[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_____________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
______________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio, Chairwoman
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEN CALVERT, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Jaime Shimek, Mark Arone, Mike Brain, Scott McKee,
Farouk Ophaso, and Marcel Caldwell
Subcommittee Staff
___________
PART 5
Page
Energy Trends and Outlook......................................... 1
Oversight of DOE's Weatherization
Assistance Program................................................. 177
Energy Workforce Opportunities and
Challenges......................................................... 265
National Nuclear Security
Administration..................................................... 349
Members' Day..................................................... 425
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 5--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio, Chairwoman
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida KEN CALVERT, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Jaime Shimek, Mark Arone, Mike Brain, Scott McKee,
Farouk Ophaso, and Marcel Caldwell
Subcommittee Staff
_________
PART 5
Page
Energy Trends and Outlook....................................... 1
Oversight of DOE's Weatherization
Assistance Program................................................. 177
Energy Workforce Opportunities and
Challenges......................................................... 265
National Nuclear Security
Administration..................................................... 349
Members' Day..................................................... 425
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-884 WASHINGTON: 2019
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia ED CASE, Hawaii
BARBARA LEE, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM GRAVES, Georgia
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DEREK KILMER, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
GRACE MENG, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin CHRIS STEWART, Utah
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
PETE AGUILAR, California DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey WILL HURD, Texas
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
----------
Thursday, February 7, 2019.
ENERGY TRENDS AND OUTLOOK
WITNESSES
HON. LINDA CAPUANO, ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
DR. JAY HAKES, FORMER ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION AGENCY
ETHAN ZINDLER, HEAD OF AMERICAS AND POLICY ANALYSIS, BLOOMBERG NEW
ENERGY FINANCE
AMY MYERS JAFFE, PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE
CHANGE, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
MATT SONNESYN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
Ms. Kaptur. Good morning. The committee will come to order.
I want to thank all of my colleagues for taking time to be
with us this morning. The subcommittee will begin our very
first hearing in this new 116th Congress in what promises to be
a very busy and, I hope, productive year.
I would like to welcome our new and returning members to
the subcommittee. We are thrilled to have each of you,
representing very unique and diverse segments of our landscape
across the country. And, actually, we have members in all
corners and the center of our country, so it is pretty
representative.
Energy is essential to sustaining life on Earth, to driving
our economy and the millions of jobs associated with it, and
assuring our freedom. We begin our work this Congress by
looking at how much energy our Nation produces and consumes
currently, how that has changed over the last five decades, and
what prospects look like for the future. So we are very
grateful to this particular panel.
After World War II, our country began consuming, almost
unconscionably, more energy than we could produce domestically.
Our Nation increased imports of energy, creating dangerous
economic vulnerabilities and strategic dependencies on other
countries. The harsh reality of that dependency struck our
homeland hard with the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s. Our
economy was walloped by America's reliance on imported oil.
President Carter's foresight, along with congressional
leadership, created the Department of Energy in 1977 to propel
our Nation on a challenging path to become energy independent.
Now we look back about four decades, and by investing in
research and development, we have created the foundational
power to meet that strategic objective, but we have just begun,
just begun to set a path toward permanent energy security.
For example, the Department of Energy helped develop the
drilling and extraction technologies credited for the recent
growth in domestic oil and gas production. Who could have
imagined that a half century ago? And today, our Nation
produces over 90 percent of our current energy needs as a
result of progress on all energy horizons. That is quite a
sweeping achievement.
There are new challenges to meet the goals of energy
security and sustainability, including the increasing demand
from enormous world population growth, the continuing
industrialization that we see globally, the depletion of finite
traditional sources of energy, and the consequences of
environmentally damaging energy sources, including some fossil
fuels. Fortunately, a sustainable energy supply and clean
energy vision combines perfectly with the need to address the
climate crisis. The future of our planet ecosystem and the
lives of billions around the globe are depending on a shared
vision of a livable future.
The Department of Energy, with the finest scientists in our
world, has been driving innovation and partnering with the
private sector to achieve continuing and significant reductions
in the cost of clean energy. For example, First Solar, with
more than 17 gigawatts of cadmium telluride solar modules sold
worldwide, was born in my district at the University of Toledo,
thanks to the genius of Dr. Harold McMaster and Dr. Norm
Nitschke. This was made possible by a partnership on
photovoltaics with the Department of Energy. By the way, that
company is going to double its production floor very soon.
So how do we achieve the interdependent goals of energy
independence, reducing pollution, and creating jobs? We deliver
new technologies that are better and cheaper than their 20th
century alternatives. That means we must provide robust, stable
Federal support for energy research and development at the
Department of Energy. This won't be easy. We are still facing
sequestration with no budget deal in place for the next 2 years
yet. But I am committed to working to ensure continued progress
in these important areas.
In closing, our Nation must keep investing in energy
solutions, making them better and more affordable, reaching
more people in more places. I look forward to hearing from our
expert witnesses who can frame the context of our work as we
begin this year. And let us now turn to our very able and
hardworking ranking member, Mike Simpson of Idaho, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. Since this is
our first hearing of the year, let me take the opportunity to
say congratulations to you on becoming the chair of the Energy
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. I have enjoyed working
with you the past several years and look forward to continuing
that productive relationship in this Congress.
I would like to echo your welcome to our witnesses. We
thank you all for being here this morning and look forward to
hearing your perspectives on where we have been, where we are
now, and where we are going with respect to energy.
Reliable, affordable energy sources are essential to our
Nation's continued economic growth and national security. We
have seen time and again how rising energy costs or disruptions
in energy supply can cause economic pain on a national and
individual level. The Federal Government interacts with the
energy sector in many ways. The focus of this subcommittee, of
course, is deciding on and overseeing investments in research
and development.
Federal R&D involves our understanding national
laboratories--involves our understanding of the national
laboratories, as well as partnerships with universities and the
private sector. It spans the continuum from basic science
research to early stage applied energy activities to mid stage
and late stage demonstration projects. It addresses activities
in electricity, transportation, industrial and residential and
commercial sectors, and it focuses on a wide variety of energy
sources, including nuclear, coal, natural gas, petroleum,
hydro, solar, wind and other renewables, as well as energy
efficiency.
I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses about
the successes of past investments and the promise of new
investments, both in continuing our improved current
technologies as well as ensuring that the United States will
continue to be a leader in developing new energy technologies
of the future.
Again, I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling this hearing,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
I think we are all excited for our witnesses joining us
here today and for your lifetime of service to our country both
in the public and private sectors.
First we will have Dr. Linda Capuano, who is the
administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Prior to her appointment to lead EIA, Dr. Capuano was a fellow
at the Baker Institute's Center for Energy Studies and on the
faculty of Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Business.
Next we will have Dr. Jay Hakes, who has authored a book
titled, ``A Declaration of Energy Independence.'' Dr. Hakes was
previously an administrator for the Energy Information Agency
and served in President Carter's administration, directed the
energy office in the Florida governor's office, and served for
13 years as director of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library.
We are just so honored that you are here today.
Following that, we have Mr. Ethan Zindler, who is head of
Americas and Policy at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Bloomberg
NEF is an amazing source of insight, data, and news on the
transformation of the energy sector, and we read you.
Then we will have Ms. Amy Myers Jaffe, who is the program
director for Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council
on Foreign Relations. Ms. Jaffe previously served as executive
director for energy and sustainability at the University of
California Davis and was formerly a fellow at the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars.
And last but not least, we will have Mr. Matt Sonnesyn, who
is vice president for Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment
at the Business Roundtable. Prior to joining the Business
Roundtable, Mr. Sonnesyn spent a decade working for U.S.
Senator Lamar Alexander, one of our good friends even on this
side of the Congress.
Thank you all for taking time to be here today. Without
objection, your written statements will be entered into the
record. Please feel free to summarize your remarks in about 5
minutes each, starting with Dr. Capuano.
Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Capuano. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking
Member Simpson, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be before you today (off mic). You have some
charts before you, and I will--they are up here, so you will be
able to follow.
This is a transformational time for the United States
energy industry. The United States is now the world's largest
producer of crude oil. We have surpassed Saudi Arabia and
Russia. The United States produced almost 11 million barrels
per day in 2018, and EIA expects that production will continue
to remain greater than 14 million barrels per day through 2040.
This graph shows that after decades of importing more
energy, the blue line, than we export, the brown line, EIA now
forecasts the United States will become a net energy exporter
in 2020. In addition, our natural gas plant production set an
all time high in 2018 reaching 4.4 million barrels per day. The
combination of crude oil and NGPL production and our refining
capacity has led the United States to become a major exporter
of crude oil and petroleum products.
By the fourth quarter of 2020, EIA expects exports of crude
oil and petroleum products from the United States to exceed
imports by an average of .9 million barrels per day. However,
much of the U.S. crude oil production is light to medium grade,
so the United States will continue to import in order to meet
the specific needs of U.S. refiners that are optimized to
process heavy grades.
In addition, crude oil will be imported to offset
infrastructure constraints that limit the movement of produced
oil to East and West Coast refineries. As a result of advances
in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, producers are
developing shale resources that were previously uneconomical to
develop. And tight oil production accounted for 58 percent of
total crude oil production in 2018 and will continue to drive
U.S. production increases in the long term.
Petroleum liquids are available for export because, as you
see on this graph, petroleum consumption has slowed, the brown
line, as production has increased. The U.S. will become a
petroleum liquids net exporter in the fourth quarter of 2020.
The steady increasing U.S. crude oil production contributes to
a relatively steady oil price of $73 to $74 per barrel until
2022, after which crude oil prices are projected to steadily
rise to $108 per barrel by 2050.
This graph shows that similar developments in domestic
shale and natural gas resources enabled the United States to
become a net exporter of natural gas in 2017, when natural gas
production, the blue line, exceeded consumption, the brown
line.
U.S. natural gas production reached a record high of 30
trillion cubic feet in 2018, and EIA expects growth to
continue. As natural gas production continues to grow and
exceeds consumption and as liquified natural gas terminals and
pipelines are added, net U.S. natural gas exports will continue
to grow. And we expect prices to remain below $5 per million
BTU through 2015 because the increase in lower cost resources,
primarily in the tight oil plays in the Permian Basin, will
enable higher production levels at lower prices during the
projection period.
Abundant domestic natural gas production and relatively low
natural gas prices have also led to changes in the electric
power generation, as shown on this graph. Despite relatively
flat demand for electricity in the United States during the
past decade, this graph shows that natural gas, the brown line,
and renewables, the yellow line, are projected to displace less
economically competitive sources of electric power generation.
Natural gas became the largest share of electric power
generation in 2016. In addition, enabled by technology advances
and supportive policies, EIA projects that U.S. wind and solar
capacity and generation will continue to grow and surpass
nuclear in 2020, the green line, and coal, the blue line, after
2025.
As a result of the fuel mix changes, EIA projects that
after 2020, carbon dioxide emissions will remain at least 2
percent lower than the 2020 levels through 2050. This graph
shows the downward trend in carbon dioxide intensity by energy
use sector. Carbon dioxide intensity is the carbon dioxide
emission per unit energy output in BTUs. All end-use sectors--
transportation, industrial and commercial and residential
buildings--show declines in carbon dioxide intensity as natural
gas and renewables' share of the fuel mix continues to
increase.
So as I said, this is an exciting and transformational time
for the United States energy industry as world energy markets
adjust to the United States becoming a major global supplier
and exporter for years to come.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to present this information. And that
concludes my testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Dr. Capuano.
Dr. Hakes, please begin.
Mr. Hakes. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairwoman
Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson for their invitation today.
As has been said, many people trace modern energy policy
back to the Arab oil embargo which lasted from October 1973 to
March of 1974. And some people of us still remember the long
gasoline lines of that time. But it was just one of--if we
could go ahead to charts--it was just one of many things that
happened in the seventies that disrupted the oil market,
including the fall of the Shah and other things.
During this period, energy attracted the attention of
Presidents and Congresses. Presidents Nixon and Ford called for
energy independence. Jimmy Carter declared energy the moral
equivalent of war. Congress passed the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act in 1975, President Carter's energy package in
1978, and other energy legislation with large bipartisan votes.
In addition, Congress created the Department of Energy in
1977, and by that time, the Congress had already broadened the
mission of the national nuclear labs to include other forms of
energy, and they became much more broader-based science labs.
Some Federal policies during this period, such as Federal
price controls and allocation, produced more problems than they
solved. Let's recognize the actions of the 1970s left legacies
that proved valuable in later years. A partial list would
include--if we could go to the next slide. That is--you
probably have already seen this, but this is the graph that the
American Association for the Advancement of Science prepares
every year, and it is the nondefense research budget, and you
can see energy is that green part of the bar, and there is this
huge spike up in the late seventies, which is a delayed
reaction actually to the Arab oil embargo, and you can see it
really tapered off. It is hard to believe, but in the late
seventies, energy was pretty much equal with health and
research spending. You can see today that is not the case.
But as we go on, we can see other things that happened in
that period. If we go to the next slide. And things like the
strategic petroleum reserve. If we go to the next slide, we can
see automobile efficiency standards. These were all new
approaches to energy, and in some cases, they produced results
that have been overlooked by historians.
And if we go to the next slide, we did, from the late
seventies to the mid eighties, at least till 1985, have--our
oil imports were cut in half, from 8.6 million barrels a day to
4.3, and we were building the strategic petroleum reserves. So
for a time, the U.S. had become more energy independent.
The years of heightened interest in energy also planted
many seeds. If we can go to the next slide. This is the
installation of the old-fashioned thermal solar panels on the
White House in June of 1979. And at the time, President Carter
set a goal of 20 percent renewable energy by the year 2000. For
many years, however, the dream that advanced photovoltaic solar
panels would play a major role in U.S. energy supply remained a
road not taken. In recent years, though, we have seen a solar
boom and an even bigger boom in wind.
And if we can go to slide eight. This is just for large
capacity solar, but if you want a dramatic line graph, I would
say that falls in the category of a dramatic line graph.
And as part of this, if we go to the next slide, that is a
solar farm in the background there in Plains, Georgia, and
southern company, Georgia Power, built a one-megawatt facility
on Carter's property. That is a personal photo. I was one of
the speakers at that event. And I would say that he probably
felt a little bit of vindication seeing his former peanut land
now producing solar energy.
There is a similar story for hydro-fracturing, actually,
that has also been overlooked. The Ford and Carter
administrations both provided technical assistance, R&D, and
tax incentives to encourage the development of what was called
unconventional resources. These early actions helped the
brilliant Texas oil man George Mitchell persevere in his long
struggle to make the new technology market competitive. Again,
it was not until the 21st century that we witnessed the
fracking boom that revolutionized American energy production.
Energy trends have gone through many ebbs and flows since
the Arab embargo. My written testimony provides some additional
information on the later years. In addition, I will, of course,
be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Dr. Hakes.
Mr. Zindler, you may begin.
Mr. Zindler. Good morning, and thank you for this
opportunity, Chairwoman and Representative Simpson. I
appreciate this.
I am here today in my role as an analyst with Bloomberg
NEF, which is a division of financial information provider
Bloomberg, L.P. Our group provides investors, utilities, oil
majors, policymakers, and others with data and insight on the
energy world and other sectors of the global economy undergoing
rapid transformation. My remarks today represent my views alone
and not the corporate positions of Bloomberg, L.P., and, of
course, they are not investment advice.
Madam Chair, how the world generates, delivers, and
consumes energy are all--so yes, don't invest. We are good,
okay. Sorry. The lawyers made me read that.
My remarks today represent my views--as you said, how the
world--as I was trying to say is how the world generates,
delivers, and consumes energy are all changing rapidly and very
radically. These changes have allowed new industries to
flourish. The wind and solar power sectors now employ over
450,000 Americans, while over 2.2 million Americans perform
work related to energy efficiency. Meanwhile, major capital
flows are supporting these industries. Our firm counted $332
billion invested worldwide in new energy technologies last year
and has seen over $3 trillion invested over the last decade.
We believe that more change, much more change inevitably
lies ahead. In fact, the riskiest bet that investors,
utilities, car makers, oil makers, and even policymakers can
make is to assume that the energy world that we have today is
going to be the one that we have tomorrow.
To take one example, consider how personal transportation
is changing and the implications for motor fuel demand. In
2013, pure electric vehicles represented well under 1 percent
of total vehicle sales in the U.S. By the fourth quarter of
2018, they actually hit 4 percent. China, which is the world's
largest market for vehicles, added 1.1 million electric
vehicles in 2018. Today, there are over 5 million electric
vehicles on the roads worldwide, and by 2030, we project that 1
in 11 cars will be an EV, and by 2040 it will be one in three.
Growth will be propelled by declines in the cost of
lithium-ion batteries, the most expensive components in any EV.
Typical battery pack prices have already dropped 85 percent
since 2010. As China, South Korea and others ramp productions,
economies of scale will depress prices further. By the mid
2020s, consumers will choose EVs purely based on price not
subsidy, and this important crossover could happen sooner if
oil prices rise.
But more important than what I think is what the oil majors
have been saying. More importantly, Total, Shell, and Chevron
have all invested in or outright acquired electric vehicle
charging companies or power utilities. One potential reason,
electric transportation will by 2040 subtract 7\1/2\ million
barrels a day of demand for crude products, in our view.
More change is also inevitable in the power sector, driven
by cost declines and a move towards decentralized energy.
Prices for photovoltaic modules, the solar panels you might put
on the roof of your home or business, have fallen from about
$4.50 a watt in 2008 to about 25 cents a watt as of the end of
last year. And if you want to know the price of solar, you
literally need to check up on it every 3 to 6 months, not every
3 to 6 years.
For many Americans, the decision to go solar is now very
much driven by economics and really nothing else. I would also
note that PV panels function perfectly well in cold weather. By
the end of the decade, solar will be cost competitive in most
parts of the U.S., without the benefit of subsidies. PV
generation will grow from about 3 percent to approximately one-
quarter by 2050.
The wind industry can tell a similar story. Last year, wind
accounted for about 6\1/2\ percent of U.S. power, and while new
wind farm completions will likely slow once the current
production tax credit phases out, wind's share of generation
should still rise to 14 percent by 2030, particularly if
offshore projects planned for the eastern seaboard come to
fruition.
Greater penetration of these technologies must be
accompanied by greater deployment of flexible resources, such
as pumped hydro projects, demand response programs, and
batteries of various shapes and sizes.
Utility companies, along with the slew of energy storage
startups, are starting to respond. AES, AEP, Southern
California Edison, and Southern Company, to name just a few,
are deploying batteries large and small onto the grid right
now. I would add that our firm will detail all this in an
annual fact book that we are going to put out next week with
the Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
I just would like to close with making one last point about
energy consumption and its role in climate change, because no
responsible conversation about energy policy can take place
without thinking about CO2 emissions. Last year,
U.S. emissions bucked what had been an 11-year trend generally
downward. Instead, emissions rose by about 2\1/2\ percent, by
our estimate.
The economy grew much faster in 2018 and that probably
played a role. But the year also saw more extremely hot and
cold days, which appears to have prompted greater use of air-
conditioning and heating. That in turn boosted CO2
emissions. This raises the possibility that as we live with the
effects of climate change today, it is becoming more
challenging to cut emissions and address climate change
tomorrow.
As you can tell, I am fundamentally optimistic about the
transformative potential of new energy technologies, but I am
under no illusions. The dramatic changes we anticipate over the
next three decades will not sufficiently cut CO2
emissions in the U.S. or worldwide to curtail the worst impacts
of climate change as detailed by the world scientific
community. In other words, technology and economics alone
cannot save us, at least at the current pace that we are going.
New and better policies are needed to accelerate the
transition, but that is where policymakers and not energy
analysts must have their say.
So with that, I will stop and say thank you once again for
this opportunity.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Zindler.
Ms. Jaffe, please begin.
Ms. Jaffe. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, for having me, and
Ranking Member Simpson. It is a great honor to talk to you
today. I am going to talk to you about the--following on on Dr.
Hakes, I am going take us to the present on OPEC and the
challenges we face.
So next slide. We are still calling on our allies from the
Middle East to cope with sudden market changes for basic
American fuel prices.
Next slide. We have made incredible strides through
technology and innovations, as Dr. Hakes mentioned, originally
supported by DOE, in increasing our access to domestic oil and
gas. But as you can see from this chart of the global supply,
and this chart goes forward to what we are going to see for the
next 6 months, the United States, which is the orange bar, is
still pretty small when you look at the global scale of the
amount of oil that is used.
Next slide. We have an additional problem today, which is
that Saudi Arabia and Russia have formed a new political
alliance to manage oil supply globally, and we saw that issue
arise over and over again this past fall as oil prices were
rising above $80 towards $100.
Next slide. And we can know from watching the headlines in
the news that there are many countries that are major oil
suppliers today, like Venezuela, and I hope possibly not but
also declining production in Mexico, China, and other countries
provides a risk, even as U.S. oil production rises to meet some
of the holes created by the problems in these other countries.
Next slide. We are very benefiting from the energy and
clean tech technology that we have developed partly with public
support through our national labs and through DOE, because it
takes 60 percent less oil to generate a dollar of GDP today
than when Dr. Hakes served. So that is an important thing, but
we have made no progress on that metric in the transportation
sector.
Next slide. If we did not have the CAFE standards, if they
had been rescinded, the extra oil that we are producing today
in the United States would just have met extra demand.
Next slide. Even with the little piece that we are talking
about whether or not we are going to sustain from the extra
rules that California and 13 other States are following to
advance vehicles, we would still lose part of the uptick of the
amount of oil that we could see leaving U.S. shores to help our
allies abroad not be dependent on a Russia or other countries
that we would like to put sanctions on.
So we are not out of the woods. Even with the great
progress that we have had on the domestic net oil balance, we
still have a problem, and it is a problem that is compounded by
the fact that not only has China spent $47 billion on various
incentives at the local, state, provincial, and national level
to support their solar industry to try to put companies like
First Solar out of business, right, but they are now going to
invest $6 trillion in self-driving vehicles, in battery
storage, in artificial intelligence, and other clean tech, and
in advanced nuclear, and if we don't step up to the challenge
we need to understand what that means.
If we are going to buy Chinese products for our electricity
grid, for our self-driving vehicles and robo-taxis, we have to
worry about maintaining the safety of those digital devices and
our entire electricity grid from hacking. And how are we going
to do that if we are not using American products, if we are
instead using Chinese products?
So it is a national security imperative that we support the
R&D in these areas, lidar, all these technologies that are
going to come in the energy sector, smart grids, metering.
These are all technologies that are going to come, as Ethan
Zindler has outlined, and they need to come from American
companies. They need to be produced here in the United States,
and that will create jobs.
So how do we do that? One thing that was on the docket at
the Department of Energy that has not moved forward was to have
regional innovation centers, not necessarily 100 percent with
public funding, but partnering our national labs and our public
sources and universities together with private finance, private
companies in clusters; that would be innovation clusters. And
some of those could be taking undeployed manufacturing assets
in places like the Rust Belt and other places where we need to
create new jobs and reconstituting them with these innovation
hubs to do R&D for new development, incubate startup companies,
help large corporations move forward on something like
including 3D manufacturing and other advanced manufacturing.
People do not realize how much oil we could squeeze out of the
economy using advanced manufacturing and shrinking the
international global supply chain to being a regional U.S. and
America supply chain.
So there is a lot of interesting things that could be done.
I look forward to exploring those with you further as we
continue our discussion.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Ms. Jaffe.
And finally, let me recognize Mr. Sonnesyn. I hope I am
pronouncing that correctly.
Mr. Sonnesyn. Sonnesyn, that is correct. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member Simpson.
Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of America's
leading companies, and we work to promote a thriving U.S.
economy and expanded opportunity for all Americans through
sound public policy. And when it comes to energy, we support
policies that build on America's strengths in technology and
energy diversity, encourage investment in innovation in our
Nation's vibrant energy sector, and preserve environmental
quality for the 21st century and beyond.
I am going to just sort of paraphrase a little bit off my
colleagues and not repeat their testimony, but a couple key
points that emerged that I was stressing in my written
testimony as well.
One, America is today a global energy super power,
particularly in oil and natural gas. That is not what we
expected 10 or 12 years ago. So what happened? What changed? It
has largely been driven by hydraulic fracturing, a technology
that the chair rightly noted was partially developed through
DOE research and funding.
So what does that imply then about other things going
forward? We have seen also, by the way, increased adoption of
renewables, great energy efficiency, also both driven in part
by research at the Department of Energy.
So as we look ahead and as we look at some of the
challenges that we have, I think we recognize, America's CEOs,
the real and growing threat of climate change, and we believe
that America's business leaders have an obligation to
contribute to an environmentally responsible future. In fact,
many of our members are actively reducing their carbon
footprints at their business operations right now. We have a
large initiative going on at Business Roundtable, you can see
at sustainability.brt.org, where CEOs are talking in videos
about how each of them are doing this today.
And so we believe that improving energy efficiency,
increasing utilization of low carbon fuels and renewables, and
continuing to advance technology are essential to achieving the
lower carbon future for which we are striving.
Later this year, Business Roundtable will release a report
highlighting some of the potential breakthrough technologies
that could fundamentally change the U.S. and global energy
landscape for the better, just as those technologies that have
been researched in the past have done and brought us to the
point we are at today. So I thought I would just list a few of
those and talk about them briefly as we are continuing to
review them ourselves.
First, advanced nuclear. Advanced nuclear energy is a term
that encompasses both small modular reactors and nonlight water
reactors, involves new methods of operation, new types of
coolants, and new form factors. It holds the promise of
flexibility, dispatchability, extraordinarily high energy
density, increased safety, and the ability to be used in both
electric and nonelectric applications, while producing zero
carbon emissions. It also has the potential to be much cheaper
than nuclear has been in the past.
Two, carbon capture utilization and storage, often referred
to as CCUS. It has become increasingly clear that to tackle
climate change we don't only have to reduce emissions, but we
have to figure out ways to capture and/or utilize the emissions
that we are making now or store them. This already has a great
deal of research base at DOE and elsewhere. There is some
demonstration projects on this, and I think we see this as an
area of potential further growth.
Three, hydrogen. Like electricity, hydrogen is a flexible
energy carrier that can be produced from a range of primary
energy sources and used across a variety of sectors with
significantly lower levels of emissions of greenhouse gasses
and other air pollution. Hydrogen can serve to store and
transport renewable energy, to power vehicles, to heat
buildings, or be used as renewable feed stock in industrial
production, like steel.
Four, energy storage, and I think Mr. Zindler was referring
to this a little bit earlier. Because renewable power today
primarily from wind and solar is intermittent, meaning that you
can't control when the sun shines or when the wind blows, the
ability to store that energy when it is generated and then
dispatch it when you need it is important, and that is what
storage enables us to do. And while U.S. energy storage
deployment is expected to accelerate markedly over the next few
years, current technology isn't enough to meet all the
potential demand that we see ahead. This is an area where
greater research could be of great benefit.
And five, advanced substitute materials. I know you all
have thought a lot about advanced materials. This is not a new
subject for the subcommittee. But when you think about clean
energy technologies, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines,
all of these things rely on near critical or critical minerals
like lithium or neodymium. So, for example, if you wanted a
range of advance battery technologies that do not rely on
critical minerals, you are going to have to find a substitute
advanced mineral--or material to help develop that technology,
and that is another area that could really help as we move
forward.
So, in conclusion, for companies and individuals to harness
the opportunities presented by today's energy landscape, public
policy should support resilient, efficient infrastructure and a
stable regulatory regime, but we also need technological
innovation. And we appreciate the work of this subcommittee in
funding the research enterprise at the Department of Energy at
the national laboratories, ARPA-E, and elsewhere. And while we
recognize it is difficult to know what will be tomorrow's
breakthrough technology that will make the biggest difference,
it is hard to imagine that we will find that breakthrough
technology without government-sponsored research.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And thank you all. You are just really an outstanding
panel. I wish every citizen of this country could hear what
you've said this morning.
Before we begin with questions, I would like to remind
members about our hearing rules for this year. First, I intend
to convene our hearings on time, and for those members present
in the room, when I gavel in at the beginning of the hearing, I
will recognize you for questions in order of seniority,
alternating between majority and minority, until all who arrive
prior to the gavel have asked questions. For those of you who
arrive after the hearing has started, I will recognize those
members solely in order of arrival, again, alternating between
majority and minority.
And lastly, I intend to observe the 5-minute rule for
questions and answers, and will now begin our questioning under
normal rules. And I would like to give members a chance to ask
questions, so I will just ask one question at the beginning and
then we will turn to Mr. Simpson.
To Mr. Hakes and Ms. Jaffe, our primary responsibility, our
first responsibility is to protect and defend the American
people against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but we know
that dictators and authoritarians dominate global energy
markets and do not share our most fundamental value, surely
liberty. They often assert their dominance by actual
withholding of energy supplies or they employ cyber hacking,
which is happening to companies that I represent, hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of times a week, or even many of these
countries just threaten to withhold their energy supplies.
For example, we have seen bad actors like Russia threaten
to disrupt natural gas supplies to Europe or use cyber
capabilities to attack electricity generation in Ukraine.
So, Mr. Hakes and Ms. Jaffe, what are some examples of how
other governments have used energy supply as a weapon against
the United States or other countries? And what more can be done
to make our country less susceptible to the whims of dictators
and authoritarians who are using energy as a weapon as we speak
this morning?
Mr. Hakes. One of the tools that a historian has is access
to previously classified material, some of which wouldn't even
be seen by senior members of government. And I can assure you
that the use of oil for political purposes is greater than is
reported in the press, now that we have access to the
diplomatic documents. So this is a long-time problem in
American foreign policy that countries who have power from
their oil exports are willing to threaten, in effect, the
American government.
I would share with you, right now, my concern is a lot in
Europe where they are very dependent on the gas from the Soviet
Union. I think that is a problem. Perhaps the more robust
liquified natural gas market will help in that respect. And
then we always have to be concerned about the flows of money
into the Middle East that can sometimes leak out into terrorist
organizations. So I think those concerns continue to be
something to keep very much on the front burner.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Jaffe. Let me just remind the committee of something
you already know. If we lower our oil use here in the United
States, then we have more oil and gas to export to our allies
so they are less dependent on the countries that the chairwoman
is mentioning. So it is not necessarily bad for our industry
here to also pursue clean solutions, and we need to lower the
oil intensity of our transportation sector.
When I worked in California, I worked specifically on
looking at what we could do in our freight and trucking
industry, because whereas every American might not be able to
afford today to buy an electric vehicle, and therefore, it is
hard to gear that up in a very fast fashion, there are great
benefits that can come in the freight sector from all kinds of
technologies, including alternative fuels for trucks. We could
impose higher performance standards for even the largest
trucks, and it would innovate to technologies that would then
make our companies more competitive to sell those kind of
vehicles abroad.
China now dominates the electric bus market. They dominate
the natural gas truck and some of the electrified larger
vehicle markets. We can take that back, and we could have a
huge squashing of the oil intensity of our transportation
networks through the freight system.
We already have great progress that has been made through
what I call optimization programs. So when your delivery
service, I won't mention corporate names, but when you buy
something online and it is coming to you through a delivery
service, they actually use big data to program how those trucks
move around the United States. One of those services told me
that in 2017, they eliminated 100 million miles of vehicle
miles traveled just by scanning your package and letting the
computer decide which truck delivers it when. So there is a
huge power in these technologies, these optimization GPS-style
technologies. GPS is yet another technology that came out of
the DOD.
We are going to have a unique opportunity. In everybody's
district, you are going to have, unfortunately, natural
disasters or other kinds of weather events that mean we have to
replace infrastructure. We need to spend those dollars not
raising a building up 4 feet above the ground; we need to spend
those dollars modernizing our infrastructure, modernizing our
grid, modernizing our buildings, so that we are both making new
jobs through innovation and improving the resilience of our
existing infrastructure.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Out of courtesy, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman.
I appreciate all your testimony and all of you being here
today. It is an interesting subject, one that we don't know a
lot about, frankly. It is always hard to predict where you are
going and how you are going to get there. You know, it is
interesting, I would buy an electric car tomorrow, but I live
in Idaho, and I might drive 500, 600 miles a day, that is not
unusual. And if the charging station that I--if they had one--
that I stopped at and it takes an hour to charge my car, that
is a problem. So there is a lot that needs to be done in that
regard.
The other thing that a lot of people don't understand, if
you go out to the Idaho National Lab, they are working on rapid
charging stations and all of this kind of stuff. They have a
thing where you are going to be able to take your electric car
and just pull into your garage, and there is something that is
in your floor that, you know, you don't have to plug it in or
anything.
But the thing I found amazing is the impact that if, you
know, 10 percent of the people got electric cars, that would
have on our electrical grid. It is not conditioned to withhold
the impact on our electrical grid, and we don't do enough in
making sure that we have an updated and modern electrical grid
system, because I was shocked at how much energy it takes to do
that. I mean, it was the comparison of houses, and I thought
that has got to be wrong, that can't be true, but it is. And it
is something that we have got to address, besides the security
of the electrical grid system.
But this subcommittee has tried to balance funding--and I
will ask anyone that would like to answer this--has tried to
balance funding needs across all stages of research, from basic
science research to early stage applied energy research up
through mid and late stage research and demonstration and
across a wide variety of technologies for all components of the
energy sector. The idea being that all stages are necessary,
and you never know where the next breakthrough is going to
develop.
Would you recommend we continue that general approach or
would you approach things differently if you were in our seats?
Anybody like to answer that? Go ahead.
Mr. Hakes. Yes, I have my favorite list. I mean, I think
everybody here would agree batteries ought to be right up there
and get special treatment. And then I will put in a plug for
one that I think has been overlooked and I have talked with a
number of senior officials about this, and I think more is
being done. If you are looking at where we want to be 30, 40
years from now, I think we are going to have a very strong wind
and solar basis. And the question is, what goes with that? And
it could be small nuclear. And it could also be natural gas
that is sequestered. And, you know, we made a big push for coal
sequestration, and that didn't work out quite so well in some
of the projects, but I think gas has some advantages in that
respect.
And so if I was going to mention one thing that normally
doesn't get mentioned that ought to be highlighted a little
bit, because you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.
So I am very optimistic about the future of wind and solar, but
I would like to have a few other things sitting out there, and
so that is one area that I would like to see get some attention
or more attention.
Ms. Jaffe. So let me just say, so when I worked at the
University of California, I was actually on what we call the--
we had a Climate Leadership Council at the UC, and I also
worked very closely with the whole systems innovation office.
And we put together an initiative that was how do you partner
the labs, universities with the actual private sector, and by
doing so, you know, shaping the private sector's choices.
We are coming out with a big report from the Council on
Foreign Relations in the next couple of weeks on how digital,
digital devices and digital innovation is going to affect the
energy system of the future, and that gets to Ranking Member
Simpson's concerns about the grid, because they are going to
have to be these digital solutions and we are going to have to
think about how we integrate either small nuclear advanced or
how we integrate batteries into this system. It is going to
take differences in how we organize and then the technologies
we deploy as we rebuild systems where they need to be rebuilt.
California, of course, is going to have huge needs.
So I feel like instead of just having, you know,
straightforward public funding and funding for universities and
the labs, which has been very effective but maybe not at the
pace we need, we are going to hear about the new--green new
deal today, and a lot of talk is going to be about pace, right.
So this idea of these innovation clusters where you are
actually getting these small startup companies or the larger
large players that have capital to deploy and getting them to
deploy the technologies that we actually need and not
necessarily technologies that might add to the problem, might
make the grid more unstable or technologies that might add to
how much oil we use, right. Because if everybody is taking
Uber, and we triple the number of trips we take in a gasoline
car, the fact that we are increasing our oil production is not
going to matter. We have to use those technologies in a way
that it supports public transportation. We need to use these
technologies in a way that it gets us to the goals that we
want.
And so for me, that is setting up the platform to having
the labs working together with these companies and the young
people. I mean, you are going hear from the sunrise movement.
You know, the young people are inspired to work for companies
that are doing these innovations. We need them to stay in
science for national security reasons. And by asking these
companies, even the energy companies, to partner in these
clusters together with our labs and together with our
scientists and innovators on campuses, I think we are going get
a better result than if we let the private sector do it by
itself or we put a tax on the private sector to do this or
that.
I think that creating these sort of--if you think about the
Silicon Valley culture and how having everybody in that same
culture, and that involved the universities that were around
Silicon Valley--many of you have never heard of Santa Clara
University, it was a pivotal university involved in that
process--by creating these clusters where we really man our
workforce, really man the younger generation starting with
students and universities and feeding them into these clusters
in the Rust Belt, in other places, this is the way, in my
opinion, to do it.
Mr. Sonnesyn. If I may just add, Congressman, to answer you
directly, research development and demonstration are all
critical to the process, in our view. You do need to cover that
gamut. If you just wait for the last part to be done by others,
we may not get there. And a diverse portfolio across a variety
of technologies is also helpful, because we don't know which
technology will take off 10 years from now.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Congressman Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
panel. I appreciate you being here today.
A couple of graphs really kind of stood out to me, and I
just want to ask some questions based on that. One on the
energy consumption by energy source. When I look at the very
small amount when it comes to solar and wind and other
renewables, we put 8\1/2\ kilowatts of solar in our house about
3 years ago. There is nothing like paying $7 a month for your
utilities, because in Wisconsin, we still have to pay a little
something. But when you are a frugal Wisconsinite, that makes
you smile. And yet then I look at the research and development,
and when we really wanted to address an issue like putting
someone on the moon, we put a huge spike of investment in that
research and development, and apparently, I didn't know we
still have a lot of money, three times what we are spending on
energy, it looks like, going into space research and
development. Yet what I have been told when we looked at this
and when we looked at our solar and while the cost was coming
down, it still maybe wasn't the best return for people. We know
it is about 11 years for us is what it is going to take to
actually pay down the solar. For most people, that is probably
not where you would invest to do it. We did it for a lot of
other reasons. We also have a Volt. I also have a Jeep Wrangler
because I live in a rural area, so I guess I have neutralized
myself out on that level.
