[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-321 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
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
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
JIM BANKS, Indiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
C O N T E N T S
May 9, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 4
Written Statement............................................ 5
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Witnesses:
The Honorable Rick Perry, Secretary, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Discussion....................................................... 27
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Rick Perry, Secretary, Department of Energy........ 140
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
Budget Proposal for the Department of Energy for Fiscal Year
2019.''
First of all, I'd like to thank Secretary Perry for being
here today. And just as a reminder to everyone, this committee
has jurisdiction over all of the Department of Energy's
civilian research and development. That's $10 billion or about
1/3 of their budget.
I do want to say to Members that the Secretary has to leave
at 10:30 sharp in order to get to a meeting at the White House,
and so I'm going to do two things so that we'll make sure we
have plenty of time for Members to ask questions. One, I'm
going to put my opening statement into the record and also
would like to limit questioning to four minutes per person, and
that way I think we'll have time for everybody.
At this point I'll recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Texas, for her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin my statement, I want to welcome to the full
Committee Mr. Conor Lamb, who is one of our newest elected. And
this is a very dynamic Committee, as you will understand later
and could be better. A lot of Texans on this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing, and thank
you, Secretary Perry, for finally appearing before us today.
And it's good to see you again, our longest-serving Texas
Governor. And I knew him every day of it.
As you know, this committee has jurisdiction over the
Department of Energy's vitally important science and energy
research and development activities, the laboratories and
facilities, so I hope we can see you much more frequently
because we need your input, and I look forward to working with
you for years to come.
In that spirit, I'd like to highlight some remarks you have
made recently that I appreciate and wholeheartedly agree. In
the address to the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit in March,
you told the audience that you hoped they would, and I quote,
``enjoy the many high-potential, high-impact technologies that
ARPA-E has moved out of the lab and toward deployment.'' That's
also one of the areas that I have great interest.
You also announced that ARPA-E projects have attracted more
than $2.6 billion in private-sector follow-up funding. Seventy-
one projects have formed new companies, and 109 have gone on to
partner with other government agencies to further their
research. And you went on to say that--and again I quote--
``ARPA-E is one of the reasons DOE has had and is having such a
profound impact on American lives.''
Secretary Perry, you have been singing my song. And yet, as
I'm sure you're aware, you made these remarks just a few weeks
after the Administration proposed to eliminate ARPA-E for the
second year in a row. You're also proposing a 70 percent cut to
research carried out by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energies, a 37 percent cut to the Offices of
Electricity and Nuclear Energy, and 31 percent cut to fossil
fuel energy R&D.
And last but certainly not least, you are again proposing
to eliminate DOE's remarkably successful Loan Programs Office,
which has been instrumental in launching the utility-scale PV
industry, the construction of our first new nuclear reactors in
30 years and announced, and are now supporting the
commercialization of new carbon capture and reuse technologies
for fossil fuel fossil energy system.
And so I have to ask, given your consistent praise for
ARPA-E and DOE's energy technology and innovation programs more
broadly throughout your tenure as Secretary of Energy to date,
how do we make sense of this budget request? The Department's
arguments about the value of these activities fall on deaf ears
at OMB. Did you even push back on any of these ill-conceived
draconian cuts at all?
By all credible accounts, American industry will not fund
the activities that are proposed for elimination no matter how
much the Administration would like to think so. The Department
could have heard from industry directly, but for the second
year in a row, we heard from the Department officials that they
did not formally engage with the private sector in deciding
what activities we would cut--you would cut. And yet, that did
not stop you from rationalizing these large cuts by simply
stating that the federal role in our energy innovation pipeline
should be strictly limited to support for so-called early-stage
research without providing any clear definition for what that
actually means.
And then over and over again in this request you state that
the private sector is better suited to carry out anything that
you're proposing to cut or eliminate entirely. But if you don't
have any process to engage with the private sector before
proposing to cut energy efficiency programs by 84 percent and
then you'll have to excuse me if I find it difficult to take
your justification for this budget request seriously.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that every program the
Department currently implements is perfect. We should continue
to identify small reforms and debate our priorities. We must be
thoughtful investors of taxpayers' dollars. But I'm confident
that investing robustly in our national laboratories and early
and appropriately reviewed later-stage R&D is the right
decision.
With that, I'd like to thank you again for being here, and
I look forward to a productive discussion this morning.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And I'll introduce our only expert witness today, who is
Rick Perry, the 14th Secretary of the United States Department
of Energy. Secretary Perry attended Texas A&M University, where
he was a member of the Corps of Cadets and one of A&M's five
Yell Leaders. After graduation, he was commissioned and served
in the United States Air Force. He flew C-130 tactical airlifts
in Europe and the Middle East until 1977 when he retired with
the rank of Captain and returned to Texas to enter the cotton
farming business with his father.
Secretary Perry served in the Texas House of
Representatives and then as Texas Commissioner of Agriculture.
He was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed
the governorship in December 2000 when then-Governor George
Bush resigned to become President of the United States.
In 2002, he was elected the 47th Governor of the Lone Star
State. As the longest-serving Governor in Texas history,
Secretary Perry oversaw the world's 12th-largest economy from
2000 to 2015. Under his leadership, Texas set the pace for job
creation, innovation, and population growth. During his tenure,
Texas improved air quality while reducing emissions and carbon
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide.
Besides guiding the Department of Energy, Secretary Perry
also manages the 17 national laboratories, home to the
country's best scientists and engineers.
I've had the privilege of working with Secretary Perry for
over 30 years and very much appreciate his testifying before
the Science Committee today. We look forward to his insights on
the future of American energy and innovation.
Governor, welcome. We look forward to your comments.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RICK PERRY,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Secretary Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Johnson, it's a privilege to be in front of
you again. She's been mentoring me for nearly 30 years, so it's
good to be back with you and an honor to appear before all of
you today to discuss the President's 2019 budget request for
the Department of Energy.
And, as an aside, let me just say I really appreciate your
understanding and your flexibility, the Cabinet meeting that's
been called, and so in respect to your time and for us to be as
productive as we can, I'll try to keep my remarks and my
answers as brief as I can to save us time.
This fiscal year 2019 $30.6 billion budget request will
help the Department of Energy fulfill the key objectives that
is accelerating exascale computing, fostering and furthering
our scientific and technological mission, modernizing our
nuclear arsenal, addressing our Cold War environmental legacy,
advancing energy production, and better protecting our
infrastructure.
I'd like to briefly highlight the outstanding work. Mr.
Foster, you represent one of the 17 national labs, and we had
the opportunity to go out to your area and look at one of them.
And not a greater I think cheerleader do we have, supporter of
Fermi and Argonne and the other 15 labs than you. These are
incubators of innovation, and they are among America's greatest
treasures.
And I also want to highlight the DOE's supercomputing and
other advanced technologies that are going to play a crucial
role in confronting threats to our energy and national security
infrastructure and to maintaining America's leadership in
science and medicine.
There is no more appropriate place for this kind of massive
computing power than in America's lead science agency, and
that's the Department of Energy. And we also must regain
leadership in the broader area of STEM, science, technology,
engineering, and math. Through our STEM Rising initiative and
related activities, our Department is promoting STEM programs,
collaborating with students and teachers at every level of
education.
We also have a duty to advance our entire--I should--excuse
me, our energy security by pursuing American energy
independence because we are innovating more. We're regulating
less. We are producing more energy from more diverse sources
more efficiently than anyone ever predicted a few short years
ago. We're now the number one combined oil and gas producing
country in the world. I mean, that's fascinating when you think
15 years ago--Mr. Rohrabacher, I mean, this is a stunning
development. Just last year, we became a net exporter of
natural gas. Today, we are exporting LNG to 27 countries on
five continents.
And thanks to that same innovation and that same drive, we
are producing more energy cleaner than ever before. In fact,
from 2005 to 2017 our economy was growing, and we led the world
in reducing carbon emissions, cutting them by 14 percent over
that period of time. Clearly, we don't have to choose between
growing our economy and protecting our environment, but to
achieve more complete energy security, we must ensure our
energy actually gets delivered without interruption. And so my
greatest focus as Energy Secretary is to ensure the reliability
and resilience of our energy grid.
So this year, we've requested a funding increase to
strengthen cybersecurity, cyber defenses. We're establishing a
new office. It goes by the acronym of CESER, Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, CESER.
In the end, it will be you, though, our elected
representatives, who will decide how to best allocate the
resources of our hardworking taxpayers. And I look forward to
not only answering your questions but working with you, taking
your advice as we go forward to make this agency even more
efficient and better prepared for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I'll
recognize myself for questions.
My first question is this, that the Department of Energy is
known for its development of technology from hydraulic
fracturing to supercomputing to better batteries for electric
cars. And, Mr. Secretary, I'm just wondering how important you
think it is for technologies to try to be used to meet the
challenge, for example, of climate change.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Obviously, living in a world
that has an environment that's pleasant, that's safe is
important. We were able to do that in the State of Texas while
I was the Governor. It's one of the things that I'm really
proud of. I mentioned that. You mentioned it in your remarks as
well during that 14-year period of time we drove down nitrogen
oxide levels by over 60 percent, SOx by over 50 percent, carbon
dioxide by almost 20 percent, while we grew more than any other
state in the nation. We added seven million people to the
population roles of the State of Texas during that period of
time, and I tell people, I say you know that means. That's a
lot of pickup trucks. So----
Chairman Smith. That's true.
