[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY:
MODERNIZING AND SECURING OUR
NATION'S ELECTRICITY GRID
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-037PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California VACANCY
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
July 17, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 10
Witnesses:
The Honorable Karen Evans, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Mr. Juan J. Torres, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy Systems
Integration, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Co-Chair,
Grid Modernization Lab Consortium
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Ms. Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO, Energy Storage Association
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Ms. Katherine Hamilton, Chair, 38 North Solutions and Executive
Director, Advanced Energy Management Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Karen Evans, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 78
Mr. Juan J. Torres, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy Systems
Integration, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Co-Chair,
Grid Modernization Lab Consortium.............................. 80
Ms. Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO, Energy Storage Association....... 82
Ms. Katherine Hamilton, Chair, 38 North Solutions and Executive
Director, Advanced Energy Management Alliance.................. 84
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 88
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY:
MODERNIZING AND SECURING OUR
NATION'S ELECTRICITY GRID
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. All right, this hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Good afternoon, welcome to today's hearing, ``The
Future of Electricity Delivery: Modernizing and Securing Our
Nation's Electricity Grid.'' I want to thank all of our
witnesses for joining us here today. This is such an important
topic.
I'm a young guy, as you can tell, but I have read some
history about what it was like when we first started building
the electric grid, over a century ago now. I don't think we
could have imagined the technologies that we would use to power
our homes, and businesses, and hospitals, and everything today.
And I think the challenge is different. You know, back then the
real challenge was just extending power itself throughout every
corner of our society, and there was a challenge, which was
that those providing power knew they could make money in the
cities, in well-populated areas, in places with a lot of
business and commercial opportunities, but it was not as
profitable to take electric power out into the countryside,
into the hill country of Texas, for example. And so the
government made a basic deal, which was that they would
provide, essentially, a monopoly over providing power in a lot
of these areas. Firms would make quite a bit of money,
utilities would, and in exchange they would carry their product
everywhere that it needed to be. And I think in the 21st
century, we have a similar dilemma on our hands, but there's a
similar deal to be made, which is today the challenge is not
just to provide power itself everywhere, but to provide power
in a way that is clean, and efficient, and allows us to stay
economically competitive, even as we become a society much less
dependent on carbon. And although electricity demand has been
flat, we should see electricity demand increase as we electrify
more segments of our society in order to accomplish those
goals.
But to get there it's clear that we have to change the
energy sector. We know that as we do that, for example, there
are going to be much more serious threats to our electric grid,
from cyberattacks and otherwise. We know that the economics of
this whole thing are changing, as natural gas resources have
come online. That's good for constituents like mine, who are
saving money, but as all this stuff changes, we're going to
have to invest to really upgrade the system that is meant to
integrate all these new sources of energy, and to strike a
balance between them in real time, which has become one of the
big challenges with battery storage especially. That's a
computing challenge, is a technological challenge. It's a
challenge when it comes to making the basic infrastructure
investment, and that's what we're here to talk about today.
I was definitely alarmed to hear, as I'm sure many of you
were, about the first serious cyberattack on our Nation's
electric grid back in March, or at least it was reported in
March. As far as we know, no customers lost power in that
attack, but it obviously is a warning sign of the incredibly
serious damage that could happen if we don't take action on
this issue. And by the time one happens when somebody does lose
power, it'll be much too late, and so the choice facing all of
us today is whether we can get the legislative machinery to
work in such a way that we can really make a serious
investment, and try to protect folks from the cyberattacks that
we all know are going to come. We know that Russia, and China,
and other adversaries are actively probing our defenses, and
they would love to have in their back pocket the ability to
shut down parts of our grid when it's convenient for them, and
the decision facing us is whether we will allow that to happen.
And I think I speak for every Member of this Committee when I
say that we will not.
That's why I'm looking forward to talking about these
subjects today. We have the draft Grid Modernization Research
and Development Act of 2019, which will allow us to set forth a
wide array of research opportunities on topics like grid
modernization, resilience, emergency response, modeling, which
we know is going to be so important to be able to manage the
new type of grid that we have, and better integration of
buildings, vehicles, and renewable sources. Several Members of
this Committee, including Mr. Casten and Mr. Foster, have
already introduced legislation on these subjects, and we are
happy to incorporate elements of those into these drafts that
we'll continue working on making sure we do that.
We're also looking at the Grid Cybersecurity Research and
Development Act of 2019, which updates a bill previously
introduced by Mr. Bera. This would authorize a cross-agency
research and development (R&D) program to do exactly what I've
discussed, which is harden and mitigate the electric grid from
cyberattacks. It would be carried out in partnership with
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Institute
for Standards and Technology, and the National Science
Foundation would involve technical assistance, education, and
workforce.
One of the aspects of cybersecurity that I think is often
underappreciated is the fact that it is also a workforce issue.
We don't have enough people trained and working in
cybersecurity today as we need, and there will be tens of
thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, more openings in the
next few years, many of which in my home area of Pittsburgh,
because of the great work done at Carnegie Mellon, but also the
University of Pittsburgh's Cyber Law Institute, among others,
really training people up for this. And so that's what these
kind of programs are going to authorize. We're excited to talk
about them.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to all our witnesses joining
to discuss a critical topic to our nation: the electric grid.
When we were first started building the grid over a century
ago, we couldn't have imagined the technologies we'd use to
power our homes and businesses - much less the technologies
that would depend upon electricity. And despite the incredible
advancements our scientists, researchers, companies and
universities have pioneered since, many of the basic principles
of our grid's design and operation remain unchanged.
One thing I've heard both sides of the aisle emphasize is
the need for increased infrastructure investment. Any
infrastructure plan must include the grid, and we need new
technology solutions to upgrade the backbone of the energy
system for the 21st century.
It's clear the energy sector is changing as our grid faces
challenges like cyber threats and climate change. We also know
that the generation resources used to power our grid are
changing. The costs of electricity have continued to drop as we
found new ways to develop natural gas resources and made
breakthrough advancements in renewable resources like wind and
solar. These generation changes have saved constituents money
and are lowering carbon emissions - critical as we continue to
try and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Our economy and civilization increasingly rely on
electricity. It only makes sense to invest in the delivery
system for what powers our hospitals and schools, our factories
and homes. And it makes sense to invest in the research that
allows for advancements and adoption of new technology and
protects this critical infrastructure from adversaries or
natural disasters.
I was alarmed to hear, as I am sure many were, of the first
incident of a cyber attack on our nation's electricity grid,
reported to the Department of Energy by an anonymous Western
utility on March 5th, 2019. While no customers lost power, this
attack portends the potential damage to come and the importance
of bolstering our grid's security.
This is why I'm looking forward to discussing two important
legislative drafts at this hearing today that will guide the
Department's research and development activities on grid
modernization and cybersecurity. The draft Grid Modernization
Research and Development Act of 2019 would set forth a
comprehensive research agenda on several important topics in
grid modernization, including grid resilience, emergency
response, modeling and visualization, and the better
integration of buildings, vehicles, and renewable energy
sources onto the electric grid.
I understand that several members of this committee, led by
Mr. Casten and Mr. Foster, have introduced legislation on
energy storage, elements of which are also incorporated into
these drafts.
The second draft bill we are here to discuss, the draft
Grid Cybersecurity Research and Development Act of 2019,
updates a bill that was previously introduced by my colleague
on this Committee, Mr. Bera. This bill authorizes a cross-
agency research and development program to harden and mitigate
the electric grid from cyber attacks. This research program
would be carried out in partnership with the Department of
Homeland Security, the National Institute for Standards and
Technology, and the National Science Foundation and includes
technical assistance, education and workforce programs, and
interagency coordination as tools to achieve these important
security goals. I hope we're able to work together in a
bipartisan way to develop and advance these bills to ensure our
grid remains reliable, resilient, and secure.
Chairman Lamb. And, with that, I will now recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, for an opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this
hearing. I was asking what the population of Pittsburgh is. The
metro area is about 1.5 million. Is that about right? So that's
a lot of electricity. Well, we appreciate you hosting this
hearing. This afternoon we will hear from expert witnesses on
the existing strengths and weaknesses of our Nation's electric
grid, and the impact that potential attacks and incidents could
have on our grid reliability and national security. Our
witnesses today will also discuss advances in the research and
development of new grid tools and technologies, and hopefully
provide insight, I know you will, on how the Federal Government
can work alongside of American industries to strengthen our
energy sector.
