[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:
MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-932 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
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
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
C O N T E N T S
January 30, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Discussion....................................................... 35
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 70
The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 83
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY:
MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Veasey, is going to substitute for our Ranking Member today,
and we will recognize him momentarily. But I do want to say
that the Chair notices the excellent turnout on his left and
appreciate being able to look down the row and see everybody
here just about, so I appreciate the good attendance.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
And welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Department of
Energy: Management and Priorities.''
I'll recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement and then the Ranking Member.
Today, we welcome Mr. Paul Dabbar, the Under Secretary for
Science; and Mr. Mark Menezes, the Under Secretary of Energy,
to testify about the Department of Energy's priorities under
this Administration.
As the Committee awaits the President's fiscal year 2019
budget request, our discussion today will focus on broad
priorities and management at the DOE. DOE is the leading
federal sponsor of research in the physical sciences and is a
world leader in basic science research and technological
development.
Our witnesses today are responsible for managing the bulk
of the DOE programs within the Science Committee's
jurisdiction, including over $9 billion in civilian research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application
programs, as well as the DOE national labs. This amounts to 1/3
of the DOE's budget.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last
week, Secretary Perry explained that ``America First'' means
maintaining American competitiveness around the world and being
the lead provider of energy resources and technology on the
global market. Significant investments in basic science
research by foreign countries like China threaten America's
global standing as the leader in scientific knowledge. Without
continued investment in basic and early-stage research at the
DOE, the United States will lose its global technology edge.
DOE must also invest in the research infrastructure that
brings the best scientists in the world to the United States.
That's why this Committee has advanced bipartisan legislation
to upgrade and construct best-in-the-world light sources,
photon sources, and neutron sources to facilitate discovery
science.
The House has repeatedly passed legislation to authorize
the construction of the Versatile Neutron Source, which would
ensure that the next generation of nuclear reactors can be
developed here in the United States.
Last month, Secretary Perry announced a reorganization of
the Department's management structure. This reorganization
restores the statutorily directed role of each Under Secretary,
prioritizing the science and energy missions within DOE. This
approach refocuses DOE civilian research programs on the basic
and early-stage research that industry cannot perform. The two
Under Secretaries share oversight responsibility for the
national laboratory system. DOE's national labs attract the
best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs from around the
world, and it is critical that the system of labs operate
efficiently.
Our witnesses today also share jurisdiction over the many
functions designed to foster cooperation across DOE programs
such as crosscutting research initiatives, energy innovation
hubs, and multipurpose research facilities. We look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today about how they will maximize
cooperation between their respective programs and work to
prevent unnecessary duplication or cost overruns at the
Department.
By investing wisely in basic and early-stage research, the
Department can achieve its goal of scientific discovery and
technological breakthroughs for future generations.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Before I recognize the gentleman from
Texas, let me just say to my colleagues that I have a Judiciary
Committee markup going on, and I'm going to need to leave after
my questions. And the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the
Energy Subcommittee, Mr. Weber, will stand in as acting
Chairman.
I now recognize the substitute Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, for his comments.
Mr. Veasey. Chairman Smith, thank you very much. And I
would like to let everybody know if you have not already heard
that the Ranking Member of the Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Dallas, she is at home. She lost her brother that was the
youngest in their family. That's the second sibling that she's
lost in the last three months, and so I hope you that will keep
her in her your thoughts and prayers.
Also, Chairman Smith, I want to thank you for holding this
hearing and thank you, Under Secretary Dabbar, and Under
Secretary Menezes, for being here today. I'm very pleased that
we are finally beginning to hold hearings with Senate-confirmed
representatives of the Administration that are here testifying
today. I hope that means that we'll finally have Secretary Rick
Perry, our former Governor of Texas, in this room shortly after
the President's 2019 budget is released, which was the common
practice for this committee before last year.
There are a wide range of issues regarding direction and
management of DOE's incredibly important portfolio of
facilities and programs that I hope we will be able to discuss
in depth this morning. I'd like to start off this conversation
by touching on just a few of them. And at this point it
shouldn't surprise anyone here that I'm very concerned, as are
many, about the Department's proposed budget for 2018. I'm sure
I speak for many of my Democratic colleagues when I say that I
am even more concerned about what it implies about the
Administration's priorities going forward.
That budget proposal would cut sustainable transportation
and renewable energy by 70 percent and energy efficiency by 80
percent. It would also cut critical research on the electric
grid and fossil fuels in half. It would cut the Office of
Science by 17 percent and nuclear energy by 30 percent, and it
would eliminate ARPA-E, the Loan Programs Office, and our
entire portfolio of Energy Innovation Hubs. All of these
programs have strong records of success to justify not only
their existence but increased investments.
These proposed cuts make no sense at all. As many of my
colleagues have pointed out before, we won't balance the budget
by slashing our research funding. For an insignificant short-
term deficit reduction, we will make the United States less
competitive, lose jobs, harm our public health, and hobble our
international R&D partnerships. The Administration rationalized
these cuts by suggesting the private sector would simply start
funding these key research areas once the Federal Government
cuts removed them from its budgets.
But it is not based on anything resembling a rigorous
review process, let alone reality. In fact, Administration
officials confirm that they did not engage with the private
sector at all. They didn't engage with them at all to determine
what industry would be able or willing to pick up. Mr. Dabbar,
Mr. Menezes, I recognize that you are really not responsible
for this proposal, given that you were only confirmed in
November, but I hope that under your leadership that we can get
back to reality and continue our strong support for these high-
value research programs. They are vital for American
competitiveness, our quality of life, and our scientific
leadership.
I would also like to get a much better understanding of
rationale behind the new organizational structure for the
Department that was announced in December. In my view, the
reorganization led by Secretary Moniz made a lot of sense.
Having a single Secretary for science and energy enabled
improved coordination and collaboration across DOE's
nonmilitary research enterprise. Specifically, it helped break
the historical unproductive stovepipes between the DOE's Office
of Science and the Applied Energy Offices. So it is not clear
to me why breaking them up into separate pieces under different
Secretaries again is a step in the right direction. And putting
the Department's daunting environmental management mission,
which previously had its own Under Secretary under the science
portfolio adds its own challenges.
I understand that Mr. Dabbar has a unique background in
overseeing those issues, but then perhaps it would have made
more sense to stick with the previous structure and make him
Under Secretary for management after all. But whatever DOE
organizational charts says, I hope we can all find common
ground on ensuring that the Department's science and energy
innovation pipeline is as strong as possible.
I look forward to working with the both of you on these
issues in the coming months and years ahead. And once again,
thank you for being here to testify, and I hope that we will
get the Secretary soon. And again, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. I'll introduce our
witnesses, and the first is the Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under
Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr.
Dabbar serves as the principal advisor on fundamental energy
research, energy technologies, and science. Prior to
confirmation as Under Secretary for Science, Mr. Dabbar worked
in operations, finance, and strategy roles in the energy
sector. He received a bachelor of science from the U.S. Naval
Academy and an MBA from Columbia University.
Our second witness is the Honorable Mark Menezes, Under
Secretary of Energy, at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr.
Menezes served as the Department's principal advisor on energy
policy and on a wide array of existing and emerging energy
technologies. Prior to being confirmed as Under Secretary of
Energy, Mr. Menezes was an executive with Berkshire Hathaway
Energy in the Washington, D.C., office. He received both his
undergraduate and juris doctor degree from Louisiana State
University.
We welcome you both, and, Secretary Dabbar, if you'll
begin.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL DABBAR,
UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you,
Acting Ranking Member Veasey and Members of the Committee. It's
an honor to highlight the mission of the Under Secretary of
Science, which includes the Offices of Science, Technology
Transitions, Environmental Management, and Legacy Management.
America's global leadership in science remains dominant,
and I look forward to recounting to you how DOE is fueling the
country's scientific future. In the areas covered by the Office
of Science, these are very exciting times for our national lab
complex and our programs. Our programs cover the world's
cutting-edge research and high-energy nuclear and plasma
physics, materials in chemistry, biological and environmental
systems, next generation high-performance computing, and basic
research for advancement in new energy technologies. They are
on the cusp of significant progress for the Nation and the
world.
Let me just tell you about a fraction of the major
innovation your national labs are executing on. In the Office
of Science jointly with the Applied Energy Offices we have more
than ten different battery and storage technologies with
capacity to outperform lithium ion batteries used in the
current market. The lab at Argonne has even branded their
program Beyond Lithium-Ion. Who says scientists can't market?
In the area of bioscience, we have built on our historical
leadership in the Human Genome Project and gene editing to move
whole segments of DNA from one organism to another. This is a
breakthrough which has continued our leadership in microbial
biotechnology that will allow for manufacturing of therapeutic
drugs in a way never imagined a few years ago. This will also
advance significant possibilities in food applications,
environmental remediation, and biosecurity. We even have the
ability to store data for computers in DNA.
Here are some other very exciting examples for our upcoming
projects: In advanced computing, we're on the cusp of
completing the first of three exascale computers that will
conduct 10 to the 18th calculations per second. With this
capability we will be able to model and evaluate data in
complex science areas such as elementary particles for research
for quarks, gluons, and neutrinos. We will also have
significant jumps in practical applications such as using the
world's leading deep neural networks and artificial
intelligence capabilities far beyond what is commercially
available for cancer research.
In the areas of particle physics, we are nearing the
completion of the world's largest neutrino experiment, which
will generate and shoot neutrinos from Fermilab outside Chicago
up through the earth to our detector facility deep underground
in South Dakota, moving forward humanity's knowledge of this
evasive particle.
In the area of astrophysics, we're in the process of
finishing construction of several new detectors to collect data
on the amount of dark energy in the universe and hopefully
detect dark matter particles directly.
And finally, we're at the world's cutting-edge for quantum
computing development, potentially developing computers to use
electrons or even photons of light for calculation medium
rather than transistors using 1's and 0's. These are very
exciting times. The national labs have rightfully earned the
title from Secretary Perry as the crown jewels of the
Department.
As you know, the Department grants over $3 billion a year
also to universities all over the country in all of your
States. We seed the country's next generation of research and
students all over the country every year.
I encourage each of you to visit even more of the labs.
There are far more truly amazing innovations than I have time
to list through here today, and I would be glad to facilitate
any additional visits anywhere in the country for any of you.
In the area of advancing technology transitions, this is an
area of particular passion for me and a core area for the
Department. I look forward to leading the Energy Investor
Center, as well as the other DOE programs and our national labs
to coordinate all our department efforts in this area and look
forward to facilitating engagement with investors and industry.
And in the area of environmental management, we continue to
execute on many long-lived cleanup projects, and we are
tackling projects long-delayed such as vitrification in Hanford
and looking at options for more closeouts.
In conclusion, human development has hinged on our innate
ability to explore. Our organization has some of the top
explorers in the history of the world: Einstein, Oppenheimer,
Lawrence, Rickover, and Fermi. This organization and more
specifically the special people in the Department and its labs
are now the legacy of that foundation, we are posed to use our
creativity and resources to explore a little more about that
unlimited universe, and we will maintain the standard advocated
by Einstein to be passionately curious.
Thank you, and I'll look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Secretary Dabbar.
And, Secretary Menezes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK MENEZES,
UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Menezes. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Veasey, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today along with my colleague, Under
Secretary for Science Paul Dabbar, on behalf of the
Administration on the Department of Energy's management and
priorities. And we understand we are the first confirmed
appointees to appear before this committee.
