significant room for improvement
in cost?
Dr. Eglash. That's right.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Keller, Mr. Stein stated that
government funding often crowds out private funding when it
enters a given area. Have you seen government funding crowd out
private funding in areas of NREL's research?
Dr. Keller. No. Look, I think there's a synergy because
when you have a strong, fundamental science portfolio with the
people who understand also what industry needs, and when you
look into this, a lot of our research when we go-- perovskite
is a good example. I mean, you're doing a lot of analysis up
front to see what is really some of this new game-changing
technologies based on some of the analysis. And of course, a
lot of the fundamental science also has input from industry
where a lot of our researchers not just create it out of a
vacuum. You're having committees, you're having panels. You're
inviting the top researchers and getting feedback.
So I would argue that there's nice synergy by having a
strong fundamental science and then you're tying all of this
with industry. And this is where you then get the synergy and
the most advancement of the technology.
Mr. Simmons. May I make a quick----
Mr. McNerney. Sure.
Mr. Simmons. --comment about that? In terms of the
Administration's position here, we want to spend, you know,
limited taxpayer--you know, some of the limited taxpayer
dollars that we have on early-stage research. However, we also
want very much for this work that Martin was just talking about
as this synergy between the national labs, we want to leverage
the investments that have been made at the national labs
through taxpayer dollars and then leverage that with NREL, the
other national labs also working together with industry to get
those out of the labs.
So that work that he was just talking about, I want to
stress that the Administration very much supports that.
Mr. McNerney. I'd like to believe you. Dr. Eglash, can you
explain why the companies in the Bay Area PV Commission don't
carry out research in certain areas that might actually benefit
their long-term bottom line?
Dr. Eglash. You mean on their own?
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Dr. Eglash. Yeah. There's a number of reasons. One is that
in many cases, they simply don't have the financial wherewithal
to do so. And to your earlier question about whether federal
support might crowd out private investment, I think we can
point to several examples where the opposite is true and
federal support actually attracts increased private investment
because at that point there can be a leveraging of the
investment and you can reduced some of the barriers that the
private sector would otherwise see.
In the case of the companies that have chosen to join the
Bay Area PV Consortium, they're contributing cash alongside of
the federal investment. They're also contributing know-how and
insights, and they also provide a path to commercialization for
the innovative technologies that are being developed.
So far from being a handout, the idea is much more of a
partnership.
Mr. McNerney. Kind of a leverage to get industry to invest
more.
Dr. Eglash. I think there is definitely a leveraging.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Mr.
Tonko for five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our
witnesses. I'm pleased that the Committee is looking at this
issue, and I strongly believe that we must continue to support
and fund renewable energy research. The Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a proven record of
delivering innovative technologies that make renewable
electricity generation cost competitive. As we push our
innovation economy forward, groundbreaking new technologies
become that much more essential.
EERE allows exactly these kinds of technologies to take
root. I could not be more proud of these first-of-their kind
and game-changing new technologies that this program is helping
to make a reality. In 2011, through the SunShot Initiative, we
set out to reduce the total cost of solar energy. We set
ambitious goals, and we invested wisely. This past September,
the SunShot Initiative successfully met the utility scales
solar cost target of 6 cents per kilowatt hour three years
earlier than anticipated.
While we should herald this success, I worry that there are
interests who would have us reduce our commitment to renewable
energy research. China currently invests more than double the
U.S. commitment to renewable energy research and development;
and while other countries continue to pioneer innovative
renewable energy and hyper-efficient technologies, President
Trump and Republican leaders are working to eliminate or gut
most cutting-edge programs including Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy, the ARPA-E, and the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. The budget proposed by the President
would cut funds for EERE by 70 percent and eliminate ARPA-E
entirely. These massive cuts defy common sense and will cost us
dearly in the future by abandoning innovation and weakening
America's global competitiveness.
So we must do more to support these groundbreaking
initiatives. We've heard that the SunShot Initiative is a
political goal, not a research goal. However, it seems to me
that the purpose of investments in energy technology are to
advance the technology so it functions more efficiently.
So Dr. Eglash, could you explain why the SunShot goals were
a completely reasonable choice for focusing government
investment?
Dr. Eglash. The SunShot goals created an inspiring target
of cost and performance that then mobilized the attention of
researchers and industry. At no point did it seek to pick
particular winners and losers beyond a support for solar
energy.
If I could just comment briefly, for several years I was a
utilities commissioner for one of our nation's small
municipally owned utilities, the utility of the City of Palo
Alto, California. And there through purchasing and deploying
utility scale solar, we were able to reap the benefits over
years of a technology that doesn't need a continuous source of
fuel, like gas or coal or oil. Once you've deployed it, it's
then free, other than a modest operations and maintenance cost.