Secretary Perry. And so that's nonpoint source pollution.
You're--conventional wisdom was, well, you're growing a lot of
vehicles on the road. You got all that petrochemical stuff
going on down there, ozone, and so you've got to be playing
heck with your environment, but we didn't. And we didn't
because we put thoughtful processes and we used technology and
we allowed technology, and that's where the national labs are
going to continue to play a very important role to make sure
that our, you know--not only is it about job creation but it's
about addressing issues that are important like our--the
environment that we live in and making sure that the
emissions--you know, CCU down in Houston where we built now the
biggest, largest--I think at this time still--carbon capture
utilization plant in the world. We're sequestering I think over
95 percent--or not sequestering, we're capturing over 95
percent of the carbon and then shipping it over using it for
secondary recovery.
These are the types of science that come out of the
national labs that we can implement and see the type of results
that I think you and the Members of this Committee are looking
for.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, also the
Department is known for its development and research into
fusion energy, which might well be the solution to a lot of our
energy needs in the future. There's an international effort
called ITER, which may or may not be receiving the funding that
they would like. And I'm just wondering how important you think
that ITER effort is and how important it is that the Department
of Energy continue to fund the development of fusion energy.
Secretary Perry. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think fusion has the
potential to really change the world, so taking that position
but also looking at--from time to time, one of the things that
I ran into over the last 18 months, as I became intimately
knowledgeable about what the Department of Energy does, from
time to time, we get involved with some areas where the
expenditures are off the charts, and, you know, I'm not going
to sit here and try to micro-analyze this and say it's all been
because of bad management or what have you, but I mean the
billions of dollars that we spend on the MOX facility out in
South Carolina and some of our environmental management
cleanups, I mean, there have been some, you know, I think
questionable--historically questionable expenditures of
dollars. ITER is one of those. And it was poorly managed. I
mean, I don't think anybody argues that there was some
management decisions made at that big consortium that's over in
France.
Now, with all of that said, I think the previous
Administration and this Administration both stepped back from
that and said wait a minute, let's take a look at this and make
sure that the dollars that we're going to be expending there,
we're getting a good return on our investment. And that's
exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman. We think that this--and
they have new management. I've sat down with Mr. Bigot and
we've discussed and I'm getting comfortable that the management
of ITER is indeed back on track. They're headed in the right
direction.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Perry. So, you know, I'm--one of the things I
learned as an appropriator back in--as a boy in Texas and as
the Governor was that I know how the appropriations process
works, and I respect it greatly.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Perry. And it's the Members of this Committee and
the appropriators that are going to decide about, you know--
they expect me to be a good manager, and that's what I'm going
to tell you is I'm going to be as transparent and hardworking
person to earn your trust from a management standpoint.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Perry. And if you see fit that--I'm going to try
to give you the best information I can, but you see fit that
projects like ITER need to be funded, we will give good
oversight and we will make them be as transparent as we can and
try to get us the results----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Perry. --that this committee wants.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Secretary, thank you. My time is
expired.
The gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member Ms. Johnson,
is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I think that--I appreciate your statement
and agree with what you've said about the progress in Texas. We
started from a very low ebb and we've gone a long ways, but we
have a long, long ways to go.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Johnson. I guess my focus will be on the budget because
I think I heard you say that it's really up to this committee
to make those budget authorization decisions, but we do have a
budget before us that came over that does not necessarily I
think reflect some of the things that you have spoken about,
but you also said you would take on most what we give you and
to do the best you can to manage it.
But how can you agree for the 70 percent cuts to the energy
efficiency and renewable energy and support these cuts? Where
do you say--did you have input on this or what is your opinion
on what we are facing as your budget before us, getting rid of
ARPA-E and all that? Did you have any input on that, and where
do you stand?
Secretary Perry. Ms. Johnson, one of the things that I
think is important to understand on the global look at the EERE
and energy efficiency and that side of the house, it's
important for us to recognize that some of the dollars that
were expended over, let's say, the last decade were in those
early-stage dollars--appropriately from my perspective I might
add--in some of the renewables, solar and wind.
As those have matured--it's kind of like when I sent my
kids off to college, that was a costly process. And then they
graduated and went on and went to work and I didn't expend
those dollars because they had basically matured. Some of the
things that you've seen in that side of this budget, that's the
reason that it's occurred and you've seen the reduction in
spending because those have made maturations.
And I don't think it's any indication at all that there's a
lack of support for our renewables at the Department. I mean,
you know this, having lived in Dallas in Texas, no State
developed more wind energy in the nation while I was the
Governor than Texas. Matter of fact, we created more wind than
all but five countries. So the commitment to the renewables is
still there. I think as we--I don't like to use the term ebb
and flow, but as we transition away from forms of energy that
are maturing into others, you'll see these changes in the
budget.
Now, with that said, I think, you know, we can always
disagree that the total amount of money is the right amount of
money. That--again, I respect this process greatly. You and I
might not agree upon a total dollar amount in a particular line
item.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. My time is expired.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do note the observation of the number of, you know,
Texans on important leadership positions on this committee. And
of course the Secretary, having been the Governor, we in
Oklahoma sometimes are viewed as the buffer zone or the
catalyst or whatever, but you can always tell a good Texan. If
you refer to it as the Republic of Texas, they invariably
smile, so you know they're a real Texan.
That said, Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see in the
fiscal year 2019 budget a refocus on the biological and
environmental research programs on genomic science,
particularly the funding included for four recently renewed
bioenergy research centers. These centers provide fundamental
science for better understanding of plant and micro biosystems,
allowing DOE researchers to work with industry to create the
next generation of transformative bioenergy resources and bio-
based products. Can you update the Committee on the research
goals for the bio research centers?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd
like to introduce Paul Dabbar. He's our Assistant Secretary for
Science----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Secretary Perry. --and his shop, that's where that is. And,
Mr. Lucas, if I may----
Mr. Lucas. Please.
Secretary Perry. --and just to remind you, we were a
Republic once.
Mr. Lucas. Never a doubt in my mind.
Secretary Perry. So, Paul Dabbar.
Mr. Dabbar. And as an Oklahoman, as the wing man here to
the Air Force officer, I thank you for this question.
The bioenergy area in the area of BER is very important.
And actually, we're focusing more resources on that. There's a
few areas that we find particularly interesting. As you know,
the DOE labs were at the forefront, along with NIH, in terms of
gene editing, gene sequencing. A lot of people don't know that.
And, as a result, we have a lot of history and a lot of future
ahead of us.
The first area that we're working on is in the area of
precision medicine. This is tailoring specific therapeutic
treatments to the individual genomics for a particular person.
This is a very exciting area in the area of biotech and the
genomics area for the Department that we work on with other
universities and the National Institutes of Health, which could
have a monumental shift in where health goes in this country.
Secondly, we continue to do a lot of work in the area of
bioenergy, looking at different types of plants that can be
used in a more efficient manner, more efficient on the land,
more efficient with water to look at applications associated
with that.
Thirdly, we do a lot also in another area of plant
genomics, which could be used for biotech drug manufacturing.
Taking various genomic sequences that certain plants have and
being able to use those to engineer a manufacturing of biotech
drugs outside of having to have to grow the individual plants,
it's a very important area that Lawrence Berkeley in particular
but a number of other of our labs that are leadership in, and
so we're very excited about those opportunities.
Mr. Lucas. Governor, just one final thought here in the
time that I have remaining just from a geographical reference.
I'm fond of the Republic of Texas. I live 50 miles down the
river from Canadians, so you know my geographic location.
Secretary Perry. I know exactly where you are.
Mr. Lucas. And with that, I would like to just reinforce
comments made by my colleagues about the importance I think of
ARPA-E----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lucas. --how that leverages your technology abilities
within the agency, with private industry, and the potential to
do great things I think exists in ARPA-E.
Mr. Lucas. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. You caught me off-guard there.
You know, thank you for appearing here, Mr. Secretary. You
know, I know we're in conversations with Saudi Arabia right now
about their pursuit of nuclear energy and nuclear reactors. You
know, obviously this would be a big deal. They're planning on
spending about $80 billion to build 16 nuclear reactors over
the next 25 years. And, you know, there obviously is some
concern as we're negotiating the 123 agreement. The Obama
Administration was never able to quite get that agreement
completed because of concern over the Saudis potentially using
those reactors for nuclear enrichment. You know, if you could
give us an update on how those negotiations are going.
You know, in a recent 60 Minutes interview, the Saudi Crown
Prince suggested that if Iran were to pursue nuclear weapons,
they certainly would be within their rights to pursue nuclear
weapons as well. And with yesterday's pulling out of the Iran
nuclear deal, certainly there's the potential of that deal
collapsing and the Iranians going back to their pursuit of
nuclear ambitions. There's real concern in a bipartisan way in
this body, in a bicameral way, that we may enter into a 123
agreement that actually does allow the Saudis to pursue nuclear
enrichment, and I'd be curious to get your perspective on that.