In mid-December, Secretary Perry announced a realignment,
the goal of which was to set forth a reporting framework that
allows the Department's organizational statutes--that follows
the Department's organizational statutes, advance the
Administration's priorities, best address the Nation's present
and future energy challenges, and refocus on its core missions
of promoting America's energy security, spurring innovation,
reducing regulatory burden, enhancing national security through
nuclear science, and addressing the obligation of legacy
management and nuclear waste.
This realignment returns the Department to its original
statutory framework with an Under Secretary and, as proposed by
this Committee and established by Congress in 2005, and Under
Secretary for Science. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
and Administrator of the NNSA, as established by Congress in
1999, was not changed by this realignment.
Through careful prioritization and ensuring funding goes to
the most promising research, DOE, through its national
laboratories, will continue to support the world's best
enterprise of scientists and engineers whose innovations drive
American prosperity, security, and competitiveness for the next
generation.
We look forward to moving ahead with an aggressive focus on
an all-of-the-above energy strategy that will improve the
development of energy infrastructure, including pipelines,
smart grids, small modular nuclear reactors, and energy
storage. Along with the public-private partnerships with our
national labs, we will bring research technology to market,
helping us address our nation's energy challenges.
This realignment allows the Department to focus on its
priority of energy security through energy dominance and
economic competitiveness, placing the energy offices--the
Office of Energy Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil
Energy, the Office of Indian Energy, and the Office of Nuclear
Energy under the direction of an Under Secretary of Energy.
This structure allows the Department to apply personnel and
resources to pursue the President's ``America First'' energy
plan. By utilizing all forms of our nation's energy resources,
we can achieve energy security and economic strength at home
and energy dominance through exports to markets abroad.
As the Under Secretary of Energy, I manage a comprehensive
energy portfolio that includes the applied laboratories.
Overseeing the network of applied labs, as well as energy
programs, requires a focus on cooperation and collaboration. We
are proud of the hard work and dedication our federal workforce
has shown to the mission, collaboration and coordination with
the program offices, and the focus on the priorities of DOE and
the Administration.
Along with the energy program offices, the realignment
includes having the Office of Policy and the Loan Programs
Office report through the Under of Energy and maintains two
DOE-wide management and performance functions: the Office of
Environment, Health, Safety, and Security; and the Office of
the Project Management Oversight Assessments.
Now, having just returned from a visit to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Idaho National Lab, I can
speak firsthand to the progress being made with early-stage R&D
at these labs. At NREL, lignocellulosic biomass is being
deconstructed to sugars to unlock the potential for renewable
carbon fibers. Working with INL, both labs are creating new
biofuels and discovering new properties of hydrogen.
While at INL, I participated in a roundtable discussion
with the national lab's Chief Research Officers from all 17
labs. All were world-class scientists enthusiastic on their
visions and projects and genuinely excited at the opportunities
and support this Administration has provided, allowing them to
free up human capital and focus on their mission in removing
overly burdensome reporting requirements.
The Department appreciates the Committee's interest in its
work, and we look forward to working with you on opportunities
to foster and promote responsible energy development and
promote energy dominance through--and security through science.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Secretary Menezes.
Secretary Dabbar, let me address my first question to you,
and it is this: that last year the House passed a Science
Committee bill. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It was called
the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act. And it's
my understanding that a lot of the provisions in that bill such
as prioritizing advanced nuclear reactor infrastructure and
opening up our national labs to be more readily acceptable and
accessible to industry are provisions that could be
implemented, for lack of another word, unilaterally by the
Department of Energy. Would you give me a sense of whether you
think the DOE will implement some of these reforms themselves
or not? And if so, which ones?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Smith. No, absolutely. I
reviewed that bill, have a summary of it in front of me, and we
certainly support the points that were raised, and we look
forward to working with you on those specifics if you want to
reintroduce it here and would be glad to work with your staff
on that. But in general, we support the points that you raised
around management of the labs and the direction there.
Chairman Smith. And you do think you'll be able to
implement some provisions of the bill yourself then?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. We actually have quite a bit of
flexibility I think on----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Dabbar. --operational aspects that were raised and look
forward to doing that, and we have done that on some--on many
of those points.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. And, Secretary Menezes,
you mentioned in your testimony that DOE has a policy of
American energy dominance. Give us a little bit more in the way
of detail as to how you hope to achieve that and maybe even
what it means.
Mr. Menezes. Well, thank you for the question. Within
energy dominance, what we mean by that is that we are able to
utilize our vast resources in ways to help other countries to
have access to energy that they otherwise might be getting from
countries that not necessarily share their best interests.
So, with the work of the labs, we're able to develop
technology improvements in the hydraulic fracturing, for
example, so now we're the world's largest producer of oil and
natural gas. Since we have as much as we have, we can now
develop policies to export those energies, and it helps our
allies not to be dependent on other countries for sources of
energy. So in that context, I mean, we have a new historical
geopolitical reality where the United States can actually be
the country that other countries go to for energy.
Chairman Smith. And when you talk about other countries
coming to us for energy, what countries do you see as
increasing their demand for U.S. supplied energy?
Mr. Menezes. Well, we see it really across the globe, so,
for example, on LNG export facilities, for example----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Menezes. --you see countries in Asia, you see countries
in Europe, you see countries in South America potentially that
would like to have us export LNG to them. In coal you have
countries in central Europe that have been receiving some of
our coal exports, and then oil, Congress lifted the ban on
export of oil, and as such now, we can export into the global
markets of oil.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Good. If I have time, I'm going to
come back to that subject, but another question for Secretary
Dabbar, and it is this: that over the years there has been some
pretty strong and steady support for the fusion basic research
program, and yet in the proposed budget, that program is
subjected to some cuts. And I just wondered if you could
explain to us why a program that has gotten such good support
in the past and I think can be justified has been cut?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I can't comment to
the specifics of the last budget proposal, but the fusion
energy area and program office in the Department--Office of
Science is very important. We have a lot of support across
multiple labs. Obviously, we do--one of the main labs is
Princeton Plasma, and we continue to fund that as a primary
focus both of fusion but also plasma science. We also do quite
a bit of work at Oak Ridge and also at Livermore on the laser
side.
Obviously, we have been doing some funding over time at
ITER, which is a separate topic internationally, but we do
continue to focus on that as one of the main program offices.
Chairman Smith. So you think our research is going to
continue. What about our international obligations?
Mr. Dabbar. So our main international obligation is
obviously ITER. The last budget proposal was zero. I think, as
you probably know, ITER has had some challenges in the past
where the initial proposal for the whole of the program from
all the countries was a little over $6 billion, and now it's
currently up to $65 billion, so it's moved quite a bit in terms
of project costs.
We--the Administration is reviewing that as part of an
overall nuclear review policy----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Dabbar. --and we have yet to reach a conclusion on a
cross-department basis on exactly our intent around funding and
recommendations around funding----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Dabbar. --so that is ongoing and is an active part of--
--
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Dabbar. --what I'm engaged with.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dabbar.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk with you about some of these unjustified
budget cuts. The President's budget request declared some
research as early stage and therefore worthy of federal support
and other activities as later-stage research that should be
immediately eliminated, given that the private sector is
supposedly better equipped to carry them out. However, during a
briefing to Congressional staff, Administration officials
confirmed that they did not engage with the private sector at
all while compiling the fiscal year 2018 budget request to
determine what industry would or would not be able to pick up.
Given that there was a complete absence of engagement with
industry, even as the Administration made these proposed
massive sweeping cuts to these programs, how in the world did
you determine what DOE should or should not support across
these program offices? And I would like to hear from either one
of you on this.
Mr. Menezes. Well, I can't speak to the budget process, not
having been involved in it. I can tell you that, as just a
matter of course, our program officers and our labs regularly
engage in conversations, collaboration efforts with the private
sector. Indeed, most of our funding opportunities come out of
those discussions and collaborations and conferences, and it's
an ongoing and constant thing. And that's the first--if you're
not aware of it, it's one of the first things you learn when
you get over at the Department how deeply involved they are
with the latest technologies, whether it's in the labs, whether
it's in the program offices, whether it's in private industry
and whether it's in the universities in peer research. And it's
a great process to see.
So while I can't speak to the budget as a practical matter,
we want to assure you that it is an ongoing enterprise. It also
helps to inform our priorities going forward in the next round
of budget discussions. Now that we're on board, we can help now
more fully inform decisions during the budget process.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. So, I mean, let me ask you. Are the
proposed cuts research areas that private sector is willing to
simply start funding after the federal government cuts them, or
are we going to risk losing our innovative companies and
researchers to our foreign competitors?
Mr. Menezes. Well, I think the way that we look at it is
that the private sector can manage risk. They are aware of
technological advancements in certain areas, particularly in
their areas of expertise. They manage risk. They make
investments to bring to market those technologies that they
know will help the industry as they assess it.
Mr. Veasey. Well, do you expect them to pick up the
shortfall?
Mr. Menezes. Well, in those areas where, through the work
of this department brought things to commercialization and
deployment, we would expect the private sector to pick that up.
However, where the research is too risky and private sector is
not willing to invest the substantial monies that it takes to
see if you can either make a basic discovery or take it to the
next step, that's where the Department will step in.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. And also I wanted to ask you, Mr. Dabbar.
You just said in a response to a good question from the
Chairman that the Administration request for ITER was zero but
the President's fiscal year 2018 request for ITER was actually
$63 million, an increase over the appropriated level in fiscal
year 2017 of $50 million. Did you perhaps misspeak or were you
indicating that the Department will request no funds in fiscal
year 2019?
Mr. Dabbar. I believe that the last proposal for last year,
which was '18, was zero. I may be not correct. But I think the
debate is certainly about our funding going forward.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. And also, Mr. Chairman--and I'm running
out of time here. I wanted to ask about the Texas Clean Energy
Project, but we'll get back to that a little bit later. Thank
you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Weber. [Presiding] All right. The gentleman yields
back. I'm going to go ahead and recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank both of you for coming to brief us today.
Mr. Dabbar, you mentioned in your opening statement the
progress that's been made on battery technology. Let's just
note that with the development and the actual deploying of more
efficient batteries, then the--all of this solar energy and
the--all this technology we've developed with wind, et cetera,
actually becomes doable. Some of our hesitation on this side of
the aisle has not been just based on that we don't think global
warming is important but that the technology really wasn't
there.
When do we expect to see these batteries on the market, and
do you know of Dr. Goodenough and his--who was the inventor of
the lithium battery and his breakthroughs down at University of
Austin Texas on a sodium-based battery?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. So I completely agree
with you.
Mr. Weber. Your mic is either not on or not close enough.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for that
question. No, clearly, I think of all the technologies that
certainly crosscut not only between the program offices that
both report to the two of us but across multiple labs is
clearly a focus of what we're working on. And the intermittent
nature of wind and solar and some other technologies, really
the gap to be filled for all those is in the battery and
storage area.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we have any of those new battery
technologies actually on the market now?
Mr. Dabbar. So we are working--and this goes back to a
previous question. We have over 85 companies that we're working
with in the battery sector across our various different labs,
and whether it's flow batteries, multivalent batteries, we are
actively moving those forward into market.
Mr. Rohrabacher. They are commercialized? So someone
could--if someone wanted to develop it for solar power could
actually now go to one of those batteries?
Mr. Dabbar. So they are commercializing so----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Commercializing.