But my question, I guess, comes to, what is it that really
is the best way--like, I just think is it research and
development that we need to put far more money in? I have
companies in my district that a byproduct of some other
research is they figure out how to cut the really thin cells in
solar so they don't have to be made in China, they can be made
in the U.S. Battery research that lithium batteries don't catch
on fire, so a submarine doesn't have a fire because that would
be bad. We are doing things like that. So research and
development, is that the issue, or is it the incentivizing of
the market? Because part of why people buy solar was because
there was a Federal tax credit and there was also a State tax
credit, but that still made it an 11-year buyout on that.
What is it that we really have to do in order to see those
markets increase far more? Because I understand we were now--we
are putting more oil and gas out and all that. I just don't
think that is the future at all, and I think the demographics
you have shown say that. What is it that we really need to be
doing now to best move these forward?
Mr. Zindler. If I can jump in and just say, you know, you
need an all-of-the-above energy policy that doesn't just
apply--you know, just thinking about the actual fuels, but you
are thinking about the policies too. And, of course, to the
other question from the ranking member about sort of where to
prioritize, you tell me how much money you have got to spend
and I can sort of tell you where I would suggest that you
prioritize. I mean, some of the technologies that Mr. Sonnesyn
mentions are extremely expensive to demonstrate at scale, like
small modular reactors, carbon capture, storage. Important--
potentially incredibly important technologies, but they are at
the--they are really at the, you know, development stage where
you need to test them big, and you are talking not millions,
but billions of dollars to look at that.
And then there is a lot of stuff much further up the chain
with less money that is where you should probably focus it
because that----
Mr. Pocan. So let me be a little more specific and maybe
that will help. I am interested in wind and solar and things
that we have an abundance of that are free, that don't rely on
another country, that will decrease our budgets in defense and
other areas eventually when we get there. So specifically in
those areas, I am looking for what can we best do to increase
that use.
Mr. Zindler. In terms of what would affect the market, I
mean, the first thing, if you want to just continue with the
growth of those technologies, both have tax credits that are
due to phase out. And if you want to continue to grow the
market at the same pace, renewing those would probably help,
but that is a short-term thing. I think longer term, the
questions and issues that were raised around flexibility of the
system and accommodating batteries is very, very important.
I would note that the batteries, when paired with the solar
system right now, can qualify for the investment tax credit,
and that is making batteries plus solar actually become much
more rapidly cost competitive, and that is really important. So
something like that might be another thing to think about if we
are thinking truly short term. But there is obviously--you
know, energy you want to think in a much grander scale as well,
and overall, as was noted by the ranking member and others, the
system is going to demand flexibility. You throw a lot of new
intermittent things onto the grid like renewables, you need to
find a way to accommodate all of those.
But I think it is important to recognize that they are
coming, because the prices are coming down fast enough that
they are coming. Whether it is now or later, they are going to
come, so you need to build a grid that accommodates them.
Mr. Hakes. I pointed out in my written testimony that the
fast movement on wind and solar is not just due to R&D. The
State renewable portfolio standards have driven the market, and
when you get the market, then the private sector really has an
incentive to tweak the system, reduce costs and compete. So the
Congress, in the 2007 legislation, came that close to putting
in a renewable--national renewable portfolio standard. It
didn't quite make the 60 votes in the Senate. So that is
working both sides of the equation, the R&D side and the demand
side.
Ms. Jaffe. Let me add that the oil and gas industry had the
benefit of the MLP tax structure, so that private equity,
investor money, whether that is private money or family office
money or, you know, even your pension fund, could invest. We do
not count renewable energy as energy production. It is somehow
in the mining definition. We don't allow renewable production
to count. That seems to me really ridiculous. Why is energy
production from solar any different? You have the stream of the
energy produced, right? So looking at how to restructure
renewable energy inside the financial system so that you can
get private capital.
I can tell you, from being an adviser to the UC pension
fund, that many pension funds are looking for ways, their
constituency and their pensioners want them to invest in
renewable energy, but, you know, they also have pension
obligations. So we have to make sure you don't lose that money,
right? So having the tax status for projects that respond to
PPAs that are part of the RPS, so that you can get capital into
those programs faster is probably something--and then there
have been bills proposed and they just die and they didn't make
the tax reform bill. Unclear why.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Congressman Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
time.
Dr. Capuano, is that how you pronounce it?
Ms. Capuano. Capuano, yes.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. You mention in your testimony
insufficient infrastructure that exists to move crude oil
production supply from the Gulf region to meet our domestic
refinery demand both on the East and West Coasts. I am
wondering because of the news out of Venezuela right now,
because of our dependence on heavy crude in the refining
process, especially in those refineries that we have in the
Gulf region between Louisiana and Texas, how that is going to
affect the crude oil production in the short term? Obviously,
this is going to be a problem. Venezuela still has the largest
proven oil reserves of any country in the world, and certainly
has an impact on the production of oil. So what would your
response be?
Ms. Capuano. If we talk about Venezuela, that is mostly
heavy crude, the heavy grade, and there are other countries
that can supply that, such as Canada and Mexico. And so EIA
monthly puts out a short-term energy outlook where we look at
the available production supply globally and look at the
outlook for balancing the needs of the United States refiners
and other consumers.
And at this point, while there will be a shift obviously in
the flow of oil to compensate for the fact that Venezuela is
going lower, so we will see that adjustment. We don't see it as
having a major impact, a shock impact, and so we will adjust.
And again, I will refer you back to our STEO, and we are happy
to share the detailed data from the STEO that will show you how
we have done those calculations.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you.
Innovation in my home State of California is a big deal.
Patents, intellectual property are a big deal. I think 50
percent of all patents still are filed in the State of
California for whatever reason.
Mr. Simpson. Fifty percent of the population.
Mr. Calvert. You are probably right. God knows how many
people we have.
We talk about innovation and we talk about research, and I
am certainly in favor of doing all that, but most inventions,
most breakthroughs are done not by the government, but by
innovators. You mentioned, Dr. Hakes, Mr. Mitchell. He didn't
work for the United States Government, and he innovated his way
into a new technique.
Obviously, we have been researching fracking for 100 years,
and it took him, his persistence, by the way. He ran into a lot
of roadblocks along the way, but he was able to understand what
he had to do to create what we now take for granted in modern
day fracking technology. I am sure some people wish he never
came up with it, but nevertheless, he did, and that changed
this country overnight.
And I liked your testimony, sir, about we can't expect what
the next breakthrough may be. You know, we have been investing
a lot of money in fusion here since the 1950s, and we always
expect a breakthrough around the corner. You know, we are still
investing in ether, and if that happened, of course, that would
change everything. You know, we wouldn't have to worry about
nuclear waste, and all the rest of it, and it would be a free
reign.
So what about those new breakthroughs, and how do we
protect intellectual property and those inventors that are
going to come out with that breakthrough? I really believe in a
capitalist society that the innovators are the ones that are
going to come up with the ideas. The Elon Musks of the world
are going to come up with the next solution, so I just wanted
to throw that out there.
Yes, Dr. Hakes.
Mr. Hakes. George Mitchell is one of my favorite subjects.
I actually I think was the first Federal official to attend his
first profit making well using the fracking technique, I think,
in 1999. But he lays out--he never expected he could protect
his patent, so he bought a lot of land that was really cheap
because it was only valuable if you could use his technology,
and then he made the money off the land. It is very hard to
protect patents in energy.
But there is not time to get into it today, but there was a
journal article in the Journal of American History in 2012,
where the historian Diana Davids Hinton interviewed Mr.
Mitchell before he died, and the story of how he developed that
technology. And if there is a way of getting that into the
record or something, I recommend that obscure academic article
to everybody.
Ms. Kaptur. Dr. Hakes, please make it available to us.
Mr. Hakes. Okay.
Ms. Jaffe. Let me just add that what you are really
referring to, Representative Calvert, is what we call in the,
you know, research world the valley of death, right? So you
have a technology like the fracking technology that started
with Gas Technology Institute where George Mitchell served on
the board. And, you know, how did he--he was dedicated. This is
a man who studied physics as a hobby. He used to fly Stephen
Hawking to his ranch, and he was 100 percent committed. Didn't
matter how many times they failed. He was committed, he
believed in the technology, and he personally took that
technology over the valley of death.
So what the committee really wants to look at is not--I
mean, you are mentioning there is technologies you invested in
that could work, and then they don't make it commercially. So
what you are really looking to do is you have to have basic
research, because without basic research you don't even know
what technologies are possible. But you still need to have some
kind of funding, whether it is through the small business
bureaus or whether it is through, you know, some other way,
where you can move a technology that a business person thinks
is promising, like for solar panels or Tesla's batteries, which
work in a totally different system, and get them to be
commercial.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady will yield back. I always
believed that business is not going to invest usually in the
basic physics and the issues of that. It is the applied side.
And they only get that information out there to the
entrepreneurs for them to come up. Government invents very
little. I mean, we can point to a few exceptions, but the
private sector has been the primary success in driving the
economy. That was the point that I wanted to make.
Mr. Zindler. Can I just add just quickly a little bit of
context? And first, Congressman, I very much share your
admiration for entrepreneurship. Our firm was a startup
company. We were bought by Bloomberg about 9 years ago. We are
very proud of that. But I also would argue that nothing takes
place truly in a vacuum. And one thing, you know, we track very
closely is the amount of venture capital that gets invested in
new energy technologies. And there was a boom in that kind of
investment, and it was about 2008 and 2009.
And since then, generally speaking, the amount of money
that has flowed in from the true venture community has been
lower, and part of it is because they learned that actually
developing an energy technology at the applied level is really,
really expensive. It goes beyond the 10 to 20 to even a couple
hundred million----
Mr. Calvert. I don't want to take up all the time, but, you
know, I am an old salesmen, and you always sell the sizzle and
not the steak. You always make money on the up side, not when
you plateau the market, so I agree with you on that.
So with that, I will yield back my time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to
begin by congratulating you on your chairmanship, and also
Ranking Member Simpson. This is a very special committee, the
Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, and I see some
new members on the other side, and I want to welcome them as
well. We work in a very bipartisan way most of the time, and it
is a cherished position here.
To the panel, thank you. This has been very informative and
also very enjoyable. Thank you. I have learned a lot from your
commentary today and your thoughts. I have got two questions.
And I represent the Third District of Tennessee. My largest
city is Chattanooga, which has been a gig city and it has got a
smart grid and it is incredible, but I also have a little city
called Oak Ridge, birthplace of the Manhattan Project, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. I think if it is involving DOE, we
kind of do it in Oak Ridge.
And I would like to start by asking this question. Advanced
manufacturing has revolutionized many industries. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in my home district is a leader in advanced
manufacturing. How do you see progress in advanced
manufacturing impacting some of the transient outlooks you have
discussed today? And bear in mind, I do have a second question,
so in interest of the 5-minute rule, I will ask for rather
brief answers.
Ms. Jaffe. Advanced manufacturing could be a fundamental
technology to lower the oil intensity and lower greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States and internationally.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Mr. Zindler. Just very quickly, it is already playing a
major role in the production of photovoltaic modules, solar
panels and the cells mainly, frankly, because the plants are
getting bigger and bigger, more automated. Frankly, less human
labor is required to run them, and that is already taking
place.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very well.
How are advances in artificial intelligence, which I will
refer to as AI after this, going to impact the outlook for
energy production, distribution, and use, and are we seeing any
trends yet? Are there any examples you can point to that might
help illustrate the potential benefits of AI, and maybe ask--
tell us where research is needed to realize the benefits of AI
with respect to energy. And I will open that for anybody who
would like to comment.
Mr. Sonnesyn. Well, I will take a low-level shot at that,
Congressman. When we think about AI, we are thinking about
there is a trend of digitalization overall that we are seeing
on the grid and the use of energy. This is something that is
happening, whether you think about Alexa turning on or off your
power or your heat before you get home because she knows you
are on the way, to something a lot more advanced. But the point
that I am making is that the ability of the grid to start
thinking for itself to respond to demand changes to be able to
balance out the different desires and needs of different
customers over time is really important, and that is a place
where AI could play an important role.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Ms. Jaffe. And it is a very important role that it can
play, and Tesla has this technologies and others, on smart
inverters, so if I am--if I am having my solar panel on my home
or I am having an area that has a microgrid and there is a
problem with the overall grid, then I have this automated
technology that can separate out my microgrid from the larger
grid and so you can maintain services for a hospital or some
other feature that has created this, but it can contribute to
the overall grid, again, automatically through this AI
technology.
So this is a very important technology, and I mean, we need
to think about how we are going to move to self-driving, which
AI is a big component of that and processing the lidar, you
know, in the vehicle or in the infrastructure that is going to
be associated with self-driving. And we are--I mean, regulation
in self-driving is way behind the actual technology
development. So thinking about what technologies are needed to
make that really a dominant technology is going to have big
implications for military technologies. Understanding that and
then thinking about how to deploy capital and regulation is
going to be very important and challenging in the next couple
of years.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much. I thank the panel.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Fleischmann.
Okay. Congresswoman Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Now it is my turn?
Ms. Kaptur. Now it is your turn. Thank you for waiting.
Ms. Frankel. No problem.
Hi. Hello. Thank you very much to this panel, and you all
seem very knowledgeable and accomplished. But, you know, there
has sort of been a disconnect for me on the testimony in this
way: You know, we started off with a chart. There is so many
papers I can't even find it, but I believe the chart showed
that we are exporting more crude oil over the years, okay? So I
know this is going to sound--this is a rhetorical question. I
think climate change affects the whole world, and so it doesn't
really--I know--I think it was Ms. Jaffe, you said something
like, well, we can squeeze more oil to export if we could do
better in the United States, but that doesn't seem to me to
solve the problem of climate change, right? I am not trying to
put you on the spot.
Ms. Jaffe. It does in the following way.
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Ms. Jaffe. If we lower our emissions, which, number one,
means we are going to use less oil and gas here, right?
Ms. Frankel. Right.
Ms. Jaffe. And we do these transformative technologies, we
win in two ways. Number one, we are developing technologies
that are going to meet the demand of the future world that is
going to want those technologies, so it becomes an export-
oriented industrial policy. But in the meantime, you have got
other countries who aren't doing that, and we might as well be
the ones to supply them and not have them get their supplies
from Russia and the Middle East, right, and have the
geopolitical problems where we have to now intervene on the
geopolitical problems.
So my view is it is a win-win. We are going to have a
transition. During this immediate moment of transition, let's
get our energy here to focus on clean tech and innovation and
get oil intensity of our transportation sector down so that we
can provide the energy that is needed immediately for countries
that have not been able to transition yet, and let's be
positioned then to sell those same countries the technologies
we have to reduce emissions globally. That would be my
position.
Ms. Frankel. That sounds like a good idea. I mean,
getting--but my next question is, if you have an opinion, how
does--and this is really a followup on what you just said. How
does us pulling out of the Paris Agreement, how do you think
that affects what you just told me?
Ms. Jaffe. Can I take that one?
Ms. Frankel. Yes, go ahead. Yes.
Ms. Jaffe. We need to meet the Paris Agreement. And as
Administrator Capuano has explained, natural gas and solar and
renewables is going to reduce our emissions in the electricity
sector and give us a glide path, right? So I believe that we
could have an EPA--force the EPA to have a tender where every
State could contribute its additional donations. So we stay
with the CAFE standards, which gives us a certain amount. We
actually--to meet the Paris accord commitments, we only have to
come up with an additional 600 metric tons of contribution
beyond CAFE and beyond what is going to happen in the
electricity grid naturally through commercial trends. Right? So
let's mobilize. And I believe that the EPA could do that
through a tender.
You know, if West Virginia doesn't want to participate,
then have them tender something that works for them, but have
every State tender so that we can close that gap and stay in
Paris. And it costs the White House nothing, because every
State, every State wants to do clean energy. Every State wants
to address climate change in some fashion. I lived in Texas and
I lived in Houston, and I evacuated multiple times, right? You
have innovators in Austin and other places in Texas that would
bid into this program, right, and I think now is the time.
We stay in Paris. We have a national initiative. And
everybody can play their part by offering how they are going to
do it, whether it is New York City or some other locality.
Every one of you have mentioned really interesting projects
happening in your district. This can be done. It is not as hard
as it looks.
Ms. Frankel. So that is--oh, go ahead, Mr. Hakes.
Mr. Hakes. I was just going to say that I think the real
turning point for us in the next year or two is whether we
address the rising emissions coming out of the transportation
sector. So the Paris Agreement itself has rather modest goals
in a way, and it is voluntary, and we won't even meet those
goals unless we aggressively move on improving efficiency
standards. And one of the things that those efficiency
standards will do will lead us to the electric car. I mean, if
you look at the way those regulations have been written, you
get double credit for electric cars and things like that.
So from a policy--now that I am not at EIA anymore, I can
talk more about policy. But from a policy standpoint, that is
going to be the big driver. And in looking at the automobiles
and trucks and making that transition, and because carbon stays
in the atmosphere for over 100 years, the sooner we make that
transition the better, so we can explain what we did to our
grandchildren.
Ms. Jaffe. And let me just say, the oil and gas industry
has lasers, has drones, has sensors so they can actually
capture their methane leakage, find the leaks and shut them
down. And we are letting them off the hook here on the Hill.
And we are letting the EPA do what it wants to do, when we
could just have legislation that says, you know, this is the
target for methane leakage, and then all of a sudden, you know,
all these problems with natural gas and all these problems, we
are reducing a huge contribution to being able to stay in Paris
just with that one policy.
And honestly, the oil and gas has the technology to do it
today. They are being forced to do it in Colorado already. That
leads to new products. When I am an oil company and I come up
with new technologies to find and capture my methane, I can
then export that technology to other countries that they do the
same similar thing. So those are all products, whether that is
supporting a company in somebody's district that has drones,
whether that is supporting somebody's company in a district
that has sensors or laser technology, all these technologies
are being used in Midland, Texas, on the shale by the more
innovative companies. And that is creating an entire--another
cottage industry of jobs which are now being happening in
Colorado because they have the regulation. That should be a
Federal regulation.
Ms. Frankel. I think I have run out of time, but it was
very interesting. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel.
Congressman Newhouse, and then we will move to Congressman
Kilmer.
Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank
you for holding this hearing. Mr. Simpson, thanks for allowing
me to be on the panel with you today.
Mr. Simpson. It was a hard choice.
Mr. Newhouse. That is why I keep thanking you. I apologize,
but I had another hearing at the same time, so I am trying to
be in two places at once. You can imagine how that works out.
So I have a couple of questions. I have the honor of
representing a district that is home to the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, which I think probably many of you have
heard of. And as you know, our national labs are critical to
the energy innovation ecosystem that we have in this country. I
have been to the lab a number of times, and I am continually
impressed by the kind of work that goes on there. I have seen
firsthand how the infrastructure there at the lab, combined
with the truly highly talented people, the researchers there
are able to span the breadth of the very basic research through
applied R&D that brings new ideas to address the challenges
that we are talking about today facing our energy system.
So what I would like to do is hear from the panel
perspectives on where our national labs fit into the innovation
ecosystem and their role in DOE's applied R&D programs in
ensuring that the federally funded research, you know, gets out
of the labs and into the hands of the people that can actually,
you know, place this in the market. Are there lessons that we
can learn from the past on how labs in the Department can do
that better? And I would love to hear that, and, again, I
believe Ms. Myers Jaffe----
Ms. Jaffe. Jaffe.
Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. Has addressed that to some
extent, and certainly I would like to hear from some of the
other panel members on your ideas as well.
Mr. Hakes. Well, I think I have been to most of the energy
labs at one time or another, including Hanford, and to me, what
I love to see at just a practical level, I think it probably
was about 2010 when it was a real pivotal movement in solar
technology and some scientist friends at Georgia Tech, I was
living in Atlanta at the time, invited me over, and it was a
project funded in part by Oak Ridge, partly by the private
sector. The university was obviously a part of it.
And some of the top brains in our country were going to
work every day trying to figure out how to make those panels
more efficient and cost less. And I came back home and I told
my wife, I said, I am feeling pretty good about this, because
if these people are spending that kind of--doing it--so I think
you can't do this without the labs because they have got the
basic science, and they are brilliant people. And they bring a
perspective, a long-range perspective. But in many cases, it is
the partnerships with universities and the private sector where
that is when it really zooms, but you can't do it without these
magnificent labs.
Mr. Sonnesyn. If I can just add, I think some of the most
effective projects are those where, once you get past the basic
level of research, the applied research, having partners from
the private sector participating in that project along with
universities is part of how then you have an investment by the
private sector in what is the outcome of the project, but also
in recognizing the commercial viability of it long term. And so
as they are engaged in that applied research, certainly when
you get to the demonstration project, it really helps it
continue on. That is one of the ways that you get over that
valley of death, by creating these consortia of participating
partners.
Mr. Newhouse. Do you guys see any way we can improve over
how we have done this for a while? You certainly have
experience with that.
Ms. Jaffe. I think that part of the issue is how do we fund
the younger scientists to go to the national labs. So I am a
young person coming out with a degree in a program. I have
spent 5 years in computer science or 5 years in energy science
or I have master's in those fields, and I am highly qualified.
And how do I incentivize you to work at a national lab and not
go to Google and work on something that might create emissions
instead of removing emissions, right? I think that has to have
to do with scholarships for post docs, scholarships for people
when they are in their Ph.D. Maybe it has to do with the giving
people student loans and getting them into the national labs. I
mean, maybe something in the way we do, you know, Peace Corps
but for serving in the national labs in STEM.
I think there needs to be something where the funding
stream literally is going into the younger scholars being able
to stay in the field, because I can tell you from working with
Ph.D. students for the last 20 years, getting a Ph.D. student
to come and be able to afford to do it and then helping them
stay in the research area and not have to take a private sector
job is very challenging, right?
And so I think that is an area of focus that maybe--I don't
know, I am not familiar with what the committee has looked at
on appropriations, but looking at that line item for how much
funding do we provide for a young person who is in university
today to go through the process of getting their degree and
working in a national lab, I think that probably needs more
attention.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Certainly, those people
coming to the tri cities of Washington for the first time are
going to stay. It is a great place.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Newhouse. Thank you for
coming back. We have had a really great turn out this morning
of our members. I am proud of them.
Congressman Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks everybody
for being here. And I want to thank the chair; when we met
earlier this week, she encouraged all of us to talk about some
of the things happening in our district, and I guess I wanted
to start there.
In my neck of the woods, we actually have DOE's only marine
sciences lab, and they do research into renewable energy, as
well as trying to understand their environmental impacts.
Everything from looking at how offshore wind turbines impact
birds to the environmental impacts of hydropower to impacts of
marine hydrokinetic devices on marine animals.
And I guess I wanted to ask this question probably to Dr.
Capuano and maybe Mr. Zindler. I wanted to get your sense of
how do you see these sorts of technologies fitting into a clean
energy future? And what does, you know, widespread adoption
look like? What is the maximum potential there and what is the
scale of investment that would be needed to actually realize
that potential?
Ms. Capuano. So I can talk about the foundation and let
you--so let's talk a bit about the projections that you see in
the EIA report. So the way that we construct our models, we
obviously put in all the legislative laws and regulations that
are required, so anything that requires absorption of
renewables goes in first. After that, it is an economic model
where we do assume a certain amount of improvement in
technology, a certain amount of improvement in production cost
and cost reductions, and so it then goes into an economic
competition.
So what I think is important when you look at our long-term
projections, which can help answer your question, is that as
you see current legislation rolling away, you will see whether
or not that technology has both been invested in enough and had
had enough support through the legislation to then be able to
compete on its own.
And often, what you will see, let's say, in solar and wind
is while as the legislation rolls off the next 10 to 20 years,
you will see that it can compete but it is absorbed at lower
rate. So I would say the same thing for the technologies you
are talking about. Of course, that is a case assuming nothing
changes. There will--I assume there will be discussions of new
legislation and the challenges that are there.
Now I will turn it over to you to talk about a view of the
future.
Mr. Zindler. Sure. Just real quick, and I wish I could
remember our exact numbers for forecast, but for offshore wind,
it has been a long time coming in the U.S. Basically, our
country has developed--I think there is about half a dozen
offshore wind turbines off the coast of Rhode Island, and that
is just about it. But now we actually seem poised for a real
scale up. It is actually an exciting time in terms of there
have been offshore leases held along the East Coast. They have
been bid very competitively, and maybe more importantly than
sort of regulatory picture, which has come into focus, is the
fact that overseas, particularly in Europe, we have seen the
costs of offshore wind come down very dramatically, much faster
actually than we even have been anticipating. And so that is
making this stuff actually become much more viable.
When you are talking about the East Coast, and particularly
New England, developing a wind project onshore is challenging
because of permitting issues. There is just not that much land,
and you obviously have a community, and I am from there, that
doesn't like a lot of change and doesn't like how things can
change the views. Offshore you can find a lot more space. The
winds are stronger. The capacity factors are higher. That is an
area that we think really will grow.
We are less bullish, I would say, about some of the other
technologies around marine and others. Just I have been around,
I have been doing this for a while, I have seen a lot of really
interesting technologies be tested and not really achieve cost
competitiveness yet or scale. Hopefully they will, but we are
not there yet.
Mr. Kilmer. I also wanted to ask, in the time I have
permitting, about grid storage technologies, which seemed like
as we work towards a clean energy future, that is going to be
important, just given the variability in terms of hydro and
solar and--excuse me, wind and solar. Also important not just
in the future, but today, a lot of my district is pretty
remote. At the end of the transmission lines we have more
outages and particularly as more severe weather events happen.
I wanted to get, and maybe to Mr. Sonnesyn and Mr. Hakes,
if you have any thoughts on how we can accelerate innovations
in grid storage and especially for a future after today's
lithium-ion technologies.
Mr. Sonnesyn. So let me start with we expect a lot more
storage to be coming online in the short term, but probably not
grid scale, it is more small scale. But if you think about how
many new electric vehicles might be on the road and how they
are able to plug in then, depending on the smart technology
that is involved there, you could see some back and forth
between those batteries overnight and in and out of the grid,
et cetera. So there is some potential there in the shorter
term.
In the longer term, though, what I was referring to about
advanced materials research is really critical if we are not
going to have--be dependent entirely on lithium for the future
of those batteries, as an example, and I think that is why we
think this is so important for the future.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thanks.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much.
I would like to continue with some questions, if I might,
and it relates to the job sector. It is interesting, if you
look down a chart, a table, showing all the congressional
districts in the country, from one to 436 counting the District
of Columbia, I along with some other members of this panel and
several of our key appropriators this year who will hold
gavels, their districts rank in terms of median household
income in the bottom 40. And there are certain places in this
country that haven't caught wind of either new innovation or
they come from places that where the traditional employers have
literally bottomed out and jobs outsourced to other places.
So, Ms. Jaffe, I appreciated what you said about the
offshoring of many of our jobs and the type of competition we
face, raw competition with no bumpers. And places in our
country have been very, very hurt where people had a very
strong work ethic. If I think about the coal belt as one of
those places, though I don't directly represent coal in my
region, I have visited these areas. I spent time with one of
our former chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rogers,
yesterday just talking about the struggle of Kentucky, the
State of Kentucky and West Virginia and southern Ohio and
Appalachian Regional Commission and so forth.
So one of my questions to you really is the energy sector,
and it is a hard question, but we believe, according to the
statistics available, about 6\1/2\ million Americans work in
the energy sector. And by 2030, there are projections that say
maybe another million-\1/2\ will work in that sector. Many of
them will be in construction and installation, maintenance,
transportation, and 200,000 more with computer and math skills.
So as you think about the future of this sector, I don't
know if you agree with those projections or not, but can you
think about how the Department of Energy in the past as it
invested in R&D created industries that then employed thousands
of people so as we can anticipate the future, what work should
we do at the Department, perhaps in conjunction with the
private sector, to follow on Ms. Jaffe's recommendations about
ensuring that we will have a workforce that will have the
skills, but also in the places where people don't want to move
but the jobs have evaporated?
We face that directly in coal country. I happen to come
from a region in the nuclear power arena where we could lose
two of our major nuclear power plants in northern Ohio. The
adjustment associated with that is significant, and I have
asked myself the question, if we are going lose a quarter of
the nuclear power in the country, is that really a good thing?
From a market standpoint, it is happening because of natural
gas, but the question is, is there fallout long term from
losing the skills and the knowledge that exists in the
commercial sector that has a benefit also on the security front
for our country?
So I am interested in your thoughts about the future of the
workforce in energy and what more we might do here to draw
people into the field to make sure that they are properly
skilled up but that they also be able to work in regions that
have been so depleted through no fault of the work ethic of the
people there.
Mr. Zindler. If I could start, and I will try and be quick
to give everybody a chance because it is a really interesting
question. First, on the question of nuclear, I would just argue
that, look, 20 percent of our power roughly comes from nuclear
energy, and it is 100 percent zero CO2 emitting. So
any practical conversation around addressing climate change has
to think very carefully about letting nuclear reactors
continuing to retire. Just put that--make that one quick
statement.
And then on the work question, look, we are probably among
the most optimistic about how much solar we think is going get
built, and a lot of it is going to be distributed solar,
meaning stuff that is on the rooftops of businesses and homes.
And that is--the great news about that as far as labor is
concerned is that can't be outsourced. That has got to be done
locally and that has to be done by guys and gals in hardhats
who get up on roofs and do that hard work. And, you know, to be
clear, they are doing everything they can to make that more
automated and less labor intensive. The industry is trying to
get that way. But at the end of the day, you still need people
who actually do this work.
Ms. Kaptur. Could I interrupt you and just ask, have you
ever seen a good solar roof? I know about the appliances that
are put on the roof, the panels, but have you ever seen in any
company in our country or at any lab really integrated solar
roofing in a garage with an envelope so when Congressman
Simpson drives his car in, the solar that was produced all day
long fires up the car if it is an electric vehicle? I can't
figure out why solar roofing hasn't matured?
Mr. Zindler. That is a bigger question. It has begun to
mature in some markets, but of course, the real questions
always are in terms of what makes solar truly economic is, one,
how much sun have you got where you live, and that varies by
different parts of the country, and two, how expensive is the
power that you buy from the grid? So if you live in an
expensive market and you have got a lot of sun, then you are
pretty motivated to put PV on your roof really regardless of
what the subsidies are. Then in other markets, it really
depends on what kind of supports there are to financially
subsidize it at the current moment.
Ms. Jaffe. So let me just say that people are working on
solar building materials, and at UC Davis we had the house of
the future, right? That was an integrated home where the
electric vehicle helped serve as battery storage in the evening
for an entirely--you know, in fact, the whole region where my
professorial office was was called the West Village, and it
was, you know, mixed use. So we had housing, we had, you know,
laboratories, we had restaurants in places that the students
would go, and it was an entire section of the campus, 100
percent what we call net zero. In other words, all the energy
that was used in that area was produced on that site, and we
had, you know, solar arrays. You parked your car under solar
arrays. We had charging stations that went with those solar
arrays. We had a solar tower that, you know, did our
electricity in the offices.
I mean, the technology exists, and that is why I mentioned
the valley of death because, you know, some of it is the cost
of the technology, but some of it is just, you know, the means
to deploy it. I mean, one of the reasons why we did that at
Davis was to show that it could be done, and it was 100 percent
commercial real estate developer that put it together. It was
not--the State didn't pay a penny. You know, it was
commercially done.
So the technology is there, and it is really--you know,
when I worked at Rice University, there is a gentleman there
who literally developed a paint that conducts electricity. He
had a mug cup that was like a battery, right? And people are
working on foam that would go in cars and would be a battery in
the car to lighten the car. So there is a lot of technologies,
and it is really about commercializing them, right, and how do
you get there?
So at the UC, we had the investment office, you know, used
to invest and give money to venture capitalists as part of, you
know, 1 percent of our investment to, you know, be sort of
forward looking. And then it suddenly occurred to us, why are
we paying some other venture capitalist to bring us a company
from someplace else when we could actually have venture capital
for our own labs that are part of our system? And so we
actually created an entity where we would take this investment
percentage that we did with venture capital anyway and do it
with our own labs and find our own products that were being
developed in our own labs.
So that is why I kind of harp on this idea that there are
already these financing streams that exist, and instead of
having them, you know, develop an app that people don't need,
right, if we had these clusters that involved the venture
capital community and involved the private equity community and
involved public funding at the same time, you could leverage
the public funding by marrying it together and removing the
risks for like a pension fund or other kinds of institutional
investors to invest in these things to scale them. So that
really, I think, is why I say it is about building like an
ecosystem that goes beyond just the public funding, because as
people mentioned, you know, you can have something that is a
brilliant idea in the lab and how are you going to get it out
to be a commercial venture?
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I think we would appreciate very much
your summarizing that idea as well as your idea on attracting
talent into our labs through special funding assistance and
funding streams. I would be very interested in incorporating
those suggestions into the record. And thank you.
Dr. Hakes, and I will turn over to Congressman Simpson, but
you wanted to comment as well?
Mr. Hakes. Yes. I think your point on the solar roofing is
a very active example where you have a technology that seems to
have great promise, but all these technologies, whether it is
fracking or solar or whatever, have all these hiccups along the
way. And in that particular case, is it the roofing industry or
is it the solar industry that controls the roof and gets the
permits and all that? And that is going to have to kind of be
worked out on the local level. Experience teaches us it
probably will, but right now, there is a little dispute kind of
going on there that has to be worked out.
On your earlier question too, I would just say, looking
back on my days at DOE, one of my fondest memories now was
attending the science fair each year. You know, that is one of
the things that the Energy Department is the parent agency for,
and there was a lot of pressure on us from the Secretary's
office to attend. And looking back, I think, thank God, I
enjoyed that.
And so I think one thing members might want to do is have
promotions in their district to get more schools to participate
in the science fair and maybe drop by for the national
competition. They probably would be pleased as punch to have
someone from the Appropriations Committee show up. But looking
back on that, it is that next generation that we need to solve
the problem, and not just in Silicon Valley but all over the
country. And to me, science fair, which is a DOE function, is a
great way to do that.
Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to state that in terms of what
Ms. Jaffe said about the modular home or the work that has been
done on that campus at one of the California universities
interests me, and I am very interested in the housing unit or
the multifamily unit and what we do to propel it forward to be
more energy efficient, including the roof where we lose most of
the energy. I met with a modular developer yesterday, one of
the largest ones in the country who basically develops in the
west, and I was learning about new technologies with
insulation, concrete, and steel to replace traditional roofing.
And I find the Department a bit sluggish in its attention to
where most people live.
Everybody has to live somewhere, right, so there are
dwelling units, and we can really revolutionize that industry,
but I don't see as much attention. This particular developer
actually had solar facing walls that did solar thermal and can
cut the energy bill for a given individual family by almost a
quarter. And that was just one major developer, but it was
interesting to me to hear it from a developer, I didn't hear
from DOE. Too bad. And so I am just interested in any
innovation you can see on that front that you might provide for
the record.
I want to go to Mr. Simpson now.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Interesting testimony. I will just ask this as a rhetorical
question, why is hydro not renewable? That is just bizarre as
far as I am concerned. Congress decided that. If we put in new
turbines that are more efficient, then that increase in
production is renewable, but the electricity that is produced
otherwise is not a renewable energy. I find that really
strange.
Anyway, you do know, Ms. Jaffe, that we do have innovation
hubs in the Department of Energy? We fund those--I think they
started under my good friend when I was chairman, Secretary
Moniz. They wanted more of them. We just didn't have the money
to do the increases that they wanted. But we still fund the
energy innovation hubs that do just what you said. They bring
together the private sector, the government, and others to work
on specific issues. There are different types of innovation
hubs.
We also have a university program funded through this
committee. I think NE has part of it, the NRC has part of it.
And I find it interesting in your testimony--I am sitting there
and I am comparing it to the lab I know best, which is the
Idaho National Laboratory. And when you testified, I am going,
yes, that is what they are doing. And I am sure if you talk to
Mr. Newhouse, if you talk to Mr. Fleischmann----
Ms. Jaffe. I think it is----
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. You would find the same thing is
true in other places. Let me explain what I am talking about.
Ms. Jaffe. Okay.
Mr. Simpson. In Idaho, the State of Idaho went in and built
a building called CAES Center. It has got Boise State, Idaho
State, University of Idaho and Wyoming, and the private sector
involved in there, and they are bringing students in from these
universities that do energy research. And the lab hires many of
those people to keep them in the stream, because that is why
they do it.
If you go out and look at what they are doing in batteries
and stuff, it is the private sector that is going to the
national lab, under work for others, to have them do the
research on batteries, and they are paying for a lot of it. So
a lot of this is going on. I know I am going to sound like
someone who doesn't believe in climate change, and I am not a
rocket scientist, but I can tell you the climate is changing.
And our policies in the future need to observe that, and we
need to look at that in the future.
I noticed, Mr. Zindler, you said that technology wouldn't
catch us up with climate change and address the problem, that
new policies need to be--you know, that is easy to say. What
are those new policies? That is what I want to know as a
policymaker that will get us to where we want to go.
But I come back to electric cars. Electric cars is not the
answer. It is a part of the answer. But if all I am doing is
replacing the production of the energy that my car produces
with the energy produced in a coal fired plant, I am not saving
anything on carbon, because electricity doesn't form changes
without a loss of energy. And so if all I am doing is taking
this car and I am plugging it in, but now my power plant is
having to produce more carbon, I haven't really saved the
environment anything.