And in that same way, the nation's increasing use of solar and
renewable energy can help strengthen the grid and provide
greater energy independence.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Dr. Keller, can you tell us a little
more about how the SunShot Initiative contributed to falling
prices in solar energy?
Dr. Keller. The SunShot looked at this holistically, how
you can drive down costs through more innovation research. And
when you look at this in what areas research was done just to
name a few, it was in general about the efficiency of the
materials, the position of these materials, a better
understanding of the photo absorbers such as silicum or cadmium
telluride, the buffer layers, the electrodes, the new module
materials, power electronics.
So it was not one little step which led to this. It was
holistically, that you're looking into all the different
components to further create research and innovation to further
decrease cost. And I think it was very successful, and people
say it was all done by China. I would like to compare this to
when you look at First Solar, which also--the biggest U.S.
manufacturer of solar panels--and they also with cadmium
telluride decreased the cost significantly here in the U.S.
because of some of this research going on in activities such as
SunShot.
Dr. Eglash. If I may add a specific----
Mr. Tonko. Sure.
Dr. Eglash. --example to the story, the way that this
worked was industry would identify certain needs, needs for
lower manufacturing costs, needs for example for a better
encapsulant, the coatings that keep humidity away from the
solar cell itself. But they wouldn't propose what the
particular solution would be. That came from the researchers.
And while it's not clear whether you can call that basic or
applied, it is clear that with the help of EERE and the SunShot
goals to focus attention, we were able to have that kind of
synergy and leverage between identifying problems and then
finding promising solutions.
Mr. Tonko. Which would obviously increase our
competitiveness as an American solar industry. Gentlemen, thank
you very much. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Takano, is recognized.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Simmons, we've
heard that the SunShot Initiative may not have been responsible
for the cost of solar installation's falling as the cost
decline may have largely been the result of Chinese
manufacturing innovation. However, China has invested over $50
billion in renewable energy investments since 2012 and upwards
of $100 billion recently. During that time, China has become
the world leader in solar panel manufacturing. I think we can
agree that the investments in China are overwhelmingly made by
the Chinese government.
While you discussed the importance of the free market, the
countries we are competing against in this industry do not seem
inhibited from using government investment to throw the game in
their country's favor. Do you believe that there may be a
government role in avoiding ceding control of this vital
industry to China?
Mr. Simmons. I--you know, it's the Administration's
position that there is a government role for early-stage
research and development.
Mr. Takano. Okay. So you do believe there's a government
role?
Mr. Simmons. Well, I mean, that is the Administration's
position.
Mr. Takano. All right. And we've heard that--you've heard
the discussion about how that's not so easily defined, about
what early stage is----
Mr. Simmons. Sure. Sure.
Mr. Takano. --versus and that's a legitimate point for
discussion. Does anyone else want to--I mean, Mr. Keller or Mr.
Eglash, would you like to comment?
Dr. Eglash. I just wanted to point out that the solar
energy industry was largely created by the United States during
research, going back 20 or 30 years. And it's only been during
the last 10 to 15 years that much of the solar energy
manufacturing industry has moved overseas, particularly to
China. But with the evolution of these technologies, we have an
opportunity to bring significant portions of that industry back
to the U.S. with all the ancillary benefits of doing so.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Keller?
Dr. Keller. May I just jump in there for a second? I fully
agree with this comment and what I said, for example, on this
next generation of materials. If he is successful to keep and
drive this innovation forward, this is also a chance in my
opinion to get the supply chain for all solar manufacturing
back into the U.S.
Mr. Takano. So this next generation of materials, do you
think that's something that's left to the free marketplace or--
vis a vis our competition with global competitors? Is this
early stage? It's really not early stage.
Dr. Keller. Perovskites are still very early stage, but
I'll tell you what's happening right now that we are in the
U.S., I think we still have a front, a leading position in this
new next generation of materials. But they say, everywhere I
travel, people jump onto this like crazy, and our fear is that
China for example starts to invest significant more money in
this next generation of materials. And so the key is we have to
continue to drive this innovation and not only on the material
side but then you're combining this with the next generation of
manufacturing side.
Mr. Takano. How do you answer folks who, you know, who say
that government's really not good at job--does not do a good
job of deciding these sort of things? It seems to me that there
might be some market incentives for people to invest in this
research. I mean, how do you answer that?
Dr. Eglash. There certainly are market incentives in some
of these areas. But we're living in a particularly promising
moment with respect to material science, chemistry, and
chemical engineering. These are technologies that can help
solar energy, energy broadly including storage, and a variety
of other technologies.