Mr. Dabbar. --so obviously in many of our areas, I think as
Under Secretary Menezes mentioned----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And--well, let me just note that one of
the things that have been frustrating for me on this committee
over the years is the fact that things do get studied and
studied and studied to death, and it's almost like somebody
wants to continue their research project in order to get a
government grant in order to have another years paying on--off
their bills. That's--I think that's a problem that we've got to
look at that commercialization is just as important as
discovery.
Now, ten years ago in April of 2008 this committee had a
hearing on opportunities and challenges of nuclear power. And
at that time we were told that the next generation of nuclear
power was a promising option for the future, just as we just
heard about batteries as well, but not yet ready for commercial
development. Well, that was ten years ago, and we haven't seen
any design certified by the NRC since then when they need to
have at least their fuel performance and fuel characterizations
of standards, materials, et cetera, et cetera, if anybody's
going to move forward with it.
And in fact--but we go--when you go to the companies and
they say, ``Well, we can't really build a prototype until the
NRC has approved these various elements. And then you go to the
NRC and they say, ``Well, we're looking at designs that have
been built in tested through prototypes. You know, it's like
the chicken versus--what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
I would hope that this Administration with its can-do
approach, with its ``America First,'' ba, ba, which we're all
rooting for, I hope that we get a prototype and start focusing
on actually building an energy prototype for this new next
generation of nuclear power, which we know can be safe and can
actually--without waste left over, without materials for bombs
left over. We can build that. We could have built it in the
last ten years, but we haven't done anything because--and this
is where it's in your lap now. Let's make sure we structure the
whole program aimed at building the prototypes and getting them
commercialized rather than just reporting to us how great the
research is coming along. And please comment on that.
Mr. Menezes. Do you want me to answer----
Mr. Dabbar. Well, I'll go ahead and comment on batteries
and then defer to you----
Mr. Menezes. Okay. I'll comment----
Mr. Dabbar. --on the new commercial nuclear. But as an
example of companies that are working with our battery team
right now, United Technologies, Johnson Controls, Dow, General
Motors, and A.D. Moore that are actively working with our
batteries, so I think what we're working on in terms of
commercializing, these are real companies who want to make real
money who are taking our technologies and are moving them
forward. So I feel very positive about that. And going out and
seeing the labs and actually sitting down with them at the
companies--and that's what we do, obviously, when we go to our
labs. We see that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And about the nuclear----
Mr. Menezes. So on the small modular reactor, for example,
at INL----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Menezes. --on my last trip, they are exploring
opportunities to actually site and build a small modular
reactor there near the lab. The combined operating license
needs to get through the NRC, so that will take a process of--
--
Mr. Rohrabacher. This has been going on--this has been
going on for at least ten years, probably 20 years, but ten
years we could've done this ten years ago. So I would hope, as
I say, that you take this to heart and structure your operation
at the Department of Energy in a way that we're going to be
getting a prototype built so that it can then move forward from
there because it's been stuck here for ten years, and it's a
real crime.
The fact is that San Onofre is near my district. It's shut
down. The light water reactors are old and they're dangerous.
And San Onofre's shut down, and guess what, we have to spend
$70 million a year just watching that leftover uranium or
whatever it is, fuel from the plant there. We could use that, I
understand, in these new modular reactors as fuel for the new
ones and actually eat it up, the waste that now it's costing us
just to look at.
So I would hope that next time we meet and next time we
have this hearing, you can report to me some real progress
towards the prototype there and maybe how some companies have
actually commercialized those batteries. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. I thank you for yielding back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I'd like to talk some about the structural issues that are
going on at the Department of Energy. We've heard some concerns
today about how the restructuring of the Department's
leadership could be detrimental to the coordination and
management of the civilian science and technology programs. Mr.
Menezes' testimony states, quote, ``The modernization effort
returned the Department to its original statutory framework
with three separate Under Secretaries,'' end quote.
And I don't believe that's true for multiple reasons.
First, the original statutory framework in the Department of
Energy Organization Act in 1977 established only one Secretary
not three, or perhaps more importantly, you imply with your
testimony that the structure under Dr. Moniz was violating
statute by not conforming to the required number of Under
Secretaries, which I also believe is not the case.
Let me read some excerpts from the Department of Energy
Organization Act, as amended, by the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
which particularly relates to the establishment of the Under
Secretary positions that you hold. Quote, ``There shall be in
the Department an Under Secretary for Science. The Under
Secretary over Science shall, among other things,'' and again,
I'm quoting, ``monitor research and development programs at the
Department, advise the Secretary with respect to grants and
other forms of financial assistance required for effective
short- and long-term basic and applied research activities of
the Department, supervision or support of research activities
carried out by any of the Assistant Secretaries designated by
section 203 of this act.''
So I'd like to note that the Assistant Secretary, as
outlined in section 203, include all the energy technology
programs now under the authority of Mr. Menezes rather than the
Under Secretary for Science, Mr. Dabbar. So in the Department's
rationalization of this unwarranted organizational change, you
claim, quote, that it is, quote, ``consistent with Dewey's
statutory mandate.'' Instead, it actually appears to move the
Department further away from the statutory mandate. I'm
inclined to think that Secretary Moniz was much closer to the
intent of the law than what the Department is doing now.
So, Mr. Dabbar, a specific question: Can you explain why
duties that are assigned specifically in statute to the Under
Secretary over Science are now under the authority of the Under
Secretary of Energy? And how do you both claim that this is
consistent with Dewey's statutory mandate when it moves us
farther from what the statute says?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman Beyer. On some of the
statutory very specific language I might defer that to the
gentleman to my left who actually helped write some of that
language when he was on committee for that. But in terms of the
specific responsibilities, the specific responsibilities around
being the Chief Technology Officer and science officer across
the whole other complex is mine as part of the statutory
obligations. And there's many different ways that that is
actually practically being done. I'd like to talk about the
practical aspects of what we're actually doing.
First of all, in terms of coordination across the
technology platforms in terms of commercialization, which is a
much longer topic, the Office of Technology Transitions reports
to me, and that particular function in which it is coordinating
across the whole of the complex--by the way, not just Secretary
Menezes area but also in dealing with what's also outside of
his area, which includes NNSA labs and it also includes ARPA-E.
And so----
Mr. Beyer. If you--forgive me for interrupting you. I
appreciate all that, and I appreciate the overall perspective
that you have----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. --but is there any way to justify or rationalize
how Assistant Secretary specifically assigned by law to you now
report to a different Under Secretary, Mr.--Dr. Menezes. Mr.
Menezes, perhaps you could deal with that? In fact, let me
expand on that. Your position, which simply named Under
Secretary in the U.S. Code, not Under Secretary for anything,
does not have well-defined statutory responsibilities but
rather it's the broad discretion of the Secretary. Did the
Secretary consider the explicit direction in the statute
defining the Under Secretary for Science's role when
establishing your duties? And also if you can fill us in on
what I asked Dr. Dabbar--Mr. Dabbar?
Mr. Menezes. Sure. Thank you for the question. Regarding
the statutes, so what we did was as we reviewed all of our
statutory authorities, our organizational act, and our various
authorities, and we reverted to what we think was the intent of
Congress. And that is--and let me just say that before
Secretary Moniz, there was always an Under Secretary for the
Department which over time became called the Under Secretary of
Energy. And in 19--and the reason for that change was because
in 2005 this committee during the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
has suggested that the Office of Science should have its own
Under Secretary. And this was a bipartisan effort. And so the
Office of Science for the first time was going to have its own
Under Secretary. So that joined the traditional Under for the
Department, which Congress did not change. And they did not
change that there was an Under Secretary for NNSA. So by 2005
you had three Unders essentially.
And in the Office of Science it was important, and it was
bipartisan support, to make sure that the Office of Science had
its own leader essentially. In the energy--I mean, the Energy
Committee, everybody went along with that. We really did think
that. But Congress at that time I don't think I ever even
envisioned that the energy components of the Department would
be under an Under for Science because we wanted to make sure
that Science had its own structure.
The labs that you mentioned, these are applied labs that
traditionally have been located, if you will, within the
program offices within the energy program offices, so it's not
that they report to me as much as they are in the program--our
works with the program that reports. So we collaborate with the
applied labs, collaborate with the science labs, and we are
consistent with the statute. That's what we've done, no more,
no less, but we wanted to separate out actually the energy
program offices from the Under of Science because we wanted to
make sure the Under of Science could focus on science, which
was the intent of this Committee when the provision was put in
2005.
So we actually thought it was a good thing. I mean, we're
just following the statute as it's written. I know you may have
a different view, but based on my experience with the other
committees and the intent of Congress at the time----
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Menezes----
Mr. Menezes. --we wanted to elevate Secretary of Science--
or the Office of Science.
Mr. Beyer. Let me yield back to the Chairman before----
Mr. Weber. Yes, I think the gentleman's time is expired.
He's probably gotten an answer. I'm not sure it's the one he
wanted, but he got an answer. We appreciate that.
I'm going to recognize myself now for five minutes. So let
me start back with you, Mr. Menezes. That's how you pronounce
that, is that correct?
Mr. Menezes. That's correct.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Menezes. Good enough.
Mr. Weber. Sir?
Mr. Menezes. Menezes, that's correct.
Mr. Weber. Menezes?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. Good. I can do this. The President's fiscal year
2018 budget includes $10 million to begin planning for a fast
neutron research reactor that would operate as a user facility
within the Office of Nuclear Energy. Now, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, was here and he talked some about
the small modular reactor that's taking so much time. This
committee has authorized--advanced several bipartisan bills to
authorize this user facility--a.k.a., the Versatile Neutron
Source--and prioritize early-stage research in advanced nuclear
energy technology. And we would love to see the DOE married up
with the NRC and that chicken-or-the-egg question might go away
where they would be able to--the NRC would be able to actually
weigh in on the design as it's coming along and then we
wouldn't be worried about getting a prototype.
Nonetheless, last Congress, my bill, with the Chairman's
help, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, passed
the House three times and has already passed the House as a
part of Chairman Smith's comprehensive legislation, which is
H.R. 589.
Most recently, the Committee advanced my bill, H.R. 4378,
the Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act, to authorize
funding to complete this project that I'm talking about. The
House-passed energy and water appropriations bill also devotes
$35 million to kickstart this project. Based on my extensive
conversation with stakeholders, I think it's critical that we
start construction on this user facility as soon as possible or
American companies you referred to that were able to manage
risk and able to be in the best position to be the global
leader of energy, those American companies will be forced to
conduct research for advanced reactor technologies overseas. We
don't want that.
So will you commit to work with me to ensure that this
project is a top priority for the Trump Administration?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. That's easy enough. So in--so we may have to
borrow the money from you, but I'm glad you're so amiable. In
my bill, it sets a target to complete construction on the
Versatile Neutron Source by 2025. In your opinion, for us to be
able to hit that target, what resources are required to start
and complete the construction of this project so that we don't
wind up with the problem we had with the small modular reactor?
What do we need?
Mr. Menezes. Well, having just returned from INL where I
saw the advanced test reactor that has celebrated its 50th
year, it continues to be the leading reactor that businesses in
other countries come to test new fuels and materials. It is a
thing to behold. They are very excited about the prospects of
Congress taking action on your bill, and should Congress find
the resources, I think that the scientists there would look
forward to implementing the provisions of it.
As we've heard from other Members, part of the process
involves a regulatory review of many nuclear facilities for
health and safety at the NRC, so we would have to work with our
sister agencies to ensure that there would be sufficient
processes and resources available for both to work toward
accomplishing the goals in your bill.
Mr. Weber. Has the Secretary--has Secretary Perry been
briefed on the bill? Is he aware of it?