Now, in Idaho, where most of the power is hydroelectric, it
probably is a good idea in that I have reduced the carbon
emissions in my area because we have noncarbon producing
electricity or at least a large part of it. So, I mean, it is
not as simple as a lot of the stuff that we are talking about.
And I am glad to see that both of you mentioned nuclear energy,
because I don't think you can seriously talk about climate
change without talking about nuclear energy. And they are doing
some incredible work in what the future of nuclear energy is
going to be. It is not going to be these 3,000 megawatt plants
that cost billions of dollars to build. They are going to be in
small modular reactors and microreactors and those types of
things, and they are doing some incredible work in that degree.
But, you know, we oftentimes think we are being brilliant
at the time. I remember when we eliminated MTBEs from gasoline.
So we needed an oxygenation agent. We went to ethanol. Recent
studies show that you produce more carbon in producing the
ethanol than you save by putting ethanol in your car. Does that
make sense? I don't think so, but try to get rid of it. You
cannot do it. There are too many corn growing States in this
country. So it is a challenge.
We not only have to look at what we would like the world to
look like; we have to look at the world as it exists and how
can you change it and what is the impact on the economy to do
it. And that is sometimes challenging.
Mr. Zindler. If I could, sir, on the electric vehicles, I
would respectfully just disagree in the sense that, A, they are
more efficient, and B, and more importantly, they are
essentially a reflection of what is becoming a rapidly
decarbonizing power sector. So if you look at some of the
charts that Administrator Capuano showed, the power sector
itself is reducing its CO2 emissions very rapidly
thanks to natural gas, yes, and renewables. And by the way,
hydro I consider renewable as well. And, you know, about 37\1/
2\ percent of our power now has zero carbon, and that has been
rising very dramatically. So that----
Mr. Simpson. And that is why I say, it is going to be
produced by carbon free emissions, then it makes sense.
Mr. Zindler. But that trajectory is going to continue, sir.
Mr. Simpson. And I think that is fine.
Mr. Zindler. Coal plants are going to continue to retire
because they are being outcompeted by natural gas----
Mr. Simpson. I think that is true.
Mr. Zindler. So I think, if you look at where--if we try to
skate to where the puck is going, I mean, in terms of electric
vehicles, if we look 10 years out, we look at a decarbonized
power sector; that is how we want our vehicles to be fueled
essentially and----
Mr. Simpson. By the way, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Zindler. So I guess----
Mr. Simpson. There are too many people in this world who
think, hey, I can just plug in my car. This energy comes out of
the ethos somewhere, and that is not true.
Ms. Jaffe. But if your car can travel 100 miles on this
many BTUs of energy and a gasoline car takes 10 times that
amount or five times that amount of BTUs of energy, you are
still ahead of the game by being an electric car.
Mr. Simpson. As long as you can charge it.
Ms. Jaffe. And they have shown that even if that car was
charged with coal, it is still better because it is a more
efficient car.
Mr. Zindler. Sorry.
Mr. Simpson. Some of them are. I mean, my wife was getting
60 miles to the gallon. She didn't have an electric car. She
had a hybrid.
Ms. Jaffe. Right.
Mr. Zindler. Some of the same technologies are in that
hybrid as are electric cars.
Mr. Simpson. I know they are. She is the only person I know
that has actually run out of electricity and gas in a car. And
I said, how the hell did you do that? They put this gauge in
there, you know. And she said, I fill it up so infrequently, I
just never looked at it.
Mr. Zindler. That says something in and of itself, right?
That is great.
Last quick thing on EVs just that, look, electric vehicle
adoption will not be even across all parts of the U.S.
simultaneously.
Mr. Simpson. That is right.
Mr. Zindler. There are a lot of two-car families. I am one
of them. We have an electric vehicle, which is our short-haul
vehicle. We keep it in the garage. That is what we do. We got
another car we use when we want to go drive and visit, you
know, family. But I will be clear, I think people who live in
rural areas, it is going to be a while before you could go
fully electric. That is just the reality of the life of
traveling longer distances.
Mr. Simpson. The other fascinating thing I would say before
you can answer is if you go to the Pacific Northwest, we have
had low cost energy production because there has been
hydroproduction. Guess what? BPA is in a real challenge right
now, Bonneville Power Administration, because they can no
longer sell their energy into the California markets because
you can get energy cheaper and you can get it by
hydroproduction, which has always been the low-cost producer,
and that is going to be a challenge for us.
Mr. Sonnesyn. Congressman, just to build on your theme of
we have also got to deal with the energy grid and the energy
sources that we have today, the largest reason we have reduced
carbon emissions recently has been the adoption of natural gas
as we have retired coal-fired power plants. So thinking about
what is the infrastructure that we need in order to deliver
that increased amount of natural gas across the country and are
we permitting the pipelines, et cetera, that we need to get
that lower carbon emitting cleaner natural gas where we need
it. That is a critical part of this equation that will be
related to whether it is electric vehicles or just anything
that you are turning on in your house if you want to have that
lower carbon future.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
This is a great hearing. We just again thank you all for
coming.
I wanted to go to Congresswoman Frankel, and then we will
go back to Congressman Newhouse.
Mr. Simpson. I said so many things that I am in trouble
for.
Ms. Frankel. I have--I think I have a question. I don't
know if it is one or two questions related to some research
that one of my local universities is doing. First, they have
been using--testing ways to use ocean waves and tides and
currents to produce renewable energy. So I just question
whether you have ever heard of that and what you think about
that.
Wait, before you answer that, I am going to say both my
questions. And the other question I have, which is related to I
think what you have said today, what I have heard, is that the
biggest bang for our buck in terms of reducing carbon emissions
is with the use of automobiles and trucks and all that. Is
that--okay.
So the other thing, when I went to FAU, they showed me sort
of the highway of the future where everybody was in a
driverless car, and then the lanes, you did not go like, you
know, one step going that way and one going that way, but it
was like going--the cars were all going in all different
directions next to each other and it was based upon the traffic
load.
So my question there is, I know you have been talking about
electric cars and so forth, but how does this all connect with
some of the future transportation, like the driverless cars or
maybe roads where you have the different lane capacities or
lane directions? Okay. That is two questions.
Mr. Hakes. Maybe I can answer the first one.
There are several ocean technologies. There is ocean
thermal, which is the difference between the cold water and the
hot water that can generate energy. And then there is the power
of the waves. Hawaii has been the location of most Federal
projects on both of those technologies, and they have made a
decision to go with solar.
Like many things, the wave power, in a sense, is free, but
the capital structure is fairly expensive, and it has
maintenance issues because waves are very strong. But in an
all-of-the-above approach, it certainly might be something that
could play a role in the future.
The electric car opens up so many avenues. Most people who
drive electric cars end up liking them a lot better than their
older cars because they accelerate faster, they work better
with your iPhone, and all sorts of things. So this futuristic
world, which I don't pretend to understand--I am sort of
leaving that to my grandchildren--but I think almost all of
that will work better with the electric car.
In my book, I try to stress the importance of balancing
national security, the economy, and the environment. And some
policies are what I call ``threefers''; they actually work in
all three areas. And having super-efficient cars is good for
the national security, it is good for the economy, and it is
good for the environment and opens up this whole bright world
of things that we can't even imagine today.
Ms. Frankel. Does anyone want to add what you think is the
relationship, the future relationship, between driverless cars
and--yes?
Ms. Jaffe. So the driverless car, I mean, the thesis or the
theory--because you already--I can't remember which member
mentioned this--we already have the technology for buses, which
was being deployed in the Pacific Northwest, where the bus
drives up and there is a pad on the ground and it wirelessly
charges it and then continues on its route.
Mr. Newhouse. That is in my district.
Ms. Jaffe. Right. Brilliant project, right?
So we are moving towards wireless charging. So I am not
having to have a trolley that has a wire in a city; I might get
to the point where I could have a trolley that just has these
mats.
Ms. Frankel. No, I meant driverless.
Ms. Jaffe. But in a driverless car----
Ms. Frankel. Oh, okay.
Ms. Jaffe. Let me keep going.
Ms. Frankel. Right.
Ms. Jaffe. So in a driverless car--they are experimenting
with a road in China, so it is like, what are we doing? They
are literally building a road where the road is both solar and
it has wireless charging. And you are going to have these
driverless cars that are going to supposedly go on this road
and they are going to self-charge themselves, and it is going
to self-charge themselves with solar, right?
So maybe you want to take that on for me, Ethan.
Mr. Zindler. Yeah, I have been on that road. It is, like,
about a kilometer along, and it goes very, very slowly as you
go around.
Look, there are a lot of interesting technologies out
there. I think putting solar on the ground that you drive over
with multi-ton vehicles is not the greatest idea.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Simpson just asked, what if your
cat runs over it?
Mr. Simpson. Or even walks across it.
Ms. Jaffe. Yeah.
I think where we are going to go--and that is why it is
very important to understand the technology, and that is why we
are doing a paper on it at the Council--is understanding how
these robot taxis--so people believe that we are going to move
to these robot taxis, which are being experimented on in
Arizona and other locations, and therefore we are going to
lower our emissions. And the devil is really going to be in the
details. You know, are we going to talk about the efficiencies
of those vehicles? Because right now those experiments that are
taking place are taking place with gasoline cars that are not
necessarily efficient. Right?
So, you know, we really have to think about the technology
and what do we want from this technology, what purposes do we
want it to serve.
The other research that has come out is all this sort of
robotization of service of ``I don't own a car, so I feel like
I have no carbon footprint,'' because I really should be like
Ranking Member Simpson's wife, in a car that really is, you
know, lowering its carbon footprint, but I am actually just
using--I won't name the name of the services--taking these
trips on demand, and I am thinking that I am lowering my carbon
footprint, but am I really? Because if I would normally have
taken the Metro for that trip but now I am jumping in a
gasoline car, what the research is showing is that you are
actually raising your emissions.
So I do think that this topic is one that is extremely
important for the Congress. You are spot-on understanding and
wanting to understand the technology and then thinking about
how to deploy the technology in a way that is taking us where
we want to go.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
The gentlelady's time has expired.
Let me just say that all of the testimony that you have
presented this morning will be posted on the Energy and Water
Subcommittee website at appropriations.house.gov.
You have really presented excellent testimony, and this has
been a really good interchange this morning.
Congressman Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate having
the honor of the last question, I guess, going over time a
little bit.
I just wanted to talk a little bit or ask you a little bit
about the balance of having renewable energy, maintaining a
baseload electrical energy, and how we balance that.
In the Northwest, as has been talked about, I mean, we are
blessed with the hydroelectric dam system which has provided us
that baseload power. So, obviously, a dam, that is a battery
system, but there is certainly a need for increasing the
utilization of batteries. The Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory really has been at the leading edge of developing
some of that technology.
Some of you have talked about the battery systems and the
implementation into our system. Do you think we are at the
point where private industry is going to be able to get us to
where we need to be there? Or is this going to continue to
require an investment by the Federal Government into some of
the research necessary to get us to that point where we need to
be?
Mr. Hakes. You know, I think that the contracts that are
going out today for solar-battery packages, the batteries will
last for about 4 hours. And so that represents a considerable
improvement, but when you are looking at where we need to be in
the future, not sufficient.
So I would think there is probably a lot of basic science
that is going to have to be developed in the battery area, as
well as looking at other forms of storage. A battery is not the
only way to store things. Hydrogen can store--and pumped hydro,
salt beds, other things. So I think there is a lot of high-tech
and scientific work still needed in this general area of
storage.
Mr. Newhouse. Good.
Mr. Sonnesyn. You stole it from me. That hit it pretty
well.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. Well, I appreciate
that.
Mr. Zindler. I will just add one quick thing----
Mr. Newhouse. Please.
Mr. Zindler [continuing]. Which is, our view, and I think a
lot of us would agree, is that the grid, in terms of the amount
of capacity you have online, will grow. My view and our firm's
view is that the actual demand for electricity won't really
grow very much because the economy has been getting more and
more efficient.
But especially if you are talking about climate change and
these kind of extreme ups and downs in terms of demand, you
need to have a lot of flexibility in the grid. So your question
is dead-on in terms of worrying about it.
I think that sometimes there is a confusion between the
issue that, sort of, the technical ability of the grid to take
on variable resources, like renewables, and the economic
impact. Technically, we have seen places like Germany and
others take on very large percentages, some days as high as 50
percent, being produced by renewables. That has not been an
issue. But, economically, it is a different story. Because when
you get renewables onto the grid, they essentially have zero
marginal cost, and so they bring the price of power down and
they hurt the fossil generators. And that is a reality, that is
an economic reality.
So, as you think about integrating these resources, you
need to think about how you compensate everybody in a way so
that we make this transition in a way where we are not caught,
you know, flat-footed.
Now, there has been a lot of talk from the administration
around this question, and I want us to be clear about it. I am
not saying that you need to, like, pay coal plants to continue
to exist. But I do think that you need to think carefully about
adding battery storage and how hydro plays a role and these
other technologies as well, because we are going to have a
system that is going to require greater flexibility.
Mr. Newhouse. So maybe we don't need to look much further
than our own noses. You know, a hydroelectric system is truly
a--there is a value there in battery storage that perhaps is
unappreciated. And to the point of BPA not being competitive
with some of the renewable resources, maybe there is a value
that needs to be placed on that battery system.
Ms. Jaffe. Let me just say that the professors that have
worked on the 100-percent renewables targets have specifically
mentioned hydro. And the Northwest hydro has a role even in
California being able to achieve the 100-percent renewables. So
hydro plays an incredibly important balancing role, where it is
located, in being able to balance renewables.
So the question is--and SMRs could play the same role, you
know, as they are being developed, with that goal in mind.
So it is really about incentivizing the grid. And I know
this isn't a Federal policy; it is really more somewhat a State
matter, but you do have some regulatory. Right now, in our
system in the United States, utilities make return by building
infrastructure, and they are incented to add traditional
infrastructure. They don't get anything if they add a
distributed energy resource or they put in a battery or
something like that. They don't get any return. And so we need
to change the incentive structure for how utilities make
profits.
New York State is doing some very experimental things,
where they needed a substation, it was going to cost $1.2
billion, and they put out a tender for solutions instead of
just letting the utility do the substation, and they found that
these kind of technologies that we have talked about today were
able to solve the needs of a particular location in New York
for $200,000.
And promoting these new technologies we are talking about,
whether--I think they, in the end, wound up going with solar
and battery storage. But they are having to reform their entire
pricing system, and it is both how do we incentivize utilities
to work with these different, smaller providers, and it is also
making sure that when we do rates base that we are not having
some wealthy corporation putting in a distributed network with
solar and batteries for their operations and they getting the,
you know, 2-cent electricity and then low-income people are
stuck with the cost of supporting the utilities' transmission
and expensive activities and their electricity bill is going
up. Right?
So there has to be a new way of taking the benefits of
renewables and having our pricing system reward everybody along
the grid and not just the people who put the advanced
technology in. And that is also something that New York State
is doing some innovative things with, where they actually
divide the benefit one-third to the utility, one-third to the
provider, say, of the solar and battery storage, and one-third
goes back to ratepayers.
And so it really is going to take, you know, a very
complicated reform to actually integrate this technology in a
way that is fair and a way that reduces costs.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, my time is up. I want to thank all of
you for being here and thank Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Simpson for
having this very interesting conversation. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Great. Thank you for participating.
I wanted to say, I will be submitting several questions to
you to the record. If you can't answer them that is all right.
I don't want to ask questions about them now, but I will tick
off the general subject areas, some of which we have covered.
Number one, relating to the future of housing and energy
systems and what that energy envelope looks like. Where are
path-breaking efforts being be made? What can we learn from
them?
Number two, I come from a heavy industry part of America. I
probably represent one of the major production corridors for
our heavy trucks like Ford F-750 as well as top-selling
vehicles like the Chrysler Fiat, Wrangler, and Cherokee. Not
very far from my district is the production of the Abrams tank.
So you can get a sense of what this district might look like:
fifth-largest rail center; big steel mills, many of which are
falling on hard times.
I met with the head of one of these companies, and I said,
``What can I do to keep those jobs here?'', and his answer was,
``Cut my energy bills by over a third.'' How do we integrate
energy into this very unique part of America that is essential
to our defense industrial base?
Number three, the older cities of the industrial North are
struggling with their bottom line. How do I relieve the energy
costs in these cities to their water treatment and their sewage
treatment, which are a major part of their operating budgets?
What can we learn from other places in the country to help us
help them?
Number four, landfills that leak methane. What do we do?
What is the role of the Department of Energy, or is that just
EPA's job?
Five, cryogenic hydrogen or hydrogen. I think, Dr. Hakes,
you mentioned hydrogen this morning. Very interested in the
cost-effectiveness of various hydrogen technologies and
applications that perhaps have a broader use.
Many of you have referenced nuclear power production in
your testimony. If you were sitting in our position and you
were watching America lose 25 percent of its production
facilities, what would you do?
And then, finally, for compact plasma systems, what can you
tell us about their deployability? Where do they sit on the
development curve for future energy systems?
I will also give you this final challenge. The power and
water systems west of the Mississippi River and in the TVA
corridor look very different than in my part of the country,
which is commercial nuclear power, commercial gas. We sit in
the private market; we don't have any Federal connect. It
creates a lot of competitive challenges to us vis-a-vis other
parts of the country.
I said something to Senator Lamar Alexander about why a
certain automotive company had located to Tennessee and did the
power rates of the TVA have anything to do with why that didn't
locate in my part of the country. He goes, ``Absolutely not.
There's no relationship between TVA power rates and the
movement of industry.''
I am very interested in any comments you have about the
dissimilarity between power production facilities in different
parts of the country and the rates that are yielded as a result
and what places in the country that operate in the purely
commercial marketplace. How can they compete? How do we compete
against maybe hydropower that might exist in other places? This
is a very complicated discussion, but I am interested in your
comments there.
My final question to the record, and then we will go to Mr.
Simpson for any final comments. I am very, very concerned about
the role of Russia in Europe and particularly with the supply
of power. Nord Stream 2, we read, might be completed by the end
of this year.
Our transatlantic allies are our closest allies. How do you
see that geopolitical relationship between the United States
and Europe, Russia's increasing power supply to the continent,
Nord Stream 2, and what we might do as the leader of the free
world to help our European brethren have more than one source?
Does anyone want to make a comment on that? Have you
thought about it? Is this something that you have reported on?
Or would you like to think about it?
Mr. Hakes. Think about it.
Ms. Jaffe. I would just say that the LNG exports are going
to be, I think, a critical feature in providing diversification
to the Nord Stream 2.
And, you know, I mean, different policies have been mooted.
I mean, the administration was looking at actually even putting
sanctions on the German suppliers that are going to be involved
in doing Nord Stream 2. But it is--I can send you a paper--it
is a pretty complex issue, because Germany would like to be the
hub for the movement of all natural gas around Europe, and
there are other countries in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe
that would of course like to have U.S. LNG and more open access
in trading. And I think that those countries have U.S. support
to try to work against the sort of German alliance to try to
have Nord Stream 2 be such a critical feature of the market.
And I would say that there are some--I don't know how to
put this. There are some business interests in Germany that
motivate some of the policies and some of the benefits they
would get from controlling movements of natural gas to Europe
that even goes beyond the Russian part of the question.
And U.S. LNG and our support for Eastern Europe, we are
moving in the right direction on our policy, and we need to
stay the course on that. It is important, you are correct, in
making sure that Europe has a diverse energy supply.
Ms. Kaptur. I will give you an anomaly here. You might take
it back to your colleagues. And I am looking for commentary on
this.
The shortest distance to ship by sea from the United States
to Europe is through the Saint Lawrence Seaway or from a
relationship with the Canadians to ship from the Straits of
Canso or Halifax. And I am talking about LNG.
The greatest discovery of natural gas on the continent sits
in Ohio and western Pennsylvania, in the Marcellus and Utica
shale.
The dots are not connected, commercially.
Mr. Zindler. Just very quickly, actually, there will be a
terminal--there is a terminal in Maryland also that is coming--
to export. And I would just--I will share with you and the
committee afterwards our forecast on LNG exports for the U.S.
And we do project those to rise.
I wanted to say that the first port of call may not always
be Europe; it may also be Asia. But just providing more to the
market is going to help relieve some of the pressure on
pricing.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you all very much.
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I just want to say, I thank you all for being
here. Very interesting discussion. And if I sound like I am
trying to be a hard-ass, I am really not. I am just raising
questions. Because nothing is as simple as we oftentimes make
it. It is always very complicated.
In fact, one of the challenges we have had in this
committee over the years, we have tried to get the private
sector involved in some research and development of things that
are of their interest. Trying to determine when they want to
put dollars in is another challenge. They almost want it at the
end of the project, where it is, you know, ``Okay, I'll buy
it.'' They need to be more involved up front in the research
and development. The days of the Bell Labs are over. The
government is doing most of the research in these very
expensive endeavors.
And I would just say to Chairwoman Kaptur, I understand
your issues, but, every part of the country has a competitive
advantage with something. You just mentioned one in your area:
shortest distance of shipping to Europe. We are at a
disadvantage to you from that. We are at an advantage in the
cost of our electricity. So every part of the country has a
different advantage and disadvantage from where they are
located and what their own circumstances are.
Lastly, I just want to say, if you ever see me in a
driverless vehicle, you will know that hell has frozen over. I
am 68, and it will either be my funeral car or hell has frozen
over.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Ranking Member Simpson. We want you
to stay here for a very long time, so you drive what you wish.
All right. We are going to conclude this morning's hearing
early this afternoon. And I would like to thank our witnesses
for joining us today.
I ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record
that questions for the record and any supporting information
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form no
later than 3 weeks from the time that you receive them.
Members who have additional questions for the record will
have until the close of business Monday to provide them to the
subcommittee.
Ms. Kaptur. And I would like to remind members that our
next hearing is Tuesday, February 12, at 10:00 a.m. to examine
the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance
Program.
This hearing is adjourned.
And thank you all. You were magnificent.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, February 13, 2019.
OVERSIGHT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WITNESSES
ANNAMARIA GARCIA, DIRECTOR, WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PROGRAMS OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AMY KLUSMEIER, DIRECTOR, WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR STATE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
MICHAEL FURZE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENERGY DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, WASHINGTON STATE
TERRY JACOBS, DIRECTOR, HOUSING AND ENERGY, GREAT LAKES COMMUNITY
ACTION PARTNERSHIP
Ms. Kaptur. The committee will come to order. And we want
to welcome all of our guests to our second hearing of the new
Congress. Thank you all for coming. I want to especially thank
all the witnesses here today. We appreciate your understanding
and flexibility in rescheduling this hearing due to weather.
Last week, our hearing focused on energy trends and future
outlook. It offered a 30,000 foot perspective of our country's
past, present, and future relating to our energy needs. And
this week, we will do the opposite. We will do a deep dive into
one specific program at the Department of Energy to which you
have devoted to your lives and you have been hard at work and I
am quoting one of my constituents here, B-T-Utifying America
for over 4 decades. And I know I will have to spell that for
the individual who is taking a record of this meeting.
DOE's weatherization program has a direct, positive impact
on the lives and pocketbooks of every day Americans,
particularly elderly and low-income Americans spanning all 50
states, U.S. territories, and Native-American tribes.
Just 2 weeks ago, it was colder in the Midwest than on the
surface of Mars or throughout the Arctic. We are putting up
some headlines from different places in the country now.
Tucson, one of my friends called me last year, he goes, Marcy,
it is 120 degrees out here.
The data is clear. According to the CDC, weather-related
death rates were 2 to 7 times as high in low-income counties as
in high income counties. Additionally, poor households rely on
alternative temperature regulating devices such as space
heaters, which according to the National Fire Protection
Association caused about one-third of all winter house fires
and 80 percent of all winter fire deaths.
This goes to show how crucial DOE's weatherization dollars
are in ensuring low-income energy insecure families can protect
themselves, their homes, and mobile homes from the elements.
This program was created after the 1973 oil crisis when the
price of oil quadrupled in our country from $3 a barrel to
nearly $12, causing severe disruptions from coast to coast.
Low income individuals, particularly in cold weather states
who relying on oil to keep warm, suffered greatly. The
weatherization program for millions has been a lifesaver,
truly. Since its first appropriation in 1977, the
weatherization program has made millions of homes energy
efficient, resulting in an average of $283 in annual energy
cost savings per weatherized unit.
Back then, it was estimated that over a 20-year lifetime
the program would save the equivalent of 12 million barrels of
oil. Because investments in weatherization pay off, it is a
tragedy that this administration continually targets this
program for cuts.
For each of the last Fiscal Years, this administration has
proposed to zero out this important program. And sadly, I
expect the forthcoming budget to, again, likely propose to
eliminate this program.
In 1983, the program received the equivalent of $473
million based on 2010 dollars. That was in 1983, Ronald Reagan
was president then. Since then, this program has been on a
downward curve in terms of funding. This Fiscal Year, look at
that, if you had to manage a business that had that kind of
according ledger, over time it has had a downward curve in
terms of funding, and this Fiscal Year the program received
only $266 million which is half as much in real dollars has
happened in the 1980s.
Despite these funding challenges, to date, $7.4 million
units have been weatherized averaging about 110,000 units per
year according to the statistics I have. So, I want to thank
all of you here today for devoting a major part of your lives
to helping build America forward where it matters most.
We will hear today from Terry Jacobs of the Great Lakes
Community Action Partnership in Toledo, Ohio. He can attest to
the many benefits to this program across Ohio that I just
emerged from or we just emerged from a major ice storm.
We will also hear from Michael Furze from the Washington
State Department of Commerce who will speak to the health
benefits of weatherizing homes, another example of how this
program saves lives.
Annamaria Garcia from the Department of Energy will give us
some background in history. In looking at this history, it
takes me back to my service in the Carter administration where
I worked on housing and neighborhood revitalization efforts.
The weatherization program was still new at that time, but
it has become clear that weatherization is a significant energy
conservation tool in a toolbox with unrealized potential that
can be used to help lift struggling families and neighborhoods
out of poverty by a focus on the cost of energy.
As successful as this program has been, there is always
room for improvement and innovation. Amy Klusmeier from the
National Association for State Community Services Programs
actually began her career on a weatherization crew, and Amy
will talk about what happens at the ground level, in fact, at
all levels, and how the program can be improved and made more
impactful.
Finally, we will have upcoming, we think, an infrastructure
bill in this Congress and I believe that this program of
weatherization should be one essential element as we work
together on a Build America Forward agenda.
I want to thank you our witnesses again for their testimony
today and we look forward to hearing from you. And I would like
now to turn to our ranking member, dutiful member, Mr. Simpson
for any opening remarks.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I would like to
join you in welcoming our witnesses here today for today's
hearing. We thank you all for being here this morning and
especially for being willing to adjust your schedule last week
when we had to reschedule our hearing.
I look forward to hearing about your experience with the
Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. The
purpose of the Weatherization Assistance Program is to reduce
energy cost for low-income households by increasing the energy
efficiency of their homes. In addition to the direct benefits
to the household's budget, these weatherization improvements
often also result in better health and safety for the
individuals and families within the household.
These benefits have impacts beyond individual households to
broader communities as well as particularly when we look at the
program as a whole. So while the Weatherization Assistance
Program represents a relatively small portion of the DOE's
overall annual budget, it provides important services across
the country.
I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling this hearing and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the successes
of the program as well as any continued improvements that can
be made in the program, and I have to tell you, at 10:45 I have
to step out for just a minute. So when I step out I am just
stepping out because I have a conference call I have to do, and
then I will be back in, so thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you very much
Ranking Member Simpson. We know how dedicated you are, so good
luck on that.
We want to thank you and I am very excited for our
witnesses joining us today. Let me just tell you a bit of each
of them.
First we will have as I mentioned, Ms. Annamaria Garcia,
who is the director of the Weatherization in Intergovernmental
Program Office at the Department of Energy. Prior to this
appointment, Ms. Garcia was the executive director of the Ozone
Transport Commission and also served as director of Operations
and State Programs for the Center for Energy and Climate
Solutions.
Next, we will have Ms. Amy Klusmeier who is the
Weatherization Assistance Program director at the National
Association of State Community Services Programs. Ms. Klusmeier
began her weatherization career as a field worker in south
central Wisconsin and later served as the lead weatherization
program analyst for the State of Wisconsin, and I know
Congressman Pocan will be very interested in your testimony, as
will we all.
Following that, we will have Mr. Michael Furze who is the
assistant director of the Energy Division at Washington State's
Department of Commerce. And prior to this role, Mr. Furze held
a variety of other duties within Washington State's Department
of Commerce and also served as a weatherization manager in New
Mexico. And I know how strongly Congressman Kilmer advocates
for Washington State here. Take my word for it.
And last but not least, we will have Mr. Terry Jacobs, who
is the housing and energy director at the Great Lakes Community
Action Partnership in Toledo, Ohio. Mr. Jacobs has worked on
weatherization at the local level for over 12 years.
Thank you all for taking time to be here today, and without
objection, your written statements will be entered into the
record, and please feel free to summarize your remarks in about
5 minutes each, starting with Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the Department of Energy's
Weatherization Assistance Program known as WAP.
As director of the Weatherization and Intergovernmental
Programs Office, I oversee DOE's WAP, the nation's largest
residential energy efficiency program. The mission of WAP is to
increase the energy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied
by low-income persons, reduce their total residential energy
expenditures, and improve their health and safety.
WAP residential retrofits reduce the cost of low-income
household energy bills. These households are often on fixed
incomes or rely on income assistance programs and are most
vulnerable to volatile changes in energy markets.
DOE provides core funding to weatherization grantees in all
50 states, the District of Columbia, one Native-American tribe
and the five U.S. territories through formula grants.
The program has two parts, allocating the funds, and
producing the weatherized homes. Could I have the first slide
please? That is not the first slide. This chart, which is a
little hard to see, depicts the funding and production of
weatherized homes from 2000 to 2018. The colored bars show the
number of homes weatherized; blue for homes done with regular
annual appropriations and green for homes done with Recovery
Act dollars.
DOE WAP Appropriations are shown by the dashed lines ending
in the black circles and labeled with the dollar amounts. The
$5 billion in 2009 Recovery Act appropriations is not included,
so as not to skew the scale.
The other side of the chart lists the average per home
expenditure limit that applies to the DOE dollars. Prior to
2009, those limits did not exceed 3,000 per home. A statutory
change raised the limit to 6,500 per home adjusted annually by
the consumer price index for the preceding 12 months or 3
percent, whichever is less.
In years where you see no change, the applicable CPI was
negative or zero. The expenditure limit explains the decreasing
production numbers in the blue bars after 2009. The increased
limit has allowed greater investment per home and energy
efficiency upgrades, incidental repairs, and health and safety
measures.
DOE has consistently ensured funds are available for
grantees in time for their program cycle, either through
partial obligations or the full allocations. In recent years,
no grantee has had to stop work due to lack of DOE funding.
Thus, grantees have been able to upgrade homes in accordance
with their state plan. Grantees provide funding to
approximately 700 local governmental and nonprofit entities
known as sub-grantees such as community action agencies and
others to deliver services.
Typical energy conservation measures include installing
insulation, ceiling ducts, repairing or replacing heating and
cooling systems, reducing air infiltration, improving hot water
production and use, and reducing electricity consumption.
Grantees use both federal and nonfederal funding sources to
expand the array of services for each home and increase the
number of homes weatherized.
A retrospective evaluation released by the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in 2014 found the average total investment
per home in 2008 from all funding sources, not just DOE, was
$4,695. Could I have the other slide please?
This next chart illustrates the savings from that
investment, $283 in average annual energy cost savings per
home, or 12 percent of the average pre-weatherization bill. It
also shows the portion of DOE funding grantees use for energy
efficiency upgrades and health and safety investment as
compared to what they use for administration of their programs
and for training and technical assistance.
WAP focuses not only on delivering weatherized homes, but
also on ensuring quality work is performed. DOE has supported
the grantees through these key improvements, creation and
maintenance of the standard work specifications that define how
a home should be weatherized. Accreditation and support of 22
weatherization training centers, and development of worker
credentialing standards through a consensus process with
industry overseen by a private sector entity.
DOE has also initiated deeper dialogue with grantees and
sub-grantees through the American Customer Satisfaction Index.
Specific improvements include a new process to provide grantees
with a comprehensive overview of the changes or new
requirements from the previous year's application; a simplified
budget process through upgrades to the performance and
accountability for grants in energy or PAGE data system; and
new planning and reporting templates for training and technical
assistance and monitoring activities.
Results are evidence in the feedback and the quality that
DOE project officers observe through desk and field monitoring.
For example, customer service has been improved through
providing ongoing support to WAP grantees during their grant
application development, instituting a more consistent
monitoring process and timeframes for communications.
Improvements have also occurred through 14 DOE-developed
WAP trainings provided over the last year and a half to help
grantees with tools and processes for running more efficient
programs.
In 2019, the program is exploring how to reduce the number
of homes that are deferred or not qualified for services due to
structural issues and conditions. DOE is also examining
concerns with weatherizing homes that have vermiculite
insulation in attics and identifying best practices for
providing services to these homes.
My office looks forward to continuing to identify areas
where we can strengthen our program and provide assurance for
the American taxpayer investment. Thank you again for the
opportunity to speak to this important program and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Klusmeier.
Ms. Klusmeier. Good morning. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking
Member Simpson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
I am here representing the National Association for State
Community Services Programs. We are a member association of 57
weatherization grantees, all 50 U.S. states, the District of
Columbia, five U.S. territories, and one Native-American tribe.
I started my career in weatherization as a crew worker in
southern Wisconsin. Like most weatherization workers I learned
on the job how to do the rigorous work of insulating homes and
also how to perform diagnostics and use advanced tools and
technologies. I later served as the lead WAP program and policy
analyst for the State of Wisconsin.
The Department of Energy funding appropriated by Congress
provides the foundation of the weatherization program. Each
home receives a suite of measures that must have a savings to
investment ratio of 1.0 or greater to ensure we are delivering
cost-effective services.
With lower energy bills, families can increase their usable
income and buy other essentials like food, clothing, and
medicine. The energy savings impact is the core of the
weatherization program.
Another critical benefit of the weatherization program is
its positive effect on health and safety. An evaluation by the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that residents of
weatherized homes experienced fewer asthma, allergy, and cold
symptoms, fewer missed days of work and school.
Weatherization can also prevent other life threatening
situations such as carbon monoxide poisoning and fires. The
State Weatherization Grantee plays a critical role in
administering the program and ensuring a successful federal,
state, and local partnership.
State WAP offices provide oversight with comprehensive
quality assurance programs that include fiscal monitoring,
administrative reviews, onsite inspections of field work, and
training and technical assistance.
States and local agencies work diligently to cultivate
partnerships with utilities and leverage additional funding
into the program. In 2017, 29 state offices reported leveraging
over $255 million in additional funding from utilities and
other nonfederal sources. This funding allows for flexibility
and comprehensive services while maximizing the number of
households that receive weatherization services.
The State WAP Grantee is also a key driver of innovation
and enhancement of the program. I will share 3 examples today.
The first is Weatherization Plus Health. Washington who you
will hear from in a moment and Vermont are leaders in the
adoption of the Weatherization Plus Health Model.
These states are using the weatherization delivery network
to incorporate additional healthy homes measures such as duct
cleaning, advanced ventilation, mold abatement, accessibility
improvements, and client education. Combined with basic
weatherization, Weatherization Plus Health can target those
with chronic health conditions that result from in-home factors
or environmental factors.
Renewable energy is a second example of innovation and
weatherization. Colorado was the first state to gain DOE
approval for the use of solar in weatherization. In 2016,
Colorado partnered with utilities to leverage solar rebates to
expand their solar photo-voltaic, and Colorado predicts that
rooftop solar is projected to save clients an additional $400
per year over standard weatherization.
Finally, pre-weatherization programs are an example of
using leveraged funds to maximize the number of households
receiving weatherization. Occasionally, severe conditions in a
home can cause a home to be deferred from receiving
weatherization services because those conditions would render
the materials unsafe or ineffective. For example, standing
water in a basement could affect the appliances in the
basement, or old electrical wiring that's covered with
insulation could cause a fire hazard. States have taken the
lead and designing innovative programs utilizing leveraged
funding sources to make homes weatherization-ready.
In closing, I would like to underscore the critical need
for continued Department of Energy funding for the
Weatherization Assistance Program. NASCSP strongly supports
innovation while also maintaining a robust formula allocation
to ensure all states have the ability and the capacity needed
to continue weatherization's record of success.
Leveraging additional resources is critical to sustaining
the weatherization program at its current nationwide scale.
However, without the funding, programmatic quality standards
and reputation of the Department of Energy, states would have a
difficult time attracting and retaining those private partners.
NASCSP supports additional funding for national program
evaluation, robust data is needed to inform policy decisions to
continue development of savings estimates for health and safety
benefits, and to guide innovation in the program.
We look forward to continuing to work with committee
members and to continue to deliver cost-effective results that
make a difference in the lives of the most vulnerable in our
communities. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you Director Klusmeier very much. And I
just want everyone to know that the testimony that's being
presented along with the slides will be on the Appropriations
Committee website.
So, unfortunately, I don't think we have the charts in our
materials that were given to us, but we will make sure those
are integrated.
Director Furze.
Mr. Furze. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson,
members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
to come here today and testify about this important program.
My name is Michael Furze and I am an assistant director at
the Washington State Department of Commerce. The team that I
lead is the Energy Office, we do work in weatherization and
another program at EERE called the State Energy Program.