The reliability of America's power grid is one of our
greatest economic strengths. I like to say that the things that
make America great are the things that America makes. How do we
do that? We have a strong, reliable energy supply, that's how
we do it. In my home State of Texas, reliable and affordable
power serves a population that is increasing by more than 1,000
a day. Chairman Lamb, that's what I was asking you. We
literally get 30,000 people a month into Texas. Now multiply
times 12, and you figure out real quick what that does in a
year. One thousand people per day, and it supports the energy-
intensive industries that drive the United States consumption
of energy. Texas is by far the Nation's largest producer and
consumer of electricity, and keeping its power grid reliable
and secure is absolutely key to maintaining U.S. economic
growth. But even in Texas, it is common knowledge that our
electric grid faces significant and diverse threats to the
reliability and resiliency of power delivery.
Put simply, we cannot predict when a cyberattack would
threaten our power supply, that you referenced, Mr. Chairman,
and we do not know when the next natural disaster might occur.
In 2017, we were reminded of this fact by the impact of
Hurricane Harvey, a devastating Category 4 hurricane that hit
the Texas Gulf Coast and caused significant generator and
transmission line outages for many on the Texas Gulf Coast and
the Texas Interconnection. However, due to proper planning and
management by what we call ERCOT, the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas, the Texas grid was able to recover quickly
from this devastating storm.
Since it's not a question of if, but a question of when
that same power grid will face significant physical and cyber
threats, the modernization of the national electricity system
must be our priority. According to the Department of Energy,
DOE, the U.S. electric grid must be updated within the next
decade to address challenges, including aging U.S. energy
infrastructure, changes in demand for energy, emerging threats,
and fundamental shifts in the U.S. energy supply portfolio as
energy sources, rightfully so, like renewables and nuclear
increase. Again, we can see these changes taking place in my
very own home State, where today nuclear generation is our most
reliable source of energy, in fact running at more than 93
percent of the time over the last 3 years. And where we also
lead the Nation in wind energy, and we're number five in solar
energy, by the way.
As next generation energy technologies continue to come
online, and as cybersecurity capabilities continue to grow and
evolve, we must take our action to counter our grid
vulnerabilities, and provide necessary updates to this very
critical and necessary infrastructure. Thankfully, DOE funds
broad research and development programs to support grid
modernization and security technologies through departmentwide
collaborations like the Grid Modernization Initiative, or GMI,
and the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium, GMLC. DOE also funds
robust research in novel grid technologies and computational
modeling efforts through its Office of Electricity, OE, and
cybersecurity technology for energy delivery systems through
its Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency
Response, CESER. We are grateful to have two witnesses
representing these important efforts here this afternoon, the
Honorable Karen Evans, Assistant Secretary of CESER, and Mr.
Juan Torres, an Associate Laboratory Director at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, and co-Chair of Grid Modernization
Lab Consortium. Welcome to both of you, welcome to all of you.
Modernizing our grid will require these important programs,
along with cooperation from many Federal agencies, States, and
industry. I trust our witnesses can share their expertise, and
provide valuable insight on how Congress can best support these
very collaborative efforts. I want to thank the Chairman again
for holding this hearing. I look forward to very productive
and, dare I say, electrifying discussion. And, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for hosting this hearing. This
afternoon, we will hear from expert witnesses on the existing
strengths and weaknesses of our nation's electric grid, and the
impact that potential attacks and incidents could have on our
grid reliability and national security.
Our witnesses today will also discuss advances in the
research and development of new grid tools and technologies and
provide insight into how the federal government can work
alongside American industry to strengthen our energy sector.
The reliability of America's power grid is one of our
greatest economic strengths. In my home state of Texas,
reliable and affordable power serves a population that is
increasing by more than 1,000 people per day and supports the
energy intensive industries that drive U.S. consumption of
energy. Texas is by far the nation's largest producer and
consumer of electricity and keeping its power grid reliable and
secure is key to maintaining U.S. economic growth.
But even in Texas, it is common knowledge that our electric
grid faces significant and diverse threats to the reliability
and resilience of power delivery. Put simply, we cannot predict
when a cyberattack would threaten our power supply and we don't
know when the next natural disaster will occur.
In 2017, we were reminded of this fact by the impact of
Hurricane Harvey, a devastating Category 4 hurricane that hit
the Gulf Coast and caused significant generator and
transmission line outages for many on the Texas
Interconnection.
Due to proper planning and management by the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Texas grid was able
to quickly recover from this devastating storm. But since it is
not a question of ``if'' but a question of ``when'' the power
grid will face significant physical and cyber threats, the
modernization of the national electricity system must be our
priority.
According to the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S.
electric grid must be updated within the next decade to address
challenges including aging U.S. energy infrastructure, changes
in demand, emerging threats and fundamental shifts in the U.S.
energy supply portfolio as energy sources like renewables and
nuclear increase.
Again we can see these changes taking place in my home
state, where today, nuclear generation is our most reliable
source of energy, running at more than 93% of the time over the
past three years - and where we lead the nation in wind energy.
As next-generation energy technologies continue to come
online, and as cybersecurity capabilities continue to evolve,
we must take action to counter our grid vulnerabilities and
provide necessary updates to this critical infrastructure.
Thankfully, DOE funds broad research and development
programs to support grid modernization and security
technologies through Department-wide collaborations like the
Grid Modernization Initiative (GMI), and the Grid Modernization
Lab Consortium (GMLC).
DOE also funds robust research in novel grid technologies
and computational modeling efforts through its Office of
Electricity (OE) and cybersecurity technology for energy
delivery systems through its Office of Cybersecurity, Energy
Security, and Emergency Response (CESER).
We are grateful to have two witnesses representing these
important efforts here this afternoon: the Honorable Karen
Evans, Assistant Secretary of CESER, and Mr. Juan J. Torres, an
Associate Laboratory Director at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and Co-Chair of Grid Modernization Lab Consortium.
Modernizing our grid will require these important programs,
along with cooperation from many federal agencies, states, and
industry. I hope our witnesses can share their expertise and
provide valuable insight on how Congress can best support these
collaborative efforts.
I want to again thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to a productive discussion today.
Chairman Lamb. It wouldn't be the first time that
electricity was powered by a lot of hot air from Texas.
Mr. Weber. Or the last.
Chairman Lamb. Had to include that for the Ranking Member's
granddaughter in the audience today. We welcome her. And I do
think it is important to note the bipartisan nature of this
discussion. As it often is on this Committee on these subjects,
Mr. Weber and I both are big supporters of nuclear energy, and
a sort of all-of-the-above-type strategy. It's one thing that
doesn't always break through the headlines, but is a beacon of
hope here in Washington some days.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding
this hearing on two important and related issues that our
nation's energy infrastructure is now confronting: The
resilience of our electric grid and its security from cyber and
physical attacks.
A few months ago, this committee held a hearing where we
discussed the need for renewable energy research and
development, specifically focusing on wind and solar energy. I
am always excited to talk about how Texas leads the U.S. in
installed wind energy capacity, with over 24 gigawatts of wind
energy. However, significant work needs to be done to our
electric grid to help utilize all this energy in the most
efficient way we can, and in coordination with all of the other
types of energy that are now being integrated into the grid.
I am pleased that the President's budget request reflects
significant increases in research and development activities
for both the Office of Electricity, where the Department
performs its grid modernization work, and the Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, which
leads its grid cybersecurity work. I am disappointed, however,
that the request also includes a 30% cut for research on
resilient distribution systems within the Office of
Electricity.
This would ultimately take money away from research on low
cost distribution sensors, and it would cut the development of
smart devices that can help minimize the impacts of local
disruptions to our energy systems. If we are to successfully
transform our Nation's grid to support the technologies of the
future, we need to be sufficiently funding R&D in these areas
as well.
The two drafts of legislation we will be discussing today
would provide important guidance and support for these critical
programs over the next several years. The Grid Modernization
Research and Development Act of 2019 authorizes a broad
research, development, and demonstration program on a wide
variety of grid modernization topics, including advanced hybrid
energy systems and a grid-scale energy storage initiative. The
Grid Cybersecurity Research and Development Act of 2019 is an
updated version of a bill that Mr. Bera and I introduced, along
with many of my Science Committee colleagues, in the previous
two Congresses. This bill would authorize a cross-agency
research and development program to advance electric grid
cybersecurity efforts.
I am looking forward to hearing from the experts assembled
here today on what we can do to improve the electric grid so
that we are ready for the electricity needs of the future. This
Committee is fortunate to be able to focus on supporting the
development of a wide range of exciting, cutting-edge energy
technologies. But the grid really is the backbone energy
infrastructure of our Nation, and we should be doing everything
we can to ensure that it is robust enough to utilize these new
technologies in a safe and reliable way.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. So at this time I would like to introduce
our witnesses. The Honorable Karen Evans is Assistant Secretary
of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency
Response, CESER, at the U.S. Department of Energy. Before
leading CESER, Mrs. Evans was the national director of the U.S.