Mr. Menezes. I'm not aware if he has been briefed
specifically on the bill. I know he has been briefed certainly
on the nuclear issues and the priorities of the Administration.
Mr. Weber. Okay. In this committee--well, let me--I've got
less than a minute left. So in your opinion, how does this
Administration--this is a question for both of you--define
early-stage research?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of early-
stage research, it's clearly focusing on the areas in which the
commercial sector is not spending--is not focused on the R&D
side in which it is not near the commercialized area in terms
of any particular technology.
Mr. Weber. Let me break in here because, Mr. Menezes, you
made the common earlier that you wanted to ensure funding went
to the most promising research. Well, how do you know which is
the most promising research unless you get in that early-stage?
Continue, please.
Mr. Menezes. Yes--no, I'm glad to continue. So if you--
basically, it's going program office by program office and
identifying where in particular the commercial sector is and
where do we fit. I'll give an example. On high-performance
computing it's quite easy. We know exactly where Intel is and
AMD and Micron and IBM are at in terms of computing on the
commercial side. We know exactly where we are at, which is at
the cutting edge. We have dialogue with our potential
suppliers--once again, Intel, IBM, Nvidia--about what we think
is capable in terms of pushing the technology since we're at
the front end way beyond the commercial sector in those
particular areas. And then we decide where we want to recommend
for appropriations and for us as a program office.
So I could go through one by one, but that's--I can think a
very clear example of where we interacted know where the
commercial sector is versus what we recommend what to do.
Mr. Weber. All right. And I'll jump over to you, Mr.
Menezes.
Mr. Menezes. Right. So in the solar world, for example, I
actually brought this neat chart from NREL. So this shows
existing technologies and efficiency levels and how long
they've been in play and commercially available. Here, you see
breakthrough technology that is taking place at our labs that
show an exponentially--if I can use that word correctly--
increase on efficiency. It's not commercially available yet.
Now, what's the relevance of this? I mean, the relevance is
that all--these are solar panels that have been in the market,
and they have been used. This potentially is breakthrough
technology. There won't even be solar panels anymore to give
you an idea. So you have both breakthrough and you have
approaching commercialization. So if you wanted to focus in the
world of solar, I think that this, and the work that INL is--
NREL, excuse me, is doing is a good example.
Mr. Weber. That's a great chart, and I'm looking at it from
a distance here. The span left to right--and how many years
does that cover?
Mr. Menezes. This goes from 1975 to 2020.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm going to
yield back and recognize Mr. Tonko at this time.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here.
I completely agree that the national labs are the crown
jewels of America's research community. They are indeed
responsible for major breakthroughs in science and energy
innovation and national security. As I mentioned, when you had
testified at the Energy and Commerce Committee, I saw this
firsthand when I visited Brookhaven last year. Brookhaven is
leading us into the future using fundamental science that would
change our understanding of the world around us and of our
universe.
From the Center for Functional nanomaterials to the
National Synchrotron Light Source to the big ring collider the
only large particle collider in North America, one of two in
the world, I am in awe of the scientists and work being done
there, drawing on their passion and expertise, coupled with
adequate funding we can ensure our nation continues to be a
world leader in scientific research and development.
The Administration has proposed eliminating Brookhaven's
Center for Functional Nanomaterials, a profoundly misguided
effort. CFN is the newest of the five centers in the country,
which means it has the newest and some of the best in the world
equipment. It is located right next to Brookhaven's light
source, so housing it at Brookhaven is intuitive.
There are more than 500 users who depend on the center.
During my latest visit, I was impressed with the scale of the
machines. I'm curious if there have been further conversation
on its--CFN's future. Have you been part of discussions or are
you aware if the funding will be provided for this critical
effort at CFN of advancing the science of nanomaterials that
address the nation's energy challenges?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman Tonko.
So the budget is obviously still being finalized, but let
me actually echo what you just said in terms of specifics in
terms of the Nanomaterials Center at Brookhaven. I completely
agree with you that if you look at what they produce, it's
truly cutting-edge. Let me give you two examples. One of the
things that they've done is to have a prototype of black glass
for increased absorption of photons potentially for use in
advanced solar panels. They've actually produced a material, a
glass, that could increase the absorption rate by 100 percent--
--
Mr. Tonko. Which I might cut in is absolutely essential.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. I mean, I did witness that whole project with
the black glass----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. --and it should be important to our country in
regard to effectiveness of our renewables. And if this
Administration isn't behind renewables, can we be certain that
you will, with passion, push for investments in this
technology?
Mr. Dabbar. I can commit to you that I am passionate about
what is being accomplished in the area of nanoscience and
materials at Brookhaven, and I will continue to be so.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. And it's my understanding that the
Administration has proposed eliminating Brookhaven's Center for
Functional Nanomaterials. CFN is the newest of the five centers
in the country, which means it has the newest and some of the
best equipment in the world. It is next to Brookhaven's light
source, so housing it at Brookhaven is important. There are
well over 500 users who depend on the center. When I visited, I
was extremely impressed with the scale of the machines, and I'm
curious if there have been further conversations on that
future. Have you been part of discussions or are you aware if
the funding will be provided for this critical research?
Because it--when we look at the vast majority of
Brookhaven's funding coming from the DOE Office of Science,
which the President's last budget request proposed cutting by
17 percent, Brookhaven also receives funding from EERE and
other critical sources that the Administration has proposed
slashing. Without adequate funding, we will slow down and in
some cases completely halt the progress that Brookhaven and our
national labs could accomplish. How important is adequate
funding and the commitment of continued investment for our
national labs to fulfill their potential? And what would be the
consequences of that type of cut?
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman Tonko, thank you very much. I have
not--back to your question that you posed, I have not been
involved in any debates about particularly the center and
funding for the nano center. But once again, there is
tremendous data so to speak in terms of products and
technologies that that particular center is producing, and I am
an advocate and I will continue to be an advocate of what we've
been able to accomplish there.
Mr. Tonko. Well, in addition to their almost 3,000 full-
time employees, Brookhaven supports scientists across the
country who are visiting scientists or facility users. On top
of that, hundreds of students are learning and conducting
research there. I believe it's clear that the U.S. research
community depends on our labs. If funding is reduced, it would
be a big blow, and these opportunities decrease. Might this
hurt the development of our next generation of scientists and
engineers? Either of you, does it diminish the opportunities or
the growth for the next generation of scientists and engineers?
Mr. Dabbar. You know, what I would say is that obviously
the Department of Energy is the primary funder across the board
in terms of research both at the university level and across
the spectrum, I think as you know. About $3.1 billion a year is
part of the DOE budget for FOAs and for grants, including
universities all across the country, and that's going to be a
continued focus obviously for the Department.
Mr. Tonko. Well, I've exhausted my time, and I yield back,
but I can only say we need you to push really hard for the
appropriate level of funding if we're going to continue forward
with a bit of progress.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you both for being here. I appreciate
your work. I appreciate your expertise that you bring to the
jobs that you--the important roles that you fill. And these are
really important subjects that we're talking about today, so
thank you so much again for being here. Mr. Dabbar, it was
great to be with you in November at Fermilab, grateful for
one--for the visits I think you made after your confirmation
was there to Fermilab, and it was great to be with you. I
really enjoyed it, but I also know everybody in Fermilab was
really pleased and impressed with your visit, so I just want to
say thank you so much for taking that time to be there and to
see some of the amazing things that they're doing.
I also want to thank the Administration for continued
commitment to the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility and the
accompanying Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment that you
mentioned in your opening remarks, your statement. It was
reassuring for the international community as well and the
people working in my district to hear from the Secretary and
OSTP at the groundbreaking of the Farr site in South Dakota
last year as well.
One question I have as the process continues is regarding
the PIP-II upgrades for the beamline. While a separate project
from LBNF DUNE, this upgrade is necessary for the success of
LBNF DUNE and has already garnered international support,
again, as you mentioned, for about 20 percent of the project
with India alone investing $200 million. Giving America the
world's strongest neutrino beam is essential for the United
States to become the single place in the world where scientists
will come--must come--to do this work.
I wondered, Mr. Dabbar, if I could ask for your commitment
to assess the status of PIP-II and, if possible, to help move
this project forward through DOE's review process and provide
the necessary funds to keep this project on track?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman Hultgren. I'm very much in
support of continuing to review that. Obviously, as you pointed
out, there's been great international cooperation. I think if
you kind of compare that to our version of CERN----
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Mr. Dabbar. --in terms of being able to draw on support and
draw on science. It's actually big focus of mine is take what
the Fermi team has done in terms of how to build an
international consortium to pull investment into the United
States based upon our knowledge, based upon the knowledge
that's at Fermi laboratory and actually what I want to try to
do is not only execute on what we're doing, pull in some
additional funds, which both myself and the Secretary and the
Deputy are actively engaged in diplomatic aspects of other
countries to do that. But we actually want to take the skill
sets that the team----
Mr. Hultgren. Right.
Mr. Dabbar. --that pulled together at Fermi to try to look
at other potential user facilities in the future to use that as
a model.
Mr. Hultgren. That's fantastic. And I think the best story
out of that certainly is great work done to pull it together,
but even as you and I talked about there, the challenge that we
have to do to keep that going and growing is to make sure we're
doing our part as well, and so that's our commitment and--is
Congress working with the Administration to make sure that
funding is there, that we're able to follow through on these
important projects that are garnering this amazing world
attention, but more than just attention, investment that is
really exciting.
If I could address to both of you in just the remaining
minute-and-a-half that I have, the House has passed legislation
that I've sponsored the last two Congresses unanimously to
modernize and streamline the technology transfer process from
the labs, again, something that you mentioned. One of the
Administration's key priorities has been removing regulations
that are impeding the private sector from bringing new ideas
and businesses to the market.
A provision of my legislation, which the prior
Administration opposed, allowed for laboratory directors to
have signature authority on tech transfer agreements below $1
million. While I respect the site offices and their need for
DOE oversight of our labs, unfortunately, the time it takes to
do many of these small agreements means that small businesses
and other partners were unable to work with our labs. I
wondered if this is a proposal you'd be willing to take a look
at, and we feel like this is in line with commonsense
deregulatory approach that the President has tasked agencies to
implement.
So, again, I wondered if you might be willing to take a
look at this, again, empowering for some of these still
significant but lower-cost projects to allow site directors to
be able to move forward?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, I----
Mr. Hultgren. Or lab directors.
Mr. Dabbar. I've reviewed H.R. 1158 and certainly looked at
a lot of those particular provisions. I certainly understand
the point about the signatory authority. I'm certainly open to
discussing that. I've not gone through that particular point in
detail, but we have focused a significant amount on reducing
the amount of legal effort and Administration effort around
CRADAS, around work for others, and as you probably know, we
actually took the act program which is another version which
allows greater flexibility on legal points around contractors
to enter into new agreements. We made that permanent.
So we generally agree with everything that you've laid out
in H.R. 1158, and I'm certainly open to talking with that
particular line item point further.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Well, again, thank you all--thank you
both so much.
Mr. Menezes. Did you want me to add anything on that? I was
just--except for my----
Mr. Hultgren. Quickly. Maybe just--I'm sorry, my time----
Mr. Menezes. --private sector experience----
Mr. Hultgren. --is expired but----
Mr. Menezes. --the act model seems to reflect a lot about
what goes out there in the private industry on risk
assessment----
Mr. Hultgren. Right.
Mr. Menezes. --management----
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Mr. Menezes. --funding.