While there is a vibrant materials and chemistry industry
today, it's not sufficient in and of itself because these
technologies are so broad and so many of the hugely promising
things we could do are risky enough, diffuse enough, or have a
sufficiently long time to pay off that we'll be in an even
better position if we also have some federal support for
research and materials and chemistries.
Mr. Takano. Go ahead, Mr. Keller.
Dr. Keller. If I can jump, when you look at perovskites,
what's happening right now is an example which was at the
beginning very risky. Now we're getting to this point where
people say, oh, this could be really exciting. Now we're seeing
interest from certain start-up companies. They're coming out of
Stanford. They're coming to us. They're trying to collaborate
with our scientists to advance this technology, and I think
this is an example where when you start how all this was
initiated came from very, very early stage research, then was
narrowed down. We tried to overcome some of the big principles
around these materials. And so this leads in my opinion, if you
continue to drive this innovation forward, will have the
potential to revolutionize solar.
Mr. Takano. We might be missing a real opportunity to stay
ahead of the game in this technology, and it would be foolish
for us to adhere to a rigid ideology about--using that ideology
to not make a good judgment here, to be involved in this next
stage of research. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman from California. It's
time for our friend from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panel. I've been around long enough to know that early stage
and late stage and basic and applied from, you know, Congress
to Congress, from administration to administration, we kind of
whipsaw the Department of Energy, saying, okay. We like early
stage. We like late stage. But sometimes late stage becomes
early stage, and I'd like to run a clip from a TV report from
yesterday about the National Renewable Energy Lab.
[Video shown.]
So really, you know, pretty inspiring. And I just, again,
obviously I'm very proud of the National Renewable Energy Lab.
I'm proud of the Department of Energy just because you have a
lot of very bright people there.
So Dr. Keller, if you'd like to comment on that for a
second? And then after that, I have some questions for my
brothers in the bar.
Dr. Keller. Thank you very much. Look, this was a video to
show you how science is done. So if you have smart people and
creative people and they have an experiment that went wrong,
and they say, oh. What about this? And they change and adapt.
And this is something which makes the National Lab System, DOE
but also the scientist. This is the strength of the United
States. I think that we have the best and most brilliant people
doing this. I mean, I compare this again through my traveling
where we have the edge. If you compare us, our science, to
other countries, we are still much more creative. We live in a
system which enables creativity, and I think this is why it's
so important to continue to support researchers through federal
funds.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And I thank you for that. And so, you
know, Mr. Simmons, I was encouraged by some of your comments
concerning the National Renewable Energy Lab, and really, you
know, whether it's basic science or applied science, I mean,
depends, you know, what you want to call it. but it's sort of
on this continuum.
But one of the things I am concerned about--and so I'm
going to ask some math questions of my attorney friends. You
know, at 207 million, that's the solar budget from last year
for '17. It's going to get cut to 70 million, okay? So let's go
with the higher number, the 207 million. We are in the throes
of dealing with a tax cut that's going to cost the country
about $1.5 trillion, at best. Do you have any idea how many
solar energy budgets fit into $1.5 trillion? And I'll give you
like two or three seconds, not embarrass you, because we've got
the scientists here. But I've done the math, so I'll help you.
Mr. Simmons. Well, there was a reason I went to law school.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Mr. Stein?
Mr. Stein. I'm not going to do the math in my head. It's--
--
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So--and I don't want to make--
you know, I went to law school----
Mr. Stein. You're good with--
Mr. Perlmutter. --and I'm proud of being a lawyer and I'm
proud you guys are lawyers. But the answer is 7,142.85 budgets
for solar energy. Let's round it up to 7,143. Let's take all of
the EERE budget for '17 which is $2.90 billion, reduced to $636
million. At 2 billion, let's round it down just to make the
numbers easy. That's 750. And so I appreciate, gentlemen, you
know, some of the questions about, you know, spending too much
and cost overruns. But everything is relative and in
perspective. These laboratories--and Mr. Simmons, you are now,
you know, not burdened but you are tasked with really working
with them and getting the best out them because they do bring
good things to light. And these cuts that we're going to face
are really, you know, just--they are paralyzing. And so I
appreciate this panel being here. I appreciate some of the, you
know, the comments of our engineers and scientists as well as
the kind of the focus that you gentlemen have, you know, as to
what should the government be doing, you know? What is our
role? But we do know that we are making some substantial steps.
And I don't want to see us to step backwards from that. This
country is too good for that. With that, I yield back to the
chair.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. I thank the
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from the Members. This hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]