Cyber Challenge, a public-private program designed to help
address the skills gap in the cybersecurity field. She also
worked for the George W. Bush Administration, where she was an
IT official at the Office of Management and Budget, and served
as the Department of Energy's Chief Information Officer.
Mr. Juan Torres is the Associate Laboratory Director for
Energy Systems Integration at NREL (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory), and the Co-Chair of the Grid Modernization
Laboratory Consortium, which is a partnership of 14 national
labs to advance modernization of the U.S. power grid. Prior to
joining NREL, Mr. Torres held a variety of positions over the
course of a 27-year-long career at Sandia National Lab, where
he worked on securing our energy infrastructure, among other
topics.
Ms. Kelly Speakes-Backman is the CEO of the Energy Storage
Association (ESA). Kelly has spent over 20 years working in
energy and environmental issues in the public, NGO, and private
sectors, including United Technologies, Sun-Edison, and
Alliance to Save Energy. She is a former Commissioner of the
Maryland Public Service Commission, where she also served as
Chair of the Board of Directors of the regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, co-Vice Chair of the NARUC (National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners) Committee on Energy Resources
and the Environment, and a member of the EPRI (Electric Power
Research Institute) Energy Efficiency and Grid Modernization
Public Advisory Group.
And Ms. Katherine Hamilton is the Chair of 38 North
Solutions, a public policy consultancy specializing in clean
energy and innovation, and the Executive Director of the
Advanced Energy Management Alliance. She previously ran the
Gridwise Alliance, was policy director to the Energy Storage
Association, and worked at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. Katherine worked in buildings research and
government relations. She also spent a decade at an investor-
owned utility designing electrical systems for commercial and
residential developments.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record. When you have completed your spoken
testimony, we will begin with questions, and each Member will
then have 5 minutes for questions. We will start with the
testimony of Ms. Evans.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KAREN EVANS,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF CYBERSECURITY,
ENERGY SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Hon. Evans. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and
Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor and a privilege to
serve at the Department of Energy as the Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency
Response. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the Department. One of the most critical missions at DOE is
developing the science and technology to successfully counter
the ever-evolving increasing threat of cyber and other attacks
on our networks, data, facilities, and infrastructure. DOE
works closely with our Federal agencies, State, local, tribal,
and territorial governments, industry, and our National
Laboratory partners to accomplish this mission.
Another critical mission for DOE is ensuring the resilience
of our electric grid, and successfully countering the ever-
evolving increasing threat of physical and cyberattacks. DOE
recently announced an $8 million investment in innovations that
will enhance the reliability and the resiliency of our Nation's
energy infrastructure. This R&D partnership opportunity will
spur the development of the next generation of tools and
technologies that will become widely adopted throughout the
energy sector. As we protect our infrastructure from cyber
threats, we are also working to improve and complete the
resilience of our electricity systems.
Our Office of Electricity also supports transmission system
resilience and generation diversity and is exploring new
architecture approaches for the electric grid. This includes
the development of the North American Energy Resilience Model,
which aims to provide unique and groundbreaking national-scale
energy planning, and real-time situational awareness
capabilities to enhance security and resilience. A large
component of DOE's work is pursuing cutting-edge innovation in
Big Data, artificial intelligence, and grid-scale energy
storage based on new technology.
Grid-scale storage will be an important enabler for
renewable integration, and for clean-based load power. While
today's technologies are already providing value to the grid,
there are physical limitations to the traditional batteries and
pumped hydro that will be surpassed by the next-generation
technologies. Efforts in grid-scale energy storage are already
producing important advancements. Grid-scale energy storage
technologies have been demonstrated using new generation of
advanced flow batteries that rely on lower cost electrolytes.
We are also continuing to advance energy storage through our
Advance Energy Storage Initiative, which includes the
development of the new grid storage launch pad, aimed at
accelerating materials development, testing, and independent
evaluation of battery technologies for grid applications.
The DOE National Laboratories support the development of
technologies that strengthen and improve energy infrastructure
so that consumers have access to reliable and secure sources of
energy. Another program driving enabling technologies is DOE's
Grid Modernization Initiative, GMI, which focuses on the
integration of increasing amounts of variable generation into
the grid through R&D investments at our national labs. One
noteworthy GMI effort will accelerate the conversion of the
National Wind Technology Center campus into an experimental
micro-grid capable of testing grid integration at megawatt
scale.
These are just a few of the examples of how the United
States is approaching its commitment to updating and improving
its energy infrastructure and environmental responsibility
within its own border, but these same issues are also at the
heart of so many of our partnerships and work abroad. Reliant
and resilient energy infrastructure is critical to the U.S.
economy's competitiveness, innovation, and leadership. Our
long-term approach will strengthen our national security and
positively impact our economy. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before this Subcommittee, and I'm happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Evans follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Torres?
TESTIMONY OF JUAN TORRES,
CO-CHAIR, GRID MODERNIZATION LAB CONSORTIUM,
AND ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR,
ENERGY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION,
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
Mr. Torres. Thank you. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the critical challenge of grid modernization and
cybersecurity, and the crucial research needed to create a
flexible, more secure, and more resilient U.S. power system.
I'm Juan Torres. I serve as the Associate Laboratory Director
for Energy Systems Integration at the Department of Energy's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, in Golden,
Colorado. I've been affiliated with Federal research in our
National Laboratory system for more than 29 years. In my
current position, I direct NREL's efforts to strengthen the
security, resilience, and sustainability of our Nation's
electric grid. In addition, I'm Co-Chair of the DOE Grid
Modernization Laboratory Consortium, or GMLC, and team lead for
the GMLC security and resilience research.
I commend the Committee for this timely discussion, given
that every aspect of our economy, our national security, and
critical infrastructure in the U.S. is deeply dependent on the
reliable operation of our electrical system. I'm often asked,
when will you be finished with modernizing the grid? The answer
is that grid modernization is a journey. It's not a single
destination. As long as we need electricity to remain
economically competitive, to defend our Nation against evolving
threats, and to maintain our way of life, we'll need to
continually advance our electric infrastructure. Fundamentally,
the research we're conducting must assure that our future grid
has greater resilience to hazards of all types. Improved
reliability for everyday operations, enhanced security from
increasing and evolving threats, continued affordability to
maintain our economic prosperity, superior flexibility to
respond to the variability and uncertainty of conditions at
different time scales, including a range of energy futures.
We've come a long way in a few short years of investment
through the DOE's Grid Modernization Initiative, but there
remains much work to do. Research within the GMLC has the
opportunity to strengthen the trajectory of our grid's
development. This work will in turn inform the investment
decisions we make today so we can increase the impact of the
new technologies that will serve the grid for decades to come.
The steps we take now can move us toward enabling the grid of
the future to address pressing challenges, such as a changing
mix of generation types, a need for cost-effective energy
storage, extreme weather events, increasing cyber and physical
threats, electrification of our transportation system, and
growing use of digital and communication technologies.
I'd like to highlight just a few examples of the important
work that is ongoing around the National Labs system through
DOE support. The National Labs' deep modeling capability is
providing the basis for the DOE Office of Electricity's North
American energy resilience model that will, in the future, help
us understand the state of resilience for the power grid and
natural gas infrastructure. With DOE's Solar Technologies
Office, we are developing a road map that will guide
cybersecurity to confront the unique needs of the growing solar
energy sector, and other distributed energy systems. And as I
speak with you, NREL, in partnership with the DOE Wind Energy
Technologies Office and the International Electrotechnical
Commission, today is hosting a cybersecurity workshop at the
National Wind Technology Center at NREL's Flat Iron campus.
This event is bringing key government and industry players
together for the first time to address the cybersecurity needs
of the growing wind power industry.
Finally, I applaud the Subcommittee for the commitment and
insight you have shown in holding this hearing, and with
pending legislation that addresses the critical challenges of
our future electric grid. The benefits of technical solutions
cannot be fully realized without the appropriate business
models, regulatory structure, and policies to support and
enable them. Given the importance of these very issues to DOE,
to the National Laboratories, and of course to Congress, I'd
like to invite you to attend the National Lab Day on Capitol
Hill next week, July 24, in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The event will be focused exclusively on grid modernization and
cybersecurity, and many grid researchers, other experts from
the labs, as well as myself, will be on hand for a discussion
and a series of exhibits that will highlight much of the work
I'm discussing today. Thank you for the privilege to address
this Committee, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torres follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Ms. Speakes-Backman?