Mr. Hultgren. That's right. Thank you. Thanks, Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Weber. At least he didn't say anything negative about
your bill, so that was good.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
Say, the terms early-stage research and late-stage research
seem to be used in a cavalier fashion in the budget as a
rationale to cut some programs and fund others. Can either one
of you define what early-stage research is and what late-stage
research is?
Mr. Dabbar. I'll certainly start. In terms of early-stage
research, once again, it depends on the program office, but it
is specifically identifying where the commercial industry is
not at and where we think that something in terms of an area of
science or an area in technology that, if capital was employed,
that we can move forward to balance, and whether that's high-
performance computing, which is one topic, or in particle
physics or in imaging, that's in general how we would define
what's early-stage.
What's late-stage is something that is very close to the
point in which the commercial sector sees financial viability
to make a profit in a particular product. And just to
summarize, we're very much engaged with industry product by
product to know exactly where, you know, the point is to debate
and move as technology moves.
Mr. McNerney. Well, how about just defining late-stage as
when the private sector is willing to fully fund the research?
Mr. Dabbar. That's certainly one definition. You know, you
can actually debate whether it's 100 percent or if there's
other funding mechanisms that help push it over the edge, but
yes, approximately, I do agree with that.
Mr. Menezes. Well, if I might add on that, for example,
when Congress passed the Loan Guarantee Program, it--back in
2005, they focused on emerging technologies and of course the
technology to reduce emissions. That was a loan guarantee, so
it was technologies that were sufficient to attempt to
commercialize, but the private sector couldn't quite, you know,
fund it. These were high capital expense projects. And so that
was--back then, Congress sort of sought to identify
opportunities there to bring the government loan guarantee
program to bear--
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Menezes. --back in 05.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Dabbar, over the past few years, several
promising alternative approaches to achieving a viable fusion
reactor have emerged from small and medium-sized startups, as
well as academia and our national labs. What is the Department
doing to ensure that the full range of viable options to
achieve commercial fusion is sufficiently vetted and, where
appropriate, well-funded?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you very much. Before I was lucky enough
to be in this position, I actually have had experience in
trying to commercialize fusion and worked with a number of the
different entities, so I certainly have familiarity and/or
working with Tri Alpha, with Lockheed, with General Atomics, as
well as understanding the efforts that were made by the
Department.
There's obviously a number of different geometries that
could be potentially used, and I could say that the fusion area
is about as opinionated as any in terms of the differences of
the types of technologies. Certainly, with the funds over to
recent times we've been focusing on Tokamak, but at some of the
other technologies, we've actually given access to high-
performance computing from modeling for magnetic fields, so
even though we don't directly fund, we actually, through high-
performance computing and advance computing, give access to
modeling capabilities for some of those commercial areas which
we're very happy to support.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Dabbar, last year, the
Committee held a hearing on geoengineering research, and the
prevailing recommendations from the witnesses at the hearing
that the National Academies--and the National Academies is that
there needs to be more fundamental research. Will this
Administration support geoengineering research that does
modeling and laboratory testing?
Mr. Dabbar. I'm not familiar with that particular hearing
or the witnesses, but I'm certainly open to that particular
topic. I'm learning more about what was said there and the
recommendations.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
How--Mr. Menezes, how do you intend to work with the NRC to
ensure that the DOE is a helpful partner in licensing nuclear
reactors?
Mr. Menezes. Well, we do intend to meet with staff, to meet
with the current commissioners. In fact, we have met with some
to ensure that our goals are the same. We have several projects
that we're interested in. Clearly, we're hopeful that the small
modular reactor application will be both timely submitted and
considered. So we are having conversations with them.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think there's a constructive role that
ARPA-E could play in advancing environmental management
mission, Mr. Dabbar?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. I think that there's obviously a number of
different technologies that could be--that could help the
mission, and certainly, we are taking a look at whether a
particular FOA topic coming out of ARPA-E could be utilized for
that.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses for being here.
Mr. Menezes, the Department of Energy has a long history of
public-private partnerships in the fossil energy research and
development program with some notable successes like the Petra
Nova project in Texas, which was designed to capture over 4,000
tons of carbon emissions from a coal plant and use those
emissions to produce 15,000 barrels of Texas oil each day,
which was a 50-fold increase over the field status quo. But it
is also had some notable failures as well like the FutureGen
project where, after 12 years and over $200 million in taxpayer
dollars spent, DOE was forced to withdraw from the CCS project
after endless delays.
It's clear that fossil energy is part of our energy future
with over 200 years of coal and at least 100 years of natural
gas reserves in the United States, but it is less clear what
role the DOE programs should play in developing new fossil
energy technology. How do you propose to use the Department's
limited resources to expand the impact of fossil fuel research?
As Under Secretary, how will you ensure the Department better
leverages federal resources to advance energy innovation and
make our vast fossil energy resources cleaner, more reliable,
more affordable, while creating U.S. jobs?
Mr. Menezes. Thank you for the question, Congressman. You
know, regarding fossil energy, the focus has been primarily on
post-combustion technologies, carbon capture sequestration,
carbon capture utilization sequestration. We have begun a
reassessment of uses of fossil energy both pre-combustion,
during combustion, and then post-combustion, so we have
expanded the potential opportunities for fossil energy in the
world of research and development.
So take coal for example. There may be pre-combustion
techniques to help minimize emissions. There may be new uses of
coal never before considered, so we're taking a look at that.
On natural gas we have seen the successes of the improved
buffering techniques for hydraulic fracturing. Congress did a
big part in unleashing natural gas. We see in some of our
applied labs we're actually looking at refined products to make
them more efficient in production. So we think we have a full
array of opportunity to use our resources a little more broadly
than in the past.
Mr. Babin. Well, it's amazing because just a few short
years ago I remember hearing a program--it may have been at the
Lions Club in--I represent the 36th District in Texas, and we
had a couple of experts. One of them was from Schlumberger I
remember talking about peak oil. This was just a few years
back, and we were done with fossil fuels. And so I think it's
just ever so important and significant that we use every
resource that we can to try to make it more efficient.
And, Mr. Dabbar, do you have anything that you would like
to add to that at all?
Mr. Dabbar. You know, I do think that energy technology----
Mr. Weber. Get your mic on, Mr.--there you go. Thank you.
Mr. Dabbar. Obviously, the Department, through a number of
different labs, had impact on that. I think it's--obviously,
people like George Mitchell and so on were----
Mr. Babin. That's right.
Mr. Dabbar. --move things forward, but I think as you
probably know, Sandia and one of the applied labs at NETL
actually had impact on the horizontal drilling and hydraulic
fracturing technologies and computer modeling. And one of the
major things that helped move along Marcellus Shale development
was actual funding that came out of one of the labs that
reports to Under Secretary Menezes. And the actual modeling
that took place--a lot of the early models that took place came
out of an NNSA lab at Sandia. So the Department has actually
been a big supporter of a lot of these developments, and we're
obviously glad to see that we're not only the number-one oil
producer in the world, we're the number-one gas producer in the
world, severally.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely, and that's good news. Thank you very
much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses today.
I'm Congressman Bill Foster. I sometimes introduce myself
as saying I represent 100 percent of the strategic reserve of
physicists in the United States Congress, and I serve alongside
Mr. McNerney, who represents 100 percent of the Ph.D.
mathematicians in this august body.
And--but I was recently privileged to spend the day with
Secretary Perry as he toured the two large DOE laboratories,
and I was really struck with his genuine enthusiasm, you know,
for the science they do and his willingness to advocate for the
science program. So I am encouraged to hear you echo that
enthusiasm.
Mr. Dabbar, I was impressed actually by the bipartisan
support for advanced battery development, so thank you for
recognizing in your testimony the battery work at Argonne
National Lab, which I represent, which anchors the nationwide
JCESR initiative, a multi-laboratory, a multi-university
collaboration for advanced batteries, which is in fact
producing prototypes of these--you know, of the technology it's
developing.
Thank you also for acknowledging the critical role of
Argonne's Advanced Photon Source, which is--and presumably its
upgrade, which I trust you will also support. This is crucial
to, you know, the continuing development there.
And finally, Argonne's petascale supercomputing initiative,
you know, which will be the world leader and should reclaim,
you know, something in an area where frankly it's under threat
from China in surpassing it.
And thanks also for your commitment to complete the
construction of the LBNF DUNE neutrino initiative at Fermilab
where--I worked at Fermilab for 23 years before coming to the
U.S. Congress, and so I got a chance to introduce a lot of my
old friends to Secretary Perry when we had our tour together.
And I've also been impressed by the international
scientific enthusiasm for the neutrino program there and second
my colleague from Illinois' enthusiasm and his emphasis on
getting the PIP Proton Intensity Program upgrade through the
CD-1 progress--program and, you know, milestone and beyond.
That's crucial.
Now, the question that I have here is probably the toughest
one you're going to be facing, which is the question of ITER,
which is--this is something that was punted to you from the
last Administration. It has been, you know, back and forth in
Congress whether or not we should continue with ITER because of
its well-known cost issues. And in the last fiscal year there
was a recommendation from the previous Administration that the
U.S. involvement in ITER be reassessed prior to the fiscal year
2019 budget, which is, as you mentioned, ongoing. And this
budget is now due in only a few weeks. And I was wondering, you
know, is this decision timescale one that you expect to be--you
know, to be actually held, that you'll have a--you know, a
recommendation on whether to proceed with ITER----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Foster. --by the time of----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. Yes. So thank you, sir. So I think as you
know, in '18 back to the previous comment--so we'd ask the
proposal--I was not here but in terms of the handover--and it
is a challenge. I admit I think it's a challenge for everyone
here that the last cash proposal was zero, and we were asking
for in kind of 63. And the Senate mark was zero, and the House
mark was 125. And so there's a big spread on this particular
topic.
On top of this, as someone who's highly focused on project
management, both in environmental management and science, I
think as you know the Office of Science has done in general a
wonderful job on project management, and the ITER project has
had some challenges. They have improved. And all these are data
points that are out there.
Another thing that we're obviously considering I think as
you know that when you do a CD-0 and you look at what the
science is supposed to move forward on, this is a project which
is also taking a very long time and you start thinking about
the science and whether what are we going to learn from the
practical applied side versus the science side and the lithium
blanket and tritium production versus what we're going to learn
on confinement and plasma sides.
We are actively engaged, and I think it's going to take a
little bit more time than the budget rollout in terms of all
the debates. This is a very serious discussion. It is being
held at the highest levels. There is obviously----
Mr. Foster. You had mentioned that it was under review in
the Administration.
Mr. Dabbar. That's right.
Mr. Foster. Can you--who were the scientists involved in
that review in the Administration?
Mr. Dabbar. The full Office of Science----
Mr. Foster. In the Administration, you said.
Mr. Dabbar. Well, at the Administration side----
Mr. Foster. Yes, political appointees and above----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, so----
Mr. Foster. --who are the scientists involved in that
debate over ITER?
Mr. Dabbar. Well, the scientists are coming from my office.
At the White House, as you probably know, the office--the OSTP
is not filled at this moment, and the input and the science is
coming from DOE just to be--just to----
Mr. Foster. Okay. So----
Mr. Dabbar. --narrowly answer that question, but there was
involvement from State, the National Security Council, OMB, and
DOE.
Mr. Foster. Well, there are two, you know, scientific
committees. The National Academy----
Mr. Dabbar. That's right.
Mr. Foster. --has an ongoing thing----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Foster. --and FESAC, the Fusion Advisory Committee, is
I think----
Mr. Dabbar. That's right.