But I am here today to talk about the critical importance
of the Weatherization Assistance Program both in our state and
across the country. My agency's core purpose is to strengthen
communities and the Weatherization Assistance Program has been
a partner for us in doing that since 1978.
I would like to start by telling you about a family that
came to one of our Community Action Agencies looking for
service, the Finkbonner Family. They had recently purchased a
1,400 square foot home that was built in 1933. They live in the
Lummi Reservation in Western Washington.
On days like the one we had here in D.C. yesterday which
are pretty common in the Pacific Northwest, it would be cold,
and damp, and drafty in their home. The basement was actually
wet from moisture and leaks. You could smell wood smoke from an
inefficient wood burning stove in the air. And there were 11
people that lived in this multi-generational household, an
elderly relative who had COPD and a child with respiratory
conditions.
Their electric bill was almost $700 a month when they came
to us and they couldn't afford that or to fix their home.
Commerce serves thousands of families like that every year and
we do it through a network of 28 service providers including 3
tribes. I think on average, we weatherize between 2,500 and
3,000 homes per year and we receive between $20 million and $25
million a year from four sources.
The Department of Energy's Weatherization Program is the
core of what we do. We also leverage Health and Human Services
LIHEAP funding. We get funding from the Bonneville Power
Administration and we are fortunate to receive funding from the
Washington State legislature.
Each of these is critically important and we blend those
funding sources to make sure that they go further in each home.
The funding that has been provided for the last 4 decades has
helped weatherize thousands of low-income household families in
their homes in Washington State.
Thank you for your support. We appreciate the Congress has
rejected calls to cut this program and/or to eliminate it
entirely and we thank you for increasing the funding last year.
As you know, there is significant unmet need across the
country.
In our state, there are roughly 800,000 eligible
households, folks that are living at or below 200 percent of
the federal poverty level. Like the Finkbonners, their homes
need, health, safety, energy upgrades to help the family save
money, to stay warm, and live healthier and more stable lives.
When we upgrade these homes, we help keep warm air inside,
cold air outside in the winter and we do the opposite in the
summertime. After weatherization, the Finkbonners' heat source
was much safer, the air was cleaner, the roof, bathroom, and
basement were free of leaks. The family told us that they don't
get sick as often, so they are able to go to work and go to
school and that their electric bills were cut in half.
Simply put, weatherized homes cost less to heat and to
cool. And this is really important because low-income families
pay a disproportionate share of their income on their energy
bills, what we call the energy cost burden. They pay 3 times as
much of their income on their energy bills as an average
household does. And these folks when they are unable to pay
their bills are also struggling to pay housing, food, and
medical cost as well.
When we look at the folks that are served by the Washington
Weatherization Program, we think that 40 percent of them are
also medically vulnerable, meaning they are missing work,
school, and spending additional money on their healthcare so
they could do things like breathe easier.
There is a growing body of research that links
weatherization deposit of health outcomes. I think the overall
program pays for itself 1.4 times. When you think about adding
the health and safety benefits to the core energy benefits,
that ratio goes up to 4 to 1.
And we think by focusing in a targeted way and balanced way
on energy and health together, we can get that return on
investment to go higher. So we have been innovating in
Washington State for the last 10 years trying to find a service
delivery model that integrates health with weatherization which
is similar to what the Finknbonner household received.
We call that Weatherization Plus Health and it builds on
the 40-year-old successful delivery system that the
weatherization program provides, but it adds 3 new things. Two
of those are new measures. So we add measures that intended to
reduce slip, trip, and fall hazards with the aging adult
population. We add measures that are intended to reduce asthma
triggers like mold, mildew, and dust particularly in homes with
children.
And then what is both really interesting innovative and
challenging is finding new partnerships, getting the
weatherization service providers to work with local community
health clinics to make referrals and to provide targeted and
customized measures, education, and ongoing support for
clients.
It is our state funds that fund this work although we are
working with the LIHEAP office to provide additional services,
and I believe that this program could serve as the model for
the nation if Congress was interested in expanding that type of
program more broadly.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Federal funding for the weatherization program improves lives
by improving homes for families like the Finkbonners and many,
many others. I would urge Congress to smooth out that curve
that Chairwoman Kaptur showed in terms of the funding cycle so
that we have a long and sufficiently funded future for this
program. I look forward to working with you and answering your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much Mr. Furze. And finally,
Director Terry Jacobs. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Jacobs. Good morning.
Ms. Kaptur. Good morning.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Simpson, and members of the subcommittee. For the last 11 years
I have managed the weatherization program for Great Lakes
Community Action Partnership formerly WSOS in a 6-county region
in Northwest Ohio.
Like every community action agency in the nation, we are
going to call it GLCAP is represented by the National Community
Action Foundation here in Washington, D.C.
Madam Chairwoman, last fall you responded to an invitation
by WSOS or GLCAP attending our weatherization demonstration in
Oak Harbor, Ohio. Your positive comments and engaged
interaction with the housing energy staff that day and the
homeowner proved to us that you understood the importance of
the program and that you wanted to keep it going and that meant
a lot to us.
GLCAP has received and continues to receive many thank you
letters from families like the family in Oak Harbor whom we
have provided weatherization assistance to. These letters often
touch on how the program has impacted their lives such as
lowering heating and electric bills and how the home is much
safer and more comfortable to live in.
One of those letters stated, being that my house is 101
years old, it needed the insulation updated and without the
help I would never have been able to afford having it done.
Because of all the improvements made to my home, not only will
my utility bills be more manageable but my family will greatly
benefit from the home staying warmer in the winter and cooler
in the summer.
The participant then compliments the great work that our
people at GLCAP did and stated that she was grateful for
exceptional work that was performed on the home. The list of
directed impact, the direct benefits that weatherization
program provides to the participants is long, as you had
mentioned earlier. Many times folks are forced to make
difficult choices between paying higher utility bills and
medical and food and healthcare. This program helps to reduce
the burden of those choices for those folks.
Though the weatherization program has much to offer, like
every program, it does have some limitations. One of those
limitations involves leaking roofs, structural deficiencies,
electrical hazards, some hoarding infestation situations. These
sometimes result in what is called an unable to assist or a
deferral type situation.
To help combat these situations, we seek outside funds from
gas and electric utilities and other home repair programs
offered in the state, and we leverage those in combination with
the weatherization program, which allows us to take a whole
house approach to the home versus the restrictions of the
weatherization program.
And in these situations, we have helped 80 percent of the
total amount of weatherization units that we complete. So, the
20 percent of the homes that didn't get mentioned typically
fall in like a rural situation where it is bulk fuels, propane,
fuel oil or municipalities that don't have energy efficiency
programs.
If I could direct you to the slides, this is a home we did
in Seneca County, one of our six counties and this home is
obviously very large and had lead-based paint and had a lead
poisoned child that lived there and if we could just continue
through, that's a finished product of the home using eight
programs that were accessible to us for this person.
Now this is kind of a unique situation. Not all of our
clients can get eight programs but in this specific example, we
were able to get rid of all the lead and perform
weatherization. This is a picture of the attic empty and then
the finished attic blown. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able
to do any work with weatherization there or any of the other
programs. Each program hinged on the other.
Historically, but more so on recent years, the retention of
weatherization field test staff has become one of the top
challenges we face at GLCAP. Many times, once these field staff
have earned experience, formal training, and certifications
that the weatherization program offers, which is awesome at the
training center, they become more valuable to the growing
market of home retrofits, remodelers and construction
companies, which oftentimes can pay higher wages, while working
in less desirable work environments such as tight crawl spaces
and very hot attics.
So, the works these folks do is highly important. And we
need to retain them to deliver the best service possible.
Raising the cost ceiling allowing more flexibility and funds
would be most helpful to address this growing challenge.
Lastly, we understand and support the idea of making homes
healthier and safer by implementing initiatives such addressing
indoor air quality, lead, and radon in homes. However, these
initiatives need to be funded and production goals adjusted to
allow for the additional labor and materials that now have to
be installed in every home.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for its
continued support of the weatherization program. The increase
in funding over the past several years has been much needed and
it is very much appreciated.
The program has helped thousands if not millions of
families for 40-plus years and the need for the service
continues. As our housing stock continues to age, the
participant waiting lists grow and so does the need for
increase services and funding. I hope my testimony provides you
with a unique perspective on the local level. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Director Jacobs. Thank you
for travelling, all of you who had to come from out of town,
thank you so very much for the effort you put forward.
Several witnesses mentioned the Oak Ridge Labs, Congressman
Fleischmann here to my right represents that very important
location in our country. And I watched him listening to all of
you, so I thank him for being here this morning. He is very
responsible member.
Before we begin questions, I would like to again remind
members about our hearing rules for this year. First, I intend
to begin all hearings on time. We did that. For those members
present in the room, when I gavel in the beginning of the
hearing, I will recognize you for questions in order of
seniority, alternating between majority and minority until all
who arrived prior to the gavel have asked questions.
For those who arrive after the hearing had started, I will
recognize those members solely in order of arrival, again,
alternating between majority and minority. And lastly, I intend
to observe or at least try to, the 5-minute rule for questions
and answers and we will now begin questioning under our normal
rules.
Let me begin by asking Director Garcia. The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 authorizes the secretary
of Energy to make funding available to local weatherization
agencies for renewable technologies.
Furthermore, the department released a memorandum in
January of 2017, which specified a path for states to
incorporate solar into their Weather Assistance Programs. Can
you provide specific examples of how renewable technologies
have been incorporated into this program? And how does the
department actually decide how to do that, which technologies
to include?
Ms. Garcia. So, that is a very good question and thank you
for that, chairwoman. We have a policy outlined in the--further
in the memo that you referenced that shows the pathway in terms
of a normal procedure for getting a technology that may not be
currently on our appendix A, which is the original list of
technologies that were associated with weatherization program
in the statute.
So, if any technology, including solar is--if a state is
looking to get that technology into their program, they follow
the same procedure. They need to show us that they--the
technology can meet a savings investment ratio of 1 or greater.
They need to include the measure in their plan and they
need to demonstrate that it can be incorporated into their
audit. The memo that you referred to also asked that we conduct
a pilot program with the--particularly with the solar PV. That
was such a large technology. There are situations where it
might be put on rooftops versus community solar. And DOE wanted
to be aware of the kinds of steps that were being taken in
terms of integrating that technology on low-income homes, there
are issues of maintenance and operations for that technology.
We wanted to make sure we were tracking that at least in its
early stages of being implemented.
And as was referenced earlier, Colorado has been a leader
in integrating solar PV, looking at it both on rooftops as well
as community solar applications where it makes sense.
So again, they follow a very standard procedure of applying
through DOE that they want to include this new technology.
There is provision for up to--I think the level now is just
about $3,700 out of the--now, is a little over 7,000 maximum
expenditure allowed on the DOE program, under the DOE program
for renewables, for renewable applications, for renewable
technologies.
We have also been--states have come to us and put solar
thermal heating, solar thermal water heaters in. Those kinds of
technologies have been integrated in the program for some years
now.
Ms. Kaptur. I wonder if you could provide some of that
detail to the record.
Ms. Garcia. I would be happy to respond to a question for
the record on that.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you very much for that. I
had mentioned to my colleagues that I have gone out to several
sites around Ohio and with the crews that are working and I
have learned a lot. And we all learn when we go out.
And one thing that really surprised me and maybe you think
about your own experience in your districts, this program
excludes roofs. So, I have many neighbors, in fact, in the
neighborhood I live in, they are senior citizens. They can't
afford to put a roof on.
So, I watched this housing deteriorate. And I am thinking
what is wrong here. And I realized the Department of Energy
does not authorize roofs. And there is this limit on how much
you can spend per home.
But I have been thinking about new technologies that we
might try to spur the DOE to come forward, if we were to have a
rubber roofing with solar chips in it or figure out a way to
provide a lot of roofing round the country, working with the
industry, whomever we have to work with. Imagine what we could
do for thousands and thousands and thousands of people. And so,
I have been very interested in that idea of how to integrate
this program with others that exist.
You talked about LIHEAP, but maybe that isn't enough. And
how we can use innovation to help reduce the cost and serve the
people that you are trying to serve. I was actually shocked
that roofing wasn't included in the authorizing language,
either in--I think LIHEAP now is a 20 percent set aside that
some of those dollars can go to the roof.
But it makes it so difficult operationally at the local
level. And then also the idea of what kind of roofing could
America invent that actually could contribute to the power
package. You mentioned solar thermal. We have new homes being
built--modular homes where solar thermal is built into the
wall.
And I am thinking, what is the most efficient technology we
could provide not on a, sort of, test pilot basis in this state
or that state, but massively make available to this program.
So, I hope you can think with us on that.
In that regard, Ms. Klusmeier, your background shows that
you have been actually on the ground, house after house after
house after house. One of the experiences I had in visiting
sites was I talked to a man who had worked for this program for
25 years.
And I said to him, were you educated? Did you go to
community college? Or did you go to a trade union? Did you
learn how to be or were you are a heating, or insulating,
specialist? He goes, no, could I have done that? And I said,
so, you don't have a path forward. You don't have a
journeyman's card or an apprentice card or you are not getting
community college credit?
Ms. Klusmeier, could you comment on what could we do in
this program to provide a platform for the workers where they
would qualify for the professional skills that they develop?
Are there examples around the country of where these
specialists have accessed credit, either for a degree or to get
a journeyman or a journeywoman's card?
Ms. Klusmeier. So, that is a great question. And I would
love to look into--see if we can find some specific examples
for you and provide answers in writing. I would point to my own
experience.
I came to the program through a technical college program.
I was kind of bouncing around from job to job after I got out
of school and learned about a training, a technical program
that was geared towards women in the trades to introduce women
to various trade careers.
It was offered by one of my local technical colleges.
Through that program I got connected to my local weatherization
provider and that is how I got my foot in the door there. So, I
think looking at the next phase of that is how do we get people
who get into the weatherization program and then further their
careers from there is a great idea and something that NASCSP
would certainly be willing to look into and provide some
examples to you.
I would point to the efforts that have been made over the
last couple of years, especially since 2015 to certify workers
in the weatherization program. So, there was a quality work
plan initiative, started in 2015, that required certification
of the inspectors that are doing the program.
I personally feel and many of the people in our industry
feel that we have some of the best-trained and certified
workers in the home performance industry. So, I think anyone
working in weatherization with those certifications, especially
energy auditors, building inspectors could certainly move on
and advance their career in that way.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Garcia, are you aware of any regularized training
platform that these individuals access?
Ms. Garcia. Yes. Within the program, we do have our
guidelines for home energy professionals, which Amy was
referring to. They include the standard work specifications
that I mentioned earlier in my testimony for outlining the work
requirements for the different types of crew that are involved
in doing weatherization.
There are also certifications for the energy auditor and a
new classification of position called the quality control
inspector. So the quality control inspector is a person who is
charged with looking at every home after the weatherization is
completed to make sure that the work is done well and according
to the standard work specifications that are part of that. We
have accredited training at these training centers around the
country, 22 of them. One just opened in Michigan.
And they are not only open to weatherization crews but the
weatherization crews can take advantage of the training
metrics.
Ms. Kaptur. And who operates the training centers again?
Excuse me.
Ms. Garcia. They are operated often by universities or
other organizations. I can get you a list of them and who
manages them as a question for the record.
Ms. Kaptur. Oh, that will be great to have for the record.
Did either of the gentlemen want to comment?
Mr. Furze.
Mr. Furze. Madam Chairwoman, I think that what I heard in
Terry's testimony speaks to the work that is being done at the
Department of Energy level to create a framework for the work
to be standardized and for the folks doing that work to get
credentials.
And then it is creating a bit of a challenge both in
Washington State and I heard it also in Ohio that when folks
get these credentials, they are able to step into the building
trades more directly, jobs that are potentially higher paying.
The housing market in Washington State is white hot. And so,
that is part of the challenges that we are having.
We maintain a training center and that is part of how we
stay successful so that as we lose folks to higher paying jobs
in the trades, we are bringing up the skillset of the folks
that come after them. But it is not as direct as I hear you
asking the question.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I am going to ask one more question,
then we will go to the members. I am interested in the idea
that weatherization has the ability not just to improve the
lives of individual families, but in fact, in entire
neighborhoods.
However, the current weatherization program isn't set up to
encompass a whole neighborhood approach. So I am interested in
any ideas you might have about a path by which neighborhoods
could apply for grants, so that everyone in the same community
can be uplifted equally if they qualify.
Are there any innovative communities across the country
that are thinking about how we can use the power of energy to
uplift an entire neighborhood using weatherization as the
anchor? Are you aware of offsite energy fields that have been
pumping energy into certain communities?
What about, we talked about roofing a little bit earlier,
where we are doing mass purchase of materials that would really
allow this program to catapult from its 1 by 1 by 1 home
weatherization. Are there any innovative ways to think about
how we can uplift the entire neighborhoods using weatherization
as the main vehicle? Have you ever seen that anywhere?
Ms. Garcia. I would be glad to start response to that,
chairwoman. So what we have seen, I think there is flexibility
within the program today for this to occur, depending on what
states want to undertake with their local crews.
What we have seen, for example, in Ohio that all of the
major utilities hire WAP agencies to deliver the programs
funded by the utility rate payers. And then they also obtain
home repair funds, much like we were talking about in the GLCAP
where you are braiding different types of resources together.
And then Murray City in Ohio weatherized over 75 percent of
low income households in a community by doing that and bringing
private donors into the community to do a variety of things. I
could get more information on that program if you like.
And then in Connecticut, we have two utilities who have
been piloting community efforts for a couple of years now,
implementing on a community basis, piggybacking on to the
weatherization program with other resources.
So, I would be happy to take that as a question for the
record and get you some additional information on those
examples. We would very much like to be focused on capturing
some of these different types of models that might be going on
across the country.
Ms. Kaptur. It would be really interesting to see you in
partnership with Neighbor Works or with Habitat for Humanity or
some of our community development corporations that are
working. I remember going through one historic neighborhood
that was leaking energy all over the place because it couldn't
locate in one of our older cities because they couldn't get
windows that meet the historic guidelines.
And I was going, oh, my goodness. And they wanted to
preserve the neighborhood and the major issue was energy. But
somehow at the local level they couldn't integrate it. So, I
think your suggestions to us as we try to make this program
more impactful would be very, very valuable.
I am going to go to Mr. Simpson now.
Thank you so very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I apologize for leaving for a few
minutes. Two of you mentioned during the overview of
Weatherization Assistance Program, DOE provides core funding to
weatherization grantees in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the five U.S. territories and one Native American
tribe. You mentioned one Native American tribe. Why is that?
And what tribe is that?
Ms. Garcia. Arapaho. The Arapaho Tribe. Tribes can opt in
to the program. They can apply directly for funding from the
Weatherization Assistance Program and over the years we have
had varying number of tribes that do that and take it upon
themselves to administer a program.
But oftentimes, the programs are run in conjunction with
the state. So the state and the Native American lands that are
there are working to put together weatherization for those
homes. And others on the panel might want to be able to talk to
that.
Ms. Klusmeier. Right. So the one tribe is the one that
receives direct allocation, otherwise tribes are served, I can
speak to how we prioritize in Wisconsin, tribal families were
put on the priority list for services just as other families
were.
And in Wisconsin there was a governor directive that they
could be prioritized with those other service categories as
DOE--that are defined by DOE, the elderly, the child, high
energy burden households.
Mr. Simpson. But as individuals, not as a tribe?
Ms. Klusmeier. Right.
Mr. Simpson. Any idea why a tribe wouldn't apply for being
a separate entity like a state and getting a grant from the
weatherization program to apply to their members and stuff, if
I am a tribe that is what I am going to do. I have been on a
lot of reservations. And I will tell you that some of the worst
poverty in America is on reservations.
Ms. Garcia. During my time, I think what I have seen is the
capacity for the tribe to take on the program and run it as in
contrast to working with the state through their already
established network.
Mr. Furze. In Washington State there are a couple of
different ways that tribal members are served. I believe that
Amy described where weatherization service provider just has
folks that are either on tribal land or in the community that
can apply for services. And their priority is weighted by that
status.
One of the other ways that we provide services is by
working with tribal entities to provide services for their
territory. And so, there are three tribes that we are working
with. We have a really strong program out in Spokane
Washington.
And what they do and it speaks to the capacity issue that
Annamaria mentioned, their membership, their service territory
is relatively rural, and so the formula that we distribute
funding by--that they don't get a lot of funding to run the
program.
And so, they supplement weatherization program with other
tribal funds, including CDBG funding in order to provide
services for their members. That is a little bit different in
Washington.
Mr. Simpson. Just out of curiosity, how are the funds that
are appropriated, I suspect that we can appropriate four times
as much that we actually do and that could be used. How is it
divided among the various entities that we service?
Being from the north, maybe this is just my bias, but we
thought weatherization was something that we had in cold
weather states, but then there are weatherization issues in
warm weather states also. How do we decide how much each
entity, state or whatever receives?
Ms. Garcia. That is a very good question. And we have been
getting that a lot lately. So, I will try and explain it very--
simply as I can. There is a formula consistent with statute,
based in rule that provides for the allocations for each of the
grantees.
And there are three main factors, the proportion of low
income households in that state versus other states; heating
and cooling degree days across the state relative to one
another; and then also the energy burden or the amount of
residential energy expenditure relative to income. And those
comparative factors weigh in on the way the funds are
allocated.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is fitting that Mr. Simpson mentioned that warm weather
states also have a need to use the WAP program as well,
particularly because we have insulation issues that are
associated with keeping homes cooler.
And most of the funding for the program is directed to cold
weather states to keep people safe in harsh winters. Florida
experienced a significant 22.7 percent increase in WAP funding
from 2018 to 2019 because of how the statutory funding formula
allocates money over the $209 million threshold.
So, Ms. Garcia, as climate change intensifies, can the WAP
funding formula adapt to this trend and help warm weather
states that are experiencing increasingly warmer summers and
more dangerous heat waves?
And I will ask you both, my part A and part B questions at
the same time. When the federal funding allocation is below the
statutory threshold, a formula is used that tends to benefit
colder states.
When it is above the threshold it can benefit warmer states
more. So can you explain exactly why Florida experienced a
sizeable increase in funding from 2018 to 2019, and in your
opinion is the formula still able to address the weatherization
issues that we are experiencing across the nation today without
bias for either cold or warm weather states?
Ms. Garcia. I will do my best to give you an answer to that
question. The formula is a little bit complicated. So, the
formula prior to 1995 used these same factors, but also had a
basis of $100,000 per state, so that basis plus the way these
factors would work on a certain amount of funding would produce
the formula of allocations for each grantee.
In 1995, they looked to, tried to adjust the formula to
provide more funding for warm weather states. And in that
rulemaking, the original funding levels at that 200 million
level which was I believe the 1993 appropriation was
grandfathered in as a base so that there would be no loss of
capacity across the states.
And then above that--anything above that $209 million level
is simply subject to that formula, to those different factors.
Those factors are updated every year as frequently as possible.
There have been some of the factors and I would have to
take it for the record to tell you exactly which ones have not
updated as quickly as maybe they should have in order to
continue to ensure that warm weather states are receiving an
equitable treatment under the formula. But those 3 factors
alone affect the funding above the $209 million level.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Given that the administration has
repeatedly--this administration has repeatedly targeted this
program for elimination essentially or the funding for
elimination, is enough attention paid to the program to ensure
that the most updated climate conditions happening in states
are going to be factored into the formula that is used?
Ms. Garcia. In keeping with the department's practice over
the last several years, if Congress appropriates money, we
execute the program as expeditiously as possible. We use the
most current information that is available from other resources
like NOAA and other references which I will have to get to you
as a question for the record, would be happy to do that.
I have not seen that there has been anything that would
interfere with continuing to provide a reasonable allocation
based on those factors. But I would be happy to research it
further and get back to you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. And Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking
Member, especially since you raised the issue of warm weather,
I am concerned that there is an inequity and a lack of
predictability or consistency for cold and warm weather states.
It is, trust me; I am from Florida in case no one was
aware. It is equally as important to keep my constituents cool
as it is to keep a member from a cold weather state's
constituents warm.
You can very easily have your health decline and very
rapidly from overheating when our temperatures get upwards of
90 and 100 degrees in warm weathers states and much, much
warmer inside when your air conditioning is not working
properly. So, if you can get that information for the record,
that would be very helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much Congressman Wasserman
Schultz. You remind me that the number of elderly who live not
just in your state but we have increasing numbers. Medicare is
working. And people are living longer.
There has been a special relationship set up between just
one of the national organizations, the AARP and one of my local
hospital systems nationally, on the issue of nutrition for
seniors because they are so worried about rising levels of
diabetes and hypertension and trying to focus in on the diets
of those individuals. We haven't had the same kind of
relationship among--that I am aware of--among other national
elderly organizations and the weatherization program.
But what you are saying is absolutely correct. And whether
it is hypothermia or whether it is--I don't know what they call
it when you get too hot. There is a medical term for that. But
we know how debilitating that can be to people of all ages, but
certainly senior citizens.
So that is a set of relationships I think that could really
help. And we want to make sure that the formula is properly
adjusting to the realities of climate change in this country.
And that is one of the reasons we are having this hearing this
morning.
So, we thank you for--the turnout is just tremendous by our
members today.
I am going to now turn to Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman and I want to
thank you for your earlier kind words about the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. I do represent that great lab.
And I want to thank each and every one of you all for being
here today. These are the kind of hearings that help us as
legislators do our job and to gather information. So thank you
for being here. It is an honor to have you.
My first question, and I will just open this up to anyone
who would like to comment. The Weatherization Innovation Pilot
Program was initiated by the Department of Energy in 2010 to
accelerate effective innovations in home energy efficiency.
In May 2007, as already has been alluded to, the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory issued a report assessing the program's
successes and challenges. First question, how would you
describe the progress that has been made in innovation since
that report? And the second, would be what additional areas
should we be thinking about for further innovation?
Ms. Garcia. I will begin. We did learn a great deal not
only from the WIPP projects, but there were also during that
same timeframe sustainable energy resources for consumers
grants that were more experimental in terms of looking at new
technologies that might be able to be proven to be or
demonstrated to be in the program.
So the WIPP focused more on innovative approaches by
different deliverers of the program, while the SCRC looked more
at the technologies. And so, the combination of those two I
think has probably on the one hand led to different approaches
in terms of delivery mechanisms and braiding or resources,
whereas the SCRC grants have brought some new technologies at
least into the fore, very close to being able to be on a cost
bases to be in the program, which is also something that the
labs contribute to the work.
The labs in getting the costs down of the technologies
enable them to be qualifying better for the savings to
investment ratio requirement of 1.0. So things like mini-
ductless split systems that can be very applicable in some of
these homes, tankless water heaters, some of those kinds of
technologies have been moved a little bit further along the
pathway of getting into the program by the work that was done
under these different experiments from that point forward.
And then also, we have tried to improve the tools of the
weatherization program, so audits which started out in the
program as mostly paper-based are now computer-based. And we
are getting ready to put that interface into the web so that
they can be utilized, in a real-time basis internet of things,
sort of way, and that--that data on what is going to be
prescribed in the audit can be accessible to everyone, and then
we can collect more data on what is being done and--and have a
better--and more real time sense of the performance of the
program. So those are some--some things that I would offer that
have improved.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, would anyone else care to
comment?
Mr. Furze. In Washington state, we partner with the--the
Washington State University Energy Extension Program, and they
ran one of those initial WIPP grants a while ago and that
helped bring ductless heat pumps and advanced duct sealing into
the weatherization program, so there is hopeful partnership
there.
With state funding, they continue to do that work and they
have taken an approach which is not community based, but is
perhaps manufactured home park base. They can go and do a
number of jobs simultaneously which leads to referrals to the
weatherization program. So that type of innovation, while
limited in scope, brings a new technology and creates an
opportunity for partnerships.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. As my time is waning, I will
ask one last question. In Chattanooga, my hometown, the
electric power board fiber optic network is the backbone of its
smart grid which enables communications with smart meters,
smart switches and other smart grid devices.
A joint study by the Electric Power Board and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory found that the smart grid ultimately helped
realize incredible savings to the utility and most importantly,
the consumer or rate payer. How is the Weatherization
Assistance Program ensuring that it is keeping abreast of
progress in the grid modernization space and ensuring that
homes in the program are able to fully realize the benefits of
smart grid technology?
Ms. Garcia. Thank you for that question. It is certainly a
hot topic at the department these days, the grid modernization
and the internet of things, and our Buildings Technologies
Office along with the Office of Electricity is doing a lot of
work in partnership these days. So we are trying to follow
those developments closely so that we can understand when and
if it will be possible to integrate different aspects of what
comes out of that--out of that initiative into the
Weatherization Assistance Program.
Right now, I think it is still in a fairly nascent stage.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I believe my time has expired.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Fleischmann. Mr.
Kilmer, Congressman, Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair and thanks, everybody for
joining us. And Mr. Furze, thanks in particular, I know you had
probably to overcome the snow-pocalypse in Washington State to
be here, so thank you for that.
I want to ask you to follow-up a little bit on the
Weatherization Plus Health idea and just give us a sense more
of some of the potential benefits that you see from it, any key
lessons you have seen since I know not every state does this,
if you have any takeaways? I do not know if that is a
disturbance in the force.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kilmer. So any sort of key lessons that you take away?
And if you can speak more to potential opportunities you see
for the federal government to engage on that?
Mr. Furze. Thank you for that question, Representative
Kilmer. I think at its core, the weatherization program
federally understands energy benefits and non-energy benefits
and this opportunity that we have in Washington State is to be
more specific about the health benefits which bring significant
increase to the overall savings to investment ratio of the
program.
The approach has been to build out the infrastructure of
the weatherization network as it exists and--and to do it in a
couple of different ways, we provide traditional weatherization
services, when appropriate we compare that with rehab services
to do the major upgrades that Chairwoman Kaptur was talking
about. We provide both energy and health-related education, and
we do a set of kind of basic measures that create cleanable
surfaces in the house. We add HEPA filtered vacuum cleaners and
educate folks on how to use this.
And that in it of itself provides a significant benefit.
There is a family that we work with Snohomish County Washington
which sort of was a tale of two pregnancies, one before the
Weatherization Plus Health program where she was in the
hospital quite a bit, her husband had to take off work after
the program. And the key factor for them was just figuring out
how to use that high quality vacuum, no hospital visits other
than what the appointments she had regularly scheduled.
So those are the types of things that we can do by just
adding new measures and additional education. And I think that
is pretty achievable both across the State of Washington and
with a little bit of education to our training network
nationally, we can expand that as long as there is permission
to use some of these new measures.
The harder piece and I think the more beneficial piece is
collaboration with community health workers, so these are folks
that are on the ground, the know the sickest families in the
community and can provide referrals to the weatherization
program so that they--they go into the home, they are already
looking at the energy benefits, they are starting to look at
the--the potential health risks and they can provide targeted
services that are directed by a professional. And what we are
seeing in the five or six cases that we have in Washington
State is that these partnerships are leading to on-going care
which is providing additional savings and reductions and
hospital visits and emergency room visits out into the future,
and we are trying to quantify that which is one of the hardest
things to do in addition to creating those partnerships.
Mr. Kilmer. So the--in terms of federal action, is the
program sufficiently permissive for federal dollars to be used
for this right now or would there have to be some change there?
Mr. Furze. Thanks for that question. I think one of the
things that Terry mentioned was just the scope and stature of
the program and Anna mentioned Appendix A, right, there is a
set of things that we can do easily through the program. And
there was lots of discussion back during the Recovery Act,
about bringing the Weatherization Plus Health program out of
Washington State and across the nation and what we found is
that, as Terry said, there wasn't funding to do that new
opportunity.
And so my view is that the weatherization program focuses
on a course that have helped in safety measures which are
really essential to the safety of the occupants. And this is
just taking a broader lens. And so some of the things that we
do particularly around mold and mist, mold and mildew, walk off
mats, vacuum cleaners, that type of stuff is beyond the scope
of the weatherization program.
Mr. Kilmer. The other thing I wanted to ask and I am not
sure who to direct this too was to get a better sense of rental
housing and some of the challenges facing rent burdened
households. I know that we looked at the--where the money goes.
And it looks like, I guess, 63 percent goes to single family
homes, 18 percent to manufactured homes, 18 percent to large
multi-family units and 5 percent to small multi-family units. I
think most renters do not live in single family homes.
And so I would like to just get a sense in the time I have
left, you know, how do we make these programs more, yeah, and
the resulting energy cost savings and the health benefits and
all that more accessible to low-income rent burdened
households?
Ms. Garcia. Please go ahead.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you for that question, Representative
Kilmer. We actually have a lot of experience with weatherizing
rental units. The landlord who is the property owner has a lot
of that--makes a lot of that decision, if they do not want you
on the property, they have that--that right. So there is that
stumbling block.
Another hurdle we face is eligibility determination because
each--if you go into a large family, multi-family unit of say,
50, you have to virtually knock on every door and get in
contact with every tenant to get their information to determine
if they are eligible. There are eligibility limits and
percentages on multi-family, but it is a challenging task.
During the Recovery Act, there was an agreement between HUD
and DOE and that made it much more simpler and they--actually,
if they were a HUD-verified or eligible unit, then they would
qualify for a WAP program. Thank you.
Ms. Garcia. Yes, and I was going to cover some similar
information, but the percentage of households in a multi-family
building, in order to qualify, would need to be at least, I
think is 60 percent, 55 or 60 percent of the households in
there need to be low income and then of course there are the
challenges of just being able to verify the eligibility.
The other thing that I would say is, depending on the size
of the building would be dollars that the state can devote to
that can be a limitation.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Kilmer, I think your
questions lead us to other questions and we welcome the
witnesses providing to the record any ideas you have either on
gaps in your legislative authority through the Department of
Energy or waivers to cooperate with other departments where
necessary.
This is a hard program to cobble together because you have
got Department of Health and Human Services, one of the largest
departments through LIHEAP involved in this, you have got the
Department of Energy which, you know, thinks about a lot of
other things in addition to this program, and developing those
partnerships across the federal establishment is not so easy
and then it of course is farmed out to the states and then they
have to put it together and whatever.
And sometimes when you have so many different stovepipes,
you don't necessarily then easily transfer what you have
learned at the local level back up to the top, right? So I
think we are very interested in your suggestions after all
these years of how we can improve the authorities under which
you operate or make it easier to link to other departments. So
please, think hard on that one for us as we move forward.
I am going to turn over now to Congressman Newhouse who has
been listening intently. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that observation, Madam Chair.
Well, thanks to everybody in the panel for coming a great
distance to be here with us especially Mr. Furze. Not only did
you get out of the snow, but good luck to you on getting back.
That might even be harder. And thanks to you, Madam Chair for
holding this hearing on an important topic. I know many people
in my district have had benefited from the work in the
weatherization program in the--in a northern climate. That is
important for people that can't afford to do these themselves
and we realize a lot of benefits in.
One of the things that I have learned is that, you know,
you can't make a decision without impacting other things that
you want to accomplish as well. So I have a question that
relates to some decisions that are being made back in the State
of Washington for Mr. Furze. Many of you that well, now nobody
else in this room besides us, maybe is from the State of
Washington, you may be aware that our governor, your boss,
recently released a massive $1.1 billion plan for the
endangered southern resident Orca, the whales that are
struggling in Puget Sound. And for those of you that know that
can do the math, that would be about $14.8 million for each of
the remaining 74 whales.
Part of that, though, and that is what I want to talk to
you about that part of that $1.1 billion is included $750,000
for a task force to analyze tearing down four Lower Snake River
hydroelectric dams, which are in my district. They provide
clean, emission-free, inexpensive, reliable baseload for
families all over my district, in Central Washington, but all
over the Pacific Northwest.
We work together on a lot of different things, my
colleagues here in Washington and our colleagues in the State
of Washington, however, as everyone knows, only Congress can
authorize the breaching of federal dam, no governor can do
that, has the power to tear down a federal program, let alone
four of them.
So with that in mind, and sorry, it takes a little
background here, but Mr. Furze as your--as a governor's
assistant director for energy, my question, and in looking at
everything we have heard today with the conversation regarding
the Weather Assistance Program which is intended to help lower
income families to reduce their energy bills and improve their
health and all of those things, I am curious as to your
thoughts as to whether or not that 3 quarters of a million
dollars could be perhaps put to better use to help people in
the State of Washington, the elderly, the disabled, our tribal
friends, the low income communities with their energy bills and
all of the other issues.
I am told that those folks spend approximately 16 percent
of their income on energy cost compared with only 3.5 to 4
percent that other folks spend. So I guess, my question is what
kind of impact could we see with an additional $750,000 for
this program that, as you talk about, it is underfunded and
certainly not meeting the needs of nearly 40 percent of low-
income families in our state.
Mr. Furze. Thank you for that question, Representative
Newhouse. Unfortunately, I can't speak to the details of the
Orca package and although I am aware of the element that you
are referring to regarding the $750,000 to take a look at the
Snake River dams, and I appreciate the perspective that you
offered about the governor's authority relative to the
authority of the Federal government, so thanks for that.
We are fortunate in the State of Washington to have the
four funding sources that I mentioned and the--the--one of the
largest of those is the state, we call them energy matchmaker
dollars which is what allows us to do the Weatherization Plus
Health program. The request in the governor's budget was for
$25 million for those funds and off the top of my head, I will
have to get back to you for the record for the amount of
funding, the amount of homes that we will be able to weatherize
with that funding, and we can do a comparable comparison for
the amount of funding that you mentioned.