TESTIMONY OF KELLY SPEAKES-BACKMAN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ENERGY STORAGE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber,
and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of ESA, thank you
for the invitation to speak today on the role that energy
storage plays in modernizing and securing our electric power
infrastructure. Energy storage technologies are transforming
the way we generate, deliver, and use electricity because it
essentially decouples the element of time from when we make it,
move it, and sell it. That simple concept enables enormous
amounts of capabilities for the grid: Supplying backup power,
reducing peak system demands, relieving stressed
infrastructure, firming variable generation sources, like solar
and wind, and optimizing inflexible generation sources, like
nuclear.
Most people think of a battery when they hear energy
storage, but there are a variety of technologies, not only
different kinds of batteries, like flow batteries, but also
mechanical storage technologies, like pumped hydro and
flywheels, thermal storage technologies like ice storage and
molten salt, and power-to-gas storage technologies like
hydrogen and ammonia. Each has its own performance
characteristics, and best suited applications, but all do the
same job of storing energy for use when and where it's needed
most. Storage is uniquely flexible among all resources. It's
the only grid resource that operates as both supply and demand
in a single asset. I've outlined a lot of reasons in my written
testimony, of course, for our claim, quoting my fellow
panelist, Katherine Hamilton, that storage is the bacon of the
grid, just makes everything a little bit better.
ESA applauds the Subcommittee for incorporating energy
storage into its Grid Modernization Research and Development
Act of 2019 to modernize and secure the electric grid. For the
remainder of my testimony today, I'm going to outline the
recommendations from my written testimony, which are intended
to strengthen the effect of the proposed legislation. So in
Section 3, Enhancing Grid Resilience and Emergency Response,
the proposal to enhance grid resilience is really important,
particularly in light of the terrible impact of the
increasingly frequent and severe weather events limiting access
to electricity. Grants for projects that increase the
resilience of electric service with distributed energy
resources will speed the ability of communities and local
governments to prepare for the next disaster.
It's also important for the Federal Government to use that
information that it gathers in this effort to prove the
economic case for resilience investment more broadly so that
State commissions can measure cost effectiveness, and the
private sector can step in when the proposed grant money is
spent. To that end, ESA asks the Subcommittee to consider
directing DOE to work with stakeholders to develop a method for
quantifying the economic value of resilience.
In Section 6, there are a number of commendable provisions
within Section 6, Grid Scale Energy Storage, reflecting
bipartisan ideas from H.R. 2909, the Promoting Grid Storage
Act, and H.R. 2986, the Better Energy Storage Technology Act,
or BEST Act. ESA endorses both these bills. The Promoting Grid
Storage Act would create a competitive grant program at the
Department of Energy for State and local governments,
utilities, public power authorities, and rural co-ops seeking
support for incorporating storage into long-term planning and
grid operations. We respectfully request that the Subcommittee
include the competitive grant program from Sections 4 and 6 of
the Promoting Grid Storage Act to accelerate learning through
experience, and share that investment responsibility. The BEST
Act emphasizes DOE investments in demonstrations projects to
provide flexibility on intra-day, inter-day, and seasonal
basis. Those demonstrations are intended to establish cost and
performance targets, which is critical to developing
commercialization milestones, but also may pose a risk to
innovation unintentionally limiting technology development
pathways.
Section 7, in Hybrid--in the Hybrid Energy Systems, we
commend the Subcommittee for efforts to drive research and
development on storage systems paired with generation. Hybrid
systems with storage are relatively new, and we ask in this
section that the Subcommittee direct FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) to seek a report on the current rules on
interconnection, market participation, and capacity
accreditation of hybrid energy systems.
And finally, in Section 8, Grid Integration, in addition to
the RD&D (research, development, and demonstration) programs
for integrating the--an electrified transportation system. We
recommend adding complimentary RD&D efforts on the re-use of ED
batteries for second life applications in charging
infrastructure and electric grid service. Re-use for grid
applications could lower costs, and could divert still useful
assets from recycling or disposal. And so, with that, I thank
you for the opportunity to speak to these critical issues, and
I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speakes-Backman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And Ms. Hamilton?
TESTIMONY OF KATHERINE HAMILTON,
CHAIR, 38 NORTH SOLUTIONS,
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ADVANCED ENERGY MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE
Ms. Hamilton. Good afternoon. My name is Katherine
Hamilton. I'm the Chair of the firm 38 North Solutions, and
Executive Director of Advanced Energy Management Alliance, a
coalition of distributed energy resource providers and
consumers. Thank you to Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber,
and the entire Subcommittee for inviting me to testify before
you today.
A lot has changed in the last 2 decades since I last
appeared before this Committee. Renewable energy resources are
now the cheapest source of electricity, and energy storage is
able to cost-effectively replace old fossil fuel peaker plants.
Innovation has been instrumental in allowing these resources to
efficiently, effectively, and safely integrate into the
electric grid. And while innovation continues in the private
sector, Federal investment and leadership is crucial to solving
many of our most complex puzzles around grid modernization.
This Act would provide a great deal of that leadership.
It is appropriate that the first part of the bill focuses
on resilience. The need for resilience continues to grow, given
increasing storms, wildfires, and other climate-related
incidents. Reliability is the percentage of availability over
time, while resilience is the ability to recover quickly from a
specific situation. Distributed resources, such as micro-grids
that can recover quickly from an outage incident, and provide
continued service to local communities, will be important to
increasing their resilience. In addition to metrics on outage
duration, data should be collected on recovery time, costs of
downtime, and customer impact. I suggest that a section on risk
be developed, mapping out areas at greatest risk from both a
physical, as well as an economic standpoint.
Smart grid technology deployments have allowed the grid to
operate more efficiently, and with greater visibility. The year
of detective work necessary to determine that the Northeast
Blackout of 2003 was caused by a branch in Cleveland would no
longer be the case, thanks to these technologies. The focus on
modeling is greatly needed. Modeling assumptions can determine
long-term investment in generation resources that may or may
not be necessary, and that are paid for through consumer rate
increases. While planning models have improved, most are
lacking in considering demand-side resources in the planning
process, so customer sided resources, from demand response to
solar, energy efficiency, combined heat and power, electric
vehicles, all can contribute to the customer not just being a
load on the system, but actually becoming part of the resource,
allowing the supply and demand sides to become interchangeable.
Technology demonstrations are key to proof of concept,
lowering risk and gathering data for innovative solutions. A
concept that's been used in other sectors, and to some degree
in the utility sector, is a sandbox, where an area is set aside
that is completely free of regulation, and where multiple
systems, technologies, and approaches can be experimented with
removed from penalty and risk to the utility. Additional
experimentation can actually lead to more creative solutions.
Advanced energy storage has grown tremendously, and seen
exponentially reduced costs. New technologies have been
nurtured and funded at the Department of Energy, including in
ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), and
continued R&D should test new chemistries and use cases. But
instead of identifying this research as grid scale, or
prescribing time durations for storage technology operations, I
recommend stating the problems that should be solved, or the
services delivered, and allow new chemistries and technologies
to be developed that fit those needs.
Grid integration is key to understanding how all these
systems can interact to multiply the benefits of these
innovative technologies for the grid and consumers.
In addition to protecting sensitive grid information and
utility security, any standards for consumer or third-party
access to consumer data should be reasonable, while ensuring
privacy of information. I would caution against being overly
prescriptive, and inadvertently stifling innovation, including
the very innovation that could mitigate security risk. While
these programs are not necessarily designed to reduce carbon
emissions, tracking greenhouse gas impact is still useful as we
transition to a cleaner energy future, and explore technologies
whose greenhouse gas impacts are still relatively unknown.
Finally, I would propose adding a new section to the bill,
one focused more on social science. Given the speed of our
energy transition, manufacturing and worker transition is
lagging. The U.S. should not only be the leading source of
entrepreneurship globally, but we should also lead the world in
building and deploying new energy technologies. I suggest that
research be conducted on how factories can be retooled, power
plants repurposed with clean fuels, and workers trained to
adjust to new technologies. The U.S. is the global leader on
clean and smart energy technology innovation, but to continue
on that trajectory, we must sustain our R&D programs in ways
that can assist grid operators, utilities, entrepreneurs, our
workforce, communities, and consumers.
Thank you again to the Subcommittee for allowing me to
testify, and for showing leadership in grid modernization
research and development.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamilton follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Lamb. OK. At this point we will begin our first
round of questions. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hamilton, I'd actually like to start where you left
off, which is on the need to make sure that we're thinking
ahead on the impact of jobs that this transition will have. It
will have it whether we like it or not, so, as far as I'm
concerned, the question is what are we going to do about it?
The whole theme of today's hearing is how are we going to
protect? How are we going to protect the grid, make sure that
people's power is protected, that their data is protected? But
we also have to make sure that their jobs are protected. And I
believe we can do that.
There's going to be a lot of hands-on, physical work that
needs to be done to adjust our infrastructure, to install new
equipment. But I was just hoping you could say a little bit
more about what that would look like as a research project.