Mr. Foster. --meeting this week if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Dabbar. They are.
Mr. Foster. And so you are actually going to listen to
those or will this be a political decision on the
Administration?
Mr. Dabbar. This is a decision in which science is going to
be a big part. Obviously, there's also interest on the part of
the European Union and others who advocate for this not only
from a science perspective but from a broader perspective. And
so all those. And, as you probably know, there's two National
Academy reviews going on, one in which there was a draft out,
and one which is still coming out that's a bit broader. All
those are going to be inputs, which is why I think this
decision is going to take longer than the budget rollout
because we want to have all the data points. But it's being
taken very seriously at a very high level.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And it's your intentional to make it
during this calendar year, this current calendar year?
Mr. Dabbar. I believe so because it is very active.
Mr. Foster. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And, Dr. Abraham from Louisiana, you are recognized.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Menezes, it's an honor to have you
representing, as a native son of Louisiana, in such a position
of responsibility, so thank you for saying yes.
The--I agree with you that it's a good thing that the
hierarchical accountability has been somewhat changed in the
DOE, and I applaud Secretary Perry for recognizing how
evolutionary science is now and how quickly things can change.
Secretary Dabbar, you mentioned on your litany of good
things that are happening at the DOE in your opening statement
of the gene editing that is taking place, so as you and I both
know it started with the CRISPR-Cas9 science or breakthrough,
and I'm told that also being on the Agricultural Committee that
in a very short period of time, food supply will need to be
three times what it is now just to supply the world with some
food. And it is through this gene editing that I think we can
meet that goal and move forward and actually feed the world.
And without it, I think we have starving people globally, and
that would be an unfortunate thing.
Secretary Menezes, in your opinion in the applied energy
offices, could you provide an example of the advancement in
technology that could only be accomplished by the government?
And on the flip side of the coin, what about investments and
studies that are better suited for the private industry?
Mr. Menezes. Well, certainly in the world of nuclear the
INL lab is performing research that really can only be done
funded by the government. That is--it's high capital expense.
It's very technical. It's science-driven, and it is in support
of what the industry is doing. So in the world of nuclear I
think that we brought the very first nuclear reactor to
generate electricity, so that continues to be an example.
And your second question was?
Mr. Abraham. Well, what about on the private side? What--
where can they be best suited as far as investments in
technology innovation? Where are they better than the
government?
Mr. Menezes. So in fossil energy--our program office has
done preliminary research on rare earth elements, and--
identifying and capturing rare earth elements from coal waste
byproducts, for example. They did the core samples, they did
the analysis, and they are now approaching creating ways to
actually capture, produce, process, and make it eventually
commercially available. The significance of that is that we
would no longer be dependent on China for the majority of our
rare earth elements. And so that's an example where I think
with the program office, with a bit more work, we'll eventually
I think hopefully commercialize that.
Mr. Abraham. And it's my understanding that we're way
behind China in rare earth elements mining and development and
accumulation. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Menezes. We know that a large majority of the rare
earth elements globally is produced by China.
Mr. Abraham. And my follow-up question, the DOE national
labs have consistently accomplished research and technology
goals established by the DOE. Would you support DOE's research
programs to develop specific goals or mission-oriented
technological development in critical areas such as advanced
nuclear reactors, advanced fossil fuel energy systems, and
those types of deals?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir. Our program officers regularly
project timelines, technological achievements both in a linear
fashion and goal-oriented to gain the advantages throughout the
program offices. So it's in our DNA so to speak, and yes, you
will have our commitment to do that.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
And, gentlemen, thank you for your service and thanks for
your testimony today.
And you've heard from particularly the guys from Illinois,
who I think both of them want to be president of their Chamber
of Commerce because they're very proud of their laboratories.
Obviously, I'm very proud of the National Renewable Energy Lab
in my district.
And I've been encouraged by your testimony today. I'd like
to ask both of you in 20 words or less, if you can do it, what
you think, Mr. Dabbar, your mission is as the Under Secretary
for Science.
Mr. Dabbar. To move forward the bounds of knowledge that we
know through execution of our research programs.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And, Mr. Menezes?
Mr. Menezes. Well, to apply the science and the
technologies that we develop to continue to ensure that our
energy will continue to unlock economic prosperity for all.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And again, I'm encouraged by those
mission statements and really by your testimony today. I mean,
you know, my fear--and between--from one Administration to the
next, there's going to be ebbs and flows between renewable
energy and fossil fuels, between basic science research and
maybe applied science research, and that's okay. My concern,
and it--and I want to echo what Mr. Tonko had to say--is, you
know, recently we--and I did a math problem for a panel a few
weeks ago. There were two lawyers, so I picked on by brothers
from the bar in doing the math problem, two scientists.
My fear is after these big tax cuts that we just passed of
$1 trillion, $500 billion at best and maybe $2 trillion, that
your Department is going to be under siege to just cut like
crazy. And currently, the EERE budget goes from about $2.07
billion to $636 million, so it's a 70 percent cut. Now, that's
a little more than the ebb and flow that ordinarily occurs from
Administration to Administration, but you gentlemen are going
to be under a lot of pressure, given what we just passed here
in Congress and that the President signed.
So just to fiddle around a little bit, the math problem--so
it's one and a half trillion. You know how many times $2.07
billion goes into that tax cut we just did? And I'm not going
to mess with you. It's 750 times. So we have 750 years' worth
of renewable energy and energy efficiency research that both of
you just listening to your testimony--and you might move a
little more to hydraulic fracking or how exactly, you know,
combustion occurs, and that's okay. I just want to make sure
that the missions that you both just stated you feel you've
undertaken can be fulfilled. And I'll just open it up--you
know, I'm going to put a question mark on that and ask you, Mr.
Menezes, first, how you think you're going to be able to do
that?
Mr. Menezes. Well, I have come to learn, after having been
counsel to an authorizing committee, that it is a very
complicated process out there when it comes to actually
implementing what an authorizing committee has authorized. Of
course, the budget is a key part of that. OMB plays a big role
in that. Your appropriators also play a big role in that. And
so we're put in the position of getting over there----
Mr. Perlmutter. And you play a big role in that----
Mr. Menezes. We do.
Mr. Perlmutter. --in how you want to affect your mission.
Mr. Menezes. We do, and we find that we have to work with
the appropriators and OMB. Within the Departments and within
the labs--and you all have had oversight over this and you know
how well the Department collaborates, has crosscutting projects
and programs, and they're able to make the best with the
resources that they have ultimately after the appropriators
appropriate the money.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Let me ask Mr. Dabbar how he
thinks he's going to be able to continue this mission of, you
know, really expanding the bounds of knowledge.
Mr. Dabbar. You know, I had my first captain when I was in
a submarine said, you know, ``The real mark of leadership is
not having unlimited things to work with but is doing the best
that you can with the resources that you're given.'' And that's
how I've always looked at my life. The reality is the Office of
Science has an almost unlimited set of things that it could go
after. And every single day, no matter how much you all as
appropriators give us, there is more to do and it is vast. And
even within a bound, we as capital allocators working with you
all in terms of advocacy trying to figure out where quantum
computing fits versus light sources versus regular high-
performance computing versus materials, fusion, it keeps going
on. And so this is a topic that comes up no matter how much
gets appropriated and have to balance all the different issues
that we've just been talking about here today.
And we're going to move things forward as much as the
resources are given to us, and the reality is we will be
flexible as appropriate at whatever is authorized, and we will
be grateful and be good stewards of the taxpayers' funds.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Thank you for your testimony and
thanks for your service.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Dunn, you're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We've been
enjoying the look in the future. I want to step back into the
here and now just for a minute.
I'm a physician. We use nuclear isotopes every day we go to
work, and I've noticed in the last few years that America is
struggling to generate the medical isotopes that we've already
developed, but we have to go on and generate them day after
day. And we've become dependent on Canadian reactors that are
obsolescent, have been kept open well past their lifespan and
on accelerators in Moscow that are decaying and so I would like
it if you could give me--show me a little sunshine here on
this. Tell me what we have got in the future to generate
nuclear isotopes for medicine if you would. I'm thinking about
things like, you know, rubidium and on the therapeutic side
radium 223 and things like that.
Mr. Dabbar. Clearly, there's more to do and frankly there's
always more to do in the isotope side on the medical point. The
isotope program for the Department--and I'm glad to have a
separate meeting with you to go through all the details----
Mr. Dunn. I'd love to do that.
Mr. Dabbar. But in reality it's partially run like a
business. And we've actually been able to generate funds with
an isotope program to expand facilities. And we have
significant engagements with the market looking at isotope by
isotope, seeing where the opportunities are and where to
actually invest funds that, as we go and sell isotopes, where
we reinvest funds associated with the sales to expand
production. We have meetings--public meetings with public
entities, and we actually had meetings with industrial partners
at a vast amount of the healthcare industry to identify what
they're looking at from a market perspective and what we could
go and produce. So there's a very dynamic engagement between
the two.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, and I've been involved with that actually
personally in my practice. I could tell you that it's--that
we've had a great deal of rewarding time spent with some of
your predecessors. I will tell you that the process is a little
slower than we--and there are simply times we don't have the
isotopes we need----
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. --to diagnose and treat patients, so it gets down
to the--you know, to the bedside. We really just--we run short.
I'm going to--if I could go back to the future--maybe this
is back to the past--talk about the next generation fission
reactors, again, the generation four. We've had the two's, the
three's, the light water reactors. I'm sort of fascinated--I'm
wondering what we need to do to get the very high temperature
fast reactors that--you know, that will reprocess some of the
fuel that's now wasted, you know, expended fuel, we can
reprocess that and also generate more. Can we not have a
prototype of these?
Mr. Dabbar. Right, and we have been discussing that this
morning.
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Dabbar. You know, if we had the adequate resources. We
certainly have prioritized small modular reactors. We have also
prioritized microreactors. We've prioritized trying to use the
thermal heat from nuclear to create other products, so it's a
top priority in our nuclear program. It is working with
Congress and it is working with the Administration to get the
right level of resources, but the labs are ready to go on it,
as well as the program office.
Mr. Dunn. I think there's a sense of excitement on both
sides of the aisle here to see some progress in that area.
Mr. Dabbar. There is, and we had mentioned also the NRC
process, so we're excited to--if we can to get that process
underway and through it.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you. So in the minute remaining I'm
wondering if you gentlemen would speculate a little bit about
applied research on grid integration and grid reliability. What
are we doing to address the--hardening our grid and also
diversifying it so it actually meets tomorrow's electrical
needs?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, we are doing quite a lot. And indeed at
the--at NREL we have the computer modeling, as well as
prototypes to a much more flexible and open system, so we get
inputs from behind the meter to help bring new generation
online to help shave load, et cetera. One thing is that the
more we make our system open and flexible, we need to make it
resilient, and we need to make it----
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Dabbar. --secure. So a top priority of us is to ensure
that we develop the science on cybersecurity technology to--so
as we make our system more flexible, more open, that we're also
making a more secure, and that is a top priority. And the labs
are doing quite a bit of work in both areas.
Mr. Dunn. I look forward to hearing more from you in the
future about that. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
Chair and Ranking Member for holding this hearing and to our
witnesses for being here.
Last week, I visited the Portland office of the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. The office focuses on greater
energy efficiency in buildings; improved technologies for
renewables, including wind, water, solar, and biomass; and also
new vehicle technologies. Their innovative efforts should be a
model for the industry nationwide. We've also in my State been
a leader in marine energy and exascale computing, so I'm
interested in hearing from our witnesses about how to advance
these efforts.