Secretary Perry. Yes, Mr. Bera, absolutely. And I think I
share--along with I would suggest every one of the people on
this committee--your concerns about an increase in
proliferation of nuclear materials in the world. And that goes
right to the point that we've tried to make with the Saudi
Crown Prince in our conversations with him and with his team
that not only will it send a powerful message if they go into
an acceptable 123 with additional protocols but that we--that
they do that because if they don't, the message that's sent--if
the Chinese or the Russians, which don't require any of that,
not only does it send the message--I think the wrong message by
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but it also sends the message to
the United States that we're no longer the leader in the world
when it comes to civil nuclear power.
Westinghouse, best reactor builder in the world----
Mr. Bera. Right.
Secretary Perry. --you know, they've had their challenges
from a business standpoint, but it wasn't because they're not
really good at building reactors. It's because they got
involved in the construction side of it, which is not their
expertise. That's been straightened out. They have been, you
know, working their way, but the reactor side of this is very
important, and that is the second point that we tried to really
drive home to the Crown Prince was that if you want the best
reactors in the world, you have to come to the United States
and you have to use Westinghouse.
So you have to be seen, you know, what the Kingdom is going
to decide when it comes to who's going to be allowed to build
those, but I think for us as Americans, for us that truly
believe in nonproliferation, that that is a powerful place for
us to be and the goal that we need to go into every
arrangement, that if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not sign
a 123 with us with additional protocols, the message will be
clear to the rest of the world that the Kingdom is not as
concerned about being leaders when it comes to this issue, and
they'll be losing a great opportunity to stand up and say the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a serious country when it comes to
nonproliferation and to the development of nuclear power in the
Middle East.
Mr. Bera. Great. Well, know that you've got bipartisan
support----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Bera. --with that 123 agreement.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, you have every right to be proud that
America is now energy-independent. This didn't just happen. The
fact is is that there have been political elements and
disagreements that perhaps would have stopped fracking in its
place, which is the new system that's given us so much energy
and given us natural gas, which has permitted that level of
CO2 to go down, as you mentioned.
Let me just note that, as you take over your new
responsibilities here, one of the most important
responsibilities is to say no when things are bad, don't
really--aren't as good as other alternatives or more expensive.
And I would hope that, as you get into your job, that you take
that part of your job very seriously.
Quite frankly, building any new nuclear power plants based
on the current technology is I believe not only a waste but a
danger to the American people and the people of the world. The
old-style nuclear reactors, for example, the reactors you're
talking about that you want to sell to Saudi Arabia, do they
produce plutonium?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. They do. Okay. Why should we--when we are
capable--we have the capabilities now of building a new
generation of nuclear power that will not have plutonium left
over, that can't melt down, that in fact will use the nuclear
waste from the current generation as fuel and eat it up rather
than having to have it here threatening us, I would hope that
you take a very close look at that.
And instead of just giving your support to ongoing projects
like ITER, which has not seen any progress towards giving us a
real energy source but sure eats up a lot of money, and so I'd
hope as you move forward in this job--and I know you take it
seriously. I think Texans have a lot to be proud of what you
did down in Texas. So I will refrain from talking about all the
wind that Texas produces. We think--that's enough. I won't go
down that road.
But let me just ask you this, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Shimkus of
Illinois has a piece of legislation aimed at trying to offer us
at least moving forward with some kind of plan that will make
it safer--right now, the nuclear energy that's being stored
throughout the country, including San Onofre, California is
enormously expensive----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --and I'm not sure that it's safe to have
all the nuclear energy stored like that. Shimkus would reopen
the Yucca Mountain debate. Do we have a position on that?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. From the standpoint of there are
38 States that have nuclear materials stored in less-than-
satisfactory places, one of them being San Onofre. And I've got
great concern about San Onofre being in the circle of fire.
It's exactly the same geological area that Fukushima was in.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Correct.
Secretary Perry. And so the idea that you could have a
major earthquake and with that a tragic event, that whole
inland empire, you take that off of the economic--and it could
be disastrous to our country----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me invite you to San Onofre and we
could go through that together.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You haven't been there?
Secretary Perry. I've driven by it a number of times but
have never been in it, so I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That would be a good thing to do. And I
appreciate your leadership. And, again, leadership quite often
means saying no----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --and that's the hardest part of a job
here in Washington is saying no to people who want money.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Rosen, is recognized.
Ms. Rosen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and Secretary Perry for being here today.
I want to also talk a little bit about Yucca Mountain
because, for decades, Nevadans have been fighting our State
being a dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste. Yucca
Mountain is actually seismically active as well. But besides
that, what I want to do is emphasize how Yucca Mountain is also
a threat to our national security because the site is located
on DOE's national security site, which, as you know, provides
DOE and other government agencies unique high-hazard testing
environments.
Yucca Mountain is also adjacent to the Nevada Test and
Training Range, which is the largest air and ground military
training space in the contiguous United States, and it is home
to 75 percent of all the stateside Air Force live munitions.
So according to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, there
is no transportation route--I repeat that--no transportation
route across the NTTR that would not impact testing and
training even around--outside the range's boundary that might
create encroachment issues.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put--provide a
map about Nevada sites into the record, please.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, it'll be made a part of
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Rosen. Thank you.
So, Mr. Perry, Secretary Perry, to your knowledge, has the
DOE worked with the Department of Defense to address these
concerns, the concerns of Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson on
the Yucca Mountain project?
Secretary Perry. Ms. Rosen, we are in pretty constant
contact with our colleagues over at DOD in a host of different
areas, that certainly be one of them. I think the important
aspect of this issue from a DOE standpoint and the Secretary of
Energy standpoint is that I have a requirement of law to take
this licensing process forward. In this budget that we're
talking about I think there's $120 million, 110 of which is on
the licensing side and going forward with NERC to get an answer
on the licensing side.
So, you know, the debate about Yucca, whether it should be
opened, it shouldn't be opened, it's been ongoing for a long
time, I think $15 billion worth of time. But my responsibility
here is not to tell you whether I'm for Yucca or against Yucca
from the standpoint of it being a permanent facility. It's to
follow the law, and the law says that DOE will go forward with
the licensing side of it.
Ms. Rosen. Might I suggest, Secretary Perry, that you work
in collaboration with our Department of Defense to secure our
Nevada Test and Training Range and secure our live munitions.
And I'd like to reiterate what happens on the Nevada test
site as far as testing of hazardous material, Yucca Mountain
sits right there. It's also 60 miles from rare earth mines in
California and not too much further on from the San Andreas
Fault. So we need to talk about those things. You can't exist
in a vacuum. I would urge you to work with the Department of
Defense on discussing these highly important issues of national
security.
Secretary Perry. We'll continue to do that with the DOD.
Ms. Rosen. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Rosen.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized
for questions.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, grateful for your work and the
team that you've put together. I want to commend you for the
work you've been doing at DOE, and I keep hearing nothing but
good things when I'm out talking to people back home in
Illinois at Fermilab and Argonne, grateful again for your visit
and Mr. Dabbar's visit. I had a great time with him there
touring and also excited that a group of the Committee are
going to be going to visit Argonne and Fermi this weekend, so
important for us to recognize the incredible value, the
treasure that we have with our national labs and how important
of a piece they are in this ecosystem of science, and so thank
you.
I'm also going to continue to work in a bipartisan fashion.
We've got a National Labs Caucus here in the House to keep
telling the story of the great work that's happening throughout
our lab system, and grateful again for your commitment and
support there.
I've heard discussions about the National Science and
Technology Council establishing a Science Infrastructure
Subcommittee. This is something this committee has worked on
with a number of bills, including my legislation to authorize
construction of the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility, as well as
upgrades to APS at Argonne and the Spallation Neutron Source at
Oak Ridge. What are the current plans of this subcommittee?
What are its goals, and will DOE and Office of Science have a
prominent role? I believe our DOE user facilities are truly the
crown jewel of our research ecosystem, and I hope we continue
to work with you to see these facilities and researchers
supported.
Secretary Perry. Mr. Chairman, for the best edification of
the Committee, I'd like to ask Paul again. This is right in his
shop, and again----
Mr. Hultgren. That's perfect.
Secretary Perry. --he can succinctly address this.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Thanks.
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, thank you, and I look forward to
seeing you and many other Members here at Argonne on Friday.
I sit as a Co-Chair with Under Secretary Copan from NIST
from Commerce on that particular committee that you asked
about. We are--we have a number of subcommittees on different
sorts of research and not just energy but many other things
across the whole of the federal government in terms of the
infrastructure, much of which is based on labs, much of which
also has topics around lab-to-market topics that obviously both
us and Under Secretary Copan are part of. And so there's a
number of different committees. I co-chair that, and items such
as infrastructure buildout and national labs such as at Fermi
and Argonne are an important part.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Thanks, Mr. Dabbar.