What are some ideas of the type of research we would have to
authorize? Who would be doing it, what do we need to know, and
when? If you could, is there anything more you can say on that,
please.
Ms. Hamilton. It's a great question, Mr. Chairman, and it's
something I think about a lot, because since I was in the
utility, the workforce has been aging. Now about 30 percent of
the utility workforce consists of Millennials, about 40 percent
of the engineers, and Millennials tend to change jobs faster
than we used to in the utility workforce. You would start in
the utility, and you would retire in the utility.
But people change jobs a lot faster, and there are more
types of jobs, so we need to find out what trainings are
needed. I think it's important for a research project to look
at what are all the skills that we need, and where do we need
to source those, and who can do that? What are some of the
skills that transfer really easily? For example, a coal worker
that is an engineer, or a certified electrician, might transfer
really well into energy storage or solar, where an electrician
might be needed. So I think there is some of that to be done.
Also in California right now, there are wildfires that are
going to cause public safety outages of 30 days or more. I
mean, substantial outages, and there are not enough trained
tree trimmers to do the work needed on vegetation management.
You can't send a kid out with a bushwhacker. This is really
trained labor. So there are a lot of job needs and
opportunities, and there are people who don't have jobs, and we
need to somehow match those. So bringing the public sector and
the private sector together on that seems to me to be a good
way to think about that.
Chairman Lamb. I think that's correct. Anybody else from
the panel want to jump in on that topic? Are you familiar with
researchers, or people doing this kind of work who might be
able to add to that? OK, we will be sure to look at it on our
own. Thank you for raising it.
Ms. Evans, on a kind of similar theme, I noted at the
beginning that I think we're short on the cybersecurity
workforce, and the jobs that need to be done there. Can you
talk a little bit about how our bill, or future efforts we
might make, can help us incentivize people to not only go into
the areas of cybersecurity, but really to serve the public the
way that you have, and help us protect these assets?
Hon. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot of work
that's already going on in this area that I know you are aware
of, under the National Institute of Standards, with the
Department of Homeland Security, and with the executive order
that just recently was released. So under the categories of
cyber, it's always going to increase. It's never going to go
away. And also, as my esteemed colleague just described the
utility workforce, you're going to have to constantly look at
what skillset you're going to need. Right now we're very
focused on what I would call the first responders, and those
types of skills that you want to have, if you think about it
that way, but you also have to build out who are the
specialists that are having--if you think about it on a 1 to
10, that is going to have to constantly be looked at as what is
the right mix both for the government as well as for private
industry.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much. And I think with both,
you know, and you know this from hosting the Cybersecurity
Challenge, or promoting it, I think with both sets of
challenges we need to be willing to look deep into our
educational pipeline and realize that starting younger people
on these projects, and gaining those skills at an earlier age
is going to be essential for us to ever get ahead of this. It's
a lot harder to retrain someone at an older age--given them
confidence that they need to make that transition then if we
have people interested in it from the beginning.
So, with that, I will recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, sir. Assistant Secretary Evans, one
of the things that makes Texas unique is our islanded grid,
ERCOT, that I referred to, it's the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas, I know you're aware of that. And it's my
understanding that this allows Texas to respond more quickly to
cyber and physical--cyberattacks, physical threats, physical
events, since they actually operate under one set of
regulations, State of Texas, and, of course, they're
accountable not to FERC, but to the agency in Texas. In your
opinion, are Texas utilities more or less vulnerable because
they have that kind of operating system?
Hon. Evans. I don't know that I want to actually say
they're more or less vulnerable. I think that the way that
Texas has approached this problem is that they're aware. And,
as was mentioned in some of my colleagues' testimonies, where
we were talking about shifting more toward risk, that they have
the ability to constantly evaluate the risk, regardless of
whether it's a physical risk, a cyber risk, or a weather risk.
And so it depends on how the mix works, but because of the way
they are organized, they can always constantly evaluate the
risk.
Mr. Weber. Right. And you're aware that they're accountable
to the PUC of Texas, Public Utilities Commission, as opposed to
FERC, and so the State as a whole gets to kind of have control
of that grid, one out of nine or eight in the country, and
there's kind of a little undetermined area there. So I think it
helps them work actually quicker and faster.
And I do want to come back to you too. In your prepared
testimony, you said that existing CESER projects and artificial
intelligence, AI, and quantum technology also. So how is CESER
using AI to strengthen the electric grid against cyber threats?
And I want to give a Part B to that question. The Chairman
talked about training people, and we talked about young people
going into these different jobs, and changing jobs more often.
Is CESER and the Department findings that they can find young
people, retain young people, and train people in AI, and
hopefully quantum computing?
Hon. Evans. So I'll take the second part of that question
first. We have an education piece associated with what is
happening in CESER. We have a competition, which is the
CyberForce Competition, that reaches out to all the
universities. Several of the labs participate. So that's our
outreach, and we are attempting to also work with the labs, as
well as us, to then hire directly from the winners. We have a
challenge, just like the rest of the government, just like the
sector as a whole in this area, so we are working on creative
ways through our authorities to be able to do that.
On the other part of the question, as to how we are using
artificial intelligence and quantum computing, we have several
research and development efforts that are underway, but it is
really to try to get it machine-to-machine so that we're
elevating the skill level. So things that the machines can do
based on how we know attack vectors will happen is built into
the technology and into the solutions, and then have those
learning capabilities go across our data storage as it relates.
So that's the artificial intelligence piece, so that then we
can then feed into the intelligence sector.
In visiting the labs, I can tell you that the folks there
that are studying under the labs are very interested in how
we're going about doing this, so I'm hoping that I can hire
them or they hire them.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. Torres, I want
to follow up with you on that. What are you experiencing in
that same vein of thought?
Mr. Torres. OK. With regards to both questions I'll start
with the artificial intelligence, and some of the advanced
technology concepts. So what we're seeing is the grid is
evolving to the point that humans just won't be able to respond
quickly enough to all the information that's going to be
available to them, so they're going to have to be aided through
some sort of computing/artificial intelligence types of
technologies. So we are looking into concepts like autonomous
systems, where we can incorporate some of the intelligence
there to make decisions to maintain reliability, but also we
need to do this in a way where we incorporate security from the
very beginning, where we assume these systems are going to be
targeted. So we are doing research in that particular space.
With regards to the talent pipeline, on the research side,
what we are seeing is the pipeline is just not going to be
strong enough here long term. We're not seeing enough people
continuing into graduate research, their graduate studies, so
we see a shortfall in folks with backgrounds in computer
science, computer engineering, in electrical engineering, in
the power grid. I think I heard earlier from Ms. Hamilton the
fact that, you know, most of the workforce in the utility
sector, they used to work their entire careers. They don't do
that anymore. How can we retain folks in those areas, but also
how can we retain the researchers so that we, as a country, can
maintain leadership in these technologies that are going to
shape the future grid?
Mr. Weber. All right. I appreciate it. I'm over my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lamb. Recognize Mr. Lipinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. Thank our witnesses for their testimony.
I wanted to follow up on one of the things that we were just
talking about here, is artificial intelligence. I have
introduced the Growing Artificial Intelligence Through
Research, or GrAITR, Act, which would provide necessary
resources to advance the science of AI and multiple
applications, and I know Mr. Torres was just speaking about
this, Secretary Evans was just speaking about this. I wanted to
ask Mr. Torres, what are some of the research directions that
need to be addressed to pursue an autonomous grid, and do you
think that the Department of Energy has the resources necessary
to pursue the research right now?
Mr. Torres. I don't think I've done a full assessment to be
able to answer the--that full question, but I can tell you
about some of the things where I think the Department of Energy
can have some impact. There's some foundational aspects to
artificial intelligence application to the grid that we really
need to develop further.
We have some work going on right now where we're applying
AI concepts to the grid, as I mentioned, focused around four--
building out four foundational areas that we think are really
important. One is complex systems, and understanding complex
systems theory, and the second is Big Data analytics. The third
is non-linear control. So what we're seeing is with highly
distributed systems, some of the linear control concepts that
are used now on the grid may not apply in a highly
decentralized type of system. And then the fourth area is
optimization. How do you really get all of these really
complex, highly distributed, where intelligence may be
distributed, to work together to achieve some sort of common
goal, so that it works as a cohesive system. So there's
opportunity to continue to advance some of the foundations to
be able to apply AI for the grid specifically.
Mr. Lipinski. Secretary Evans, do you have anything you
wanted to add there?
Hon. Evans. Well, what I would like to offer you, sir, is
that the Secretary is very committed to AI, and Undersecretary
Dabbar I know has really been working on this, so I would like
to take it back and get back to you specifically----
Mr. Lipinski. OK.