And I'll start with Under Secretary Dabbar. One of our
nation's energy priorities should be making sure that America
keeps pace with the rest of the world in developing exascale
computing. That has implications, of course, for our national
security and our competitiveness, so could you talk about what
you are doing to further the developments in this area and how
Congress can work with you to accelerate this priority?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you very much. Exascale is--of all the
items when we go through our priorities in the Office of
Science area underneath me--is number one. And we'd like to
thank the Congress for appropriations and supporting that here
over the last few years and focusing on that. It's--I think out
of all the areas of the Office of Science and what we work on
it's the area that is most competitive globally. And I think as
you know, in the area of high-performance computing, China is
really neck-and-neck with us on----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Mr. Dabbar. --individual systems that are coming online. So
it is a high degree of focus. We would like to thank Congress
for its support of that. Obviously, we're trying to roll out
three exascale computers. The first one will be in Illinois at
Argonne, the second one would be at Oak Ridge, and the third
one will be at that NNSA facility. I think this is a great
example of cross-department and cross-lab support because lots
of examples on that, but NNSA and science have an official
formal MOU on exactly how to go attack this and how to roll it
out and how to work together.
A second thing that's highly important is diversity in
architectures. I think as you probably know, at Argonne we had
a certain set of suppliers around Intel and IBM, and when we
roll out the second one, we want to make certain that we
provide diversity and support the industry on moving technology
forward on exascale by actually going and asking for different
suppliers to make sure we have a different architecture to
really have competition and really to have diversity. So this
is a high degree of focus.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, I'm sorry, I want to try to
get a couple more questions in. I appreciate that that's a
priority.
Under Secretary Menezes, marine energy systems include
wave, tidal, and offshore hydrokinetic systems. The Northwest
National Marine Renewable Energy Center in Oregon is building
the first full-scale wave energy test facility in the United
States with financial support from the Department of Energy.
Recent economic analysis from Ocean Energy Europe and Marine
Renewables Canada estimate that the global marine energy market
will be worth about $62 billion by 2050 and support hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the supply chain. We know European
governments and Canada are spending millions of dollars per
year supporting marine energy technology. China is spending
billions of dollars annually. The U.S. Department of Energy and
the Navy's spending combined has peaked at a fraction of what
is spent in other areas to support this nascent domestic
industry.
So will you commit to developing marine energy and support
increased funding for research and development in this sector
so we can compete in the global market?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, you have our commitment to do so. We
believe in all-of-the-above and the exciting potential
advancements in this area. We will continue to support.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I appreciate that because there's a
tremendous amount of potential there.I want to go back to Under
Secretary Dabbar and ask about environmental management. In
recent years the--I'm from Oregon but just to the north is
Hanford of course. The environmental management portfolio has
dominated the time and attention of whichever Under Secretary
has had it in his or her portfolio, and this was part of the
rationale behind Secretary Moniz's restructuring to place the
responsibility under a single Under Secretary to deal with
those environmental management issues. So the new organization
now has you overseeing this largest nuclear waste cleanup
effort in the world, and the DOE Office of Science, the single
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences in the
United States. So how will you balance this portfolio to ensure
that each of these extremely important missions receives the
appropriate amount of attention?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, I mean, first of all we have a lot of
great people and we have a lot of depth in the Office of
Science and Environmental Management. The second thing is, you
know, in terms of the focus on environmental management, the
big overlap between the two is technology and project
management. If you look at what actually the Office of Science
does and what Environmental Management does, to a large degree
it's contractor management, it's contracting, and it's project
management. And they both do that very well.
As I think you know, the Office of Science has an excellent
set of experience on project management and costing. They have
a lot of technologies that can be applied to environmental
management, and we intend to merge those together.
One other particular area--I sat on the Environmental
Management Advisory Board for 12 years. I've been to Hanford
many, many times. I started my career in nuclear engineering as
a Radcon worker, and so I have personal experience also at
managing those topics, know very much when topics come up
exactly what the technical issues are and how to attack them.
So I think we feel very comfortable around those together and
the sort of skill sets that have overlap and the sort of people
who are running them.
Ms. Bonamici. I thank you. My time is expired. I yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. I thank you, ma'am.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There has been a great deal of discussion on this committee
today regarding budget and adequate resources. Mr. Chairman, we
must decrease federal spending. It's our duty as a body to
protect the people's treasure, and I remind my colleagues that
we do serve a nation that's $20 trillion in debt.
I certainly believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy,
and I'm encouraged by the restructuring of DOE with an eye
towards efficient service, doing more with less, and getting
things done through private and public partnership. It strikes
me that the iPhone that we use was a private endeavor. SpaceX
is building towards a launch weekly. It's a private endeavor.
Carbon recapture technology to produce energy onsite in the
petrochemical industry and oil and gas industry was a private
endeavor. So I believe that this focus on public-private
partnership is the right direction for us to move to have a
more efficient federal government that serves the American
people.
The pathway to the future certainly begins in our
laboratories. As an example, in 2016, China developed a
tabletop-sized laser that would--that managed a burst of laser
light that developed 5.3 petawatts--that's 5.3 million billion
watts roughly 500 times the power of all the world's electrical
grids combined. That was a burst of less than a trillionth of a
second. So the truth is that none of us here know where energy
is going, but we do know that that pathway leads through our
laboratories. And I'm encouraged with the focus on public-
private relationships.
How does the Department--for--Mr. Dabbar, this is a
question for you, sir. How does your Department plan to assist
with the implementation and recommendations to improve
flexibilities and streamline the national laboratory system
based on the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of National
Energy Laboratories or the CRENEL report?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, thank you. So the CRENEL report, which I
certainly have reviewed several times, I think is a very
important guideline for us and management of the national labs.
One of the things that it recommended that we're currently
executing on is contract--M&O contract restructuring. I think,
as you probably know, over the course of time I think
administrative burdens on our laboratories had increased and
the CRENEL report certainly recognized that.
And the Department worked with one lab to start off with in
terms of restructuring contracts to try to reduce the
administrative costs, and we did this first at Stanford. And so
at the SLAC facility we took their contract, worked with them
for quite a bit. There was some help with the Berkeley lab next
door up the Bay area on redoing that contract, and we've done
that and it's working. And we intend to roll that out to other
contractors to try to reduce the administrative burden, to have
people focus on the mission rather than Administration while
still having appropriate oversight. And so we certainly intend
to do that.
Second, I want to point out is that when the Secretary came
in, he pointed out that obviously with--give or take 100,000
people between federal employees and contractors that report
through the DOE complex, that there's probably various
administrative points that are also impeding it beyond the M&O
contractors.
So we are now in phase II. We've already gone through phase
I of identifying, having a cross group of contractors, lab
directors, people inside the Department to identify things of
that in terms of structural layouts, in terms of administrative
points that either impede the mission, and we take--we're
taking really a bottoms-up input from everyone on how to reduce
the administrative costs and things that the stand in the way
of the mission, and we very much are moving forward on finding
very specific things to attack and how to improve and
streamline the Department with groundswell support of that
data.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that very thorough answer and
encouraging. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the conservation
of time, I'd like to submit my question to Mr. Menezes in
writing. And I look forward to your response, sir. The question
will be relative to the security of our grid and the use of
existing proven energies, fossil fuel energies, and nuclear.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Weber. Without objection, the gentleman yields.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Department of Energy is currently four Energy
Innovation Hubs, and the establishment of a fifth hub focused
on the critical cross-cutting issue of energy--of the energy-
water nexus, and that was supported by Congress and signed into
law by the President as part of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for 2017. These unique consortia bring together academia,
industry, and the government to solve unique challenges. Yet
without any clear justification provided, the Trump
Administration has proposed to eliminate all of the hubs in its
fiscal year 2018 budget proposal. Can either one of you provide
me with an explanation for why this Administration--why it is
the Administration's position to end the hubs model that has
experienced so much success?
Mr. Menezes. Well, as previously mentioned, we weren't
involved in the budget process for fiscal year 2018.
Mr. Takano. Well, if you don't have an answer, I'd like to
move on to another question, and then you can come back to me
with a--you know, an answer after you've had a chance to review
it. All right. Thank you.
I want to ask another question here about energy storage.
We've seen great strides and we have interest on both sides of
the aisle here. Dr. Dunn is very interested in this issue as
well. We have seen great strides in battery storage energy in
the last 5--last few years, but many of the largest
improvements that have brought costs down have come from
improvements in the manufacturing process. Conversations that
I've had with the experts in this field agree that we need a
few major breakthroughs in the actual research of the chemical
composition and batteries themselves for us to realize the
great potential of battery energy storage.
Do you see energy storage research as early-stage research
or will the Department continue to commit--and will the
Department continue to commit to supporting energy storage
research?
Mr. Dabbar. I can say that it is a high priority of the
Department. It's a high priority across all our program
offices, and I would say back to your second-to-last question
it is a mix of early stage and what I will call mid-stage.
There's multiple different types of technologies that we have,
and we're moving forward on some that are at the basic level
and we think have a high degree of possibility. And we have
some that are farther down the road. And as I mentioned
earlier, we have a lot of engagement with the likes of United
Technologies, Dow, General Motors on some of those, and we----
Mr. Takano. That's----
Mr. Dabbar. --we're fully supportive of that.
Mr. Takano. Well, that's wonderful. Does that mean that you
see it as a mix of some early--the part I mentioned about the
chemical composition? That sounds like a good candidate for
early stage--would fit in the category of being funded?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Last week, Moody's Investors Service
released a report stating, quote, ``U.S. coal production will
continue a steady secular decline without policy support for
and continued investment in carbon capture and storage
technology,'' end quote. The fiscal year 2018 budget proposal
included major cuts to FE's research activities, including cuts
of over 80 percent to carbon capture R&D and carbon storage
research with advance energy systems receiving a nearly 60
percent cut. But mostly these cuts were rationalized with a
simple line about how industry can better commercialize these
technologies and methods.
I think the American people, especially those in coal
States, are quickly realizing that the rhetoric this
Administration uses to bring coal back might just be all talk
and no action, especially as expressed in the Department of
Energy's budget. Can you expect a declining industry with
limited long-term risk tolerance to just immediately invest
hundreds of millions of dollars into high-risk R&D to
commercialize carbon capture technologies? Is that a rational
expectation of us?
Mr. Menezes. Well, it has been public-private partnership.
All of the carbon capture and sequestration projects have
always had some part of the project----
Mr. Takano. So are you saying Moody's is wrong that it's
not going to require a steady--that the secular decline is not
going to be stanched unless we make a major investment?
Mr. Menezes. No----
Mr. Takano. You're telling me that major investment is
going to happen from an industry that has a low-risk tolerance
here?
Mr. Menezes. No, I'm not saying that, but what I'm saying
is----
Mr. Takano. So you're not saying Moody is wrong? You agree
with Moody's statement?
Mr. Menezes. I don't have an opinion on Moody.
Mr. Takano. Well, it's their statement. ``U.S. coal
production will continue a steady secular decline without
policy support for and continuing investment in carbon capture
and storage technology.''
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Mr. Takano. That's a simple statement.
Mr. Menezes. Right. The question is--if I can, it's--we
fully support the carbon capture and sequestration efforts as
past Administrations, and we continue to do that now. We have
projects that are out there right now. We have Petra Nova. We
have other facilities out there. It's going to be a question of
resources. But it's not a question of whether or not we support
carbon capture and utilization, carbon capture and
sequestration. We----
Mr. Takano. Mr. Menezes, I would suggest to you that this
budget reflects an all-talk-and-no-action response to the
people in coal States that were promised things. That's my
suggestion to you.