I think that it is really important that Washington
supports the low energy prices that we have got. That is part
of what we do through the grid transformation in the other part
of my role here as the assistant director for the energy
division is to look at the grid transformation efforts that
Representative Fleischmann mentioned to figure out how we can
combine that activity with the essential activity of the
weatherization program to make sure that the most vulnerable
receive the benefits that they need. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that answer, and Madam Chair, in
the few seconds I have remaining, if I could, I would like to
submit two letters to the governor opposing this use of
taxpayer dollars, they come from dozens of mayors, county
officials, PUD commissioners, community leaders in the tri-
cities, ports of Clarkston, also Lewiston in the great State of
Idaho for Mr. Simpson's area that perhaps that these tax
dollars could be put to better use even--maybe even the
weatherization program that benefits so many thousands of
people and could benefit many, many more in our state.
And thank you for your answers and--and I appreciate your
being here. And good luck getting home.
Ms. Kaptur. We will include that in the record without
objection. We will include that in the record without
objection. And Congressman Pocan and--you and Ms. Klusmeier
share a Badger heritage.
Mr. Pocan. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, thank you, Madam
Chair. And first of all my apologies to the--the committee and
the guests for being late and having to come in and out. This
is a very strange week with various funerals Tuesday and then
tomorrow, it just made the calendar very challenging, but I
appreciate you being here.
And well, thank you to all of our witnesses, especially,
Ms. Klusmeier from my district, I appreciate you being here. In
Wisconsin, you talked about bad weather, I know you had an
interesting time getting here. Madam Chair, we had over 8
inches of snow yesterday, a couple of weeks before that, we are
at minus 20 something, real temperature. So programs like these
are especially appreciated in states like Wisconsin. I was sad
to see the administration completely cut this program in the
last proposed budget as well as the low-income home energy
assistance program, both really important in my district. So I
appreciate you all being here.
Ms. Klusmeier, I have a question for you, specifically,
when we have those huge swings in temperature, we had minus 50
below wind chills, I have to admit, that was the 1 week I was
glad to be here and not Wisconsin, because we didn't have that
exact weather here, how does that provide, you know, challenges
for the program and are there things within the program that we
can do to better prepare homes and communities for those really
wild temperature swings?
Ms. Klusmeier. So I think this is one of the huge benefits
that weatherization provides as a resiliency strategy in those
situations and those homes that have been weatherized are in a
much better situation to keep those--those customer safe.
In Wisconsin, we are fortunate to have the public utilize
funds in the program along with LIHEAP as the chairwoman
mentioned earlier. Those funds are all blended together in
Wisconsin, and part of that money is used to do a crisis
assistance program for no heat situations.
So this is a model that is used in other states as well. So
in those situations where you have life-threatening conditions
where there are situations where people are without heat, the
weatherization network is used as a deployment network to get
those people services in--in timeframes under 24 hours in most
cases.
So that is a great example of--of the life-saving role that
some of these agencies, the local agencies play in the field.
Mr. Pocan. All right, thank you. And then I know we talked
just a little bit about things like solar and roofing and I
appreciate your comments on that, Madam Chair. I had a question
from one of the agencies that deals with this back home, and
their question specifically was, in 2017, like almost 3,700
homes were weatherized across the state, specifically their
question is what role does the deployment of decentralized
renewable energy sources play in weatherization, and can
eligible homes receive solar panels for example as a way of
ensuring an added layer of energy security and efficiency?
Ms. Klusmeier. So as DOE mentioned earlier, there is a
process in place at the federal level to incorporate renewables
into the program. The average cost limit was also mentioned, so
right now there is about a $3,700 average cost limit on
renewables and that is a barrier for some states, so it does
take some leveraged funding to make that happen.
Mr. Pocan. Can you group that money when you go into like
if their--yes.
Ms. Klusmeier. So this is one of the best practices that in
NASCSP, we get the most questions about right now, it is called
blending or braiding funding. So in Wisconsin, yes, they do
blend funds. So when that local provider is going into the
house, they have the option to use all three of those funding
sources on a measured level. Some states do not do that. So
some states are keeping the DOE fund separate and we just
completed our 2017 funding report at NASCSP that was published
last week and we are seeing a majority of funds moving to
blending those--those fund sources on a house-by-house level.
Mr. Pocan. Yes.
Ms. Garcia. I would just add one comment on the leveraging
or getting funds available to be braided in. So part of what
the weatherization program, DOE weatherization program allows
is for some of the budget to be used by the state staff to go
out and find those leveraging sources, those leveraging
resources that they can bring into the program. And I would
just point out that Washington State has a very good track
record in this area. They spent, I think it was $91,000 on
leveraging activities that brought in $9 million in non-federal
funding into the program.
Mr. Pocan. That is great. Congratulations. Yeah, please.
Mr. Jacobs. If I could just add, on the leveraging, so
the--the photos that I showed you of the home that we provided
eight different leveraging sources on, each and every one of
them had a different eligibility criteria. This is more work
than the actual work that gets done in the home practically. So
if--and we have hit on this in several different questions that
we need to figure out a way to bring everyone to the table and
be happy with, one, if they are low income, they are low
income. And we can provide that, you know, program together.
The coordination of all these leveraging, it is awesome,
but the work that it takes to do that coordination is great,
so.
Mr. Pocan. Great, thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you all for those comments. I wanted to
just say that because this program has so many legs, I think
over a thousand or more implementing agencies locally, 50
states, territories, several federal departments, sometimes
when a program operates that way, even though it has been
successful, it is like you see the trees, but not the forest.
And what I am asking you today is to glean from your experience
and to try to work with this committee and submit to the record
as you are able suggestions for what we might do to improve the
program.
I have already talked to the authorizers on several of the
related committees here and it is also complex congressionally.
We have lots of committees or subcommittees involved in some
way. And at this point, you must have gleaned from your vast
experience ways in which we could improve the program.
I am very open to and we had a tremendous turnout of
members this morning. This is only our second hearing and this
is not the department's largest program. And this shows you the
interest of the members, so you have got an awake group here
and we want to help you do a better job to streamline where we
can streamline, to take that state experience, to take your
implementing experience on the community action agencies and to
provide us with a more robust program.
I was going to ask Mr. Klusmeier, given the distribution of
this program across the country, can you point to a state or a
few states that you believe is doing a great job with
weatherization dollars where we might learn how we can inform
other states? I don't know if DOE does this or it is done at
the state level, state to state, so I am very interested in
where you perceive success and good program management and
innovation.
Ms. Klusmeier. Sure. So, we mentioned Washington, I think
they are certainly one of the leaders on the Weatherization
Plus Health initiative. We would be happy to put together a
brief or a summary for you of state, different state
performance metrics if you would be interested in that on the
record.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, and--and any recommendations for
program improvement.
Ms. Klusmeier. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. I am also interested if the department or any
of you have ideas for a pilot program where we might take the
innovation authorities that exist and look at a whole
neighborhood. And many of our members talked about mobile home
parks today.
I believe some of the most severe poverty in this country
and in my district exists in these forgotten places. If you
have examples or could conceive of pilot programs that we might
try to launch, Ranking Member Simpson talked about Native
American mobile home parks and Congressman Kilmer is interested
in that as well.
I don't have such parks in my district. However, I do have
deep poverty in many mobile home parks that I am seeing. And a
lot of these are absentee owned, and I watch these individuals
struggle. I was in a mobile home the other day where with the
weather being 20 below the man's wall actually somehow
expanded. I don't know, it was in the bathroom, the bathtub
moved away from the wall and all the cold air was coming into
his unit, and very poor electricity where if he turned a space
heater on with his sweeper, all the lights went out. I mean, it
is just a disaster waiting to happen. Well actually, it did
happen.
So I am interested in what might we do? Are there ways
where we can have offsite solar power being produced where we
can give a credit and it can go into these parks? How do we
manage energy? And we know they are leaking energy, it is not
sensible. Maybe there are things we can do.
I wanted to suggest to you also here in the Rayburn
Building, many, many times we have organizations that come up
here and they have big receptions over in the Rayburn foyer,
they bring technologies. Perhaps your association might be
interested in working with the subcommittee and we could find a
date where we have fine technologies.
You could introduce other members of Congress and their
staffs to what the Department of Energy has invented to test
walls and to suck the air out of houses and figure out where
the leaks are, to show some of the technologies that you view
as modern and really up-to-date. Some of our members talked
about sensors, and we could bring in some of the trades that
you have relationships with and we can show the training
programs for people in your program.
Maybe some of the folks on workforce development here in
the House would be interested in some of the problems you are
having and holding your staff, we need to figure out what to do
about that. I don't know what to do about that, it is not
technically our jurisdiction, but to help people to find a way
to ultimately get credit or to become a journeyman.
I can't forget this one person, it was in Lorain, Ohio and
he said to me, oh, I could have gotten an apprenticeship
program? What is that? I mean, they didn't even know. I said,
oh my gosh, how do we pull all the threads of this together? So
I am looking for recommendations. Think about a time when it
might be easy for you invite in some of your recipients across
the country.
Let me move to Congressman Simpson at this point.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you Chairwoman Kaptur. He had to bring
me into it. And while this has nothing to do with
weatherization rather than the price of electricity.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. And while you noted the benefits, I thought I
was not going to say this, well you noted all about the
benefits of the dams, you didn't mention that they also stopped
the migration of salmon back to their breeding ground in Idaho
which is my state which is a real problem. What would happen to
electricity rates in Washington if BPA goes broke?
Mr. Furze. Representative Simpson, thank you for that
question. I will need to respond in the record that that is not
a calculation that I have got in my head.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Because it is a problem right now and
some of us are trying solve the problem rather than add to it.
A couple of things, rental property was mentioned, is there
a cost share for the individual that is living in the house or
that owns a house on this program or anything or there is not
any cost share?
Ms. Garcia. No. There is not cost share, it is handled the
same as owner homes.
Mr. Simpson. So basically if I had rental property, I am
the one that is----
Ms. Garcia. For the landlord.
Mr. Simpson. For the landlord.
Ms. Garcia. For the landlord there can be. I was thinking
about the renter.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, yes.
Ms. Garcia. But for the landlord, yes.
Mr. Simpson. For the landlord, there can be a cost share.
Ms. Garcia. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Because he is the one that is going to get the
benefit, it is improving the property that he is renting out
and he is renting it out and making profit off of it. So it
seems like there ought to be some type of cost share for the
landlord.
Ms. Garcia. The states have different approaches but, yes,
there can be a cost share for the landlord.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Were you going to say something?
Mr. Jacobs. In the State of Ohio, on multi-families we have
a 50 percent contribution from the landlord on health and
safety related measures. And on single families, that has been
waived at this point.
Mr. Simpson. But it is different across the country. Should
that be something that is kind of standardized?
Ms. Klusmeier. I think given the different housing stocks
and the different climates in each state, each state has the
opportunity to define what that policy would be in their annual
planning process with the Department of Energy, which is
approved by the Department of Energy.
So right now the department provides quite a bit of
flexibility for states in that area and I think that is
something that we would continue to support.
Mr. Simpson. We have heard about the benefits of the
program, this committee has obviously limited resources, we all
do. And we have to choose what is the biggest bang for the buck
and look to the needs and so forth and so on.
Over the years we have, at least since I was Chairman, I
know that we have increased the weatherization program not by
huge amounts but each year we have increased it somewhat. Are
there any ways for us to measure success of the program?
Is it just the number of units that we weatherize or is it
just the cost savings? Do societal benefits come into this or
anything? Because we have to weigh the benefits of the program
versus other things that we are putting money into.
Ms. Garcia. That is a very good question. And we are
looking for as I said ways to get data that help us to
understand more quickly what is going on a year-to-year basis
in terms of the number of units weatherized, the kinds of
savings that are being achieved.
We did do our last retrospective evaluation based on the
program year 2008. We are looking at ways of doing smaller,
more nimble evaluations on a year-to-year basis depending on
appropriations within the resources that we have.
I would mention that there are a number of states across
the country that do their own evaluations of the program and
those are often very helpful in looking at program impacts in
between other kinds of work that the department does.
Mr. Simpson. What share of the total cost of the program
goes to the administrative cost versus----
Ms. Garcia. The limit is 10 percent. That is 5 percent for
the state and 5 percent for the local agencies.
Mr. Simpson. Is that statutory or----
Ms. Garcia. It's consistent with statute, yes.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Are there improvements that could be
made in the administrative portion of this that we spend fewer
and fewer dollars on? I mean because all our desire is to get
as much money out into the program actually as possible.
Ms. Garcia. I think I would defer to my state and local
colleagues on the administrative piece.
Mr. Furze. What I would say about that is that it takes
investment in infrastructure to be able to administer a high
quality program. And so that is sort of the balancing.
I think the issues with grid modernization that
Representative Fleischmann brought up in the questions of
innovation that Chairwoman Kaptur brought up, that is where
some of that work will happen. And so being able to have the
capacity to think through linkages with existing programs, how
to bring things on in grid transition require potentially
additional resources either through SEP or through a
weatherization program.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I am a contractor in Southeast Idaho.
Not really, but just theoretical, hypothetical. And I want to
get into upgrading houses and stuff, because I can see this is
kind of a lucrative business or at least one way to keep my
people working. How do I qualify?
Ms. Garcia. I believe the states set up their procurement
processes for the agencies that deliver the programs, so.
Mr. Jacobs. In the State of Ohio, a contractor must have
the same certifications as an installer. So they have to attend
the training center to receive a long list of actual
certifications. So it is quite intense in Ohio. So that adds to
the difficulty of getting weatherization contractors.
Same for the, like, HVAC contractors as well, they have to
have different certifications, but they have to have certain
certifications to do work in weatherization program.
Ms. Klusmeier. So anecdotally, what we hear from both our
local agencies and our member states is that they would love to
have more contractors in this program.
And NASCSP did a survey in the fall of 2017 that showed 61
percent of the states did consider themselves contractor-based,
opposed to 39 percent that considered themselves crew-based. So
it varies widely from state-to-state and even local-to-local on
whether or not those agencies are using contractors to do work
or using in-house employees.
Mr. Simpson. So some states do have in-house people to go
in and do the weatherization, people that they employ.
Ms. Klusmeier. The local agencies do.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Ms. Klusmeier. Right.
Mr. Jacobs. GLCAP is crew-based, so we have our own staff
that do the work in the homes. In the northwest Ohio, the
agencies are crew-based. There are no weatherization
contractors in northwest Ohio that have all the certifications
to do weatherization.
And during the last few years, I have had trouble finding
staff. I contracted with a company out of Akron to come in to
Northwest Ohio which is quite a drive, a couple hours. So the
reasoning is because of the certifications that they need.
Mr. Simpson. I suspect this is different across different
states, but are we having trouble getting people to do the work
now? Because I mean, in some areas you cannot find people to do
home improvements there. You know, if you want to do an
addition to your house or something, having a hard time finding
contractors.
So they are so busy now with the economy kind of growing in
a lot of areas. Are we having trouble getting people to come in
and do the work?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes. Great question because that is my number
one problem with boots on the ground getting the work done as
both contractors and installers.
The installers, would start there, it is not the best work
in the world, they are crawling in attics that are 120 degrees,
they are in crawl spaces that haven't seen the light of day in
years and things are living in there and so on. I could provide
you pictures for the record. [Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. No thank you.
Mr. Jacobs. However, the contractors, it is the same
problem. The economy is doing well, so they are going to that
work versus this work because they don't have to jump any
hoops, they can just do the work and get paid and not meet all
the certifications and criteria that we need work in our
program. We see that on both--run a CHIP program with HUD and
we see it on both sides. And it is our number one challenge
right now.
Ms. Klusmeier. So, I do agree that it depends on how the
economy is working. So when the economy is doing well,
contractors tend to move around more and they are more busy.
I do want to add that the federal rules of the program do
allow our training and technical assistance funds to be used to
train contactors. So many states are using that money with a
retention agreement, usually that the contractor signs to agree
to work in the program for a certain amount of time. They can
get those certifications and trainings paid for by the program.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you all. Thanks for being here today and
thanks for the work that you do. Appreciate it.
Ms. Kaptur. I want to thank Ranking Member Simpson for his
leadership and Congressman Fleischmann for staying for the
entire hearing.
Let me ask, since the program is so distributed across the
country. Does that preclude bulk buying of materials or
technologies that you have found to be very important and high
performing?
Ms. Klusmeier. So, by bulk purchasing I interpret that to
mean like buying truckloads of cellulose----
Ms. Kaptur. Furnaces.
Ms. Klusmeier. Furnaces. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur. Sensors, windows----
Ms. Klusmeier. Sure.
Ms. Kaptur. Et cetera. Are we losing something in terms of
cost per unit because the program is so decentralized in terms
of delivery?
Ms. Klusmeier. So the Federal rules do require a cost
assessment to be done with every procurement action. So I can
speak to it. In Wisconsin that is done at the local level, so
each local agency would purchase their own materials and
supplies and do a cost assessment at that point.
I am aware of some states that look at doing that at the
state level as well, so they purchase all the materials to try
to get a bulk discount essentially is what it sounds like.
Ms. Kaptur. Right. That is what I wondered because the
program is so locally-driven and state-driven, because DOE just
has the funding that goes to the states. But then you sort of
look and think to yourself, hmm, what could we do nationally
that would benefit?
Like I say, a furnace is an expensive item, a water heater
is an expensive item, is there anything we can do to, think
about this in your reply to the record, in talking to one
another, is there anything we can do to increase efficiency in
procurement? And that would be something that would have to be
led nationally by the Department of Energy, and I honestly
don't know Director Garcia, if you have sufficient staff to
even do all of this, to really do the kind of granular analysis
across the country. Do you need additional staff in your area
of expertise at DOE?
Ms. Garcia. I will confer with the NASCSP folks and we have
worked together on questions like this in the past and we would
take this on together.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Before long, we will be benefited by
the directors of our national labs coming in here, the
Department of Energy operates 17 labs across the country.
And as I look at some of the photos you put up there this
morning, I just kept thinking, new materials. New materials.
What can we do to help to make this program just even be more
effective? And so I am going to ask you a hard question and
make recommendations to me when the directors of the lab say to
us, well what can we do beyond what we are doing now?
And I would like to say, well, I want you to look at the
weatherization program. And we know that the Oak Ridge Labs do
a lot of work related to this program, and tell me what I
should ask them. Should I ask them for solar siding? Should I
ask them for a roof that produces energy? What do I ask them
for? To cut the cost of water heaters by half and connect it to
the roof? I don't know. Give me some thoughts about what to ask
the national labs.
Mr. Furze. Chairwoman----
Ms. Kaptur. Yes, Mr. Furze.
Mr. Furze. What I would ask you to think about is to
leverage the idea that you put forward around neighborhoods and
communities. I am most familiar with the work of Pacific
Northwest National Lab, they are the hub for grid modernization
efforts certainly in the Northwest, in the grid modernization
consortium.
And if we are thinking about a neighborhood scale systems
approach to energy efficiency, through a lot of electric
vehicles, smart water heaters, IOT, how might those things be
integrated so that low-income folks can benefit, is a question
that I ask myself.
Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate that comment. Because I think
there is enough experience in this program now earned by hard
effort in so many places. I think we can now distill something
and take it to the next step, but I have been in houses but I
haven't crawled through those spaces with the critters.
But I know how our homes leak energy, I had a developer
come in the other day, a new patent holder talking to me about
these modular homes that they are going to be building in the
west and it was so fascinating. They are going to cut the
energy bills by well over a third. And solar thermal is built
right into the wall.
And they actually use a technology, whether it works or
not, I don't know, but it was, I want to say, a Styrofoam
product that had cement on both sides and a steel beam
construction. It was just fascinating to think about what is
being done. And then you look at existing stock and say, okay,
so how do you really retool this? What are the magic ways in
which we do that? And you have such experience in that.
Some of the devices that I saw individuals using in the
homes that we visited were actually invented by the Department
of Energy but several years ago. So I am asking myself, so now
what? What now do we want to ask them to invent? So could you
talk among yourselves and make recommendations to the record on
it? Yes, Ms. Garcia?
Ms. Garcia. I would just add I am certainly happy to take
this question for the record. There is work going on between
the labs and the Building Technologies Office on low
temperature heat pumps which could have great application and
we are watching that. And so that might be something to ask
them about, what the current state of that technology is.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Yes, Mr. Jacobs, any
final comments?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes. On that specific question, I love the idea
of innovation. And we love innovative products such as 2-part
foam. Two-part foam versus doing it a different way in the home
is a lot faster, however, it is more expensive.
So we have at the local level have to balance measures. We
input them into a program from DOE and it basically tells us
whether or not it cost justifies to be used or not. So though I
am 100 percent for all that, it is just on a practical level it
has to meet the SIR of 1 or greater to be used in the home.
It does speed up the production of getting that work done.
So it is a really good idea and I would like to explore that
further.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Ms. Garcia, could you estimate this
Fiscal Year or 2019, approximately how many homes would you
assume would be weatherized across our country based on past
experience?
Ms. Garcia. Given the average cost limit per house, we are
estimating it is on the order of about 38,000 homes.
Ms. Kaptur. Thirty eight thousand. See, imagine if you
could bulk purchase some of that. I don't know if practically
that can actually happen, but if we could reduce share price by
nationally helping to procure, wouldn't that be something?
Mr. Jacobs. If I could comment to that, on just for an
example of cellulose. So we buy cellulose bulk from a company
in Bucyrus we get it a lot cheaper that way than versus buying
it from, you know, a big box store like Lowe's or Home Depot.
Savings per bag is upwards of $3 or $4 a bag, so we get a
semi-trailer truck full of about a thousand bags which saves us
a lot of money on each purchase. If that could be done by state
or on a national level, I don't know what that number to be.
Ms. Kaptur. Right. And what would you say is your most
expensive purchase annually? Would it be the furnace, the water
heaters, of you look at where you spend the most money. Mr.
Jacobs.
Mr. Jacobs. Labor would definitely be number one. That is
our number one expense. And then I could get that information
for you for the record but I would say cellulose is very cheap.
So what you saw on the picture, the cellulose blown in the
attic, that stuff is $5.50 a bag, you know, to $6 a bag. But 2-
part foam is like $300 a box which only goes a little ways. But
I could get you that information if you need more.
Ms. Kaptur. This is a very interesting discussion. Wouldn't
you say Mr. Ranking Member? Bulk purchase somehow to drive
this. I don't know how to do it exactly, but if we say things
publicly, sometimes things magically happen. [Laughter.]
Ms. Kaptur. And we can get very progressive states like
Washington to help be a voice for this and the National
Association for State Community Services Programs.
All right. Well everyone has been very generous in coming
here this morning. I want to thank you for participating, I
want to thank all the members who took time this morning to
meet their obligation and they all did. And I want to thank our
ranking member for his participation. And this hearing will
come to a close. It is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[
Thursday, March 7, 2019.
ENERGY WORKFORCE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
WITNESSES
MORGAN SMITH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY,
LLC
DONNIE COLSTON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
SLOANE EVANS, CENTER FOR ENERGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, GEORGIA POWER & SOUTHERN COMPANY
NOEL BAKHTIAN, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ADVANCED ENERGY STUDIES
Ms. Kaptur. This is our third hearing. And let me
especially thank the witnesses who are with us today, thank
members on both sides of the aisle for their faithful
attendance. And on the very important subject today of energy
workforce development opportunities.
Today our subcommittee will discuss future energy jobs and
the need to ensure that our Nation has a ready, capable
workforce, both for today and the next generation, to meet our
Nation's growing energy demands.
Developing clean, cutting edge energy technologies and
safeguarding our national nuclear security requires our
concerted attention.
The Department of Energy itself is responsible for
addressing energy, environmental, and nuclear security
challenges, relying on approximately 100,000 Federal employees
and contractors to fulfill these duties. We look forward to
hearing from our expert panel about workforce development
opportunities and challenges in nuclear security and the
broader energy sector, with a particular focus on the vital
role of industry, organized labor and its training academies,
science, technology, engineering, and academia.
In particular, questions I hope we discuss today include
what are we doing to improve the diversity and readiness of
America's workforce to meet future energy and nuclear security
needs, and is it enough. And what should the United States be
doing and thinking about to create more skilled worker
pipelines and training collaborations in the nuclear security
and energy workforce.
We can learn a lot from you.
As we start, I wanted to highlight a few key points with
respect to today's energy workforce that represents both the
opportunities and the challenges facing us. We are putting up
some headlines. They're from newspapers around the country
about the unmet energy talent that we need from coast to coast
and that information summarizes the fact that roughly 12
percent of today's energy industry workforce is eligible to
retire. That translates into about 800,000 jobs that would need
to be filled if everybody retired today.
Also, 76 percent of energy industry employers have reported
hiring difficulties--76 percent; three-quarters. According to
the Energy and Employment Report for this year, which was just
released yesterday, the U.S. energy sector employs about 6.7
million of our fellow citizens. This job sector is projected to
grow by an additional 1.5 million by 2030. This does not
include the 42,000 men and women in the national nuclear
security complex.
These challenges underscore the need to invest in our
energy workforce, the steel and iron workers, nuclear
operators, electricians, plumbers and pipe fitters, engineers,
scientists, physicists, and how critical those investments are
for a ready, capable workforce.
With respect to nuclear security, the Department of Energy
is in the midst of a scope of work it hasn't seen since the
Cold War to sustain the nuclear deterrent. There are many risks
and challenges in this mission and thus the DoE requires the
necessary workforce to accomplish its mission in a safe,
security, and cost effective manner.
And as the energy sector evolves to include more
sustainable forms of energy, as our nuclear security needs have
also grown, and as more Americans retire, it is paramount that
today's energy workforce transitions meet new opportunities and
that we build the workforce of tomorrow.
In my view, energy workforce development is about
collaboration and establishing closer partnerships between
labor, our STEM objectives, the national laboratories,
industry, and academia. Collaboration is, for example, creating
new opportunities for workers in coal country as our energy mix
changes. Collaboration can ensure the next generation is ready
to be nuclear welders or nuclear physicists. And collaboration
means reaching more people in more places, including those with
diverse backgrounds and skill sets or those with little
familiarity with this employment sector.
And that is why you are here today, so that we can elevate
what you say to a much broader audience beyond these walls.
I want to again thank our witnesses for their testimony
today and I look forward to our discussion.
And I would now like to turn to our amiable and talented
ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for any remarks he might have.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I would like to
join you in welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing. We
always appreciate when experts such as yourselves are willing
to take the time out of your schedules to come and talk with us
about what you do and how the Federal Government can help you
succeed in that effort.
I would also like to extend a particular welcome to Dr.
Noel Bakhtian, the director for the Center for Advanced Studies
in Idaho. While I am certainly familiar with the workforce
development collaboration being advanced through CAES, I am
pleased that today my colleagues will have the opportunity to
hear about it as well.
Part of the reason we hold oversight hearings is so success
stories can be shared with a wider audience, perhaps leading to
improvements in more locations. So, Dr. Bakhtian, thank you for
making the trek across the country from that warm state of
Idaho where the snow starting to melt a little bit, to this
warm location here in Washington.
The Department of Energy's programs impact a broad spectrum
of national security and national economic security issues. The
workforce needs are equally as broad and diverse, from the
researchers and engineers advancing our understanding of the
sciences and developing new technologies for defense and energy
production purposes, to the skilled trades people building and
operating Federal facilities and safely remediating sites
contaminated by previous Federal activities, to the project
management experts ensuring Federal taxpayer dollars are being
spent effectively. It is no simple task to project and meet
future workforce needs in any case. The significant changes in
the energy world make it particularly challenging.
On the national security side, we need to reestablish many
important capabilities we previously let fade away thinking
they wouldn't be necessary moving forward. On the energy sector
side, the transformations of the energy related to new
technologies and emerging concerns, like cybersecurity, are
demanding a quickly and ever evolving set of new skills and
tools.
The Department of Energy does not have primary
responsibility for ensuring all of these workforce development
needs are met. But where the Federal Government has a vested
interest for national security or economic security reasons,
the Department can and does play an important role in workforce
development.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
challenges and successes and ideas for improvements in this
area.
I thank the Chairwoman for calling this hearing and look
forward to it.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson. And I am very
grateful to the witnesses who have traveled here today, many
long distances. And we are very excited by you being with us
today.
First, we will have Mr. Morgan Smith who is chief executive
officer of Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC. Mr. Smith is
responsible for managing the National Nuclear Security
Administration's Y-12 and Pantex facilities. He has over 35
years of experience managing nuclear programs and facilities
and has held senior leadership roles at the Knolls and Bettis
Atomic Laboratories.
Next, we will have Mr. Donnie Colston with the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Department of
Utilities. Mr. Colston has been with the IBEW for almost 40
years and is responsible for representing the interests of over
240,000 utility workers who perform some of the most difficult
jobs in the country from coast to coast.
Following that we will turn to Ms. Sloan Evans, who is
testifying on behalf of the Center for Energy Workforce
Development. Ms. Evans is the Senior Vice President of Human
Resources at Georgia Power and Southern Company where she
manages leadership, employee development, and staffing
programs.
And last, but not least, we will have Dr. Noel Bakhtian,
who serves as the Director for the Center on Advanced Energy
Studies. Dr. Bakhtian is a mechanical engineer and has held
positions at the White House and the Department of Energy's
Office of International Affairs.
Thank you all for taking the time to be here today. Without
objection, your written statements will be entered into the
record. Please feel free to summarize your remarks in about 5
minutes if you can, starting with Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Chairwoman Kaptur, thank you. Ranking Member,
Mr. Simpson, thank you. Members of the subcommittee, thank you
again for having us.
It is a pleasure to talk to you about some of our strategy
and some of the opportunity and challenge that we have in
maintaining a robust workforce at our Pantex Plant, Amarillo,
Texas and in Oak Ridge at the Y-12 National Security Complex.
I would also like to thank the subcommittee for your
investment in our sites. We have had heavy investment in
improving the site infrastructure, which is important both to
enable us to fulfill our future missions, as well as give our
workers and future workers a good place to work. So thank you
for that.
Today we employ approximately 300 employees, 3,400 at the
Pantex site, about 4,900 in Oak Ridge. Both locations have a
proud legacy of very hard work and patriotism serving our
Nation and these sites have been in existence since the
Manhattan Project and World War II doing that service. Many of
our employees are generational there, from one generation to
the next. And so we intend to maintain that proud tradition
while certainly having a priority on identifying the next
generation of workers.
On the average, our workers are 48 years of age, 13 years
of experience on our sites, they possess a vast array of
skills, such as the construction workers, the various building
trades that are building the new uranium processing facility in
the Oak Ridge area, and those same types of workers maintain
our aged plants to keep us in production. Engineers,
scientists, production technicians, machinists, chemical
operators, all produce the product that ultimately we provide
for the Nation. Then our security police officers, our business
professionals, cyber specialists, administrative professionals,
all support this work as some examples of the type of workforce
we have.
Nearly half of our workers, about 4,000, are represented by
9 labor organizations. And I want to tell you that labor
leadership at our sites are true partners in accomplishing the
nuclear deterrent work that we do.
And I want to recognize one of those labor leaders here
today, Mike Thompson, who I think is in the second row. He is
actually the president of our largest group at Y-12, the Atomic
Trades and Labor Council, representing over 1,200 employees.
And Mike and his team really champion a number of the things
that you discussed, Chairwoman, relative to really championing,
engaging people in the trades, convincing them that STEM is
important and bringing them along to join our workforce.
Building the workforce of the future requires a broad
spectrum of recruiting, development, engagement, and retention
strategies. Part of our strategy is to build academic alliances
with colleges and universities and other schools. It is very,
very important that we do that because out of that we can have
research collaborations, we can have skill development and
training programs, and we clearly obtain hiring pipelines.
A unique example was something that we had done with Roane
State in Oak Ridge. We partnered with the college there to
develop a curriculum that trains chemical operators. The
students meet at night where tuition is paid for the by the
State. This is very important to us and the work that we do at
Y-12, and we hope that this program will continue to develop.
Today we have approximately 10 people in that program, but very
important for the future.
We also partner with other educational institutions to
promote interest in science, technology, engineering, math, and
manufacturing skills. And then as well to provide job
opportunity awareness of what we have at Pantex and Y-12. We
engage middle school students all the way through graduate
students in doing that. And we also make them aware of the
unique character and behavioral expectations that it takes to
do work in the nuclear field.
A recent example is in Texas we work with the Canyon
Independent School District in the Texas panhandle to establish
a trade curriculum where we are taking high schoolers and
preparing them to be production technicians or certified
welders, such that they can pass the qualification exams. And
then we also work closely with labor leadership to establish
apprenticeship programs. Right now we have just obtained
agreement to go through with about 45 a year for the next 3
years between Texas and the Oak Ridge area to cover areas like
steam plant operators, utility operators, machinists,
electricians, iron workers, pipe fitters. Very important to us
to build that workforce for the future.
The programs that focused on further developing and
retaining our existing workforce are also very necessary. We
have a number or examples that we work with the University of
Tennessee on, various graduate engineering programs that have
graduated more than 60 of our employees. And right now we have
25 more enrolled, including now distance learning out of Pantex
in Texas. We think that type of program has the opportunity to
be extended to other areas of the nuclear security enterprise.
And I can tell you that the administrator of NNSA, Lisa Gordon-
Hagerty, has a tremendous vision for workforce development and
recruitment for the future. Outstanding work by her doing that.
And so it is through all these avenues that we have to
continually grow our future workforce. It will take a
strategic, varied, and fully engaged approach to enable us to
accomplish the important mission work in entrusted to us. And
the fact is, the skilled workers are what are so essential, and
our future national success will depend on our ability to
attract, develop, and retain that workforce. It is paramount
that we succeed.
And I am very appreciative of the interest of this
subcommittee in that future.
Thank you for the opportunity to give you these remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Colston.
Mr. Colston. Chairman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and
members of the House Appropriations on Energy and Water
Development, thank you for inviting me to today's hearing.
My name is Donnie Colston. I am the director of the
International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Utility
Department. I have been asked by president Stephenson to speak
on behalf of the IBEW. This hearing's topic is vital to the
economic health of our country.
Based on recent data, the electric power generation sector
employs over 875,000 Americans in 2018. The jobs multiplier for
the utility industry is the highest of all measured industries,
with over 950 indirect jobs impacted by every 100 direct jobs
lost or gained in the industry itself. The IBEW is the largest
energy union in the world. We represent more than 775,000
members in the United States, U.S. Territories and Canada who
work in a variety of related fields, including utilities and
construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing,
railroads, and of course government.
The hallmarks of the IBEW are professionalism, skills, and
training, which are embedded in our code of excellence. This is
a commitment from our leadership, members, to our contractors
and our customers to consistently provide the best value for
the product. For more than 10 years the code of excellence has
allowed the IBEW to meet or exceed our customers' needs. The
code has played a part in the creation of employment
opportunities for the IBEW members because of the improved
relationships with our customers and our employers. Among the
IBEW's partnerships with employers nationwide is between IBEW
Local 245 and Toledo Edison, the Chairwoman's northwest Ohio
district.
The code of excellence is another example of the IBEW's
commitment to working with our employer partners to provide on
the job excellence every working day.
The IBEW represents public employees at electric
cooperatives and municipality power providers, workers at the
Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
private sector employees, and most investor owned utilities. In
nuclear generation alone, we represent more than 15,000
workers.
Occupations within the power plants range from plant
operators to instrument and control technicians to maintenance
electricians to security guards. Over 500,000 of our members
are responsible for making sure electricity makes it from the
point of generation all the way to the electric or gas meter.
Not only does the utility industry support hundreds of
thousands of jobs, salaries are higher. The average of an IBEW
member employed in the utility operations is $46.24 an hour,
which is already double the U.S. average without including
pensions and healthcare.
Energy generation, transmission, and delivery is our
Nation's most vital infrastructure. Utilities, construction,
manufacturing are all three significant industrial sectors in
energy efficiency, transmission, distribution, and storage,
adding over 36,000 new jobs just in 2018. It is therefore
critical for the safety of our member and the community needs
that the workers charged with constructing and operating and
maintaining energy infrastructure are highly and extensively
trained. My written testimony tells a broader story. I am going
to use my time to quickly tell you about our partnerships in
the utility industry.
The Center for Education Workforce Development is one of
our most significant utility industry partnerships. The CEWD's
mission is to develop solutions to the industry's workforce
shortage.
Applicants who have basic proficiency in STEM disciplines
had the necessary foundation for success in most utility
apprenticeships and training programs. For too long, a four
year degree has been promoted as the only path to a high wage
career.
In fact, there are many jobs, particularly in utilities
that provide solid middle class incomes with little to no debt.
These occupations are America's best kept secret.
Too often, young people perceive that these jobs are low or
middle skill because no college is required. IBEWs actively
engaged in efforts to attract young people, women and veterans
into high paying utility occupations.
Another example of training partnerships in the utility
industry is the strong relationship between the IDEW, Alabama
Power and the Southern Company and the National Utility
Industrial Training Fund recently upgraded Varnon Training
Center is the most modern facility of its type in the country.
The IBEW contributed to the curriculum development and
provides seasonal craftsman to deliver hands on classroom
training at this facility.
New IDEW members and experienced members who seek knowledge
upgrades now receive training in a facility that provides them
with the opportunity to become the highest skilled workers in
the utility industry.
In conclusion, I would leave you with one final thought.
The model inscribed on the wall at the Varnon's training center
and Alabama Power says with hands on practice, knowledge
becomes a skill.
With time and dedication, skills become a craft and a
laborer becomes a craftsman. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and the IDEW looks forward to answering any of
your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Mr. Colston. Ms. Evans.