Mr. Secretary, I commend your work at the Department trying
to find ways to get bureaucratic barriers out of the way so
that the private sector can be nimble bringing new ideas to the
market. This House has passed legislation a number of times
that would give lab directors the signature authority for
technology transfer agreements and other cooperative research
projects under $1 million. I had a brief discussion with the
Under Secretary Dabbar about this provision, and I believe it
to be in line with the Administration's goals and in the
Department. I wonder, would this provision concern you, and is
this something we can work with you in trying to move forward
on?
Secretary Perry. No, sir, it does not concern me.
Mr. Hultgren. Great. Again, thank you. We want to work with
you. We're grateful for your commitment to all of the work in
the Energy Department but I especially have a great passion for
our labs and want to thank you for your commitment there as
well.
With that, I'll yield back the balance of my time.
Secretary Perry. We share that passion, sir.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamb, is
recognized.
Mr. Lamb. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. I was encouraged to
hear you say in the opening that your greatest concern is the
reliability and resiliency of the electrical grid. And I am
very concerned about the challenges that the nuclear plants in
my State of Pennsylvania now face. We have thousands of
hardworking men and women who work at these plants every day,
and they work hard to ensure that we have the reliable source
of energy, the carbon-free source of energy provided by these
nuclear plants.
You also noted the concerns of cyber attacks and cyber
threats to the grid, and I know that some of these nuclear
plants like Beaver Valley, which is close to where I live, are
almost completely independent of the internet. I mean, the
control room is amazing. It's a large analog operation that
would be resilient and reliable in the event of a cyber attack
on the rest of our grid.
So I know that your agency is considering the 202(c)
request from FirstEnergy related to baseload capacity. I'm not
going to ask you to weigh in on that this morning. I saw your
comments that 202(c) may not be the way we decide is the most
appropriate or the most efficient way to address this, and you
seem to believe that there are other options for the nuclear
plants especially besides 202(c). So I was hoping you could
fill us in. What do you see as other options on this issue?
Secretary Perry. Well, I'm looking for a solution. I'm
looking for results. I'm--you know, the process kind of wears
me out from time to time. And my point is the 202(c) is an
economic issue. I mean, that's approaching this from an
economic standpoint. And I think it's really important for us
as a country to look at this for what you and I think--
understand it to really be about, and it's about the national
security of our country, of keeping our plants--all of them--
online, being able to deliver energy no matter whether it's a
natural disaster that we might see from a polar vortex or it's
something more nefarious as a cyber attack from a terrorist
state or some entity with bad intent for the United States. So
we're looking at a number of ways to approach this. I know that
the Defense Production Act is one of those ways to address
that, that we're looking at very closely as well.
So having resiliency and reliability in our grid is as
important to our national security as anything that I can think
of. And making sure that the plants that we have today
supported reliably with the fuel, and obviously nuclear is one
of those, and there are coal plants out there that fit into
that.
I might just make the statement of fact that by 2040 the
world will still be relying upon 77 percent of fossil fuels of
driving that energy that's being produced.
Mr. Lamb. And I've seen that as well, Mr. Secretary, so I
just want you to know that you have a partner here in trying to
find other solutions on this issue. I will be happy to help in
any way, and my staff will certainly reach out.
Along that line, we have seen States pass some legislation
to try to address this issue and to try to correct some of the
market failures, especially for nuclear plants. Do you support
the efforts of States like New Jersey and Illinois and New York
that have taken on this issue and tried to develop their own
solutions to correct some of these failures?
Secretary Perry. Yes, well, I wrote a book about the Tenth
Amendment, so I--it would be pretty hard-pressed for me not to
say that I don't believe that States have a very important
role.
I think there is another issue that's a side issue but
directly to this. Do States have the right to block a pipeline
across their State that will have a national security
implication or an economic implication on individuals? And
that's a whole other issue, but it's one I hope you and I can
continue to have a conversation on. That--the fight there will
be the State's sovereign ability to make a decision versus the
national security of this country.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lamb.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perry. Thank you. Howdy.
Mr. Weber. It's great to see you.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. We didn't tell these other States that Texas has
our own grid primarily.
Secretary Perry. They probably already know that.
Mr. Weber. Yes, I'm just saying.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, will be----
Secretary Perry. And we'd like to keep it that way.
Mr. Weber. Well, amen. Let's talk about the Tenth
Amendment. And your book is on sale, right, about the Tenth
Amendment?
Secretary Perry. Very much on sale.
Mr. Weber. I'm just saying.
I'm pleased to see the funding requested in the fiscal year
2019 budget includes request for what's in my bill, a versatile
neutron source--Dana, you'll like this--the next round of
nuclear reactors. My act is called the Nuclear Energy
Innovation Capabilities Act. It's clear that we need progress
on this facility. This is where we can build the next round of
reactors to move more quickly if we're going to meet the needs
of the advanced reactor community.
So, Secretary Perry, I guess I don't know how much you've
looked at that bill that we've got coming down the line. You
know we're getting outstripped by Russia in nuclear innovation,
and that's totally unacceptable. That's totally unacceptable.
So I'd like for you to think about it, commit if you would to
the funding of the versatile test reactor, and make that a top
priority in energy R&D. It looks like maybe Mr. Dabbar----
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --has got some experience on that or no?
Secretary Perry. Paul, you want to just--he pitched you a
soft one.
Mr. Dabbar. I--yes. Yes, sir, having run a reactor in my
younger days. This is an important area. We've asked for $148
million as part of the 2019 budget request around advanced
reactors, in addition, SMR reactors as another area that we're
very much focused on. So this is an area that is important, and
I'd also like to point out for Congressman Beyer in Virginia,
we just also--that big CEBAF nuclear physics facility that we
just inaugurated this last week that had a ribbon-cutting on
shows another area of leadership in the nuclear area that we do
for the country.
Secretary Perry. Yes, Mr. Weber, I think it's--and this is
exactly down the line that Mr. Rohrabacher was making reference
to from the standpoint of the old way of building civil nuclear
reactors, it would be like kind of the old way they built cars.
I mean, the technology has changed, and we need to take
advantage of the technology. We need to be a part of the
technology.
We need to be--and I might--let me just finish it by saying
the work that we're doing at Idaho National Lab is right along
this line with the advanced reactors, and the funding of the
national labs directly affects your point here.
Mr. Weber. Sure.
Secretary Perry. And INL is one of the lead labs that's
dealing with advanced nuclear reactors.
Mr. Weber. Right. And back to Mr. Rohrabacher's point,
we're going to need an advanced fuel, so there's going to have
to be R&D on fuel for this advanced reactor, which part of the
discussion has been. We can take some of that old fuel, whether
it's military grade or whatever kind of fuel it is. We can
actually investigate and do the research on how to use that
fuel in some of these advanced reactors and maybe do away with
some of the storage. As you know, South Texas Nuclear Project
when I was a State Rep is--was in my district, and we watched
them change fuel rods, so it's very, very important. You
mentioned the 38 States I think that stored onsite. That's just
not sustainable. So we would also ask you all to commit to not
only the advanced nuclear reactors in the versatile neutron
source but also to research on the fuel for that next round.
Are you all able to do that?
Secretary Perry. Yes. Well, we have some work going on now
with the high-assay----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Secretary Perry. --low-enriched uranium that I think fits
the description of what you're talking about right there.
Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, I appreciate that. And, Mr. Dabbar,
you're going to be with us at the labs this weekend, I believe.
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir. I look forward to being there with
you.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, bring the Secretary with you. I'm
just saying, but thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here.
Our nation has some of the best scientists, researchers,
programmers, and engineers in the world, but without strong
investments in research and development, we fall behind. We
risk falling behind our international competitors. This
proposed budget takes us in the wrong direction, and I want to
align myself with my colleagues who have objected to
eliminating ARPA-E.
And I'm glad to see that the Administration is supporting
increased advanced scientific computing research, but foreign
governments like China are much more aggressive with their
investment in exascale computing. We're falling behind there.
This could have serious implications for our U.S. leadership
for national security, economic competitiveness, and
innovation.
I'm disappointed to see that the Department of Energy's
budget proposal would make significant cuts to the development
of clean energy technologies, including water power. In my
State of Oregon, Oregon State University is a global leader in
marine renewable energy research and development. The Pacific
Marine Energy Center relies on federal investment from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to establish
the nation's fully energetic on-grid wave energy test facility
off the Oregon coast. This facility will be able to test wave
energy converting--converters that harness energy of ocean
waves and currents and turn it into electricity. Hydropower has
been--has tremendous potential to become a major source of
electricity for the United States and the world, and other
countries are ahead of us here.
Mr. Secretary, your budget proposal cuts funding for
hydropower research and development by more than 57 percent, so
do you agree that this country should be reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels, and if so, why is the Department
pursuing such severe cuts for federal energy research
investment?
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am. Let me just say in a global
way we do support the renewables. You know, we can argue about
the level of funding, which is what the appropriations process
is all about, but we are continuing to fund the program. And I
think it's--is it Oregon State? I'm----
Ms. Bonamici. Oregon State University has the facility.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am. Yes. That's what I was
thinking. It is Oregon State that is--and we're still funding
that, so the support is still there certainly. You know, the--
again, the level of funding we can discuss, but----
Ms. Bonamici. Well, Mr. Secretary, with a 57 percent cut,
that's serious, and as someone whose responsibility it is to
advise the President, I hope that you will advise the President
that this is a good investment to invest in renewable energy.