Mr. Menezes. Well, the Administration has done some things.
They've lifted the coal lease moratorium, for example, so that
alone is helpful. At least now the Department----
Mr. Takano. Moody's goes to--I mean, that's a pretty big
statement there about a steady secular decline----
Mr. Menezes. Right.
Mr. Takano. --without major investments.
Mr. Menezes. It's true the industry has been on the
decline----
Mr. Takano. And your Administration is recommending a huge
60 percent, 80 percent cuts in these programs.
Mr. Weber. Would the gentleman like to continue to seek
financial advice after the hearing?
Mr. Takano. I'm not seeking financial advice, Mr. Chairman.
I'm--this is a market newsletter that is saying that this is
what's going to happen.
Mr. Weber. Let's--the gentleman is----
Mr. Takano. I'm not trying to seek advice here. I'm just
trying to get--suss out here----
Mr. Weber. Your--the gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Takano. Well, I see. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is
recognized.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Menezes, is sustainable nuclear power a key component
of electricity production in America?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, it is. It's almost 20 percent of our
electricity.
Mr. Brooks. And how many nuclear power plants are currently
under construction under this Department of Energy?
Mr. Menezes. Well, we have the Vogtle plant----
Mr. Brooks. In Georgia? Are you aware----
Mr. Menezes. --in Georgia.
Mr. Brooks. --of any others?
Mr. Menezes. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Brooks. What does the Department of Energy do to
encourage construction of nuclear power plant new construction
efforts?
Mr. Menezes. Well, on the energy we have been talking about
this morning about what INL has done with respect to trying to
move along the technologies involved in the small modular
reactors and the micro modular reactors, so we are doing
research there. We're also working with the NRC to ensure that
we can get licensing out of it timely so that we can bring some
of these projects to market, so those are a couple of examples
where we're trying to foster that.
Mr. Brooks. Is the Department of Energy also involved in
any way with funding, either tax credits or loan guarantees or
anything of that nature, with respect to nuclear power plants?
Mr. Menezes. Well, I know Congress is considering tax
credits with respect to nuclear. I know in the past it has been
there. I'm also aware of the Loan Program Office and the loan
guarantees that have been there to assist nuclear projects. So
the government has stepped up where to can to help facilitate
the construction of nuclear facilities.
Mr. Brooks. Well, with respect to what the Department of
Energy is doing of which you are aware, how many new power
plant--nuclear power plant constructions do you anticipate
going online in the next year, two, or three?
Mr. Menezes. Well, Vogtle is the one that I think we're all
looking at.
Mr. Brooks. But I'm talking about new ones.
Mr. Menezes. No.
Mr. Brooks. Oh, you're not aware of any successful efforts
by the Department of Energy to start new nuclear power plants?
Mr. Menezes. I'm not aware of any construction underway.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I'm talking about not underway right now
other than Vogtle because you've mentioned that one. I
acknowledge that one in Georgia, but I'm talking about
startups, new startups after Vogtle, are you familiar with any?
Mr. Menezes. Specific projects? Other than the small
modular reactor that I had referred to earlier in Idaho.
Mr. Brooks. Are you familiar with the Bellefonte nuclear
facility in Jackson County, Alabama, in my Congressional
district?
Mr. Menezes. I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Brooks. Let me give you a little bit of information
about it. American taxpayers, particularly TVA ratepayers, have
already spent over $5 billion on the construction of that
nuclear power plant. For whatever reason, the TVA last year
decided to sell it for $111 million, probably resulting in
Bellefonte being one of the worst if not the worst federal
boondoggles in the history of our country with a $5 billion
loss on their books to show for it.
The Bellefonte facility was sold to Nuclear Development,
LLC, as I mentioned, for $111 million with the principal owners
behind Nuclear Development being Franklin Haney and the Haney
family. It is projected if he's able to complete it and turn it
into an operational nuclear power plant to create 2,000
permanent jobs and roughly 4,000 construction jobs.
There seem to be two barriers that we need to overcome--at
least two that I'm aware of--to get this $5 billion facility
put into operational form. One is a ruling that the TVA, if it
wants to--can if it wants to--purchase power from Bellefonte at
whatever rates TVA and the owner of Bellefonte can agree to. Do
you have any reason for the Department of Energy not to support
that kind of arrangement where the Tennessee Valley Authority
can, if it wants to, have the right to purchase power produced
at the Bellefonte nuclear facility if nuclear development
should complete it?
Mr. Menezes. From the Department's point of view I'm not
aware of any objection that we would have with it.
Mr. Brooks. Well, would you personally be willing to
support TVA having the right to purchase nuclear power
electricity generated at Bellefonte should it be completed if
TVA wants to, not compelling them to but it would be a market
decision if they want to?
Mr. Menezes. I am certainly willing to get with you and
your office and other interested parties to understand this
fully and to see if the Department needs to in any way be
involved in it.
Mr. Brooks. And does the Department of Energy have any
position on whether Nuclear Development, LLC, should have any
access to any Department of Energy tax credits and/or loan
guarantees with respect to the financing for this nuclear power
plant, keeping in mind that federal taxpayers, TVA ratepayers,
have already spent over $5 billion over three decades trying to
get this facility operational?
Mr. Menezes. Yes, I'm not aware of any applications in our
Loan Program Office at this time so----
Mr. Brooks. Well, would you please look into that and get
back to me?
Mr. Menezes. I will.
Mr. Brooks. Apparently, that is one of the issues with
respect to the completion of the Bellefonte nuclear plant is
that we can get that thing online and so we can produce about
2,000 jobs in the Jackson County area of Alabama. If you could
look into these issues that I've raised and respond, I'd very
much appreciate it.
Mr. Menezes. I will. Thank you.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized,
Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. This is for Mr. Dabbar. And I would just echo
what Congressman Brooks said. Our district is similar to yours,
the V.C. Summer Project, where it's been abandoned, $10 billion
public-private money, mainly private money, $1.9 billion loss
with no return on it. It's a huge problem in our State.
But my question concerns the Savannah River Site. You know,
it's not in my district but it covers 198,344 acres, 310 square
miles. It's being held up on the Advanced Manufacturing
Collaborative project in Aiken. Can you shed some light on what
the holdup is and what we can do to get this unlocked?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. We are in full support of
that--of AMC. We know it's--it would have a tremendous impact
on the community. We think it has--it would have a very strong
impact on technology and the future mission of SRS.
In 2016, it was a leased structure. A financing structure
was proposed. There was some feedback around the accounting
associated with it. This is a very technical accounting topic.
Just this week, we finalized the changes that we thought would
accommodate OMB on the particular financing structure, and we
resubmitted it. We're waiting hopefully for relatively prompt
feedback from them on what we think they have a good chance for
approving.
Mr. Norman. How do you define relatively prompt?
Mr. Dabbar. We asked for it in the next month.
Mr. Norman. Okay. Do you think we'll have something within,
let's say, 45 days that we can rely on and take to them?
Mr. Dabbar. I certainly hope so. It's a high priority of
ours.
Mr. Norman. Perfect. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you so much, Chairman. I want to
talk about energy success stories, though, to kind of change
the mood of the room. I represent one of the most energy-rich,
energy-diverse States in the union, Kansas, and we contribute
to this concept of energy independence, which is a national
security issue. And we're blessed with some rich oilfields,
natural gas. Those people are becoming more precise, more
efficient in their efforts, and cleaner every day.
We have more sunny days in Kansas than Florida does, and we
think we have great potential for solar energy, but I want to
lock in on wind energy for a second. Wind energy now represents
about 35 percent of the energy production in Kansas, and we're
now able to export energy. We're happy to send that energy down
to my friends in Texas and up to Chicago as well.
I remember sitting in a Rotary meeting 25 years ago when
the person that ran that--ran the local co-op for energy
production said, ``My gosh, wind energy will never work. It
just--it doesn't blow all the time, and we'll never be able to
solve the problems.'' So now we have those windfarms pretty
much across the State of Kansas, and as we know, the wind blows
somewhere in Kansas most every day. And now, we're building
those interstate highways of being able to generate--being able
to transport that energy down and out, which has been a big
challenge for us.
My people tell me that right now, we're probably 30 percent
more efficient with wind energy by just the divine of the
turbine and the shears and stuff. I guess my first question for
Secretary Menezes is what type of future do you see for wind
energy and support of technology and development research in
the wind energy sector?
Mr. Menezes. The future is bright for wind. You know, at
NREL they are doing modeling right now to actually apply
science to the turbulence in the placing and actually operation
of these units to actually increase the efficiency capacity,
for example, of those existing units that are currently
operational and in the future siting, so we'll be able to have
even more efficient siting of them.
Also on the--wind has been such a big success story just
for our manufacturing base. I mean, in the mid-'90s we really
had no manufacturing whatsoever and now over 90 percent of the
components are manufactured in the United States and they're
spread out all over the United States.
You know, one of the components is the nacelle, and so we
hope that while we import a lot of the component parts of the
nacelle in the wind turbines that we're hoping that with our
labs we can actually be able to do more efficient manufacturing
so that we can really just manufacture them here and not have
to import them. So it's very bright. And as you know, the labs
did some initial breakthrough technology on the airfoils, which
is why we're able to achieve the increased efficiencies we have
today.
Mr. Marshall. Well, thanks for your continued support of
the research there.
My next question for Secretary Dabbar. We introduced a low-
dose radiation bill not too long ago, and that research had
been abruptly stopped by the Obama Administration. As a
physician, I see more and more of my patients exposed to
radiation, whether it's a CT scan in the ER and just wonder if
you can commit to support that reinvestment that we're hoping
to authorize some time for this low-dose radiation research?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. And--yes. As someone who's gotten a lot of
low-dose exposure in the nuclear power sector over the course
of my life, I certainly support the need associated for low
dose, and I certainly reviewed the bill that was proposed last
time and know a little bit about the history of this at the
Department before we were there. And should the appropriators
here and authorizing committee move that forward, it is an
important area, and we have resources to be able to restart
that program if it is appropriated.
Mr. Marshall. I think I'll finish up with just a question
about battery technology if I could say what's holding back
solar energy and making wind energy even better is some
research in the battery. And you kind of alluded to it. And I
just can't help but pontificate for a second and say that
without a growing economy, none of this research happens, and
I'm so proud that this economy--three quarters in a row with
three percent GDP growth, maybe four percent this quarter,
whether you want to build roads, bridges, you think education
is important, if you think energy research is important, we
need a strong economy, and I'm so proud that this country is
moving back in that direction.
Can any of you speak to what you see for battery storage
power for the wind energy and solar energy of the future?
Mr. Menezes. No, again, the only upside, right our battery
technology we have a variety of different options. We have
those that are nearing market that will increase efficiency,
and we have basic research that's going on in our program
offices and our labs that may come up with all new types of
chemicals and types of batteries in the future. We have the
Beyond Lithium program, for example. So we see a bright future,
but we do see there's a bit of urgency in here because really
it's the battery technology that will be the breakthrough
technology that will certainly--with respect to electricity
distribution it will solve a lot of deciding problems that we
have today, so we're all looking forward to breakthroughs and
commercialization of battery technology.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Weber. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and
the Members for their questions. The record will remain open
for two weeks for additional written comments and written
questions from the Members.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]