Ms. Evans. I want to thank member Simpson and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name
is Sloane Evans and I am the Senior Vice President of Human
Resources for Georgia Power and Southern Company.
Southern Company is a leading US electric utility with more
than 27,000 employees serving 9 million customers across the
United States and I am testifying today on behalf of the center
of energy workforce development.
The Center for Energy Workforce Development or CEWD is a
partnership of electric, natural gas, and nuclear utilities and
their industry associations, contractors, unions, that is
focused on building a skilled workforce pipeline to address the
anticipated workforce shortage in the utility industry.
Southern Company and more than 100 other US utilities are
members of CEWD.
The industry--the energy industry plays a vital role in our
nation and contributes approximately 5 percent to our nation's
GDP.
Our industry supports more than 7 million jobs across the
country, about 1 out of every 20 and not only is it critical to
today's economy, we expect that it will be even more critical
to the future as we transition to cleaner energy resources,
build smarter energy infrastructure, support greater
transportation electrification and deliver energy solutions
that our customers want and need. We offer quality jobs that
pay well and on average, employees work in our industry for
more than 15 years, which symbolizes that we are an industry of
careers, not just jobs.
The energy industry is experiencing transformational
change. We see the potential shifts in size for the skills,
knowledge requirements about the current and the future energy
workforce.
Examples include infrastructure monetization, the evolution
of our generationed fleets, change in customer expectations,
physical cybersecurity concerns, a transitioning workforce and
emerging technologies.
All of these changes can impact a company's ability to
create and maintain a talented pipeline of qualified and
skilled employees.
Through CEWD, the industry has come together on a routine
basis to address workforce challenges through a collaborative
process with the simple strategy that has been successful for
the past 13 years.
Industry strategies local solutions. For example, I would
like to highlight our state energy workforce consortiums.
Today, nearly 30 states are represented, each of them led
by a CEWD industry member. The purpose of these consortiums is
to identify and develop solutions to meet the current and
future workforce needs specific to those states. Southern
Company helped to create two of the original state consortia in
Florida and George and as a result, we have established energy
pathways in Georgia and Florida secondary and post-secondary
education systems.
These pathways create awareness around the careers and
deliver fundamental skills around STEM.
Another example of CEWD creating industry strategies with
local solutions is their work to attract students to the
industry, leveraging those strategies, the best practices and
the support of CEWD, southern company has successfully
sponsored first robotics competitions that inspire young people
to be interested in participating in science and technology.
These innovative programs motivate students to better
education and career opportunities in STEM while building self-
confidence, life skills and knowledge. It's helping us
identify, engage, and attract our future workforce.
The on scale development and awareness efforts, the utility
industry recognized a strong talent existed among our veterans
and transitioning service members. In collaboration with our
utility trade associations, Federal associations such as the
DOD and the DOL and labor groups like the IBEWD, we Formed
Veterans in Energy which provides outreach, networking and
mentoring to veterans in our industry.
These partnerships have removed barriers in finding,
hiring, and retaining veterans.
The industry must continue to develop a workforce that
meets the needs of today and tomorrow and as an energy
industry, we are focused on career awareness, developing
education strategies, recruitment and retaining efforts.
We believe we can accomplish more together than we can
separately.
On behalf of the center for energy workforce development,
its 100 member utilities associations, contractors and unions,
I want to commend this subcommittee for examining energy
workforce development issues. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very very much. Dr. Bakhtian.
Ms. Bakhtian. Chairwoman Kaptur, ranking member Simpson,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
address you today.
My name is Noel Bakhtian and I am the Director for the
Center for Advanced Energy Studies. CAES is a research
education and innovation consortium that brings together the
Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory, INL, with the
four public research universities of Idaho and Wyoming, namely
Boise State, Idaho State, University of Idaho and University of
Wyoming.
At CAES we are committed to conducting cutting age
research, to educating the next generation of scientists and
engineers and to partnering with industry to advance
competitiveness all by harnessing the diverse capabilities,
resources and expertise of these five entities all for the
benefit of the region, the nation, and the world.
Let me start today with the need. The US energy market is
undergoing significant evolution with shifts to low cost
natural gas and clean energy sources compounded with a
shrinking US workforce that sometimes is referred to as the
silver tsunami. Experts are actually citing the energy sector
as one of the most at risk of not meeting the need on qualified
workers.
Broadly speaking, our evolving energy future is dependent
now more than ever on a highly qualified workforce capable of
designing, constructing, operating and protecting our nation's
critical energy systems.
In fact, one of the reasons that I came to INL and CAES was
to advance educational opportunities in support of accelerating
our nation's energy transformation.
Having worked at NASA, Congress, the Department of Energy,
the White House and now at Idaho National Laboratory, I fully
recognize the power of partnership and what I want to do today
is share how the CAES collaborations are helping to fill these
energy workforce gaps through the lens of the three strategic
pillars at CAES, research, education and innovation.
First research, a robust university research portfolio is
necessary to produce a skilled workforce pipeline. At CAES,
graduate students pursuing Master's and Doctoral degrees in
energy have the opportunity, through mechanisms like, student
internships and graduate fellowships to gain the hands on
experience working at a state of the art national laboratory,
working alongside world class INL researchers.
They are also capable of working back at their home
institutions or even in a joint CAES collaborative laboratory
under the mentorship of INL researchers or other faculty who
can help mentor them.
This enables students to work at the very cutting edge of
research in the national interest, thereby strengthening their
learning experience, accelerating the impact they are having on
R and D but also most importantly inspiring them to perhaps
take on their next job in energy. Our second strategic pillar
is education.
By bridging academic offerings and the need, CAES helps
connect higher education to the workforces at the national
laboratory and regional industry in order to create a diverse
workforce that has the appropriate training and education
needed for success.
For example, working with the Idaho National Laboratory,
Boise State has developed and just established a new doctoral
degree in computing with an emphasis on security which will
augment the workforce that's working every day to secure our
nation's electrical grid.
At CAES, we are also working to develop the first ever
joint educational offering between the CAES universities. And
our third pillar is innovation.
CAES's strategic focus on its innovation systems and
innovation ecosystem center on entrepreneurial opportunities,
partnership with industry and tech to market impact.
We are looking forward to building out this brand new
pillar this year and in coming years but I would like to
highlight two existing programs that already exist in this
space.
The first is the CAES technical assistance program, CTAP,
which works to bring together regional companies that have a
technical challenge with the CAES capabilities and expertise
needed to help them succeed.
The second is the CAES energy efficiency research
institute, SIRI, which is supported by DOE and provides hands
on experiences for engineering students as they go out and they
perform assessments and help reduce the energy usage at
regional industrial facilities.
As you can see, since opening our doors in 2009, we at CAES
have worked very hard to fulfill the Department of Energy's
vision for CAES as a collaborative research education and
innovation hub aimed at training the next generation energy
workforce.
But before I close, I do have an ask. The seventeen DOE
national laboratories are absolutely the country's crown jewels
in terms of research, education and innovation and they need
your continued support to continue pushing those boundaries on
science and technology.
They also need continued funding for student internship
programs and graduate fellowships as these are really the
primary mechanisms by which students enter in to the national
laboratory system.
In closing, I'd like to thank the Wyoming and the Idaho
delegations including representative Mike Simpson, who has long
been a strong advocate for both CAES and INL.
I'd also like to thank Dr. Kathy Arujo who is the director
for the CAES energy policy institute for joining me here today
and former CAES staffer Ethan Huffman for his support.
And with that, Chairwoman Kaptur, ranking member Simpson
and members of the subcommittee, it's been an absolute
privilege to be able to address you here today. I look forward
to your questions, thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Bakhtian. Thank you all; this is
such a fine panel. Again, thank you for making the time to be
with us. I'll just ask one question, then we'll rotate back and
forth so members can get in at least one question.
Let me begin with the following: in order to sustain the
nuclear deterrent, you rely, Dr. Smith, on skilled labor for
manufacturing, for construction, operations and maintenance of
the nation's most critical nuclear security facilities.
As you see with the commercial nuclear energy industry
contract, are there opportunities for you to leverage the
skills and expertise of that workforce to meet some of your
growing needs for additional qualified workers for the nuclear
security enterprise and what can you suggest the Department of
Energy might do to accelerate that transition?
Mr. Smith. I think those that would be coming out of the
commercial nuclear industry would be excellent candidates to
work in a nuclear security enterprise.
By virtue of working in the nuclear reactor industry, they
already have a strong appreciation for rigorous and disciplined
conduct of operations.
They know the expectations around doing nuclear work. They
understand that verbatim compliance is essential in the work
you do.
So my suggestion would be to open that up, is as we know
that we are about to exit out of site because of a shutdown or
whatever is taking place, we try to put together career fairs
or whatever name you want to put to it where would come in with
both labor leadership and with management out of the nuclear
security enterprise and we talk to workers about the
opportunities that we would have because one of the things
facing us, I think in the statistics that you shared at the
beginning, you said about 12 percent of the nuclear industry is
ready to retire?
Our number right now is 25 percent is already retirement
eligible on our sites and we'll go to 40 percent within the
next five years so finding qualified workers that know the
expectations to work on a nuclear site would be a real
advantageous situation for us.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, and you were suggesting that the
Department of Energy and its leadership on the nuclear side is
heavily into this transition issue?
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. I think we are always sensitive to
moving in and pulling from an area where there is still active
work so I think it has to be commensurate, with, for instance,
sort of the shutdown of a site to not, again, start moving the
workers around in a way that's detrimental to one place to the
advantage of the other, that's why--and I think Mr. Colston
really hit it so well.
We need to continually introduce more workers into the
field because right now we tend to be taking from one area to
meet the need in another area but then the area that they just
exited is left wanting so I think there's a tremendous
opportunity as we are prepared to shut down sites to offer
opportunities for those workers.
Ms. Kaptur. Well I am interested in your suggestions on any
role that the Department of Energy might have in that
transition to be a little more--some of what you may have
suggested to them in hopes that it might come out in the final
recommendations so you can provide that to the record if you
wish or you might comment later in the hearing.
Mr. Smith. All right, I would certainly make that
recommendation and I do believe that at least within the sector
that I work, the Master Nuclear Security administration, there
is a lot of interest in doing things jointly to accomplish just
that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much, I'd like to rotate now to
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. That is an interesting topic on
itself and its challenge with DOE, especially when you have EM
sites and the goal of an EM site is to clean it up and move on
and then you're left with all these employees that have been
working there for 20 years and what do you do. It has been my
experience, contractors that we've worked with have been pretty
good at letting that workforce know what's happening and that
the end is going to come at some point and time and helping
transition them to other jobs because cleanup around this
country is going to go on for quite a time in different areas.
Before we move on to everyone else so that they get a chance to
ask questions, let me ask Dr. Bakhtian.
I read your written testimony last night and several of the
innovative programs you're rolling out this year. Can you tell
us more about those and some of the successes you've had since
you opened the doors 10 years ago to CAES?
Ms. Bakhtian. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Representative Simpson. I'll highlight maybe two programs that
we've started rolling out last year that we're excited about.
One is called the CAES Summer Visiting Faculty Program and I
consider it a real win-win which is always what we are looking
for at CAES, wins for the Universities and the Idaho National
Laboratory.
What this program does is it brings a faculty member--lots
of faculty members into the national lab for a week to get to
know one specific expertise area and the researchers that work
there and then over the Summer, they write a proposal together
for external funding and this can also involve students as
well.
And so the faculty members get the opportunity to learn
about INL's capabilities and build lasting networks while the
INL researchers are exposed to diversified funding
opportunities and really have the potential to connect the
students. The pilot last year, we had only six faculty members
to try it out. This year we have nineteen so we are really
excited about growing that.
Actually, we've had other universities really excited about
this and they are interested in getting in the mix too. The
second program maybe I'll highlight is a pretty interesting
educational offering that we are trying out. We don't know if
it is going to work but we are going to try it out. Again, it's
a win-win.
Universities sometimes don't have the resources to provide
a very specialized offering but guess what? Altogether, the
four CAES Universities possibly could.
So what we are exploring is a certificate program whereby
each of the CAES universities would only have to offer up one
course but altogether, those courses with the hands on and
world class training opportunity at the lab would provide for a
whole certificate that each of the Universities could offer to
their enrollees.
We are exploring this first with nuclear safeguards and
security certificates but again, we'd be able to create a whole
host of very specialized certificates that people would want to
come all over the world to our area to do.
Your second question was maybe about metrics and I wanted
to--I have a list of a few stats I'd love to share about our
successes to date.
CAESers have been awarded more than $100 million in
competitive grants since we have opened our doors. We've
published almost 2,000 journal articles, conference
proceedings, et cetera.
We've hosted over 15,000 visitors to our headquarters
building but let's talk about people because that's really what
it's all about.
In the last five years, we've had 240 interns, fellows and
postdocs, 36 of whom were then subsequently hired by the Idaho
National Laboratory.
We've had 35 joint appointees and I like this stat, we've
had 485 INL employees that were turning to a CAES University
for a post-graduate education which is showing that win-win
again.
Also, last year, a third of the new hires at INL actually
came out of former INL interns and post-docs, some of which
were CAES.
And when we talk about the people, so I thought I would
share one quick student story. We had the first ever student
who was allowed to come in and start working at the case
facility in 2009. His name was Michael Sultry. It is now Dr.
Michael Sultry. But when he was doing the undergraduate
experience he was actually mentored in the case facility by a
faculty member from a different university in nuclear energy,
and he enjoyed this so much that he decided to pursue a
Master's.
And then he kept moving up the pipeline and he ended up
becoming a laboratory lead in our case building for
radiochemistry which is a big deal. And therefore, he turned
into a mentor for other students. So you can see how the
pipeline works. Eventually, he was actually hired by Idaho
National Laboratory. So those are the kinds of students'
success that we see all the time at KAYS.
Finally, I will just close by saying, Representative
Simpson, you're very well aware of this. INL is about to open
up the doors on two wonderful new collaborative centers,
Cybercore and C3 this year. There are also research education
initiatives that are state supported, and what I really love is
the fact that, I heard, it was before my time. That when these
buildings were being discussed in the State Legislature it was
actually the shining example of KAYS that was shown off as,
look, this is what we could do with the collaboration between
the universities and Idaho National Laboratory.
So I see that as a success of what KAYS has done in the
past and kind of the torch that we're passing on to other
centers. I think that is it.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. We'd now like to turn to
Congressman Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks everybody for
being with us. I wanted to start maybe with Dr. Bakhtian, and
if others want to chime in on this I would welcome that.
I am particularly excited about some of the DOE STEM
programs. We have seen the success of that in Congressman
Newhouse and my state. The Pacific Northwest National Lab
Office of STEM Education is working on computer science
education, training teachers through partnerships with
Washington State University and the University of Washington.
In my necks of the woods in Sequim, Washington at the Marine
Sciences Lab there is a group of scientist that are
participating in the lab STEM Ambassadors Program to connect
scientific experts with classrooms and to help inspire that
next generation of students.
I want to get your sense. How do we scale this up? How do
we scale up these programs and other DOE initiatives at our
national labs to train future STEM workforce? And I also wanted
to just get your sense how we build some deeper connections
between the national labs and our local communities, and
particularly some of the under representative groups. In my
neck of the woods we have tribal communities and others who I
know our local lab is trying to make those connections, but if
you have advise in that regard it would be helpful.
Ms. Bakhtian. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
First, I just want to iterate the importance of these kinds of
STEM program. Obviously, KAYS is focused on universities, but
the pipeline starts a lot earlier than that. K-12, for example,
and working also with community colleges, technical colleges,
et cetera.
You know, maybe I will highlight some of the Idaho National
Laboratory programs which I am not an expert on, but I will
give you some ideas of what is going on. We have a program
called My Amazing Future, for example, where this has been
going on for I think 10 years. Where we bring in every single
year all of the regional eight grade women in the area and they
come for a whole day at Idaho National Laboratory, and we have
folks from all over the lab. Obviously, a lot of the women
researchers, but others who are really excited to be able to
share what they are doing. So I think having strong programs
and then continuing them year after year it just becomes kind
of like a tradition, an institutional tradition.
You also asked about how do you scale this up. I think that
is an interesting question. Obviously, part of that is funding.
Funding is always going to be the limit, kind of, to what we
can do. You know, the national labs work closely together and
have committees altogether where they are sharing best
practices. That is always something great to do, but I think
maybe we can be doing a little bit better about sharing the
importance and the statistics that would drive these kinds of
actions so people can see how important they are.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Does anyone else want to weigh in?
Mr. Smith. Yes, I would be happy. I am sorry. Are you going
to go? I would be happy to chime in a little. I think part of
it, too, is, for instance, we just ran at both of our sites and
introduce a girl to engineering type approach, but a lot of
times these programs tend to be in the STEM outreach a little
bit too much of a one and done for a while and then you come
back. I think it takes a sustained effort. I think you have to
be in the schools. You have to encourage it.
And you have to think, especially, like, in the
underrepresented areas try to paint that vision and get people
to maybe think about STEM as something different than the way
they think about it today. You need STEM to be an electrician.
You need STEM to be a machinist, a welder, a chemical operator,
and you can go on and on. And so therefore, gaining that vision
that gets someone to start into a trade, and it may lead later
on to they decide to go back to school.
I was a mill right helper and then eventually I completed
an engineering degree. And so I think it is important to get
the vision there, but it takes a sustained effort, and I agree
with the doctor it takes funding then or the allowance to go in
and spend your employees' times to build those relationship.
But I think it's a national investment that would be essential
for the future.
Mr. Kilmer. With the time I have left I wanted to ask about
investment in building a workforce to deal with the electrical
grid and sort of smart grid technology. We are seeing as we try
to, sort of, de-carbonize and depend more on renewables having
a smart grid to manage the supply and demand side is
increasingly important and, often, I imagine, requires a new
and different set of skills. Maybe Mr. Colston or others if you
have a reaction to that. What are you seeing in terms of new
skills that are required? In terms of the, kind of, electric
grid workforce of the future? Any thoughts on what we need to
do to train students up both today and down the road here for
the future grid.
Mr. Colston. So the skills that the future holds, and as
most of us see the grid is changing and the skills need to
change with the grid itself. So the jobs within the utilities
themselves, those are very blue collar high paying jobs and
very high-skilled jobs. So as you take generation off you have
to put more transmission in. So therefore, that creates other
opportunities on the transmission side. When you talk about
grid modernization the lineman of yesterday that where you set
poles and pull wire is not the lineman of tomorrow. The lineman
of tomorrow has to be digitally experienced enough to know that
the sensors that we are putting on the line to communicate with
the system dispatch is allowing the utility to understand what
is happening with the electricity. So as they come through the
door of the utility itself as reaching out as you talked about
STEM earlier. STEM gets them through the door for there. What
it does not do is get them a skilled trade once they get
through the door.
What happens from that point in conjunction with the
utility we teach them the skills they are going to need to be
successful in their career. So that is where we look at to say
that we have to teach them, one, what does grid modernization
mean? Is it meaning that we are going to put lines underground?
Is it meaning we are going to increase the transmission lines?
We are putting sensors all through the distribution and
transmission system to be able to communicate back of how we
can effectively keep a 24/7 electricity running when that
customer wants it.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Kilmer.
Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank
this distinguished panel today for being here. Workforce
development is an American issue. It is really wonderful to see
not only bipartisan support with this great subcommittee and
our full committee, but really earlier today I just left the
Department of Energy that did an Atomic Wings luncheon. DOE is
working in this direction in the like. It is really outstanding
so thank you.
I would like to extend a special thanks to Morgan Smith and
also Mr. Thompson. I want everyone to note, this is very
important, CNS is a wonderful group. It is a Bechtel litis
consortium that does a great job at Y-12 and is building the
uranium processing facility. But the fact that Mr. Thompson is
here as a labor leader speaks volumes, and I thank you for
being here today. The workers in Oakridge work with business
leaders, work with community leaders and we get it done, and I
think that is so critically important as we move forward on
workforce development that everyone has a seat at the table.
And special thanks again, Morgan, for the job that you do with
CNS.
I have a question. We often talk about the progress that is
being made on the construction of the uranium processing
facility. That is the UPF and it really has been truly amazing
what you have done. However, it is also important that the
workforce be prepared to continue operations despite
transitioning from Manhattan project area facility to a state
of the art 21st Century facility. How are you ensuring, sir,
that the current workforce is prepared to continue operations
in the UPF?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Congressman, for the remarks. And one
of the things that we are working very hard with in that
example that I gave earlier in my opening remarks relative to
the Roane State chemical operator preparation program that we
are working which I think will benefit not only us but other
chemical industry jobs along the way, but we recognize that we
must develop a strong cadre of future chemical operators as we
move into the new facility. Because at the same time we are
moving we are also going to be closing down the old facility.
So a big part of it is preparing the workforce of the future,
having sufficient chemical operators to do that work, gaining
familiarization with all the trades and crafts that we have
relative to the new facility.
There will be new systems in there. Again, similar to what
Mr. Colson said. Where we are today is not where we are going
to be in the future, and so we have to learn those new systems
and be prepared and bring individuals along. We are going to
have to have the right kind of start-up teams in the 2022-2023
range of a coalition of workers that are really learning the
new facility and experiencing that, and we have all that in our
plans. We believe it is funded, and so we are marching forward
to that end.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Also in my district we
have a facility, a DOE Oakridge Institute for Science Education
managed by ORAU. It is a tremendous resource for students,
teachers, researchers, and individuals looking to work with
numerous national laboratories and government agencies. On
average each year ORISE places approximately 8 to 9 thousand
participants in research programs at 22 different Federal
agencies.
As time is moving tight, I just will ask you these
questions and I open this up for whomever would like to answer.
Thinking across the spectrum of opportunity, from students to
experienced professionals, are you aware of opportunities for
public/private partnership that the government is not currently
pursuing? And I open that to anybody.
Mr. Smith. Well, I will give it a start. I think the
opportunity there is to make sure that we are intentionally
encouraging the right people to get in these program, probably
to look harder at internship programs, as the doctor has spoken
of, and make sure that they are greatly aligned. And then make
sure that as we articulate it facing in here to Washington that
as we work harder to develop these programs we also make that
we are representing what funding is needed. Be that in people
head count, dollars for the educational aspects.
And so I think we have more work to do there to really
shape it and be more intentional, and I think that is the big
opportunity is to get a lot more intentional about it. Because,
again, as I said in my opening remarks I think we have a
national issue here that we have to prepare and be ready for
the future.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I believe my time is up.
Madam Chairman, thank you for calling this critically important
hearing. It has been a privilege. Yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for participating. Congressman
Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam. Madam Chair, appreciate all
of you being here and having this important conversation as it
relates to the future of our labor force in a critical field
for our country. Many people here on the panel know, but maybe
you do not, but I represent the Hanford Nuclear site in Tri-
Cities, Washington so you probably know thousands of my
constituents are really at the front line of the challenging
work that is done there, challenging, important, and dangerous
work, I should add.
Partly from this, from the highly trained workforce that we
have and has been assembled for the technical needs at Hanford,
but as well as we also have a national laboratory, Pacific
Northwest National Lab just down the road a piece. Tri-Cities
truly has become, I guess you could say it is a hub for many of
the science and technology, the research, the innovation, the
development for many of the things that we have been talking
about today.
A key component of that, though, has been really, I think,
the cutting edge partnership that have been developed with some
of the industry partners, labor community, certainly state
colleges, universities, as I mentioned, the National
Laboratory. I would like to point out a couple of those just to
brag a little bit on them.
For instance, Battelle, which is the manager and operator
of PNNL for the Department of Energy has contributed to the
development of the Bachelor's program in cyber security at
Columbia Basin College. CBC's cyber security center has
subsequently been certified as a national center for academic
excellence by the National Security Agency and the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security or the Washington River
Protection Solution.
The operations contractor responsible for the 56 million
gallons of nuclear waste that are stored in temporary
underground tanks at Hanford. They have recently funded a major
effort being developed by a professor and his research team at
Washington State's University's Tri-Cities' campus to engineer
a high-performance grout that will potentially be used to
encapsulate solid secondary waste at Hanford.
Or one other example is a partnership with Department of
Energy and Bechtel International which is the prime contractor
responsible for the construction of the waste treatment plant,
and CBC, Columbia Basin College. They have developed an
analytical methods laboratory to provide chemists and
laboratory specialists' ability to plot out process and
procedures that will be used at the plant to classify
radioactive waste from the Hanford site.
So I could go on and on and on. The list is long. There is
a lot of collaboration already taking place. I am sure we could
use more, and I guess kind of a softball question, but very
important I think as we move forward, Dr. Bakhtian, I would
like to expand a little bit, if you could, as to why you think
that collaboration between the universities, industry,
certainly the national laboratories, and more importantly,
here, the Federal government, why it is so critical to this
future question?
Ms. Bakhtian. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Since
you did mention Battelle I just wanted to share that Battelle
is also the mothership for the Idaho National Laboratory as
well which is operated by BEA, Battelle Energy Associates.
So your question, why is collaboration so important? I
think that comes just down to the science and the crux of
collaboration itself. There are actually scientific studies
that show that when you have diverse opinions in the room, at
the table, when you are working across the aisle and with
others you actually come up with more innovative solutions. And
so that is one of the reasons that we find collaboration so
fun.
You know, just bringing together, talking about public/
private partnerships, bringing together the needs of the
industry, and you can include Idaho National Laboratory in that
a little bit, as far as workforce development with the source
of that which is education, whether it's universities or
community colleges or K-12. That partnership and being more
intentional about it actually provides for a better end result
which is a stronger workforce at the end of the day and the
workforce that you want. So I think collaboration is crucial.
And, honestly, collaboration is what we do at KAYS. That's our
keyword.
Mr. Newhouse. Good, good. Thank you very much and I have
got some other thoughts and ideas, but maybe we will have time
for a second round, but thank you all for being here today. I
appreciate it very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Congressman Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think we are
talking about the challenge of our time. I work with the
Department of Defense on a number of issues and getting young
people involved in science is a difficult problem. There are
studies out there that show about eighth or ninth graders make
a determination of where they are going to go in their careers
in high school and college, and many of them, obviously, are
not choosing the hard sciences. They are not choosing to go
into the STEM fields.
And so other countries, India, China, Russia have much
better outcomes than we do in the United States. So the
challenge is we need another, I guess, Sputnik moment. I
remember when that happened, everybody was running around with
their HP calculators going to their physics class and taking
calculus in high school. Now they do not even have calculus in
high school. Most school districts have stripped calculus 1 and
2 out of the high school curriculum and you have to go to a
community college.
It is not just your industry, but it is all industries.
Like I said, it is a challenge of our times so maybe it is a
panel question, but, Doctor, do you want to start with that?
Ms. Bakhtian. Absolutely. Thank you for that question; so
important. I think to me, this is my personal opinion, that the
excitement comes when the students have the hands-on experience
and see the application. Because sitting in a math classroom or
a science classroom, sometimes you don't see the big picture of
how you can make an impact in the world. I certainly didn't,
and so there are some ways that you can help with this,
especially centers like CAES and national labs and others of
our--and industry.
So, one of the examples is I was actually a part of the
NASA Speakers Bureau when I was working at NASA. As
researchers, we would go out to local schools who requested it
or we would tell them what we do and they would request us to
come out and give talks at the very lowest level, from
kindergarten to 12, right, and it would actually get students
excited. You would see their eyes light up. And so something
that we have been thinking about at CAES is actually creating a
CAES Ambassadors Program or a CAES Speakers Bureau where any of
the five entities, whether they be students or faculty or
researchers at the lab, we would be able to reach out to them
and send them out to the schools that need speakers.
And, again, I see this as a win-win because as a speaker
myself, just talking to students and hearing their questions
and seeing their excitement reminded me about why I loved what
I did so much. So, that is an example if that helps.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Smith. Ms. Evans.
Ms. Evans. So one of the things that I think that CEWD
helps the energy industry do so well is really to start very
early. And so we are, even in kindergarten, talking about and
getting kids interested and excited about STEM, and doing that
through things like you just described. FIRST Robotics, it is
where they go and they build robots and they have competitions
and they are learning about STEM without thinking about the
fact that it is engineering.
The other thing to do to really help to focus and to get
students interested is around focusing on diversity and
inclusion and letting folks see that there are people who look
like them in these type of roles, and doing that through
spending time in schools by building programs in areas where
there might not be that type of representation. You can do what
you see, and helping students understand very early that energy
is an exciting career and one that is very applicable to them,
is one that we have seen that has helped really drive interest
starting with very, very young students.
Mr. Calvert. Great.
Mr. Smith. I would sort of add that I think it has been
captured well by the first two speakers there, it is relevance
and vision. I am of the age where I identify with what you
spoke about. We all wanted to be scientists or engineers in the
sixties because of what NASA was doing. We didn't actually need
a STEM program. We had NASA. So, talking about things at a
national level, making it relevant and real to students,
bringing it down, starting early as been said, having the
diversity and inclusion to bring everyone in, and have them see
the ability to have a real contribution in where we are going
as a Nation and as mankind, I just think it can be made
exciting. We just are not making it exciting and so we have to
engage in a greater way in industry, as labor, with the
classrooms and make it real.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Congresswoman Wasserman
Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Climate
change, I think, can be acknowledged as a central crisis of our
time, no matter what you think the origin is. And it is
something that we really have to meet head-on. The American
energy industry's work is really critical, not only for our
future, but for our Nation's future and the future of our
planet as well.
The development of the renewable energy sector over the
past few years has been really extremely encouraging and it
continues to grow and create more good paying jobs. I mean, for
example, we have about 800,000 people that are employed by the
petroleum industry, but the clean energy industry now employs
611,000, approximately.
So this is no longer a fledgling industry. This is no
longer, you know, fly-by-night or cross our fingers and hope it
works out. This is really a sea change.
According to projections from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, solar panel installer is the fastest growing job in
eight different states, including my home state of Florida.
So, Ms. Evans, my first question is what would you say is
driving this rapid job growth in clean energy and how--what
steps can we take to sustain it? And what challenges still
exist that may be hindering job growth in the clean energy
sector? And I will tell you, in my state, you know, we have a
number of different power companies. NextEra and FPL are mine
and they have really been leaders in the clean energy,
renewable energy effort, despite criticism that all the power
companies might get and so, you know, we have a few of the good
guys, but we always can do better.
Ms. Evans. So one of the things that we just talked about,
about getting people interested and excitement, is around
technology. And so what you are seeing with new technology,
especially advancements around green and new type of ways to
distribute energy, is that it is interesting and it is
different. And so one of the things that we continue to focus
on is building that foundation with STEM because you really
need to make sure that people understand that, but you add in
and think about competencies. Right, and so when you think
about battery storage that is becoming closer and closer and
you think about solar panels and you think about distributed
generation, it is thinking about the workforce we have today
and up-scaling them and making sure that they have the skills
and abilities to continue to compete for those roles as well as
attract and encourage new people to come in. So, I think it is
an excitement and it is new and it is something that people can
get very excited about.
Thirty percent of our workforce is made up of millennials.
Technology is something that is not a--it is a necessary thing.
It is just as important to them as air and so finding ways to
link that with what we do in the energy sector is what started
to do that growth.
And, again, I just wanted to go back to when you think of
the STEM and it being the foundation and helping to make sure
that we not only build upon that, we partner with our technical
schools, and the reason why is because that is a great and easy
way to talk about things like how do you up-scale talent and
how do you put a certificate program in very quickly to get
people the skills they need to be successful, so.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Exactly, and actually that really is
the perfect segue into my second question which deals with
women and minorities because they comprise a relatively small
portion of the nuclear security and energy workforce, which is
mostly older white men. No offense to the older white men in
the room. There might be--I know, I am sorry. Sorry, not sorry.
According to--we love our older white men, I promise.
According to a report prepared for the American Petroleum
Institute, women make up around only one-fifth of the workforce
in the oil and gas industry and comprise an even smaller
portion of the executive level positions. And the report also
found that African Americans make up 6.7 percent of the oil,
gas, and petrochemical industries while they make up about 12
percent of the population, you know, our population.
So, Ms. Evans, can you discuss ways to foster employment
and leadership opportunities for women and minority communities
in the nuclear security and energy workforce? Would you say
that the energy industry is behind other industries in
diversity and inclusion efforts? I am just going to ask you all
my questions and then I will let you go.
Ms. Evans. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is the renewable energy sector
bucking this trend in recruiting more women and diverse
candidates? And I really applaud your get into energy and get
into STEM initiatives. My youngest daughter is in 10th grade.
She is a very science- and math-oriented young lady. I can't
imagine where she got that from because it certainly wasn't
from me, but what opportunities and partnerships should we be
looking at to ensure more diversity in the STEM workforce and
how can Congress help?
Ms. Evans. Great. So thank you very much for that question
and I am going to kind of start at the very beginning. When you
look at the energy industry and diversity and the types of
jobs, we have a very tenured, very stable workforce. We do not
have a lot of turnover and churn, and so when you think about
folks leaving the organization and people coming in the
organization, that tends to be very slow.
And so when it comes to D&I, we have to very intentional
about thinking about where do we go to recruit. We have to look
at different and diverse pipelines. The military and veterans
is one that is exceptionally strong. Folks who have served our
country understand what it is like to work in an organization
such as ours, where it is safety, where it is procedural-based.
It is something that takes a long time for people to get
skilled and understand that have a commitment. But there is
lots of great diversity among women and minorities in our
veterans and so leveraging that workforce, but it has to be
intentional. And as you think about people transitioning out,
you think about how do you find pipelines to pull people in. It
goes back to starting very early. People think about what they
will do based on the people that they see that are doing that
work.
And, if I can have a moment, I was a recruiter very early
in my career and went to a career fair at an elementary school
and was talking about the power company and I had a little girl
start crying because for her it wasn't a positive situation. It
was somebody that came and turned off her power. And so very
much it was talking about, no, this is a career path for you
and this is what we do and this is why it is exciting for you
and so spending time to be intentional about pipelines,
thinking about the programs that we already have and we
leverage, not creating special programs just for minorities or
females because, again, you want to leverage what you already
have and so how do we be intentional to make sure that we get
diversity into those pipelines and we leverage it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That term ``intentional,'' Madam
Chair, has sort of become a buzzy-word, but it is so important
when it comes to making sure that we have diverse opportunities
for more people who wouldn't traditionally form that pathway,
which is why I have intentionally directed my youngest daughter
that she should be an engineer when she chooses her major in
college. And so, anyone who wants to help me assist her and
other young women move in that direction, all advice welcome,
as her mom. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Wasserman
Schultz. I wanted to ask the panel, we have been talking a
little bit about what the private sector can do, what
educational institutions can do, what skilled labor can do. I
wanted to ask you, what do you think the Department of Energy
should do and its labs in terms of fostering workforce
training? Congressman Calvert's statement that many high
schools don't offer calculus was a shocking statement to me. I
don't know if that is true across the country.
Mr. Calvert. I never used calculus, so.
Ms. Kaptur. But, wow, this is not the education committee,
however, we have a responsibility to the country to do our job
to be world leaders in energy. And so my question really goes
to if you could advise the Department of Energy on how to be
more effective in fostering the pipeline we have been talking
about, and I am going to call on you, Ms. Evans, first because
you were the panel member that identified the earliest age
group, children. What can we advise the Department of Energy or
suggest so that they can be partners in fostering workforce
training in the very skills that they so desperately need,
including our lab directors? So, I am really interested in your
suggestions.
And while each of the panelists is thinking about answering
that, I am also going to ask if you have materials that we
could put up on our website. Several of you have talked about
STEM. Well, are there standardized STEM advice or materials we
can post on our website that teachers across this country can
access? Are there materials in your possession?
You know, we only have 17 labs and we have 50 states and
not every state has a lab and so not every place in America has
lab connectivity, especially those that are in the bottom rung
of median income per household. So, what do we do on the
website of our committee to help you do your work? What
materials can you provide us? What models can you provide us
for the 20 states, evidently, that don't have any such training
relationship with the energy industry? What might we put up on
our website to help?
And I was thinking about this. Someone talked about
distance learning. What could we do to promote some type of
distance learning or access to information that could be pulled
down from the poorest school district in the country to the
wealthiest, that would help us deal with the STEM education
issue more effectively? I think everyone in this society has a
responsibility, including this subcommittee. So, what would you
advise the Department of Energy on the training front, Ms.
Evans?
Ms. Evans. One of the things that would be extremely
helpful is continue focusing awareness on the opportunities
that exist for students. There is a 4-year career path or a
college track that people can go into and that is what we spend
most time talking about, but there is a hugely lucrative and
incredibly amazing career path that comes through technical and
career colleges, and it is called now the ``new collar,'' and
so it is career-ready, where people can go to school for a
relatively shorter period of time and go right into a career
versus potentially going into a college, so helping to take
away a little bit of what really is a stigmatism in going into
something that isn't a 4-year. We have--we want our children to
go and do things better than we did, and sometimes that means
directing them away from some of the jobs that we need the
most, electricians, mechanics, some of those very skilled
trades. That would be one.
The other is support and funding around what we call
wraparound services. We can attract and get people into
technical training programs and get them into technical
colleges, but having the support for them to stay, and it is
things as little as tuition assistance, it is transportation,
it is career counseling, it is helping students identify early
that they might be better suited for a 2-year technical program
than a 4-year. Right now career counselors in high schools have
3- to 400 students. They can't spend the time and energy to
help them think about what that means for them. So those would
be the types of things that the DOE could really help do that
would add to immediate results.
We have a great infrastructure. We have great programs.
Help us focus and strengthen what we have versus creating
something new.
Ms. Kaptur. While you were talking, we put back up on the
board there the energy sector age distribution. And Dr.