Hon. Evans [continuing]. About what our AI functions are
doing. I know what we're doing in our areas that relates to
cyber, but the Department is vast, as you know, so I'd be----
Mr. Lipinski. I understand.
Hon. Evans [continuing]. Happy to get it back to you.
Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate that. Well, in addition to AI,
everyone, I think, on this Committee, hopefully, knows by now
that my interest in always promoting social science research,
and the importance of social science research, which sometimes
gets short shrift and--with the great importance that it has to
fit in with a lot of our other research, so very happy that Ms.
Hamilton raised that. Is there anything else that you wanted to
add about what we need to do in integrating social science
research into this area that we're talking about?
Ms. Hamilton. Thank you for the comment. One thing I would
just note is that, because I come from the--I come from working
with entrepreneurial companies, and innovation has become much
more democratized, so innovators are not limited to our labs,
our universities, or our utilities. They are everywhere.
They're kids in basements playing with their apps, right? So
trying to make sure that our research programs are able to
connect the dots so that we can bring entrepreneurs to test,
and make sure that we have proof of concept, because no utility
is going to purchase a piece of equipment that was designed in
somebody's basement. They need to know that Department of
Energy and the National Labs have given it the seal of
approval, and have shown credibility, by testing it, and making
sure that this all works.
So I feel like, you know, while part of that is about
bringing new people into the industry, because there are so
many new excited young people coming in, we also need to make
sure that we then connect them to the programs that are
existing, to enrich the programs too.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. For
sake of time, I don't have much, I will yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Recognize Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being
here. Assistant Secretary Evans, I wanted to touch on EMPs
(electromagnetic pulse). The commission to assess the threat
from electromagnetic pulse attacks warned that a high-altitude
EMP would be, they quote, ``an existential threat to the
survival of the United States and its allies''. That sounds
pretty ominous. In your written testimony, you mentioned that
CESER's working to address EMP risk by sharing knowledge with
industry, and developing mitigation strategies. Could you
explain to us a little bit of what you're doing to communicate
with stakeholders, how the progress is going, what our
readiness is at this point?
Hon. Evans. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about
that. The Administration did pass and send out an executive
order dealing specifically with EMPs, and so we're leveraging
the research that's already there. There's a group that we work
with within the National Labs called CSMART, so I'm going to
give you the acronym: Center for EMP/GMD Simulation Modeling
Analysis Research and Testing. And it involves several of our
labs. This--because of that research that was previously done.
And so Sandia is at the center, and then we have Savannah
River. Livermore is involved, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge. And
then we work with EPRI on this.
And a lot of this is how do we model it, how do we do the
validations of some of the things that were in that study so
that we can actually work with industry through our ESCC
(Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council) work and our oil
and natural gas subsector coordinating group and share that
research back out with them? There's a debate of whether you
need to harden it all the way up to military standards or
whether you can take a phased approach and what the impact of
that is based on the wavelengths. And so that research is
ongoing, the test beds are being developed. So to the point
about being able to validate the technology, and validate the
research, that's what we're doing. We intend to accelerate
that, provided what happens in our Fiscal Year 2020 budget. And
so I know the House passed it, so you guys included the ability
for us to do that research, so we're looking forward to
continuing that work.
Mr. Cloud. Are you working or communicating with, like
local entities, local governments, power providers, or is it
more still in the research vein?
Hon. Evans. The information that we have to date, and how
we work with EPRI, and then how we work with State and local
governments, and then through our industry partnerships, and
then with the councils, we do convey that out. We also work
with the National Governors Association. We work through the
associations as well, so the information and the research to
date is shared. And then they also know what our project plan
is going forward, and then who we are working with in the
National Labs as well.
Mr. Cloud. Are you getting any feedback on what challenges
are on the ground, or----
Hon. Evans. The hardest part is, like, to what level--and I
would like Mr. Torres to jump in here, if he feels so
inclined----
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
Hon. Evans [continuing]. Is how the investment is going to
go forward, and how you would harden the different pieces of
this. And we have some things that are going on with some of
the bigger utilities, and they are sharing that information so
that those decisions can be made. And we also work with FERC on
this as well, and then FERC also then reaches out and shares
the information too, because this becomes an investment
decision, and then it'll inform the standards decisions going
forward with FERC.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Any of you want to speak to that as well?
Mr. Torres. So I totally agree with everything Assistant
Secretary Evans said there. There is an element of the energy
that's released during an EMP that's very similar to a GMD,
geo-magnetic disturbance, event, so that's something that we
need to take into account as well, that actually is probably
more likely than an EMP event. It's maybe higher probability,
but also some severe consequence.
I think it does need a little bit more study. EMP has been
studied for quite some time by the commission that's formed,
and re-formed, and so on. But I believe the--I would suggest
that we take maybe a forward-looking spin as we think about
EMP. I think a lot of times we're looking at how do we harden
the grid of today against EMP. The grid we have in 10 years
will not look a lot like today. It will change. There are a lot
of things going on right now and--where it's become more
distributed, the generation mix, and so on. So we need to do
some analysis, and project how would we harden the grid of the
future?
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Chairman Lamb. Recognize Ms. Horn for 5 minutes.
Ms. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses and Mr. Ranking Member for holding this important
hearing today. As I'm sure, with many of us across this
country, but also on this Committee--I also sit on the House
Armed Services Committee--and especially given, Mr. Torres,
what you mentioned about the blackout, and where we're talking
about this, we are very concerned about our electrical grid and
our infrastructure as a national security issue on a broader
level, as well as looking forward as an infrastructure issue.
So I'd like to start, Secretary Evans, with you today, if
we could. So we know we have significant work to do, but I'm
glad that you're doing this work. You mentioned in your
testimony talking about the national imperative, and the
Cybersecurity Research Development Act, cybersecurity being one
of the major threats. I'm curious to hear how you would assess
the current state of our grid cybersecurity efforts, and what
additional things those of us on the Committee can do to help
bolster those efforts?
Hon. Evans. I want to echo some of the comments that my
esteemed colleague just mentioned about looking for the grid of
the future. So there is a robust mechanism that we have as a
sector specific agency going forward, but also with the whole
government approach that we take with our partners, like
Department of Homeland Security, Transportation, depending on
what we're looking at. But when we talk about the cyber threat,
and how it continues to evolve, what we really need to do is
look at where we're going to be in the future and how is that
mix going to be.
And then, based on the risk modeling, which has already
been talked about, I'd like to bring up again the North
American Resiliency Model that takes into consideration, along
with what DHS is doing from the National Risk Management
Center, the ability for us to be able to take the work that's
coming from the National Labs, model it, and be able to give
you a databased-type-of decision, data informed, based on where
we are. How can we project this out into the future? What is
the mix going to look like? How is the weather on that? So when
we talk about that in the research that we're doing, again, I
applaud what the Committee is doing to be very forward leaning
into what do you think, and how research should be 10 to 15
years from now on that grid of the future.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. And continuing on the resiliency
model, I want to turn attention to Ms. Speakes-Backman,
especially when we talk about storage and generation. I
represent Oklahoma, which is well known, of course, as an oil
and gas State, but we also have a robust collection of
renewable energy that is growing. In fact, 39 percent of the
energy we produce is through renewables, but we know that the
challenge is storage.
So, looking at the technologies as they're evolving, beyond
batteries, and where we are for the resiliency factor, I know,
speaking with our utilities providers, one of the challenges,
as we diversify our energy sources, is ready access beyond just
the cyber issues and the other security issues. So can you
speak to where we are on developing some of these other
technologies to make them accessible beyond batteries?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Thank you for the question. So
Oklahoma specifically does not have battery storage necessarily
installed, but there's about 259 megawatts of pumped storage in
the State, so we congratulate you on that. In terms of other
technologies, of course, pumped storage is a very mature
technology. It's installed--it dwarfs the amount of capacity
that's actually installed in the United States currently, when
you think about pumped hydro storage as well.
Other mechanical storage technologies, like flywheels, are
being used in shorter-run, high-power applications. There's
compressed air, and liquid storage--liquid air storage, and
other mechanical systems that are in some demonstration levels
right now. There are thermal storage technologies. Even when
you think about building being--buildings being a thermal
storage opportunity, but--water heaters in your home, there are
a number of State programs that encourage water heaters and
demand response that help--that is also a level of storage. And
those, of course, technically are very advanced, just not used
as much in the grid applications as well as they could be.
There's other--also molten salt storage technologies, and
other grid-side technologies that are promising, but are yet to
commercialize, but the progress has been made on those as well.