And also, Mr. Secretary, I was glad to see you mention the
importance of the labs. The National Energy Technology
Laboratory is in Albany, Oregon, and they're working to make
our energy systems more efficient. They're developing new
sensors and controls for power plants in our grid, designing
materials that can be used in extreme high-temperature
environments, and advancing carbon capture technologies to
reduce emissions. These efforts should be a model for the
energy industry nationwide, but the fiscal year budget
justification discussed a phased approach to consolidate the
NETL location. What is the status? It's unclear from your
proposal. Does the Department intend to close the NETL Albany
location, and could you please provide us with an update on the
possible consolidation of the NETL sites?
Secretary Perry. So to answer your question directly, there
are no NETL reorganization plans being discussed that would
result in the closure of your facility out in Albany, Oregon.
They are still continuing to focus on advanced power
applications and material performance research, geospatial data
analysis, so in a nutshell, no.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bonamici. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today.
Based on the testimonies that we've heard in committee, I'm
concerned about the uncertainty and the way we assess the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with blending ethanol in
our fuel supplies. As you know, being accurate in these
estimates depends on integrating the lifecycle effects of land-
use changes in the growing of corn and other feedstocks for
ethanol production. We should add these emission impacts into
the estimate to get a full and accurate picture.
Looking at the full lifecycle, some scientists contend that
the greenhouse gas implications of land-use changes outweigh
any savings in burning ethanol compared to fossil fuels. A
University of Michigan study was particularly enlightening
about the lifecycle aspects of ethanol, and I ask, Mr.
Chairman, unanimous consent to enter into the record a study
conducted by Professor John DeCicco.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, that will be made a part
of the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
According to his study, despite the purported advantages of
biofuels created from crops such as corn, soybeans cause more
emissions of climate-change-causing carbon dioxide than
gasoline. The study further remarks that carbon neutrality has
really been an assumption. To verify the extent to which the
assumption is true, you really need to analyze what's going on
in the farmland, where the biofuels are being grown. People
haven't done this in the past, and they felt like they didn't
need to.
It's truly puzzling to me that we aren't looking at the
full lifecycle of biofuels production. With gasoline, we take
into account not just the tailpipe emissions but carbon
emissions during the drilling, the transportation, the
refueling, and other parts of the process.
Now, Mr. Secretary, I'm working on legislation to authorize
the Department of Energy to conduct research and development
necessary to refine our models to better estimate the overall
impact of ethanol fuels on greenhouse gas emissions. I believe
it's essential that we have an accurate estimate of these
impacts to develop policymaking on such fuels. Ethanol is a
very pure poor fuel product substitute, and mandating its use
has serious implications for food supplies and prices. Will you
pledge to work with me on legislation to improve the basic
tools necessary for assessing the lifecycles and emissions of
ethanol?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you.
And, Secretary Perry, I have to say how much I really
enjoyed the day that we spent together visiting the two
national labs that, you know, one of which I worked at for many
years, another one which I currently represent. And, you know,
I just want to say that your enthusiasm for the fundamental
science has really shown through on that visit. You know, it's
a--you know, the Department of Energy has done well with, you
know, technical wizards running it and also with people with
more political backgrounds who really understand and appreciate
what it does. And I just want to say how much, you know, I
appreciate that, as well as of course your specific enthusiasms
for the upgrades at Argonne and at Fermilab, which have already
been mentioned here.
Also, you know, when I look over, you know, the subject of
this and the budget, you know, we've had some sort of off-the-
record discussions there, and you mentioned in your opening
remarks the return on investment, which I think is the right
phrase for this. And so when you look at programs like the EERE
investments where third-party independent estimates have said
that between--the investments between 1976 and 2008 of about
$15 billion generated economic benefits to the United States of
about $388 billion. And that's a return on investment of 24 to
1, an enormous number, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any
industrial sector with a comparable return on investment. And,
you know, you definitely get that.
And, you know, on the other hand if you look at this--at
the budget proposal, you're going to--you know, there are
things like the Loan Program Office of the Advanced Tech
Vehicle Manufacturing program. These are things that have
turned a profit for the taxpayer in the sense of returned money
to the taxpayer. So technically, the return on investment there
is more than infinite. And yet when you see these things
proposed to be zeroed out, you know, how do you react in the
internal debates on that, and how do you go forward when you,
I'm confident, advocate for this sort of program and then see
the final proposal----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Foster. --being cut?
Secretary Perry. Mr. Foster, as you said, you and I have
had some relatively lengthy conversations about this specific
area of the budget. As--I try to remind people that, again, I
really respect this process. I grew up in it having been an
appropriator, having been an agency head, having been the chief
executive of a State that was fairly successful. We actually
created a program back in Texas called the Emerging Technology
Fund that we oversaw, and I argued vehemently to some of my own
colleagues on my political party that didn't think government
needed to be picking winners and losers, and I shared with them
that we pick winners and losers every day.
Mr. Foster. Yes, but----
Secretary Perry. But my----
Mr. Foster. --I just--I really appreciate--you know, you
actually get this issue in-depth, and I just really appreciate
that. So keep fighting, and I wish you better luck in future
debates here.
Now to change the subject, your predecessor, one of the
really great things he did with the scientific expertise of the
national lab was to--and really engaged that expertise in the
Iran nuclear negotiations, that he was providing real-time
input to the negotiating team and to those of our allies on the
detailed technical questions that are an essential part of
this. So could you describe the extent to which the--that
technical and scientific expertise at the national labs, both
the science labs and the weapons labs have been engaged in the
latest strategic decisions by the White House?
Secretary Perry. Yes. And it's a lot broader. I know news
of the day is the Iranian deal, the JCPOA, but the point is the
Department of Energy is the agency of which the verification of
nuclear materials and nuclear activities around the world,
whether it's North Korea, whether it's Iran, our agency is
where the expertise lies. National labs obviously play a very
important role with that but also in the NNSA side of our house
as well. So I'm not sure there is an agency of government with
more expertise, with the----
Mr. Foster. So my question is why have seen very little
evidence of that expertise being engaged or can you give
specific examples where it has been in these latest decisions?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, I can but I'm not sure that some
of it we can talk about in this room.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. But I'll be more than happy to
come and sit down with you in a classified environment and
share with you I think the questions that you place forward.
Mr. Foster. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Foster. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for
questions.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, my favorite Governor. Glad
to have you here.
Secretary Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Babin. I appreciate your long years of service to our
Lone Star State.
I would like to have a graph put up, please, from 2010 from
the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
[Slide.]
Mr. Babin. Let me make a note here. The graph all the way
to the right, these are subsidies for unit of production per
megawatt hour all the way to the right. That is not to scale.
You can see for solar power the American taxpayers were
subsidizing solar energy per megawatt hour at a rate--if that
graph was to scale, we would have to be in about a three-story
building. That's how high and how large the amount of subsidies
that we are giving solar energy. You can see that wind is the
next one. It is to scale. And then a few years later in 2013
solar is still way up there above everything else. It's
declining but still unacceptably high as far as I'm concerned.
This is probably the result of the Obama stimulus that was done
at that point in time, thankfully winding down than anything
else.
To the best of our knowledge this is the last time that the
EIA has published this particular chart laying out just how
much hardworking taxpayers in our district and across the
country are paying for energy subsidies. What happened?
Environmentalist groups, along with our allies in Congress and
the Obama Administration, pushed for and apparently succeeded
in keeping this very simple, easy-to-read chart away from the
public eye.
I also have here the most recent report published just last
month from 2016 which, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the
record if that's possible.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Babin. Thank you. There is no such table in 2016's
report explaining how much that we are paying per megawatt hour
for energy, so I understand that since we rely on them to call
and report impartial data, the Energy Information
Administration, it has a certain amount of autonomy from your
direct management. But I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, would
you be willing to offer your support for them to resume
producing this same chart in future research products?
Americans deserve to see the destinations of where their tax
dollars are going.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Babin. Would you be willing to do that?
Secretary Perry. And I think it's it makes abundant good
sense for the EIA to put that forward and make it public and so
the American people can take a look at how their tax dollars
are being----
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you, and I really appreciate
that because here we are in the age of energy independence here
in the United States with all the developments in fossil fuel
production, and do the American taxpayers need to continue that
type of mammoth subsidies for this type of energy?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is
recognized.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for being here to talk with us about your
department. And I was glad to hear from Mr. Foster and others
how much time you've spent looking at our national labs and--
which is a great asset to our country, just miles and miles of
brilliant people all over the country coming up with things
that are going to change our future.
One of the things I'd like to focus on today has to do with
something that's going on at the Lawrence Livermore National
Lab, and that is the National Ignition Facility. I have--you
know, Livermore Lab is not in my district, but it's something
I've been interested in for a long time and I've followed since
its inception. I was glad to hear you say this morning that
fusion has the potential to change the world. We know fusion
exists because we have a sun, but we're not sure when we will
achieve it. We're achieving fusion now, we're just not
achieving ignition. And when we do, that's a gamechanger for
the world.