Bakhtian, you talked about the term a ``silver tsunami.'' Well,
it is pretty clear what is happening there and I keep saying
how do we move the bubble to the left? How do we more quickly
accelerate movement into these fields? And those who are in the
audience, those who are listening elsewhere, the committee will
accept relevant information and post it on our website to help
America understand a little bit better the challenge that we
face in this really vital industry to our country.
Would anyone else on the panel wish to comment on what you
might advise the Department of Energy in order to be more
effective in meeting this national goal?
Ms. Bakhtian. Chairwoman Kaptur, if I may. I want to focus
more on what you mentioned about the website and what is
information that you could be providing that can be accessed
from anywhere, not just next door to a national lab or
somewhere near in D.C., and I want to just give a brief example
of something that we have done in Idaho.
So there is a commission called the Leadership in Nuclear
Energy Commission started by former Governor Butch Otter and it
is now led by current Governor Brad Little, and the LINE
Commission, which I sit on, and many of my colleagues at the
lab do as well, something that we have done within the
Education and Workforce Subcommittee is we have created an
online, kind of innovative PowerPoint. It is not a regular
PowerPoint. It is something that can sit on a website. And what
it does is it provides students, K through 12, even those in
community college, with an idea of very visually aesthetically
pleasing, what are the jobs--this one is nuclear focused--what
are the jobs in nuclear that someone might want to go into,
whether it is material scientist or an operator or a nuclear
engineer. And as soon as they click on it, it tells them what
is an average salary, it tells them how many are actually in
need in the state and in the region, and it also tells them
exactly which degrees they would need from a regional college
or university.
So it just gives them all of the information they might
need that sometimes that is the hurdle that they need to go off
and try something new. So that is something that we can
absolutely provide to you and maybe that is something the
Department of Energy or the national labs can be working on,
creating for all the other energy sectors as well.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. We will accept your offer.
Yes, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I guess one thought would be we would need to
provide more resource to go, I think, get into the schools and
mentor young people. You know, part of what was discussed by
the representative that now has left whose daughter was
thinking about engineering.
Part of the parental journey is many of our children hit an
age where we are not all that relevant but somebody else is
more relevant to listen to. And I think we have, for instance
we refer to them as affinity groups.
I have early career people, early career engineering
groups, National Society Black Engineers, Women in Nuclear.
There is a lot of affinity groups typically on Department of
Energy sites but we are very limited in the amount of time we
can devote to allowing those employees to spend time in the
school systems to really be those mentors and make that kind of
impact. And so there would be an opportunity there, but it
would take resources to be able to do that because when they're
doing that, they're not doing their day job if you will.
But I really believe that at some level, and then when you
talk about underrepresented groups and that sort of thing, you
know, the ability to put them together with somebody that can
create a vision of what's possible and where you might be able
to go with your life and a career is something that I think is
very important. Because when you go home, you don't necessarily
have that vision instilled in you.
And so I think there is a lot of opportunity but it would
take the ability to use that resource and really impact at
least in the areas. But when I look across the Department of
Energy, we are in a lot of locations. So if you at least
multiple there as a starting point, its pretty significant.
And then as has been discussed by Ms. Evans, you know, the
robotics programs, all that takes funding as well. But when you
get around those young people that participate in that, there
is more energy than you can imagine and it's just fun and
building this, the, you know, the cell cars and science bowls
and all these things, but it all takes resources to accomplish
it.
Ms. Kaptur. I would very much appreciate to put on our
website if you have this ability in the organizations that you
represent, personal testimonials from people working on your
sites and to talking--talk about their job and what they do.
And I will tell you in the region I come from, plumbers and
pipefitters in elections twice saved our necks in a nuclear
power plant. Not a one of them got any TV time and they got
hardly any recognition and I feel people like that who really
make America run deserve more attention.
And so if you have such materials in possession of your
organization, think about who are the best spokesmen and women
in those organizations and give us the video clips and we will
try to put them up in some reasonable order, talking about why
what they do is important.
They can talk about their salaries if they want to,
annually what they and their colleague might earn but also why
they love their job and why they are so good at their job. And
I think America needs to hear their voices.
I wanted to--I had a couple other questions here. I wanted
to ask for the record and what would be one of the toughest
jobs, the most challenging jobs in each of these sectors that
you represent? Mr. Carlson, I am going to start with you.
Colston, I'm going to start with you.
Mr. Colston. So you know we represent a wide range of jobs
within the utilities themselves and you can go from, you know,
from operators to mechanics to maintenance people to lineman.
Linemen are highly technical jobs but I would say a nuclear
operator is probably one of the most highly technical jobs that
you have.
By the time you pass the NRC regulations that's going to
allow you to operate this multi-million dollar piece of
equipment, that is a--and they're tested regularly on that not
only that, the pumps, the equipment, the NRC regulations. It's
a continuous education for a nuclear operator to maintain their
ability to operate that unit.
And that's the same person that came in through the door
that we talked about being aware of blue collar jobs that did
not have a college education, but came through the door with
the ability to come in that the company and the unions worked
with to say we can build you a craft. We can build you a skill
level that is marketable and you're going to operate a million
dollar piece of equipment.
And that's where those apprentices programs take place as
in telling them these are good blue collar jobs with highly
skilled workers at them.
Ms. Kaptur. I know in our region it was those very workers
who attempted and succeeded in turning off various valves and
switches in the bowels of the operation when the control room
made mistakes, whether it was mistakes that were made or some
piece of equipment malfunctioned in the control room it was the
operators that went down and saved our community. Twice.
That is one of the reasons I am on this committee. Because
I have such respect for what they did and I would like to
elevate their contributions to this country. I am hoping each
of you can help me in some way. Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. This has been an interesting
discussion and an important discussion but I am going to go off
the rails for just a little bit. As I sometimes have a tendency
to do. We hear about STEM all the time. It is STEM this, STEM
that, we have to do more STEM, all that kind of stuff.
My fear is that we forget about that rest of the person. We
forget about the rest of their education. The arts are
important. History is important in becoming a complete
individual. And I worry that we are going to be so focused on
STEM that we are going to forget about the rest of the part of
the person. And that is important as they are going to school.
But it has been interesting that you have talked about, Ms.
Evans, about the collaboration with young people, getting them
excited about knowing that these types of opportunities are out
there for them.
And you have talked about, Mr. Smith, about the transition
as labs transition or workforce develops in other areas and the
challenges that that brings.
And, Noel, you talked about the important collaboration
between individuals in college, wanting to have the hands on
experience with real live researchers doing real research, and
how that transfers into them getting into the field and stuff.
Mr. Colston, I agree completely with your testimony. It was
when I went to college, back when William and Mary's first
graduating class occurred in 1796 or something like that. Not
really. I mean, it was a while ago. But the thought at the time
was okay, you can go to college and you can make a bunch of
money or whatever, but if you want to have a good living, you
have to go to college. If not, you go to community colleges or
you go to trade schools or something like that. And if you
graduate from college--just from high school you are done. I
mean, that was kind of the theory.
That is not true anymore. In that there are opportunities
that require all sorts of different skill levels. Sometimes it
is community and technical schools. Sometimes its
apprenticeship programs. Sometimes there are some jobs skills
that require not only college but post graduate degrees.
I have always worried that we are encouraging when we
measure people's success or a state's success or something
about how many of your students go to college? I don't think
that is the measure anymore. The measure should be, and I don't
know how you would do this, but the measure is are you happy
with what you do? And what are you unable to do that you would
like to do because of a lack of skills? And is there something
we can do to help you gain those skills so that you can
accomplish the life that you want to achieve?
When I graduated from college, I didn't know what I wanted
to be but I can tell you one thing. Well, I do know what I
wanted to be. I wanted to be a water color artist. And I could
have done that, but I would be a lot thinner. Because I
couldn't have made a living at it.
But part of what I wanted to do was okay, what do I--what
is something that I can enjoy doing that I think I have some
skills in that I can make a living at at a living standard I
want to live at.
Why is the government now involved or why should we be
involved in trying to fill that gap where we have a need for--
we can look and say we are going to need all these engineers or
workforce and the energy sector. If I'm going to college then
I'm going to say--I'm going to look there and say hey look,
jobs are available in the energy sector. That is, you know,
that is maybe where I want to go. Maybe I don't want to become
an artist because there are no jobs available there.
Why isn't that enough to help move the workforce in the
direction where the jobs are available? And the reason I ask
this is because when I--back when I went to William and Mary,
no, I actually didn't go to William and Mary. But I can
remember the Federal Government at the time said or a few years
before I went, we need more engineers. We have to have more
engineers. We are running out of engineers in this country. And
they pushed everybody into the engineering programs whether it
was chemical engineering or electrical engineering or
structural engineering or whatever.
I went to college and some of my best friends were guys
with PhDs in engineering that couldn't get a job because we had
pushed everybody into that, in to fill those needs. The
government is not really good at this. What it is good at is
trying to identify kind of what are the needs going to be in
the future and how can we tell the workforce of those available
opportunities? And if you're looking for a long term job, maybe
this is where you ought to look.
I guess that's kind of a question. Any comment on that off
the rails comment?
Ms. Bakhtian. Ranking Member Simpson, if I may, first a
stat that I found interesting that I just learned. In the
nuclear energy sector, the--there is a stat that says that
nearly 35 percent of those employed in the occupation have a
bachelor's degree or higher.
And while that does suggest that there is some university
and post grad education is necessary, that there are jobs that
don't require that, just as you stated. So I think, it has been
mentioned before that knowing what you want to do and what
level of education or skills, not even education, just skills
or training you need to get there is very important. And so
what we have been thinking about actually at the Energy Policy
Institute is taking the jobs report, the energy jobs report
that just got released yesterday and doing kind of a second
analysis, a more deep dive analysis on okay, so what are
exactly the needs and what's the road map that we need to get
there? So I think it's a really important question for right
now. Thank you.
Ms. Evans. We have to look at the partnership in companies
partnering with the government to understand supply and demand.
I mean, a key component of workforce development is having the
right supply to meet the demand and not one over the other. And
so having companies come and organizations come and talk about
what that demand looks like and where, and then partnering with
us to figure out how do we get the best supply is how we will
make sure that we do that in a way at the end of the day people
have those jobs to do what they want to do and be successful.
Mr. Colston. I think the government plays a major role in
building partnerships. Partnerships that lead to pipelines that
feed people to come up through whether it be the high schools,
the trade schools, the apprenticeship programs, is the
government can say that look, in the place of this, we need to
partner with our industry. We need to partner with labor. We
need to partner with our school system to say these are the
jobs that are available. What can we do?
And I think Center for Energy and Workforce Development,
that is the main focus of that whole institute is just say how
can we build those partnerships of making aware of what are the
jobs? Most people there's a lot of kids that are in high school
and or two year colleges that would do a whole lot better on
earning a living and an education at the same time.
Mr. Simpson. You know, that is what is very----
Mr. Colston. That's very important.
Mr. Simpson. That is what community colleges are so good at
is when an industry or business wants to move into the
community and they need some people and some skills, you will
find that those community colleges have the flexibility to
develop the classes to train those people. And they are going
to become more and more important in the future I think.
Mr. Smith. You covered pretty large water. With that set of
comments. It's interesting, one of the areas of work is the
naval reactors facility in your area that you represent. And I
recently read some of the writings of Admiral Rick over again,
reread them and he talked about the need for all of us even if
we are in a technical field to have that broad spectrum of the
humanities, the arts, because that would foster the greatest I
think contribution of citizens in the country and as well
probably stimulate greater creativity.
But, I think, you know, I struggle too with what is the
Federal Government's role in all of this. Because I still think
it comes down to in each community, teachers, parents,
industry, helping people get a vision. And the ideal world is
to go pursue something that you love not because you are told
to do it, but because you really enjoy doing it. And then as
well really exposing people to that broader set of
opportunities.
Because I still think we are living in a path exactly what
Mr. Colston just said, where there is a lot of encouragement to
go to a university but people come out with degrees that
there's nothing you can do with them, in reality. And education
has gone somewhat to selling education. And we need to help
channel people into something that they would enjoy, something
they can make a living with, and something that they can
contribute to our society with. The degree to which the Federal
Government can help establish that vision I think is what we
need to wrestle with.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that. And I am not one who
is denying that the Federal Government has a role in all this
kind of stuff. But what I do is struggle with what it is. You
know, and so I appreciate all of your testimony today. It is a
fascinating subject. It really is. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Simpson. Let me just say
that I can attest to a fine water color artist you really are.
And also say that in my part of the country, we respect STEM
very much but we put an A right in the middle. STEAM.
So we get both the left and the right side of the brain
engaged and so we need STEM and we need STEAM in this country.
And that leads me to my final comment which is creative and
innovation.
Oh, Mr. Fleischmann. Oh, I am sorry. I will wait on my
question. I will yield the floor to Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I will be very
brief. In my opening remarks, and I am so glad that you alluded
to this. The Department of Energy is actually engaged in work
force development. Just today I participated in an event with
them. But last night I spoke with Secretary Perry and perhaps
we can help them because the Department of Nuclear Energy has
these things called Millennial Nuclear Caucuses where they get
millennials in and give members of Congress such as myself and
other members, both appropriators and authorizers to go in and
talk with them about careers in nuclear across the board.
And I commended the secretary because this is done under NE
but something that we need to be aware of, this is a temporary
program. It has been successful so perhaps, Madame Chairman, as
we go through the appropriations process, either with the
report language or something, we could work to get them to make
this permanent because what I found was there was tremendous
diversity there.
But the interesting thing about it is everybody there was
young except me. And so there was that--I was a child of the
80's and I just really believed you just went out and you
worked 7 days a week and practiced law and made a lot of money
and that was great.
Speaker. If you practiced law, that's true.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, there you go. Yes, or dentistry. But
I was an LES history type. But the interesting thing about it I
found was some of the values of the millennials were different
in terms of and I am not saying better or worse, but in terms
of the work ethic or the view of that. So introducing the
millennials--so DOE is doing that, but perhaps we can help them
not only with the funding but to work towards making that maybe
a more permanent system.
The last thing I will say is the caucus system that we have
up here. I am chairman of the National Labs Caucus, it is a
wonderful bipartisan caucus, Ben Ray Lujan, my dear friend on
the other side of the aisle and Representative Foster who has a
couple labs. And we work together and we are going to have an
event and we are going to be talking about the same things. So
there are a lot of different venues but again I appreciate what
you all are doing here today very much. But that might be
something we can work with DOE and with that I will yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Fleischmann,
for these comments. My last reference after complimenting
Congressman Simpson on his artistry and talking about STEAM is
as you look across the energy field, in terms of innovation,
what is something that you have seen that maybe the rest of
America doesn't know about and maybe we don't know about that
you have found that you just--it stops you dead in your tracks.
I thought that is the future. Or it is some element of the
future.
Is there something in your work, that you have observed
that you would like to share with the rest of the country? What
might that be in the field of energy? Dr. Bakhtian, you are
shaking your head, so looks like you have seen something.
Ms. Bakhtian. Yes. Well, I am relatively new with the Idaho
National Laboratory, I have almost been there two years now.
And when I started learning about the great ideas that the lab
researches have on micro actors I was just blown away. And I
said wow, that's the wave of the future. Advance reactors,
micro reactors that don't cost billions of dollars maybe to put
in place and that could help support the grid of the future as
well, being very resilient. Being safe. So I'm excited to be a
part of that team right now.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much for sharing that. Anyone
else wish to comment? Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I'll come at it two ways. I agree with micro
reactors. I think that is really phenomenal. I would maybe take
it and broaden it just a little bit more. So I go back to the
slide rule days----
Ms. Kaptur. So do I.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. When I started college.
Mr. Simpson. I had to show one of these to my staff.
Mr. Smith. You had to show one to your staff. So I have
taken a pretty long journey. And to me there are so many
exciting things but the one that really still strikes me is
additive manufacturing. That whole approach. It would have
sounded like a fairy tale to me when I was in college that we
would do that.
The fact that we can model materials on high performance
computers to the atomistic level and design them there as
opposed to trial and error, all these things are just a
phenomenal new era and a phenomenal new wave of capability and
interesting things. And when you look back, just how far we
have come in such a short period of time and you think about
where that may go, it's really capturing those visions.
I constantly tell our leadership that I think there are
skill sets that we should be trying to figure out what they are
and who they are to recruit now. Because we can't even explain
what they are but we are going to need them 5 and 10 years from
now. And I think really continuing to focus on that and come up
with that.
And a lot of that is going to be in energy because when you
look at the grid and everything that we have to do to really
power this Nation and you look at the renewable opportunities,
the sky is the limit. It's really an exciting time.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Colston, would you like to contribute to
the conversation before we close, or Ms. Evans?
Mr. Colston. I think that, you know, from my perspective
and--I'm sorry. From my perspective, and looking at the system
itself and what--how do you maintain the liability and
resiliency of the system per our members, is advanced nuclear
technology. As in how do we move forward with the new
technology that is going to be smaller but yet still maintain
reliability and resiliency of the system.
So I think that that is what catches my attention as in
what's the next technology that is going to maintain that
reliability and resiliency of the grid.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Ms. Evans.
Ms. Evans. And with the increase of all the technology so
smart meters and distributive generation, there is just so much
data that we have access to that we have not had the ability to
access before and it's allowing us to predict and think about
customer needs and anticipate them in a way that we have never
done.
And when you think about the way that we interact from
Amazon, from other organizations that you spend time with,
people want us to think about and anticipate their needs and be
ahead of them. And so that I think is just very exciting.
The ability to use data to get ahead of what our customers
need around energy is just going to be amazing. And I couldn't
even begin to understand all that that would be today because
it is changing so quickly.
Ms. Kaptur. I don't know if the ranking member wants to
make a comment, but I think one of the most astounding
inventions I've ever seen, and I don't think that it is
completed yet, but it was a very thin filament that floated in
a nitrogen bath. And from point of generation to point of use
it was 100 percent efficient. That was remarkable. And I don't
know, Congressman Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. I will just say that when you talk about
additive manufacturing and stuff, what is fascinating is what
they are doing in medicine with that. The $6 million man is not
that far away. Now the $6 million dollar brain, that is a lot
further away.
But I think that one of the best answers I ever saw was
they were asking a bunch of kids what they wanted to be when
they grew up and they were like 5th and 6th graders. And they
got the typical answers. I want to be a nurse, I want to be a
doctor, I want to be a policeman, I want to be a fireman, you
know, all that kind of stuff. They asked one kid and he says I
don't know, I don't think it has been invented yet. Hire that
kid.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes. I did not see Congressman Fleischmann
sitting behind your shoulder. Did you have a final comment on
any? You are fine.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, thank you very much. Thank you for
participating. This concludes this afternoon's hearing. Again,
I would like to thank each of our witnesses for joining us
today on behalf of the country.
I ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record
that questions for the record and any supporting information
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us
no later than three weeks from the time you receive them. And
members who have additional questions for the record will have
three business days to provide them to the subcommittee office.
Again, thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned.
Tuesday, April 2, 2019.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY--NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WITNESSES
LISA GORDON-HAGERTY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND
ADMINISTRATOR FOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
CHARLE VERDON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BRENT PARK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION,
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ADMIRAL JAMES CALDWELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR OFFICE OF NAVAL
REACTORS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Kaptur. The subcommittee will come to order.
Administrative Gordon-Hagerty, I want to thank you and your
team for being here today.
We continue our budget hearings with the Department of
Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration fiscal year
2020 Request.
The National Nuclear Security Administration and its
workforce are responsible for the consequential mission of
ensuring the safety, security, and effectiveness of our
Nation's nuclear deterrent. This includes nonproliferation
activities and powering the Navy's nuclear ships and
submarines. I want to underscore the enormity of this mission
while recognizing your service and contributions to our Nation.
I know that each of you here today feel that awesome
responsibility. Thank you, on behalf of the country.
The Nuclear Deterrent and the Science-Based Stockpile
Stewardship Program that underpin it are national priorities.
With a credible deterrent we can deter conflict, pursue
diplomacy, and advance the interest of the United States and
our allies.
And I must pause here to note that diplomatic engagement is
a critical part of deterrence, which is something I am not sure
everyone in this particular administration understands.
Successfully maintaining a credible deterrent requires a
balanced and cost-effective strategy that includes prudent
program, project, and risk management from NNSA.
Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, must balance
the need to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile with the
importance of reducing both domestic and global vulnerabilities
through nonproliferation efforts.
Unfortunately, the budget request before us today does not
achieve that balance. The administration seeks a 12 percent
increase for weapons activities alone, 1.3 billion above the
2019 request.
As I said at this very hearing last year, these increases
are simply not realistic given other constraints on the Federal
budget, and unsustainable year over year.
The reality is that we have two more years of sequestration
ahead of us if a budget deal is not reached. Even with a budget
deal we will face difficult choices in allocating limited
resources. And I look forward to hearing NNSA's plan to
appropriately prioritize and cost-effectively manage the
nuclear enterprise.
In turning to nonproliferation, these programs play an
indispensable role in our national security by securing nuclear
material globally and providing important insights into foreign
nuclear programs.
While the top line number in this request appears positive
at a glance, I am concerned that the administration is taking
its foot off the gas pedal with respect to nonproliferation
programs.
For example, a $64 million reduction is proposed for the
Global Material Security Program, which helps prevent nuclear
and radiological terrorism and trafficking. This program
protects people and communities from serious threats, and these
cuts leave vulnerable the United States and our allies
worldwide.
I remain mindful of the national security imperative of the
nuclear deterrent along with a strong nonproliferation program.
The NNSA makes up sizeable portions of this subcommittee's
budget and bill, and as such we must ensure that precious
resources are provided as part of a balanced, coherent
strategy.
Again, thank you for your service to our Nation, and for
being here today.
With that, I will close my opening remarks. And I will turn
to our ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I would like to
join you in welcoming our witnesses to this morning's hearing.
We have had good discussions with Administrator Gordon-
Hagerty and Admiral Caldwell at previous hearings, while we
have the pleasure of having Dr. Verdon and Dr. Park join us for
the first time today. Thank you all for being here.
I look forward to hearing from you on the fiscal year 2020
budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
The President's budget request for the Department of Energy
shows the strong commitment to enhancing the U.S. national
security. The request for the NNSA is just under $16.5 billion,
an increase of $1.26 billion, or 8 percent above last year.
This funding will advance the modernization of nuclear
weapons stockpile and its support infrastructure, prevent,
counter and respond to nuclear proliferation and terrorist
threats, and support the Navy's nuclear propulsion needs.
The budget request supports the reestablishment of many
critical capabilities and continuous efforts to make an
advancement through science and technology. Many of these
programs are, by necessity, ambitious and will require
sustained attention to good program and program management, as
well as a full and capable workforce.
It will be a challenge to deliver these programs on time
and on budget, but I believe the NNSA leadership assembled here
with us today is up to that task.
I look forward to today's discussion on the importance of
your work, and how the budget request will strengthen our
national security.
I thank the chairwoman for calling this hearing. And I
yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Again, I am pleased to
welcome the witnesses here today.
We will hear from the Honorable Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty, who
is the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator
for NNSA. Administrator Gordon-Hagerty is responsible for the
Nation's nuclear security enterprise, and she has more than 30
years of experience in national security. She has served in
private industry and has held positions on the White House
National Security Council and the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Next we will hear from Dr. Charles P. Verdon, the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs for NNSA. Dr. Verdon is
responsible for directing, managing, and overseeing the
national security laboratories for nuclear weapons production
facilities. He previously served as the Principal Associate
Director for Weapons Integration at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Thank you, Doctor, for your patriotism and for the
years you have dedicated to the security of this country.
Following that we will hear from Dr. Brent K. Park, the
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear and Nonproliferation
for NNSA. Dr. Park leads and coordinates NNSA's efforts to
prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. And prior to joining
NNSA Dr. Park served as Associate Laboratory Director at Oak
Ridge. We hear about that frequently here on the committee, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. So, Congressman Fleischmann is doing
his job.
And finally, we will have Admiral James F. Caldwell, Jr.,
who is the Deputy Administrator for the Office of Naval
Reactors. Admiral Caldwell is responsible for managing NNSA's
Nuclear Propulsion Program. And what a program that is. Admiral
Caldwell's sea tours include surface in both the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets and multiple operational assignments. Thank you
very much, General, for being here--Admiral, excuse me, for
being here today, and for your lifetime of service to this
country.
Thank you all for being here. Without objection, your
written statements will be entered into the record. Please feel
free to summarize your remarks. You have approximately 5
minutes.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty, you are first.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to present the President's fiscal year 2020
Budget Request for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration.
It is an honor to appear before you today, with members of
my leadership team representing a truly extraordinary team at
the NNSA, a team that is indispensable for national security. A
written statement has been provided to the subcommittee, and I
respectfully request that it be submitted for the record. Thank
you.
Since I last testified before the----
Ms. Kaptur. Without objection.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Thank you. Since I last testified
before the subcommittee, NNSA has been diligently executing our
three enduring missions: One, ensuring the safety, security,
and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Two,
reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear
terrorism around the world. And three, providing nuclear
propulsion for the U.S. Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers and
submarines.
The President's fiscal year 2020 budget request for NNSA is
an investment in these missions, in our infrastructure, and our
people. My priorities with this crucial funding are to
revitalize the United States' defense plutonium capabilities
and other essential infrastructure, to keep our stockpile life
extension programs on schedule and on budget, and to recruit
the workforce of the future.
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review provided a realistic view
of the world with an evolving and uncertain geopolitical
landscape. The NPR states that there is no margin for further
delay in recapitalizing the nuclear security enterprise, an
enterprise that is comprised of eight laboratories, plants, and
sites, and a dedicated workforce of almost 44,000 employees.
NNSA's 16.5 budget request is a necessary investment when
you consider the stakes. Russia and China are pursuing entirely
new nuclear capabilities. North Korea's intentions remain
unclear, and we face the most complex and demanding global
security environment since the end of the Cold War.
Accordingly, the fiscal year 2020 budget request represents
the largest increase in our nonproliferation, counter-
proliferation, and counterterrorism programs in the last 5
years. After all, the U.S. nuclear deterrent is much more than
bombs and weapons, and the 2018 NPR reaffirms the need for
effective arms control measures and treaty verification.
With this funding, NNSA will continue to apply its
technical expertise to reduce nuclear threats around the world.
Now is the time to provide the dedicated stewards of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent with a modern and safe infrastructure, and
the critical tools needed to maintain it.
My focus is setting the conditions today for a resilient,
responsive nuclear security enterprise for the next 50 years
and beyond.
During my nomination hearing last year, I stated that my
highest priority was plutonium pit manufacturing. That has not
changed. For the next several decades NNSA will rely on a
combination of newly manufactured pits and judicious reuse of
existing pits to modernize our existing nuclear weapons
stockpile.
A modest pit manufacturing capability is necessary to
ensure the safety and security of refurbished warheads while
maintaining high confidence in stockpile effectiveness. The
deliberate, methodical replacement of pits is the most prudent
way to mitigate the uncertainty of plutonium aging and its
impact on weapons performance.
Consistent with the NPR, NNSA is committed to producing no
fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030 to meet military
requirements.
Last May, the Nuclear Weapons Council endorsed NNSA's path
forward to recapitalize on this vital mission, and a production
capability that was shuttered in the early 1990s. Our two-side
approach calls for plutonium pit production at both Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico, and at the Savannah River
Site in South Carolina.
This is an important step in bolstering the enterprise's
responsiveness and resiliency, and is necessary to counter
future threats.
NNSA is not only investing in plutonium pit mission, and
thanks to the strong support of Congress we are making
significant progress in the modernization across the
enterprise.
We started construction on the main buildings at the
uranium processing facility at Y-12 National Security Complex.
And I am proud to report, this vital undertaking remains on
budget and on schedule by the end of 2025 for not more than
$6.5 billion.
And in New Mexico, we have broken ground on the Albuquerque
complex, which will provide modern and safe infrastructure and
workspace for approximately 1,200 dedicated personnel.
All of our NNSA enduring missions are underpinned by state-
of-the-art scientific capabilities. As these capabilities
become more important during this time of renewed great power
competition, NNSA is working to stay ahead of the technology
curve.
A future gap in high-performance computing is being
addressed through a joint effort with DOE's Office of Science.
Our contribution to that effort will be undertaken at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and we will deliver exascale
computing to the enterprise by 2023. From the earliest days of
the Manhattan Project, the dedicated men and women of the
nuclear security enterprise has answered our Nation's call.
What we are accomplishing today is remarkable. We have
completed the 76-1 Life Extension Program under budget and
ahead of schedule.
We have five warhead modernization programs ongoing that
are currently on schedule and on budget.
We have helped 33 countries plus Taiwan to become free of
highly enriched uranium. Nigeria is the latest country thanks
to an NNSA-led reactor conversion program in 2018.
We routinely deploy nuclear security experts around the
United States to events such as the Super Bowl to keep the
public safe from a radiological threat.
And we are lending unparalleled expertise to the U.S.
nuclear Navy's new Columbia-class Program to ensure sea-based
deterrent capabilities for decades to come.
Finally, I want to emphasize that regardless of the
investments we make in modernization of our infrastructure, the
United States must continue its investment in a world-class
workforce, and as requested by the President's fiscal year 2020
budget.
We face stiff competition from the private sector for the
top 10 in our highly technical fields. With an aging workforce,
NNSA has launched an integrated effort to recruit the next
generation of scientists, engineers, and technicians, so that
we can continue to answer the Nation's call and meet tomorrow's
challenges.
No other government or civilian agency can accomplish the
unique missions of the American people, and I couldn't be
prouder to represent NNSA today.
Thank you for your strong and continued support, and the
opportunity to testify before you today. And I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. If I
were to ask you to do a press release to the public of the
positions that are needed at NNSA, do you have the ability to
do that?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. I would love to see that, for the record. Let
me proceed to the first question. The committee is often faced
with significant constraints when writing appropriation bills,
and the administration has requested 12 percent in increase,
$1.3 billion, in weapons activities for fiscal year 2020.
As I said to Secretary Perry last week, sustaining a
credible nuclear deterrent is a national priority, but it must
be done in a balanced, cost-effective manner.
This year will not be any different, and I don't see enough
evidence in your testimony of the prioritization necessary to
assist Congress in making difficult choices in allocating
limited resources.
So I heard what you said. We heard what you said about
plutonium pit modernization. But what are your essential
priorities for NNSA, essential priorities?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. Our
essential priorities are to maintain the five current
modernization programs that we have on board for our defense
program's activities, those were the five weapons programs.
We have two life extension programs, two modernization
programs--and modification programs, and one major alteration.
We must keep those on schedule and on budget to meet the
military requirements of STATCOM in the Department of Defense.
Secondly, and equally important is the underpinning of our
scientific technical expertise. So, the science-based stockpile
stewardship also supports the nonproliferation and counter-
proliferation and counterterrorism programs. They are
underpinned by the technical expertise resident throughout our
entire workforce across the entire nuclear security enterprise.
With that, Dr. Park's program on nonproliferation has
brought to me a prioritization of how we can look strategically
into nonproliferation efforts across the board. In fact, I have
tasked the entire enterprise to give me a strategic vision of
where do we want to ensure nonproliferation, counter-
proliferation, counterterrorism programs globally. And where
are we looking to, whether we are committing to the Horn of
Africa or Eastern Europe. But we are looking across the entire
globe to see where we can ensure we can continue to provide
counter-proliferation support, nonproliferation, and
counterterrorism support.
Third, and equally important of course, is maintaining one
of the three legs of our triad, which is, of course, nuclear
Naval propulsion in our submarine force, but that is also to
provide the Naval nuclear propulsion for both our aircraft
carriers and our submarines.
So, they are all equally important, and perhaps though
budgets may not be equal, a third each, if you will, they are
all equally important, and we are keeping our eye on all three
of those critical missions that underpin the responsibilities
of the NNSA.
Ms. Kaptur. If I were to ask you, on nuclear Naval
propulsion, a scientific hurdle that you have to surmount,
could you or the admiral pinpoint a particular technological
barrier?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. I would ask Admiral Caldwell if he
would like to respond. Thank you.
Admiral Caldwell. Sure, ma'am. Thanks for the question. It
is an honor to be here today. And I would like to thank the
subcommittee for their strong support.
But how do we provide the Navy the greater capability that
they need? The CNO has talked a lot about the needs of the
Navy, a Navy that is more agile, a Navy that is more
sustainable, a Navy that is ready to fight at the high end of
warfare.
So my job at Naval Reactors is to think about those future
investments to enable that. How do we increase the power
density in the core? How do we make manufacturing more easy?
How do we make it more affordable? How do we make parts and
components that last even longer? How do we make our ships even
quieter?
So to that end, we are investing in future technologies to
figure out what those possibilities are that can unleash and
exploit the advantage that we enjoy because of our nuclear
propulsion.
So I don't have a specific technology that we have to, you
know, overcome. There are a variety of things that we are
working on to help us gain, to improve our advantage in nuclear
propulsion throughout the Navy.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I am now going to turn to
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman. This is a question that
is perhaps for the administrator and for Admiral Caldwell that
can answer it together. Nuclear modernization demands a
substantial and sustained amount of funding through the NNSA.
Same thing with the recapitalization project for the nuclear
Navy and their research into the future.
What happens if we fall below that substantial or that
sustained level of investment in the remodernization of our
labs that have been there for how long that need upgrades and
so forth?
Could you explain that to us and what happens with the
nuclear Navy if they fall behind on their budget proposals?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes. Thank you, Representative Simpson.
This is a very important issue because more than 50 percent of
the facilities and the infrastructure throughout the NNSA
enterprise are more than 40 years old. And one-third of them
were constructed during the Manhattan Project.
Those are untenable conditions under which we are operating
and we are basically--we have basically fallen behind in
recapitalizing our infrastructure.
So with the support of Congress, we have undertaken a
sustained program to invest in and recapitalize our entire
infrastructure. For example, the UPF facility. I use the
example about the Albuquerque complex. Currently, our employees
in Albuquerque are being housed in 1950s barracks where windows
are normally--are routinely broken and it costs--one, the cost
of maintaining that infrastructure can be untenable. But two,
we need to put our--I think our workforce deserves no less than
having modern infrastructure and modern places in which to work
and to be able to conduct our critically important missions in
the nuclear security enterprise.
So without the support of--continued support to sustain
this effort we are catching up now for decades of
noninvestment, if you will, or lack of investment in the
infrastructure. And now is the time to recapitalize that. And
it is not a 1- or 2- or 3-year investment. It is a decades long
investment in our future enterprise.
Because if we don't do it now, we are only going to be
falling--we are going to fall behind our adversaries and we
need to maintain our critical deterrent. And I would ask
Admiral Caldwell if he would like to comment on the other
programs and perhaps at Idaho as well.
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, ma'am--or yes, sir. The facilities
that we have that support the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program
include the four Department of Energy facilities that--where
our technical base is, does their work. The scientists, the
technologists, and the engineers that allow us to meet the
needs of today's fleet as well as prepare for the future fleet.
If we don't have those facilities, then we can't do the things
that we need to do to solve current fleet problems and to
develop the technology for the future. So our priorities always
in our facilities are to make sure that they are safe, that
they protect the environment and our people. Second, that we
meet our mission responsibilities.
And so we are focused on recapitalization of 60-year-old
facilities, many that came about many decades ago. And also to
do the decontamination and decommissioning of those facilities.
So without those, the laboratories where we do our work,
the facilities where our engineers do their great calculations
and do their great engineering, we would not be able to support
the nuclear Navy.
So accordingly, we are increasing our investment in Naval
operations and infrastructure to support the ends of the Navy
today and in the future. And I appreciate his subcommittee's
support in that endeavor.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Madame Administrator, you have
shaped the NNSA's nonproliferation mission since you took
office. What countries is NNSA engaging with that is in your
vision for nonproliferation?
We have had debates here within this committee and with the
Senate committee over how much to spend on nonproliferation. I
think we all want to spend whatever is necessary, but a lot of
those things take engagement with foreign countries to do
nonproliferation work.
I have seen in the past that we have had a carryover on the
nonproliferation budget and an appropriate, as we discussed the
other day, appropriate carryover level is appropriate for non
pro. Do you know what that level is and how are we engaging
with these other countries now?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes. With regard to--let me address the
issue of carryover. While it seems that there might be
carryover in the nonproliferation, obviously the, as you have
rightly stated, interactions with foreign nation--foreign
countries is a diplomatic--it takes part diplomacy, part
technical. And these negotiations and execution of programs
don't necessarily take place in any particular fiscal year.
So for example, the Nigeria reactor conversion to which I
alluded in my opening statement took several years in order to
accomplish. So while we were funded for it several years ago,
several fiscal years ago, we weren't able to execute until this
last year.
So it does take a bit of time in order to execute. So while
you might see carryover funding, it is for a good cause and we
actually have it dedicated to certain programs.
With regard to the other, we are interacting with tens of
countries around the world and I would like to turn to Dr.
Park, if it is appropriate, and have him explain to you some of
the current and ongoing efforts that we have.
Mr. Park. So as it turns out, we engage with literally
dozens of countries. Allow me to give you just quick two
examples. On risk security, in fact, we have deployed our fixed
portal detectors in over 60 countries. Recently the
administrator and I participated in the Insider Threat
Mitigation Symposium with our international partners and close
to 60 countries participated.
So as the congresswoman pointed out, international
engagement is key to our success when it comes to the non pro.
Depending upon how you count, I can count literally over 100
countries that we engage with and that leaves another 100 or so
that we need to engage with. But again, we actually have the
robust engagement plan, but it does take time.