Ms. Horn. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, and Ranking Member
Weber, for holding this important hearing. Thanks to all of you
panelists for being here with us today. The U.S. relies on a
robust cybersecurity front to keep our critical infrastructure,
including delivery systems, safe, and I'm pleased that the
President and his Administration have made cybersecurity a
priority. President Trump's national cybersecurity calls for
the development of a superior cybersecurity workforce. This
strategy states that, ``a highly skilled cybersecurity
workforce is a strategic national security advantage,'' and I
agree with this assessment.
Nearly 2 years ago, I had the opportunity to moderate a
panel at an Arizona State University (ASU) cybersecurity
conference, and we focused on education and workforce in this
area. The panel included cybersecurity professionals
representing ASU, PayPal, McAfee, Network Command at Fort
Huachuca, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. And the main issue was raised on how some of you
have addressed this, on the cybersecurity workforce shortage
that this country's facing.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies reported
that the U.S. was facing a shortfall of almost 314,000
cybersecurity professionals as of January 1 of this year. And I
think it's important that we work to encourage a free market,
non-intrusive solution to develop a cyber workforce capable of
managing not just the threats of today, but anticipate the
threats of tomorrow, particularly in the energy industry. So
I'm going to start with a question that I want to give each of
you a shot at answering, and then I do have a couple more
questions, so if you can help me out by being as concise, yet
as informative, as possible. How do you think government can
become a better partner with higher education institutions and
industry to form an education pipeline that will actually meet
our cybersecurity workforce needs to keep our electric grid
safe? So I guess we'll start with Ms. Hamilton on this side,
and then go my right to left, your left to----
Ms. Hamilton. OK.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. Your right.
Ms. Hamilton. I'll be really quick, because I'm not a cyber
expert, but just on education, I think you need to start much
younger than that. We need to have it in our--in all of our
elementary schools too to try to get people--kids interested in
doing this too. So I think having public-private partnerships
are important, making sure that you bring in--so maybe you'll
bring in some teachers who are science teachers bringing in--
whether it's from a university or middle school to try to----
Mr. Biggs. And not to interrupt, but are you talking about
specifically STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics), or computer----
Ms. Hamilton. Well, STEM----
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. Coding----
Ms. Hamilton [continuing]. And also just--if you're
interested in specific----
Mr. Biggs. OK.
Ms. Hamilton [continuing]. Cyber, get kids interested in
that too, really.
Mr. Biggs. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Speakes-Backman. I'm also not a cybersecurity expert,
but I'm really thrilled that my 15-year-old twin girls are here
in the audience hearing this, because their high school has a
program that is partnered with the U.S. Naval Academy
specifically on cybersecurity, and I really want them to take
it, so----
Mr. Biggs. OK. Are these your daughters, you say?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Please raise your hands so we can put pressure
on you publicly.
Mr. Weber. No pressure.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. We're helping out. Mr. Torres?
Mr. Torres. So I would concur with my colleagues here. It's
important to really spark that interest in STEM fields early.
The other thing is I think we need to provide mentoring,
because it's not just getting the workforce out there, it's
getting the future teachers, and getting the future professors.
And this is back to a point I made earlier, which is the fact
that we need to continue to get people to advance their
education, and it's--and be the mentors, and mentor the future
teachers, as well as the future applications.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, and, I'm sorry, I'm going to skip
you, and maybe we can have a one on one dialog later, because I
have to ask this other question, which intrigues me, because
Mr. Torres has repeatedly talked about what several of you have
talked about the future grid, or what the grid looks like in
the future, and it's really tough to be clairvoyant, obviously,
but I am wondering what your thoughts are on the role that
microgrids might play in making the grid more resilient. And
what does the microgrid of the future--what might that look
like? And, Mr. Torres, since you've talked about future grids,
we'll start with you.
Mr. Torres. So, just to make sure everybody's on the same
page, a microgrid, basically--the way--a simple way to define
it, there are formal definitions, is essentially a grid that
has its own generation, its own wires to move the electrons,
and its own loads to use those electrons. It connect--can
connect and disconnect from the larger utility grid. So I
believe they do have their role. They don't need to be used
everywhere.
I foresee that the future grid will be some sort of a
hybrid of a centralized grid base, with some decentralized
microgrids, especially for critical loads. We've seen that
they've been very applicable where you have military
installations, highly critical loads like hospitals, some key
industrial areas, and so on, that may have a lower reliability
connection to the utility grid, and where you may have some
very sensitive types of load, sensitive to perturbations and
disturbances in the grid. So you really need to right fit it
and right size it. It's not a ubiquitous solution.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Unfortunately, my time's expired. Thank you.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding the
hearing, and I thank the panelists. Really a very interesting
area, and very important. But I want to start with a shout out
to the Grid Innovation Caucus that I co-Chair with my colleague
Bob Latta from Ohio. The purpose is to discuss policy and
technology, but also to help educate Members of Congress, and
to get people excited about this issue here in Congress,
because it's important, and we need to move forward on these
things.
Assistant Secretary Evans, we've heard a lot about
artificial intelligence and how important its benefits are,
including in the context of grid modernization and security.
What role do you think AI can play in improving the resilience
of our Nation's electric system?
Hon. Evans. I think it has a critical role. Mr. Torres
already highlighted some of the specific things of what we're
talking about going forward, and really looking at software-
defined networks, autonomous solutions, really analyzing the
data, taking the things that we know are going to happen, and
try to remove some of what is happening at a human level now
that could be done by artificial intelligence, by machine
learning. And that is the area that we are really exploring so
that we can then look at higher analysis of security. And then
also the resilience, of being able to model the resilience in
real time.
Mr. McNerney. Well, is there a significant risk that
adversaries could use AI to attack our system?
Hon. Evans. For every great new innovation that we do, and
I believe Mr. Torres also highlighted this, is that we also
then have to evaluate what are the potential risks associated
with that, and then engineer preventative solutions for
problems that we know of could happen as we deploy those out.
So that's the longer answer to yes, we could do that, but we
don't want to stifle innovation. We want to take advantage of
those things and be able to use them, but also then make sure
we have the right mitigations in place.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, those sorts of attacks are
going to happen whether we deploy AI or not, so----
Hon. Evans. So we--yes.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Torres, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Torres. I would concur with Assistant Secretary Evans.
I guess I would add to it the fact that, you know, just about
any tool, any weapon, can be used for good or for bad, and so
this is why it's very--it's an imperative for us to maintain
that leadership in the advancements of these technologies, so
we are the ones that are using these for the right purpose, and
can actually deter any negative use, or any attacks on these
systems.
Mr. McNerney. Well, Mr. Torres, I'm concerned about the
attack on March 5 on the SCADA system. There wasn't much damage
done, but what would be the potential damage if attackers had
access to the system, real access?
Mr. Torres. And the attack that you refer to was, I
believe, a denial-of-service attack on the SCADA system of a
utility out west. And my understanding is that it basically
blinded, or the operators lost--may have lost control or
visibility from some of the devices, so the attack was on the
SCADA system, which--supervisory control and data acquisition
system--is used to monitor and control elements of the power
grid. So if somebody were to gain access, they could
potentially disrupt operation of the grid, and maybe even cause
the operator to make a mistake in operation.
Mr. McNerney. Well, with all behind-the-meter devices and
distributive resources, we're facing increasing risk here,
right?
Mr. Torres. There's a potential to increase the attack
surface as we add more devices near the end user. So this is
where we do--I believe through the CEDS (Cybersecurity for
Energy Delivery Systems) program at DOE, under Assistant
Secretary Evans, we do have a road map to essentially secure
the connectivity down to the meter, essentially, so that we try
to minimize the risk back upstream to the utility.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Ms. Speakes-Backman, what site-
specific geographic considerations are important to consider
when deciding what type of energy storage system is the most
appropriate for a particular location?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Well, certainly--thank you for the
question. Certainly there are geographic considerations when it
comes to pump storage, hydro storage especially. Underground--
you need large expanses of underground. But when you're talking
about battery storage specifically, that can be scaled to
behind peoples' meters in the home, it can be--at grid scale,
it can be in commercial industrial applications. The biggest
considerations that are necessarily--that are not necessarily
having to do with the technology itself, in terms of its
capabilities, but the application that you're going to be using
it for.
So when you need to be in rural communities, when co-ops
are needing to use energy storage to offset the cost of
transmission upgrades and distribution upgrades, then you'll
want to use a specific type of battery, or other technology,
that can be longer duration. When you're talking about being up
in the northeast, you need a longer duration storage type
application for weeks--hours, weeks, even months, when it comes
to wintertime issues.
Mr. McNerney. And the cost goes up pretty dramatically
after a couple hours of----
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes, it can.