So given the potential benefits and the money that we spent
to make this facility a reality, it was disappointing to see
the budget recommendation. Now, I know that the Secretaries
don't always get the last say on what is requested. The OMB has
a big role, and we all served with Mick Mulvaney when we he was
here in the House, and I got along well enough with Mick when
he was here, maybe better than in his current position.
I was concerned that the budget would effectively result in
a 40 percent reduction of shots at the NIF from 400 to 250, it
would eliminate 160 jobs out of the 750 associated with that.
It even eliminated funding for General Atomics, again not in my
district down in San Diego that provides the target
fabrication, which would actually increase the cost. If you
don't have a target, you don't have a program. If you have
targets but you eliminate funding for the only source of those
targets, you're going to increase the cost.
So I'm wondering--I know that the Appropriations Committee
is working on this. It's possible that some changes will be
made here, but I'm just wondering if you can talk about what
you think about fusion and NIF's future.
And I want to say something else. You know, the new
graduates in high-density physics don't necessarily want to
work only on the weapons program. They want to work on science
programs. And if we eliminate our pipeline of physicists into
these labs by cutting the science, we're not going to be able
to do the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which is the main
function of course of the National Ignition Facility. So I
wonder if you could comment----
Secretary Perry. Ms. Lofgren, I----
Ms. Lofgren. --on any of those things?
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am, thank you. And I agree with
your observation about the intellectual pipeline. And one of
the reasons that we are valiantly trying to express our support
for Westinghouse so that the United States can maintain its
position on the reactor side, it's just like kids--when I was
going to college, all the really smart kids wanted to be
nuclear engineers. And for about 40 years because of benign
neglect and some other events, some accidents, et cetera,
nuclear power, civil power became kind of out-of-favor.
This fusion side I think gives us the opportunity, and I
think we can reasonably have our disagreements about, you know,
we are not going to have the funding for every worthy
initiative, we know that, and--but we can have these
conversations back and forth, which are important. And whatever
this committee and Congress decides on from the standpoint of
your priorities, we're going to manage them as well as can be
done.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. And I know my time is up. I'd just
like to say we spent a lot of money building this facility, and
to walk away from it after we've built it, you know, now that
China is on our heels, you know, we want to be the leader. We
want don't want to be behind China on this. So thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. Secretary, and your Under Secretaries, for joining us here
today. I found a lot to celebrate in looking at your budget,
but I'd like to focus on a small niche in it that's the medical
use, the healthcare use of medical isotopes.
Secretary Perry. Oh, yes.
Mr. Dunn. So when Under Secretary Dabbar was with us here
back in January, we discussed the market availability of a
variety of medical isotopes and how the isotope program in the
Department of Energy is actually run more like a business than
it is an agency. And I was just wondering where in this budget
are we looking to invest in American capabilities to generate
the full array of medical isotopes so that we're not dependent
on foreign sources for high-priority medical isotopes.
Secretary Perry. Yes. This kind of fits into the same arena
as some of our rare earth minerals as well, just that the
United States is going to be, I think, required to supply these
ourselves. And for us to do the science, to do the funding of
this so that we are not beholden to countries around the world
that may not have our best interest in mind. I think about
cobalt and the importance that cobalt can play, lithium, the
importance that Lithium-6 is going to play going forward in the
pit production for the weapons side of things.
So focusing and being dependent upon U.S.-based sources of
these very important elements is a focus of the Department, and
you know that we will continue to prioritize the funding for
these types of programs. And as I have shared with Ms. Lofgren,
you know, there are a lot of worthy initiatives out there that
we don't have all the funding for them all. But in this area I
think that is a priority of the Administration; it is a
priority of our agency.
Mr. Dunn. I'm glad to hear that. We see a lot of dependence
on the newer isotopes in PET scanning, for instance, but not
just PET scanning, also in therapeutics, and so I just want to
make sure that the DOE is facilitating the development and
actual construction of sufficiently energetic accelerators and
some reactors. We need reactors, too.
Secretary Perry. Mr. Dunn, if I can just take a little bit
of a turn away from that and talk about on the supercomputing
side of things. We're standing up an office that's going to be
referred to as Artificial Intelligence Big Data Initiative,
ABI, and the focus there is going to be on precision medicine.
We were out at Lawrence Livermore talking to some of their
folks who are working with University of California San
Francisco neuroscientists about managing all of this big data.
It's why our supercomputing investment is so important, and on
precision medicine is one of those.
I mean, the great progress that I think, Dr. Babin, in the
future is going to be in the ability to manage all of this big
data and those supercomputers. And five of the ten fastest
supercomputers in the world belong to the Department of Energy.
And soon, because of Argonne and the work that we're going to
do with Fermi and Oak Ridge, we're going to be back in the
position of being the number one. And how long we last as
number one is going to be up to us----
Mr. Dunn. It's up to us.
Secretary Perry. --but anyway, this precision medicine,
there's not much I'm more excited about than what we see with
our ability to manage all this big data focused on precision
medicine.
Mr. Dunn. Well, thank you very much. I look forward to
spending this weekend at Argonne Lab----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dunn. --studying that with Under Secretary Dabbar.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
And I believe now we're going to go to the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, Secretary Perry, it's good to see you again----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. --and it's good to see the work you continue to
do in terms of visiting the national labs and supporting the
DOE workforce.
I want to ask you about two important programs, however,
within the office of EERE. The Weatherization Assistance
Program is the largest residential energy conservation program
in our nation. It reduces the energy burden on low-income
families and creates jobs. State energy program enable States
to assist with energy efficiency and renewable energy projects,
as well as develop critical energy emergency preparedness and
response plans.
As a former Governor, you likely have witnessed the value
of these programs, and you understand that on-time delivery of
weatherization and state energy program funds to States is
crucial to ensuring these programs continue to run and run
effectively. For weatherization, most States expect this
funding on July 1. Will you ensure that weatherization state
grantees and state energy program grantees will receive these
funds on time this year?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. I think that's critical.
Turning to a different DOE office, do you believe that the
Office of Electricity research programs are valuable in terms
of their potential to improve grid reliability and resilience
through technologies such as storage, microgrids, and other
smart grid technologies?
Secretary Perry. I do, Mr. Tonko. I believe it's important
that we again recognize the--and I can't remember who--I think
was Mrs. Johnson I was having the conversation earlier about
the prioritization. And as some of these programs mature, then
the funding will obviously fall off for them as we look to the
next big thing that's out there. And I think this fits right in
to this area that you're making comment about as well.
Mr. Tonko. Well, earlier this year, DOE announced the
creation of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and
Emergency Response, and I'm not necessarily opposed to this
reorganization but I would like to understand how it might
affect existing programs that will remain within the Office of
Electricity. Cybersecurity is an important issue. That deserves
to be elevated, but it should not be done at the expense of
other critical programs.
Secretary Perry. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. So are you committed to ensuring that there are
sufficient resources and personnel for the Office of
Electricity Grid Modernization and Energy Storage Programs,
which are also essential for improving grid reliability?
Secretary Perry. Yes. And we are continuing to fund--
``beyond batteries'' is in that shop, hydrogen R&D is in that
shop. When I was out--I believe we were at Savannah River. We
were looking at hydrogen fuel. And I don't want to get deep in
the weeds here, but this is pretty exciting stuff when you look
at hypersonic aircraft and the ability to be anywhere in the
world in I mean literally 4 hours, and you can do that because
of this hydrogen fuel.
So there's still a lot of exciting work to be done in the
EERE. Again, you know, we can have our disagreements about line
item to line item, but the commitment is still there to come up
with the new big things and to prioritize them and what have
you. CESER got moved over and split out from that because of
the very special focus that needs to be on cybersecurity in
this country today.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. The President's
budget request proposes a 74 percent cut to smart grid
research, a 67 percent cut to clean energy transmission and
reliability, and an 81 percent cut to energy storage R&D. So if
this Administration is truly committed to improving grid
reliability and resiliency, then these proposed cuts need to be
rethought and removed. So I appreciate whatever assistance you
can provide----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. --in making certain that these stabilizers are
there that are essential.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is
recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perry, I very much appreciate your service to
your country and your continued commitment to restore energy
dominance of America in your current position.
I represent south Louisiana, the epicenter of LNG expansion
for the entire world. And the district I represent is commonly
referred to by my Lone Star colleagues as east Texas. So
keeping that in mind, I'd see a great partnership between the
State of Texas and the State of Louisiana as we seek energy
dominance for our nation.
I very much appreciated your comments regarding management
efficiency and operating within the parameters allowed to your
Department by the appropriators of this Congress. I also
support the President's overall effort to reduce the size and
scope of the agencies of the federal government that devour the
people's treasure, so I very much appreciate your approach, Mr.
Secretary, regarding the efficient operation of the Department
of Energy and the agencies therein.
I'd like to ask you about grid security. The Grid
Modernization Laboratory Consortium, the GMLC, is committed to
advancing development of new tools and technology to increase
grid resilience and particularly from cyber attacks. How does
protection against EMP fit within that endeavor? And just how
much focus are you placing upon? I personally think it's a
great threat to our nation, and within the confines of this
environment obviously being a more open discussion, could you
share with us what DOE is doing regarding the EMP protection of
our grid?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. I'll just speak in a
generalization that that is certainly one of the challenges
that we have and we recognize it. The work that they're doing
at Idaho National Lab with the test grid there, it's--they're
addressing it is I think the appropriate thing for me to share
with you at this time.
The consortium supports, you know, the critical research
and development in a host of different areas, advanced storage.
Beyond batteries that I mentioned earlier is certainly one of
those clean-energy integration standards and test procedures,
and a number of other really key modernization areas, the least
of which is not making sure that the grid is protected from
cyber attacks, from EMP-type of attacks, and other anomalies
that could be released upon our grid so that the American
people will know with some surety that when they flip the
switch on, the lights will come on.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that answer. And just please
share with this Committee regarding the budget and what you
envision as required to secure our nation's grid against EMP.
Are you satisfied with the budget that you received? Can you
work within those parameters?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Do we need to help you by increasing that
budget?
Secretary Perry. We can work within the parameters.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir, for your answer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Secretary, we know you have to leave for a Cabinet
meeting. Thank you for spending the time you have with us. And
I understand Mr. Dabbar can continue to stay and answer
Members' questions. Mr. Dabbar is the Under Secretary for
Science, so I think he'll be able to address most of the
Members' comments and questions after the Secretary leaves.
Let me also say that I'm going to need to excuse myself,
Mr. Dabbar. I have a Judiciary markup that's ongoing, so I'm
going to head there.
But we appreciate again, Mr. Secretary, your being here,
Mr. Dabbar, your being willing to stay. I know we have at least
three Members more on either side, and up next is the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Crist. So Mr. Secretary, as soon as you
leave, we'll recognize Mr. Crist to address his questions to
Mr. Dabbar.
Mr. Crist. Governor----
Secretary Perry. Governor, I wish I could stay and hang out
with you.
Mr. Crist. I wish you could, too.
Secretary Perry. It's good to see you, sir.
Mr. Crist. It's good to see you, sir.
Secretary Perry. My day job requires me to walk across the
way and--but if there's--in all seriousness to each of the
Members that are still here, if there are questions that you
need me or want me to address personally, I will make that
happen in some form or fashion. But I'm leaving a very capable
fellow right here, although he could not get into Texas A&M. He
had to go to the Naval Academy. They trained him up pretty
well. So, anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you, Under Secretary Dabbar, for being able
to stay here and help us out today.
My hometown, which is the city of St. Petersburg, Florida,
was one of the first cities in the country to commit to
transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy. It's a lofty
goal, and I commend the city for being proactive in reducing
carbon emissions. However, I am concerned that the cuts to the
energy research and development within this budget proposal
will make that goal much more difficult. Those cuts happen to
include a 66 percent cut to renewable energy, an 80 percent cut
to energy storage research and development within the Office of
Electricity, and complete elimination of the Loan Programs
Office, just to name a few. Do you think that this budget
proposal will spur the kind of American innovation that's
needed to help my hometown of St. Petersburg and other
communities meet their clean energy goals?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman, Governor. I very much
appreciate that question.
Mr. Crist. Certainly.
Mr. Dabbar. As the Secretary said, line items on budgets
are subject to your appropriation and your focus. Our focus is
to take the resources that you give us and to maximize that.
And we are very excited. I think as you may know, the cost-
effectiveness of solar and wind and other renewables in the
last decade has dramatically improved in part--large part
because of the Department and the national lab complex.
Another area is also in batteries and storage. And so what
we're trying to do is to try to take the--not only the great
research that you fund but also try to push it out into the
market and also very importantly push it out into the market so
that it's manufactured here in the United States. And so those
are the areas that we're focused on. And we continue to take
the resources that you give us and build on the accomplishments
and all those in many other areas for St. Petersburg and other
localities that want to attack it that way.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you. Earlier this year, the
President imposed a four-year tariff on solar cells. I
understand that you may not have had any direct involvement
with that decision, but I have some very serious concerns about
the impact it's having on our domestic solar industry. The
Solar Energy Industries Association says that this tariff could
cost as many as 23,000 American jobs this year alone.
Meanwhile, as far as I'm aware, no one has really given an
estimate as to how many manufacturing jobs would be created.
That plus the 72 percent cut to solar in this budget makes me
think that the solar industry may be under fire. What is the
Department of Energy planning to do to support those companies,
their employees, and the solar industry as a whole when they
have been negatively impacted by this tariff?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you. So the primary focus for the
Department is around innovation and technology. That is our
primary focus. Sir, as you said, we are not involved in some of
those points that you were just mentioning. So what we're
really focused on--and I'll talk about solar--is what is the
next technology? And it's great that there's been significant
improvement in cost and therefore affordability and
applicability within--for localities to deploy solar and wind
and others. But a big focus for us is what's next. What can we
continue to move down the cost structure and develop those
technologies?
So on solar, for example, perovskite crystals is a new area
that we think could continue to drive down potentially the cost
curve and make it even more affordable for St. Petersburg and
other places to attack. And once again, we're very focused on
that and we're very focused on once again those new
technologies hopefully being developed and built here.
Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I want
to switch gears and talk briefly about offshore drilling. I
know that the Interior Department handles that issue primarily,
but as Governor of Florida when Deepwater Horizon exploded and
I was a Congressman representing a coastal district, offshore
drilling is always at the forefront of my mind. In Florida our
economy is really dependent upon our environment vis-a-vis
tourism. The threat that offshore drilling poses to our oceans
and coastal communities is not worth the risk in my opinion. I
know that may be different where the Secretary is from in Texas
where drilling does significantly contribute to the economy. I
simply ask that you appreciate that States like mine are
concerned with the Administration's proposal and that you share
our concern with the Secretary, as well as other members of the
Cabinet, as appropriate. And I appreciate you being here again,
and I yield back.
Mr. Lucas. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Brooks, for four minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hopefully, you're the right individual to ask, but if not,
if you would please relay this question to Secretary Perry.
The Trump Administration says it wants to revive the
nuclear industry because developing new nuclear projects is
critical to the long-term viability of the nuclear industry.
Currently, the Vogtle plant is under construction, and there is
also an additional proposal to finish two new nuclear plants at
Bellefonte in my Congressional District. Hopefully, you are
aware of them.
Many billions of dollars were spent by TVA on the two
Bellefonte plants, and completion was substantially underway
before the spending of those monies was stopped. If those
plants are completed, that will bring thousands of jobs and
billions of dollars in private sector money to the economies of
Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee, as well as creating a reliable
source of nuclear power with essentially no greenhouse gases.
It is important to have viable financing support through
programs like the Department of Energy loan guarantees, and I
understand that an important goal of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 is to encourage the construction of more nuclear plants,
including those involving public-private partnerships via
programs like those Department of Energy loan guarantees.
That being the question--the case and before you respond to
my two questions, let me add that Under Secretary Moniz, who
appeared before our Committee, and his staff have been in
communication with us and we appreciate the reference.
So here are the questions. First, can you comment on the
status and future of the Department of Energy loan guarantee
program as it pertains to the Bellefonte project specifically
or else generally? And second, will the Administration commit
to expanding America's nuclear power fleet?
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. So on your first
question, yes. In addition to talking with your office, the
Loan Program Office has been engaged in talking with the team
that has the option to purchase the Bellefonte plant, and
they're very much continuing those conversations. And, you
know, within the context is what's the authority? What is
required in order to meet the requirements of the loan is
ongoing with them. So I can confirm that that is taking place,
as well as the conversations with your office directly.
Around the area of commercial nuclear in general, I think
as the Secretary said, several times making references to
Westinghouse and development, as well as both his and my
comments around it, the request on the advanced nuclear
program, as well as on safe fuel that we just issued a new FOA
on this last week is a high degree of focus for us. It's
important for us as a country to continue our leadership on a
broad range of issues for commercial nuclear, and we appreciate
the consideration for that request in the budget.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Beyer, for four minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by
submitting to--for the record if there's no objection a letter
from 87 bipartisan Members of the House to Chairman Simpson and
Ranking Member Kaptur on Appropriations on ARPA-E Energy
Innovation Hubs and EFRCs.
Mr. Lucas. Seeing no objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Under Secretary Dabbar, you know, we live with yesterday's
tragic news of President Trump's decision to withdraw from
JCPOA, the Iran deal. Secretary Perry's predecessor, Dr. Moniz,
a nuclear physicist, was deeply and extremely involved in the
building and the--of the negotiations that surrounded the deal.
Do you have any evidence that Iran was failing to meet its
obligations under the JCPOA or any reason that would justify
the United States' reneging on its commitment to JCPOA?
Mr. Dabbar. I apologize, Congressman. I don't have any, nor
have I participated in, any conversations with the Department
around that topic.
Mr. Beyer. I wonder. It's--you know, I'm far down the
pecking order, but it would be wonderful in the appropriate way
to request you would pass these questions on to Secretary
Perry.