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. Usage of a storage system? I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Lamb. Mr. Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chairman Lamb. Thank you so much to
our witnesses for being here. As we consider how to get to a
low, or hopefully zero, carbon future, we are increasingly
constrained by how to have a flexible enough grid that can
accommodate these intermittent sources of power that fluctuate
out of phase with where the load is. It is a really important,
really critical issue, and I am delighted to see this Committee
thinking seriously about those issues. We have a lot of ways we
have to solve that. We can solve that through market mechanisms
and transmission, but I believe that chief among those has to
be grid scale energy storage. And that's why I was proud to
introduce H.R. 2909, the Promoting Grid Storage Act of 2019
(PGSA). And I want to thank Ms. Speakes-Backman, and the folks
at ESA, for their support of H.R. 2909.
One of the most important aspects of that bill is the
creation of a competitive grant program for energy storage at
the DOE, funded at $150 million over 5 years. The competitive
program is unique in that it would empower local entities to
identify specific demonstration projects and compete for funds
at DOE, instead of waiting for the DOE to identify specific
projects to fund. Ms. Speakes-Backman, are you aware of any
competitive grant programs for energy storage specifically at
DOE, or, for that matter, anywhere else across the Federal
Government, that currently operate like the program put forth
in Section 6 of the PGSA?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Not specifically of that type, and
that's why we've been so strong in our support of the Promoting
Grid Storage Act, because not only does it allow the market to
participate in the selection of these types of projects, but it
also puts skin in the game. So the market participants are also
participating, and putting their own business risk at this, so
we think it's going to accelerate the demonstration project
success.
Mr. Casten. Well, you've thankfully answered my second
question as well, of why that structure was helpful, so I
appreciate that. In your opinion, does the Grid Modernization
Research and Development Act of 2019, in its current form, do
enough to empower local stakeholders to bring demonstration
projects forward that best overcome these informational
barriers and lower the risks?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. It goes pretty far, and we're really
excited about this potential, but there are a number of things,
as outlined in my testimony, that can be done to further this.
One of them I think is very important is--you had the
conversation about resilience, and it is to support the--for
DOE to support the investigation into how States can prove out
cost effectiveness for resilience. This is an issue that I
personally had after the Derecho in 2011, where States can--
States--sorry, utilities can invest in reliability, and there
are metrics for that, but they cannot invest in resilience,
because there aren't the correct metrics to--of that to prove
cost effectiveness. I think that's an important part of it. The
other part is, really, Section 4 and Section 6 of the Promoting
Grid Storage Act, I think, could be included in this particular
draft legislation, to be so helpful.
Mr. Casten. Well, thank you. And again, I'm really excited
by the Committee's work on the Grid Modernization Act of 2019,
but I am concerned that the--in its current form, it doesn't do
enough to facilitate demonstration of energy storage
technologies. And don't get me wrong, R&D and technical
assistance are really important, but without efforts to further
de-risk those technologies, I'm concerned that the rate at
which they're adopted by utilities, by co-ops, municipalities,
will be too slow for the scale needed to combat the climate
crisis. I, you know, I live in Illinois, and you can see in the
data--we started to see an increase in CO2 emissions
because we are deploying so much intermittent energy----
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Um-hum.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. And now we're installing--because
it's so hard to site transmission, we're installing really
inefficient, but quick-ramping, gas generation. And we can
solve that with storage, but we've got to get it out there.
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Yes. I--just to add a comment, I
completely agree with you, in the fact that energy storage is
really going--the only--the major delay in having this deployed
on a major scale is really about how it fits within the
regulatory construct, and how it fits within the energy grid
integration itself. It's really more of a commercial question
that's happening more than a technology question. I think the
technology's ready to go.
Mr. Casten. Well, thank you very much. I'm about out of my
time, but I really appreciate your testimony, and I hope I can
persuade the Chairman to work with me to help strengthen the
bill as it pertains to the demonstration of energy storage
technologies. And I yield back.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. Actually, my colleague just
mentioned the difficulty of citing, you know, power lines, and
the two components of that. Well, there's a big NIMBY (not in
my back yard) difficulty that's much worse as you approach
cities, but bad probably everywhere. The obvious solution to
that's to bury power lines, and that is hellishly expensive
presently. How extensively have people looked into just robotic
assembly, you know, of underground power lines? Is there really
any hope to make a big dent in the cost? Are there
technological approaches that might really lower the cost of
buried power lines, or has that pretty well been mined out
already? Anyone familiar with any big initiatives that have
ever been tried along those lines?
Ms. Hamilton. I think you're still going to have the issue
of NIMBY-ism. You'll still have the issue of having to get
either eminent domain or permission, and permitting from folks
as you put them in, so you'd want to look for other kind of
rights of ways, whatever the technology----
Mr. Foster. Right, but for buried power lines it's orders
of magnitude easier if you don't have to look at them. You
know, those that believe cancer is caused by electric power
lines, you know, if you can't see the line, that seems to
bother them less, and so on. So it's a, you know, so that, you
know, it strikes me that that might actually, you know, if
there is money to be squeezed out of the cost of buried power
lines, that might be a good Federal R&D and demonstration
initiative.
The other one is something that would be a legal mechanism.
You know, there's a well-documented drop in the real estate
prices near high voltage power lines, you know, for partly
rational and partly irrational reasons. It's a documented fact.
So the question is whether some sort of assessment on those
nearby, you know, for example, if there's an existing right of
way, and now it comes time to actually build the power line,
you know, there's typically a big outcry, even though it's an
established, documented right of way that people said, I didn't
realize this when I bought my house, and now they're going to
look at, you know, the rational part of that, as their real
estate values are going to drop if the power line's actually
put in. And then, of course, there's an irrational thing, they
don't--or maybe it's rational or not, that they don't like
looking at the power line.
So if there was a legal framework that allowed those who
are affected, in terms of real estate value and impact, to
contribute to burying the power line, then there may be, you
know, I'm not sure exactly what that would look like, whether
we're going to build this power line, it's going to be
expensive, but part of the real estate appreciation that you
will see, if you take an existing power line, say, and bury it,
that will cause everyone's real estate value to rise, and
capturing a part of that rise to pay for burying it, that there
may be a social contract that's a win all the way around,
particularly as the power lines approach cities.
Anyway, but you're unaware of things like this? Because
hardening the grid by, you know, putting things like a DC
overlay are, you know, very good ideas in principle, and you
have to get past the difficulty in citing power. So there may
be some opportunities for probably Federal law to enable that
sort of a deal to be struck with the surrounding communities.
Anyway, I'd just make a couple of comments on the BEST Act,
another piece of legislation that I've introduced as well,
having to do with--just encouraging energy storage R&D and
demonstration projects, and I guess that's probably been pretty
well discussed, I presume, and my apologies for having to jump
back and forth between this and the Facebook Libra hearings.
But is there anything that has not yet been settled on those
lines that might be worth mentioning?
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Well, I'd just like to add that ESA,
and a number of other associations, have strongly endorsed the
BEST Act as an excellent opportunity.
Mr. Foster. Yes. And we have partners in the Senate. I
think there's a good chance that it's actually the, you know,
one of those rare combinations of things that is going to have
a chance at getting through the legislative graveyard that
we're trying to populate as best we can in the House these
days, but that may be an exception to that.
Ms. Speakes-Backman. We have hopes for a number of energy
storage pieces of legislation, including the BEST Act, and
including the--sorry, the storage--standalone storage ITC, and
a number of other pieces that----
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Ms. Speakes-Backman [continuing]. We think could get
through.
Mr. Foster. Let's see, the last thing, in my last 3
seconds, when you look at advanced nuclear technologies, some
of them have the ability to essentially add storage to, you
know, for example, molten salt reactors have the ability to put
a molten salt tank nearby, if that's used as the coolant, so
that you could effectively have the ability to--if you have
excess generation capacity, this traditional knock against
nuclear is that it's only worth running at a flat level. You
could actually spike it up if you had a big storage tank, and
excess generation capacity. And is that being factored into the
modeling, and the cost incentives, when people look at advanced
nuclear, that some techniques have this, and others don't?
Again, there's, you know, been a lot of discussion in the
Department of Energy about trying to incentivize techniques
that had storage capacity of some kind.
Ms. Speakes-Backman. Well, I can't speak to what's being
counted in and--not for the nuclear side, but I can say for
energy storage, and the various technologies, that this is one
of the things that we're asking from DOE, and DOE has been
actually doing some work on, is the evaluation of the various
applications for energy storage, that it flattens out, and
indeed increases the efficiency of the grid overall.
Mr. Foster. Yes. All right. Well, I guess I'm well over
time now, so I'll yield back the--my negative balance of time.
Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Before we bring the hearing to a
close, I want to thank our witnesses again for appearing before
us today, and sharing such great information. The record will
remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the
Members, and for any additional questions that the Committee
may have for the witnesses. The witnesses are now excused, and
the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]