Mr. Dabbar. I----
Mr. Beyer. And try to get these back within 24 hours if
possible?
Mr. Dabbar. Well, I'll pass it along to the Secretary about
your question, and he'll follow up----
Mr. Beyer. And whatever----
Mr. Dabbar. --with what's appropriate----
Mr. Beyer. --from a staff perspective, whatever formal way
we can get these entered would be also--I also think it's a
little tragic that the Under Secretary for Science would not be
included in those discussions. I certainly know that the
science folks at the previous Department of Energy were deeply
involved.
You know, the Secretary has consistently referred to the
resiliency and reliability of the grid as the reason for the
concern about the nuclear and coal power plant closures. When
the Secretary used his power under section 403 to appeal to
FERC to bail out the coal companies in the name of resilience,
FERC rejected that request. And now FirstEnergy has asked the
Secretary to invoke his 202(c) power under the Federal Power
Act and prevent PJM, the electrical distributor, from retiring
plants.
Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker said the DOE would never
use an emergency order under section 202(c), the Federal Power
Act, to prop up an uneconomic generator. And PJM has
demonstrated that their retirement of plants do not affect the
reliance of the grid. Republican FERC Commissioner Neil
Chatterjee just yesterday said that the retirements will not
impinge on resilience. And if FirstEnergy's bailout is granted,
it would raise the cost of electricity by $8 billion annually
for its consumers. It would discourage any investments in clean
energy resources and begin the slippery slope of the federal
government dictating the energy mix of States. So do you have
any idea whether the Secretary intends to reject this bailout
of FirstEnergy?
Mr. Dabbar. So I can't comment on ongoing discussions
specifically on that, but obviously, it's an important aspect
of what we do from a technology point of view regarding
reliability and power. A lot of what we do at the Department is
evaluate and look at technologies associated with the changing
energy mix. Obviously, taking baseload power off has an impact.
That's an obvious point. And a lot of energy has been replaced
with intermittent. And, you know, we think it's appropriate for
it to be reviewed and it is being reviewed.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. And perhaps we can also send
this question to the Secretary, too, on his intentions on the
bailout.
Mr. Dabbar. We'll pass the question along, too, also
Congressman. Thank you.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
And lastly, we know that a diverse grid incorporates
renewables but that their intermittent reliability and
intermittency is an issue and that battery storage, especially
grid-scale battery storage, is the key to this diverse and
resilient grid that you talk about. Do you know--are you
supportive--is the Secretary supportive of FERC order 4--841
that directs the ISOs and the RGOs to develop market rules to
more fully integrate energy storage as a resource on the
electric grid?
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, I can't comment specifically to
the FERC order, but I can say that, in general, including
battery storage as reliability backup to the electric grid, is
an important technology that we're providing and I think should
get properly included in the market structure.
Mr. Beyer. And I'm really impressed that AEP, which is--or
AES rather, which is headquartered in my district in Rosslyn
just across the river that their single biggest project right
now is battery storage facility in California.
Mr. Dabbar. So----
Mr. Beyer. Globally, so----
Mr. Dabbar. So battery storage is a major focus of what
we're looking at around commercialization, a much longer topic,
but one of the things that we focused on around
commercialization of what are the major technologies that you
all and the taxpayers have allocated money, and the one area
that we're attacking first is how do we accelerate the
technologies that we've developed on new chemistries for
batteries that could potentially be much better than the
lithium-ion.
The first event that we're doing, a first multi-lab event
that we're doing on how to push forward stronger our
technologies is on batteries. We're doing that at Stanford in
conjunction with the university and our SLAC laboratory where
we're inviting all the labs together to meet with industry to
figure out how do we take the next wave of technologies on
batteries beyond lithium-ion as we like to call it and how to
move that forward for the country.
Mr. Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Norman, for five minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Dabbar.
Can you give us an update on the DOE's approval of the
Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative that's located in Aiken,
South Carolina? And as you know, the intent is to have a
workforce training of manufacturing jobs.
Mr. Dabbar. So I can repeat again that this is a high
degree of focus for us. This is something that we are
completely supportive of at the Department, and we continue to
work with OMB around getting the final approvals of this, and
we certainly hope that we will be able to do that in the near
future.
Mr. Norman. Do we have a timing that you would think?
Mr. Dabbar. I would hope it's quite near, but it's been
quite near for a little while, and I can say it has a
disproportionately high focus within the Department compared to
the cost.
Mr. Norman. We appreciate that. Later this month, the
Committee will hold a hearing on technology that supports
veterans. Here, we will include a witness from your department
who will be providing us information on the MVP Champion
program. It's very important to veterans. Can you give us some
update on that?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. So just--as people may know
here, the Department of Energy has a long history in the bio
area in genomics, and with a very long history, and so this is
quite consistent with what the Department has done over time.
One of the things that we have a great leadership role in the
world is supercomputing and applying that to various different
health topics, including around genomics. This is a program
that we are continuing to move along, work with the VA and work
with the National Institutes of Health. And we continue to move
that along, and it's a part of funding discussions as part of
this budget.
Mr. Norman. And if you could provide this committee with
information, updates I guess on it on how it would be impacting
exactly what we would be doing, and we would appreciate it. And
if there's anything that you think we can do as a Congress,
we'd definitely like to know that.
Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. We'll follow up with
that detail, and it is an important area, and we'll get you
that detail if that would be helpful for your deliberations.
Mr. Norman. Thanks so much. I yield back.
Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the big 1st
District of Kansas, Dr. Marshall, for five minutes.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Let me start by saying thank you. Excuse me. The Secretary
lined out several of your vision, your goals, stewardship,
accountability, and service, and several of my folks back home
in the energy sector have said indeed, under this
Administration, things are going in a positive direction.
Especially my friends from the Cuyahoga, Kansas, oil and gas
industry expressed their gratitude.
I've been waiting here so long my throat got scratchy.
The Secretary has been a leader to ensure resiliency of the
electric grid and has proposed that several proposed actions
that could favor fuels with onsite storage like nuclear and
coal. How could this approach disadvantage natural gas in
particular, which is currently the most affordable fuel on the
market, and what steps is the Department taking to invest in
grid resiliency without picking winners and losers in the
energy market?
Mr. Dabbar. Yes. So thank you, Congressman. You know, I
think it's been a long history of this country to have
diversity. The all-of-the-above is an important aspect to it.
Obviously, natural gas has had significant improvements in
technology, and whether it's in turbine efficiency or
production costs. And once again, we do feel this is generally
appropriate, as has been a bipartisan view of having diversity
across all the energy types and that we can continue that. So
we consider natural gas just as important as nuclear and coal.
What other areas are we focused on around grid resiliency?
This is a particularly interesting area for me as Under
Secretary of Science. What one particular area that we're
focused on is in machine learning and artificial intelligence.
Collecting data from the grid on all the different data points
around weather, around wind, around solar intensity, around
demand that's coming up the next day or the next week as a
result of those coming through, all the capabilities of the
power plants, the costs associated with interconnections is a
great example of the applicability of machine learning for
potential grid management. And we actually have a number of
different machine-learning algorithms on how to optimize the
grid that will help resiliency, will help dispatch to lower
costs, and it's a particularly very interesting area for us
that, in addition to the points that the Secretary made earlier
that I wanted to point out on this important topic.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Next, I want to talk a little bit about
low-dose radiation health risk. As a physician, it's been an
area of concern. We certainly know that at some point there's
an all-or-nothing phenomena for radiation, whether dealing with
a pregnant woman or an adult, and we don't really know, you
know, where those limits are for low-dose radiation. And the
House proud that we passed H.R. 4675, the Low-Dose Radiation
Research Act.
Under the previous Administration, research in this area
was abruptly called to a stop for some reason. Can you commit
today to restore the Department's leadership in this field of
science?
Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, as a user of low-dose radiation
earlier in my nuclear engineering days, I'm completely
sympathetic of the topic. We certainly have been discussing
this. Certainly, we've been getting up to speed on the past
work that has been done. And should you appropriate that
exactly how we would take it forward, so should that happen,
should you appropriate, we actually have specific ideas and
plans. We're really focused on the genomics aspects, which is a
bit new compared to the previous work in the last
Administrations that have focused on this topic. There's
obviously an area of focus for and expertise for the Department
should it be appropriated.
Mr. Marshall. Right. I spent a little time exposed to some
low-dose radiation myself in a nuclear reactor at Kansas State
University.
Lastly, I'd like to just talk about CFIUS for a second, in
particular referring to Citgo. I don't know all the details but
I think Russia recently invested in Citgo, some concern on my
part about a Russian zoning refining industries in this country
and just wonder if the Department has any concerns about this.
Mr. Dabbar. I apologize. I'm not the right person, but we
can certainly follow up with that question.
Mr. Marshall. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair wishes to thank both the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary for their testimony and the Members for their
questions.
The record will remain open two weeks for additional
written comments and questions from the Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Hon. Rick Perry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century Reform Plan and
Reorganization Recommendations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Visit https://www.performance.gov/GovReform/ to view the entire report.