In terms of a carryover, we have controlled it to a point
where it is less than 15 percent or so. Historically, it used
to be much higher, but, again, we are doing our job very
carefully to monitor how we engage with the international
partners. But overall, things have improved substantially over
the last few years.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. In
February this year, the Trump administration unilaterally
withdrew the United States from the INF Treaty. I would like to
have you please just comment on how--if and how it affects your
work and what efforts you believe should be made to bring
Russia back into compliance and what are we doing about that?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Good morning, Representative Frankel.
First of all, with regard to the INF Treaty and the fact that
the administration has pulled out of the treaty, the--since
2013, the United States has interacted with Russia on this
matter more than 30 times.
We have continued to try to make progress with them, but in
order to maintain arms control treaties, you need two willing,
at least two willing partners and we don't feel that we have
that right now.
How it affects our work is that we will continue to provide
and we provide the underpinning, if you will, of the technical
expertise for arms control and verification and treaties and
the like. It is not affecting our work. We will continue to do
so whether it is in this particular arms control measure or
others or whether it is New START or other engagements because
we provide the technical expertise to State Department and to
others in these matters.
Ms. Frankel. And it has come to my attention through the
committee that the Secretary of Energy authorized the export
and transit of seven unclassified civil nuclear technologies to
Saudi Arabia.
And just a question whether you will be able to provide
response--we are going to submit some questions to you I think
at a later date and we will just be looking forward to your
responses.
Now I have another question, just to follow up on the
chair's first question on your priority. I wrote down you said
to maintain five modernization programs. Could you tell me just
a little bit what are those programs? What is the purpose of
those programs?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Sure. Thank you. Those are five
modernization programs of our current nuclear weapons
stockpile. The United States is not undertaking new nuclear
weapons development. We are maintaining and extending the life
of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
We have two life extension programs, two modification
programs, and one major alteration. And I would like to, if I
may, turn to Dr. Verdon and let him describe them since they
fall under his jurisdiction.
Ms. Frankel. Just so I understand it because this is my
first time on this committee. These particular programs are
aimed at our ability or efficacy in terms of delivering a
nuclear device or?
Mr. Verdon. They are aimed at assuring that the nuclear
weapons still remain safe----
Ms. Frankel. Okay.
Mr. Verdon [continuing]. Secure, and effective.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. So it would be offensive on our part?
Mr. Verdon. It is the deterrent. It is basically--you know,
it acts as a deterrent whether it is offensive, defensive, but
it is the deterrent.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. I got it.
Mr. Verdon. But it is just----
Ms. Frankel. I mean, it is sort of ironic it is defensive.
On the other hand, if we have to use it, it is probably the end
of the Earth. Right?
Mr. Verdon. Well, that is yes, God forbid.
Ms. Frankel. Okay, anyway, let me--you can answer your
question.
Mr. Verdon. Well, no, they are just--they are done to--they
are basically built by man so they undergo aging and eventually
parts wear out. Their original life expectancy was 10 to 15
years. We have had them now on almost the average of 30 years.
So eventually parts have to be replaced and that is what
the life extension programs do. They literally replace the
parts, but, as the administrator said, offering no new military
capabilities, not requiring underground testing to accomplish
that means. So it is just ensuring that the deterrents still
remain safe and secure and effective.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Just a couple more questions. How would
you--who are considered or what countries do you consider our
greatest nuclear threats? And number two is, what does a
nonproliferation program look like?
Mr. Verdon. So I would say our peer competitors would be
Russia and China. And then for the nonproliferation----
Mr. Park. So as it turns out, we have a great system, a
network of countries working together. In fact,
nonproliferation is one of those rarity, if you would.
For example NPT, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, actually
has over 180 member countries.
This is actually one of the most well organized treaty to
the extent that we enjoy a greater support, even from China
believe it or not. And they actually helped us with the HE,
highly enriched, uranium removal from Nigeria, for example.
So there are some challenging situations mainly because of
lack of consideration or support on the safeguards. This is how
we protect the nuclear controls and so on and so forth. We like
to actually impose the strictest control everywhere in the
world and we leave that effort, and depending upon which
country you are talking about, their requirement is not as
strong as what we like to see.
So it is actually a very challenging condition, even under
the condition that every country in principle support the
nonproliferation. If that makes sense to you.
Ms. Frankel. I asked for an example. So you tried to give
me a general overview, but could you give me an example of a
nonproliferation?
Mr. Park. Oh, absolutely. As it turns out, as Madam Chair
talked about, the international engagement, we actually trained
a lot of countries to better protect the materials that they
have. These are the materials that could be a potential use for
nuclear devices or what we call RDD, radiological dispersal
device. So by training them to protect their materials, I think
the world is safer.
But we would like to actually better control the nuclear
technologies so that they don't fall in the wrong hands, the
terrorists and so on and so forth.
Ms. Frankel. I see.
Mr. Park. And so there are many examples that I can
provide. But again, those are some of the examples that I will
share with you right now.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Congressman Fleischman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And to the
distinguished panel today, I know each and every one of you
all. Let me say this. Since I have been serving in the House
since 2011 and privileged to be on this subcommittee and an
appropriator, I know of no other agency that can compete with
the NNSA.
You all are tremendous, do a tremendous job. Your
patriotism, your competence, your vigilance is truly
outstanding. This is a mission that we cannot fail on and I am
astounded every time I look at what you do.
And, Admiral, thank you for the job you do and your service
to our country, and please tell Admiral Richardson I said
hello. Madam Secretary, gosh, Secretary Perry has been before
us. The administration is doing a good job. This is an area I
think where Republicans and Democrats and our friends in the
Senate can and must cooperate. So I thank you again.
As has been noted on the record, I represent a wonderful
city, Oak Ridge. Brent, I met you there first at Oak Ridge. I
remember those days very well.
I live in Chattanooga, but Oak Ridge is the city that
really I have drilled down and become well that is my avocation
for the Department of Energy across the complex and it is truly
outstanding.
The Y-12 facility is antiquated. It is part of the
Manhattan era Project, part of the Cold War era. And the
uranium processing facility, I want our colleagues to know that
this is money well spent. And I want to thank the
administration for asking to increase its budget here. We need
the uranium processing facility.
Ladies and gentlemen, this was a facility that was
originally not going to be designated, they had some cost about
$20 million--I am sorry, $20 billion and because of the hard
work and effort, and I have to thank the contractor. CNS has
just done an outstanding job working with the NNSA to make sure
that they are going to build this for $6.5 billion and open by
2025 and the men and women who work there.
Our workforce are tremendous our contractors and the men
and women who work in our labor forces, labor unions. I mean,
they cooperate with the contractors in Oak Ridge at no other
place like I have seen in the country.
So again, we are doing a good job and want the members to
know that. And I tell the American people that whenever I have
an opportunity.
I do have a question. At Y-12, NNSA continues to make
excellent progress on the uranium production facility. How does
funding fit in this year's project or the timeline, and how can
Congress make sure that it stays on track?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Well, Congressman Fleischman, I
couldn't agree more about our--all of our workforce throughout
our entire complex in the national nuclear security enterprise.
We have tremendous workforce and I couldn't be prouder to
represent them. And that also goes for our team at Y-12
national security complex.
With regard to the funding, as I mentioned, we have spent--
we have expended $2.5 billion to date on the UPF operation. And
we are currently constructing this year for the request, the
resources that we have requested for 2019 and received, we are
now under construction with the main processing facility at the
Y-12 UPF.
And so we are on budget, we are on target. We will complete
by the end of 2025 and as long as we can--and to Representative
Simpson's point, as long as we continue--due to remain on
schedule and on budget, it will be based on Congress' decision
whether or not to provide that sustained funding that we so
urgently desire.
Otherwise, we can't guarantee that we will be on--continue
to be on schedule. So we do require the sustained investments
for the infrastructure improvements and the recapitalization
across our entire nuclear security enterprise.
And that also goes for the lithium processing facility and
other facilities of the Y-12 national security complex. You
have been through the lithium facility. And we have just
expanded another failure of some material falling off of one of
the ceilings in one of the workspaces. And that is just an
unacceptable condition in which we ask our workforce to work
around.
So we thank Congress for your continued sustained support
for our capital infrastructure, our infrastructure
improvements, but without that, you know, we are making--we are
not making investments in our future for our nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I will be very
brief. On lithium, by the way, it is a nonradiological
component, but thank you for agreeing to build it on site. I
think that was the right move at the right time. The new
lithium processing facility will make significant strides
towards maintaining state-of-the-art nuclear stockpile. What
key benefits and capacities will LPC provide and how can we
get--how can we get the committee to provide--how can we get
the committee to provide for support for construction?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Again, this is part of that sustained
investment in our infrastructure modernization. As I mentioned,
literally some of the ceiling components fell down earlier this
week and we--and that is not the first time that that has
happened in the facility. So it is imperative that we modernize
that part of our infrastructure.
We do everything we possibly can to reuse our lithium, but
we also need lithium for the future. So I can turn to Dr.
Verdon and he can give you the specifics on what our
anticipated challenges are there.
Mr. Verdon. So, yes. So lithium, as mentioned, is key and
so this year you asked, this year we are continuing on with the
preparation and the preliminary design development in support
of critical decision one, to move forward on the project. So
that is the importance of this year's request is to keep that
design work on the building moving forward.
And so that this is one of those, again, where it is
leading back to some initial questions where we time phase some
of our requirements. We recognize that the pits and the uranium
UPF were number one priority, so they got their funding and we
are pushing those hard.
Lithium is right behind it as a need, but also, as
mentioned, worker safety also drives requirements. And so now
that is why that is the next one coming up, that we are
bringing up to kind of, you know, the critical decision one to
move forward on.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Madam chair, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairman Kaptur. My welcome to all
of you here this morning, too, I appreciate you coming. I just
want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Fleischmann
that the work you do here for our country is--can't be
overstated as to its importance and I want to thank you very
much for your diligence in making sure that our nuclear arsenal
continues to be a strong deterrent and that our Naval capacity
meets the needs of the future as well. Besides the INL and Oak
Ridge, there is another laboratory represented on this panel. I
wanted to make sure people were aware of that, but last but not
least how is that.
Certainly the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which
just happens to be in my district, continues to be a major
contributor to the defense nuclear nonproliferation, that is
easy for you guys to say, strategy initiatives aimed at
addressing the most difficult contemporary nonproliferation
issues.
So thank you for supporting their work, certainly at home,
but also around the globe to make sure our Nation remains
secure. Being a multiprogram lab, you know, every time I go
there I am so proud to see how they are able to bring advances
really from all sorts of sciences to bear on national security
challenges. It is truly an amazing thing.
In particular, though, I understand they are working hand
in hand with the NNSA to leverage advances in modern data
science to enhance early detection of proliferation.
So as much as you can, could you talk about how your budget
request will help to drive these efforts and what outcomes that
you hope to see in the next year or two on these investments?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. And thank you very much for
acknowledging PNNL. While it is an Office of Science
laboratory, it is certainly--we certainly continue significant
investments into Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and they
do contribute significantly to our defense nuclear
nonproliferation as well as to our defense programs' activities
because they do produce the tritium, what we call the TP bars
for tritium. So they do--they are supporting our weapons
activities as well.
I would like to ask Dr. Park to comment on it, but I will
tell you, I have been extremely impressed with the work I have
seen at PNNL. I look forward to traveling there in the very
near future and getting a broader perspective of all of the
different works, work that PNNL offers to our national security
enterprise.
But most importantly, the work they do in our mid-career--
in our training for our workforce, they support that. And they
also support international programs supporting IAEA in training
expertise around the world.
So I would like to ask Dr. Park to give one or two specific
examples about what PNNL is doing and how the budget can
support continued activities at PNNL.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. And you can repeat all those good
things about the lab so the chairwoman can hear them.
Mr. Park. So you would be happy to know, and I will
probably get myself in trouble, PNNL gets more funding from DNN
than any other labs. But they do actually more than just one
thing. They do all of DNN work from global material security to
R&D to medialization work and supporting the arms control
policy work that we perform on behalf of interagency partners,
namely State Department. Specifically on the data, we are
actually in the process of maturing what we call data analytics
and there is a fancy name, but it is too long for me to
remember what it is.
Mr. Newhouse. Could you repeat that?
Mr. Park. It is a data analytics.
Mr. Newhouse. Analytics.
Mr. Park. It is called an--and it has got a much longer
title, but essentially what it is is exactly the way you
described. Can we actually collect enough quality data to
actually know what is being done at certain parts of the world?
So early detection is the name of the game when it comes to
nonproliferation work and PNNL does provide leadership in that
along with Oak Ridge, along with I could actually name all the
other labs.
But again, it is mainly composed of five, six big labs that
we have. And PNNL does provide a strong support for what we
call short physics experiment with the detectors and so on out
of Nevada national security site.
And again, PNNL actually has a prominent role in the DNN
mission space. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes, yes. Thank you. Again, thank you very
much for being here this morning. Look forward to continuing to
work with you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. Obviously, the
American people, at least some of them, will get to see what we
are discussing this morning.
So Dr. Park, I wanted to ask you if you could give a brief
summary of recent accomplishments on the nonproliferation front
in terms of the number of nations that you deal with. And also
looking forward, where do you see the next horizon in order to
make progress in nonproliferation?
Mr. Park. Again, thank you for your continued support. And
we actually have made a tremendous progress by the way. As you
all know, nonproliferation is not one year in and out, it is
enduring mission. As such, the building relationships as you
pointed out takes a long time and there are many great
examples. Let me just focus on a few.
For example, on the international rad security, or what we
call NSDD, nuclear smuggling detection work, we were able to
deploy additional radiation portals so that the countries can
actually monitor radiological material movements.
And again, I am happy to report to you that as I used that
example earlier, we have over 66 countries actually having
those detector systems and trained by us. Even better news is
that almost 95 percent of the nations would actually own and
operate using their own funds. So this is really great news and
obviously we need to take a step up to improve the detectors
and so on and so forth, and that is in our article. But again,
many of our partnering countries actually do take ownership of
all these radiation portals so they can actually do their own
operations, which is great news.
What we have actually been focusing on it is building
relationships more, as you pointed out. Yes, we spent a lot of
time providing them training and then new detector systems and
knowing they will take ownership of all that eventually. But
again, we are more into building relationships than ever before
and providing them support.
And again, the training is not just how to use the
detectors, by the way. So they can actually think for
themselves and defend for their own countries and be a
productive member of the international community.
And yet another example is that the--with the, you know,
countries like UK, Canada, and many other countries, France
included, we actually have robust engagement on the SNT side,
which is not something that we talk about much.
But we actually have a group of countries that we work
closely with and we actually share our science and technology
work map, so to speak. And yes, we actually invest more than
any other countries, but, again, we actually have partners
throughout the world that we engage with. And in terms--sure.
Ms. Kaptur. May I interrupt and ask of your best partners
that offer their own resources and cooperate with you, who
would you place on that list?
Mr. Park. So----
Ms. Kaptur. Which countries?
Mr. Park. So obviously, I would have to start with the
United Kingdom. And there are many countries, by the way. I
would actually have to say Japan, by the way. They have stepped
up quite a bit when it comes to actually sharing the
safeguards, the standards throughout the world. And the same
thing is true for Canada wants to step up more, so there are
many countries.
And the--but again, I could give you all kinds of examples.
And quickly, on the material minimization work, as the
administrator pointed out, that Nigeria, the HU removal
actually is number 103. Over the last 40 years, we have been
removing HU from all these places and the high-performance
reactor conversion work is really making a big difference. And
the R&D we work closely with the DOD, the intel community, and
so on, which I am more than happy to discuss at a later point.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you repeat a number you gave earlier in
reply? You said how many countries engage with you and how many
do not.
Mr. Park. So there are different ways of accounting the
numbers because certain areas, for example, when it comes to
radiation portal detectors, we actually work with 66 countries.
That single project alone we actually engage with--this is not
a 1-year exercise. We have been actually working with these
countries on and off for many, many years. And the--so in other
fronts, by the way, there is a different group of countries
that we work with so to depending upon how I count, there could
be up to 100 or so.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Park. And there are many countries----
Ms. Kaptur. Are any of those--Doctor, I am going to
interrupt you. Are any of those that are not on that list, are
they problematic?
Mr. Park. So----
Ms. Kaptur. The ones that aren't participating?
Mr. Park. So I need to be cautious about naming certain
countries in an open setting, but yes, we could actually see
more cooperation from certain countries that we have been
engaged with.
But overall, it has been working out relatively well, but
it is not something that we can back off. I mean, it requires a
continuous engagement. And so, but I am more than happy to give
you at a--in a different setting some of the countries that we
can be----
Ms. Kaptur. That would be very interesting. I wanted to ask
you in terms of nuclear threat reduction playing a central role
in our security with what we see happening with a very
predatory Russia, could you talk a little bit about the Green
Border Initiative in central Europe?
Mr. Park. Right. As it turns--thank you for that, this
opportunity to talk about that. As it turns out, that the fixed
portals are placed at the port of entry and--but in between,
these ports we actually have virtually no coverage. And by
providing mobile systems, our partnering countries can actually
provide the better coverage to detect a smuggling or elicit
behaviors. And they are seeing some positive signs and we would
like to actually enhance that even more in the coming years.
But that is actually one of the latest initiatives that we
have. Not that it is new, but again, we see more of a need,
especially in the areas that you are quite familiar with, FSU
zone.
One country in particular comes to my mind that we spent a
lot of time and energy is Ukraine. And, in fact, we actually
are adding more detectors and portals and so on to make sure we
can actually detect the movements, if there are any.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, in a different setting some of our
members might be interested in more detail on that. And I
wanted to ask, you are proposing to cut funding for the Global
Material Security Account. Why?
Mr. Park. So the--first of all, the--one could look at it
as a budget cut. In reality, when we prepare multiyear budget
like a 5-year budget cycle, what we look for is a steady,
stable funding that becomes our baseline. Not necessarily what
you might call baseline, but again, what we need more is a
stable, steady funding than anything else. Because it actually
supports our lab scientists, engineers, and technicians and
support personnel.
And it is through that exercise we build a baseline budget
request and when you look at the historical budget request
numbers, it is actually not down but up. It is down compared to
the last--this year's enacted, the--so the requested budget
does cover a core mission space. And what we cannot do is there
are some things we have to kind of postpone in terms of, you
know, installing the sensors and radiation detectors for new
facilities and so on.
But again, this is not really core priority. If we are
given an opportunity we will do more so, but the way we look at
it is we actually use the stable, steady budget as a baseline
for our building the budget, the information.
So we are more than happy to execute should the opportunity
arise as we have done the last year. But again, I think we have
adequate funding that we are requesting to cover the core
mission space programs.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I would be remiss if I didn't
mention that the National Nuclear Security Administration works
well with the lead nuclear lab in the country, which is the
Idaho National Laboratory. As you can tell, we represent three
different labs, but to tell you--and we jab each other all the
time.
But the reality is, is that we all care very deeply about
the complex and what goes on in the different labs. I support
Oak Ridge just as much as Mr. Fleischmann does. He supports the
Idaho National Lab. Same thing with PNNL in Hanford, as
Congressman Newhouse does. So we work together on this.
But it is interesting the discussion, I have got a couple
other questions, but it is continuing on the line of this
nonproliferation. After the Soviet Union came down, we went
over and visited the Soviet Union and what we were doing in
nonproliferation activities with the Soviet Union. And what we
were trying to do is to secure their nuclear material from
being spread all over the world.
And it was fascinating some of the work that our people at
NNSA was doing then. We also went to some of the ports where we
have radiation detectors to make sure that the--these crates
don't come into the United States. And our theory is if we are
going to detect a radiation threat from in one of these cargo
crates that comes, is shipped all over the world, we would
rather detect them in a foreign port than we would when they
come into New York.
And so the work that you do is very important, but let me
ask, in your budget request for the NNSA for nonproliferation,
is it for current non pro activities or does it include funding
for anticipated non pro activities that may become available if
we have agreements with foreign countries? Do you understand
what I am asking?
Mr. Park. So the--yes and no. As it turns out, from the
nonproliferation arms control policy office that I operate,
there are some modest increase of roughly $6 million to
anticipate future requirements. So from that sense, yes.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Park. And there is a capacity-building exercise
throughout the DNN offices. There are four major program
offices. And there is a bit of anticipation, a leaning forward,
a projecting forward built in, but at the level where we can
actually handle something like a TPRK, for example.
And but again, we are accustomed to adjusting along the way
depending upon the world events.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Park. And it is there not as much as you might think,
but again we have been doing this for a long time so we
actually have built in a little bit here and there to
anticipate some of the challenges.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. And I suspect if there was need to,
there is reprogramming abilities and those types of things as
things become available.
Admiral Caldwell, the budget requests for the Naval
reactors overall is down significantly from 2019. The Naval
reactors development line, however, sees a small increase in
fiscal year 2020 and larger increases over the next 4 fiscal
years. Now I understand we have talked about the
recapitalization project in Idaho, and apparently we have the
number that is necessary to keep it on schedule to be done by
2025.
Can you please explain what activities are supported under
the Naval reactors development line and what the future year
increases will support?
Admiral Caldwell. Yes, sir. Thank you. And to your comment
about the support for the spent fuel handling facility, we have
the budget request supports exactly what I need to continue
that project on schedule to start operations in that facility
in 2024.
Now, regarding the Naval reactors development budget line,
that supports the development of technology that not only
supports today's fleet, but enables future capability in the
fleet. And over the last 5-plus years, we have been focused on
these three major projects that are DOE funded, which include
the design of the Columbia-class reactor plant, the spent fuel
handling facility, and the refueling of the SAG prototype in
New York. As those funding lines come down, it is time for us
to invest in the future capabilities to support the Navy.
As I talked about it, the CNO is requiring a Naval force
that is more agile, sustainable, and can be prepared for the
high-end fight. So the investment in the Naval reactors
development includes the investment in our technologies that
would enable the Nuclear Propulsion Program to deliver for the
U.S. Navy. And I talked about that briefly before, things like
increasing the energy that we could load into the core, making
the reactor plants for our submarines quieter, making
construction easier, making the parts and components that we
build more reliable and have longer lives, and also to make
fabrication easier as I said.
The reactor development line of effort has done things in
the past, like enable the increased lifetime of the core. For
example, if you go back to Nautilus days, we refueled that
submarine initially at the 18-month to 2-year point and now we
are developing a Columbia-class core that will last over 40
years. That reactor development line allows us to handle
challenges that occur in the fleet. We respond to some 4,000
requests every year, and so that line will allow us to continue
to do that.
It also allows us to sustain our efforts to avoid
obsolesces of instrumentation and control equipment; we have a
tremendous record in that. And, in fact, in the past we have
saved up to $500 million in the cost and development of reactor
instrumentation and control systems. And, as well, it also
allows us to invest in the technologies and the computing
capability to extend the lives of our ships. And if you look at
the fleet today, we have extended the lives of the Trident-
class submarines out to 42 years; we have extended the life of
the Nimitz-class carriers out to 50 years; we are extending the
lives of 688 class submarines and will refuel five to seven of
those and we will get another operating cycle out of those
submarines; and we have also extended the lives of our training
platforms.
So, all of these things in reactor development enable us to
do those kinds of activities, not only today, but to pave the
way for the future. And, as I said, we took a close look at our
budget to see how we could do this within our Naval reactors
topline and as we go forward, we will continue to focus on this
and keep your staff informed. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for their support of this budget request.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman, and I
would like to thank the panel and you, as well, for a very
substantive hearing; this is great, thank you.
We all understand that the risk of nuclear radiological
material falling in the hands of bad actors is unacceptable.
Reducing that risk is what the experts in the Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation handle on a daily basis. However,
DNN's role in national security is broader than that and
includes a role in ensuring the supply of radiological
materials that by and large are used for nonmilitary purposes.
Radioisotopes, some of which are produced at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, help to save the lives of people every day
in a host of medical applications. However, there is currently
no domestic supply of moly-99, which is used by approximately
50,000 patients every day. We are, therefore, for lack of a
better phrase, being held hostage to foreign suppliers who may
or not have our best interests at heart.
With that in mind, what is the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation doing to support the creation of a domestic
supply chain of moly-99, and how is that reflected in this
year's budget? Thank you.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Representative Fleischmann, you are
exactly right. There hasn't been for more than three decades a
domestic supply of moly-99, which we use for very important
medical applications and they are approximately between 40- and
50,000 per day here, just in the United States.
I am heartened to say that the Department of Energy, NNSA,
has worked closely with a number of private entities, private
companies, and we are now for the first time in more than 30
years, developing moly-99 source supplies here in the United
States for domestic production. I would like to ask Dr. Park to
talk about the great grant program that we have with these
companies and what we are looking for in the future in terms of
the amount of curie content, the amount of material, gram
content, that we are actually providing for moly-99.
Mr. Park. So happy to report that one of the companies
actually starting to produce moly-99, one of the companies that
we are in negotiation with toward contracts over the next few
months is Northstar. In fact, it was the first time ever that
we actually--it is a minute quantity, but again, the fact that
we have reconstituted at least a small bit of capability to
start producing for our own use.
The Secretary and the Administrator actually provided the
information to the public recently on the progress we are
making, that we went through the propulsion review process. An
independent group of experts picked the four companies for us
to go into negotiations with.
So we are actively pursuing the contracts, if you would, so
that over the next 2 years we can start producing moly-99
within the United States. So, if I could add actually one more,
we also work with the national labs so they can actually
develop capability to show to any company that comes along. So,
in fact, that is actually part of the request from what we call
N-Cubed Program Office. So we are not relaxing our posture, we
are not taking any chances in addition to four companies that
are picked to start producing over the next couple of years. We
are also engaged with the national labs to make sure we can
further enhance the likelihood of actually producing moly-99 in
this country. So we are hopeful the progress is on track with
all of your support. I appreciate it, thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you and I am so pleased to hear
about the progress in that regard. And Madam Chair, I yield
back, thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Madam Administrator, NNSA
is running at an operational tempo that is really much faster
than in prior decades and to do your multiple weapons
refurbishment, establishing key strategic materials
capabilities, and working to address infrastructure challenges.
But GAO has indicated that several of the programs and projects
at NNSA are at high risk, including contracting management and
large projects over $750 million.
What is NNSA doing to improve risk management and Federal
oversight to safely deliver NNSA's core mission on time and on
budget? And are you considering efforts to embed mission
support staff, such as project management and human resource
expertise, within NNSA's core defense programs and
nonproliferation programs?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. In 2011, as I understand it, NNSA
actually took on the responsibility to address these issues
associated with the high-risk category, if you will, of
facilities. And I am happy to say that our Office of
Acquisition and Project Management has undertaken a robust
program to work towards getting us off of the high risk list.
In fact, GAO's recent report stated just that, that NNSA has
made significant progress in our major capitalization projects.
In terms of what APM is doing, they are contributing to by
putting Federal project managers on programs, on major
capitalization and modernization programs, such as the UPF
plan. We actually have a dedicated person at Y-12 overseeing
that Federal project and we continue to do so.
We are actually undertaking a project right now, the
recapitalization, if you will, or the repurposing of the former
facility at Savannah River, the MOX facility, which we are
repurposing for plutonium pit production and capability at
Savannah River. And we are looking to see how we can possibly
ensure that the lessons learned, the good lessons learned, that
we have had as we undertake Y-12 UPF program, that we are
actually applying those lessons learned as we go forward and
repurpose the facility at the Savannah River plant.
So, yes, we have some work to go, but we have made great
progress through our APM program. We have put fidelity and
resiliency in the program to make sure that we do everything we
can to minimize risk in these major capitalization projects
when we are talking in excess of $750 million per project.
Ms. Kaptur. In my experience on different committees, I
have never seen an agency that managed to overspend at the
level of the Department of Energy, or to build facilities that
then were never used. It has actually been shocking to me. So I
think that that rigor is really important and maybe you can be
part of a change in practice at the Department of Energy.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. We are doing our best, but I will say,
we have had some major improvements and, in fact, GAO just
called us out in their recent study, so I am pleased to report
that.
Ms. Kaptur. All right, I am going to ask a question about
the W87 Life Extension, but I wanted to have each of you think
about this and if you don't want to comment, you don't have to,
but knowing--no one could know more about the nuclear
enterprise than you do in this country, and yet we have this
massive problem of spent fuel and where to place it.
If you have any opinions about Yucca Mountain, and if it
doesn't happen, what options do we have as a country to deal
with spent fuel?
I would be very interested in your observations if you are
able to give them, but let me ask a question, the
administration has requested $112 million to study the design
and feasibility options for the W87 Life Extension Program. The
initial cost estimate of the program is 15 billion, but the
actual cost will largely depend on what technology and safety
options NNSA selects. How will NNSA consider cost as a factor
for the refurbishment of this system and what opportunities are
there to reuse previously designed components and technologies
from other weapons refurbishments to reduce cost?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. The W87 is formerly known as the W78
Replacement, and I would ask Dr. Verdon to talk specifically
about the replacement parts and what we are doing to modernize
the 78 Replacement known as 87-1.
Mr. Verdon. Yes, to your point, we are looking at all those
options that--the $15 billion number is an option that really
has everything in it. And so we purposefully went for what the
high level would be and then from there we are working to look
at, and working with our military partners, what options, you
know, what features does it really need, which ones are we
willing to take risks against and eliminate. And the same with
your question about reusing existing parts that have been made
for other warheads, we are heavily looking at that also as a
way of controlling the cost while still meeting the
requirements of the warhead.
So, all of those options are indeed on the table and we are
exploring that. And that is part of the phase that it is in
right now is to look at those exact details that you mentioned.
So that is actively ongoing right now.
Ms. Kaptur. Anybody want to comment on Yucca? Anybody brave
enough for the sake of the country to venture an opinion?
Mr. Simpson. I will comment.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, you are next, you are next. Yes,
I mean, look at the country. We look ridiculous; billions of
dollars unused and a political standoff that I don't think is
going to end. So, what do we do? You know more about spent
waste than any other people, that I am aware of, living in this
country. If you were in our position, what would you do?
Admiral Caldwell. Ma'am, I don't want to comment
specifically on Yucca Mountain, but I will comment on the need
for a long-term geological repository. Since the 1990s, Naval
reactors have been packaging our spent fuel for long-term
storage in such a repository. We have done that effectively and
safely, and we have to date over 65 percent of our spent
nuclear fuel is packaged and ready to go in such a facility,
and would be among the first to go into such a facility.
Accordingly, we have agreements with the State of Idaho
that require me to remove my spent fuel from Idaho by the year
2035. So, without a long-term storage facility, that is going
to be a challenge for us and we are going to have to work with
Idaho and DOE counterparts and our Federal counterparts on how
we are going to come through that.
So, what I have learned is that packaging can be done
safely, securely, and reliably, and we would love to take you
out there and show you how we do that work.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Admiral. Yes
Administrator?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. So Chairwoman Kaptur, I believe that--I
agree with you that we need to come to a decision and I think
the Secretary does, too. And regardless of the politics behind
it, I think the Secretary is actually undertaking, at least
having the conversation, about how to move forward since over
the last 6 or 7 years or so the Yucca Mountain program has
basically been put on hold, so he is having the conversations.
Again, as you rightly state, this is all about politics and
we need to find a long-term solution for what is right now
interim above-ground storage of the spent nuclear fuel from the
commercial reactors around the Nation. And I think our citizens
deserve as much and I believe the Secretary is trying to
undertake at least having that conversation, which is a good
start. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Anything you can do to further the
Secretary in those efforts would be very much appreciated. I am
a practical person. I like to make decisions and get things
done for the country.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. I think Congressman Simpson is the same type of
person and it seems to me that this is a priority that we can't
ignore, and interim solutions, different visions, are all
welcome here. And we thank you very, very much for being here
today.
And Congressman Simpson, did you wish to ask any other
questions?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, I have a few here if I could.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Simpson. First of all, I don't know much, but what I do
know is the law of the land, and the law of the land is Yucca
Mountain. And politically, we have been unable to come to an
agreement on that. All of us in support of Yucca Mountain also
support interim storage. I think interim storage becomes much
more difficult if it becomes de facto permanent storage because
you don't have a plan for a geological repository.
At some point in time we are going to have to bite the
bullet and get on with this. And I think the Secretary has done
a good job in requesting the money for funding both in the
Department of Energy and in the NRC to advance the Yucca
Mountain project. I hope we can come to an agreement this year.
Senator Alexander and I have had this discussion for 3 or 4 or
5 years, and every year it is next year we are going to get
this done. Hopefully this will be the year that we will move
ahead with this.
But a couple of quick questions. One, 44,000 employees, how
many of those are near retirement?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Forty percent will be eligible for
retirement in the next 5 years.
Mr. Simpson. Forty percent.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. With you and Dr. Verdon, I guess you
guys are responsible for directing the Secretary who has to
certify to the President that our nuclear stockpile is safe,
reliable, and secure. Do you do that annually?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Correct.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. One other question I have is that, Madam
Administrator, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review called for the
enduring capability and capacity to produce plutonium pits at
the rate of no fewer than 80 pits per year by 2030, as you said
in your opening statement. The NNSA then analyzed alternatives
and decided to pursue a two-site plan for the production--
sorry, that is my dog calling again--a plan to have production
capacity of at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos and no
fewer than 50 pits per year at the Savannah River site.
Now, some people have said that the reason we chose a two-
site plan was, for lack of a better term, paying off Savannah
River for closing MOX and so forth and so on. Nevada obviously
would like all of the pit production in Nevada----
Ms. Kaptur. That is a dog.
Mr. Simpson. Jeez, he is crazy. He must have heard my
voice. Could you dispel the myth that this was a--that this
decision was a payoff, I hate using that term, but to South
Carolina and that a two-site production facility makes sense?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes, and there could be nothing further
than the truth that this was a payoff. The NNSA must have a
responsive and resilient infrastructure. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, the United States has not had a plutonium
pit manufacturing and production capability since the early
1990s when we shuttered Rocky Flats Plant. The two nuclear
weapon design laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory, are exactly
that, they are design laboratories. They were never intended to
be production laboratories.
When the requirements were set from STRATCOM, from the
Department of Defense, and approved by the Nuclear Weapons
Council, it was so that we would make the not less than 80
pits--produce 80 pits per year by 2030. It is going to be a
challenge.
First of all, all of that work is being done currently at
Los Alamos National Laboratory. They are doing the chemistry
and the actinide science behind plutonium, the work that we
need for our pit production capabilities to maintain the
nuclear deterrent and it is going to be a challenge for them to
even get to the 30 pits per year by 2026, which is their
challenge. They have acknowledged that they have realized that.
To the extent that I can dispel the issue about having the
work all done in New Mexico, we conducted two independent
analyses of alternatives which said that a two-pronged approach
would be appropriate, and looked at the different options. But
more so, then we conducted an engineering assessment and an
enterprise, a workforce enterprise study that stated the best
way to get to the 80 pits per year, the only we would be
successful is to go with a two-pronged site approach.
It so happened that the MOX facility was going to be
terminated. The Secretary had planned that, we had worked on
that, we had followed, we had worked with Congress on that
matter, and it happened to be that that facility could be
repurposed for exactly this.
Savannah River is known for the last 70 years as part of
the production complex in the NNSA and our predecessor
agencies, so it would make extreme sense to do it there. Los
Alamos, the challenge we would have to do all the work at one
place is that it would only be at one place. And as the MPR
pointed out, we have to have a resilient and flexible workforce
and the enterprise in order to conduct it.
And if we are looking to do this work for the next 50 to 70
years, I don't believe that it makes sense to rely on one
single location. So our two-pronged approach is the most
effective way to get to the not less than 80 pits per year.
Mr. Simpson. Redundancy?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Some
of the work that--all of the work that you do is some of the
most important work that we do in this government, and I
appreciate the job you are all doing.
I apologize for Charlie, my dog. You have both met Charlie,
and maybe he was watching the hearing and he recognized you two
and said, hey, I know that voice. Anyway, thank you for being
here today.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, I just want to close by
saying thank you again for an outstanding hearing. And again,
to reconfirm what I have known and what the American people
need to do, that you and your employees are truly outstanding
Americans. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I have two final questions, Madam
Administrator. NNSA is seeking a significant increase in its
budget to hire an additional 63 Federal employees. Please
explain the programs or activities for which you are seeking
additional Federal staff, and whether these are the programs
and activities for which workload is increasing or that are
high risk.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. The NNSA has actually undertaken an
aggressive approach to what we need for our strategic hiring
needs. As Representative Simpson pointed out, our workforce is
on a downslope. We have what we call the bathtub curve where in
the next 5 years, 40 percent of our employees are eligible for
retirement. And with the significant workload that we are
undertaking now, we need to plan strategically for the
workforce of now and in the future.
Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me, I am going to interrupt you and say,
okay, 40 percent, what does that translate into in terms of new
hires?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. In terms of new hires.
Ms. Kaptur. Approximately.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Well, what we are doing is we are
looking--we are taking a strategic approach. I have passed all
of my senior leadership at headquarters and the field offices
to look and tell me, based on the workload of the future, what
does our staffing strategy look like. Because the staffing
strategy we have today will not be acceptable for the workload
we will see even in the next 5 years.
So we need to be strategic in our thinking in terms of what
kind of hiring requirements do we have. And unfortunately, we
are under a cap right now imposed on us by the NDAA of 1,690 in
our FTEs. We are close to that right now, so I would ask for
your assistance in lifting that cap so we can hire the
appropriate number of people for our critical skill sets in
science and engineering, in project management and oversight.
And right now I have given Dr. Verdon the top priority in terms
of hiring the personnel to support the five modernization
programs most importantly in that and strategic materials in
Defense programs activities. So we are focused on this
absolutely about how to hire strategically for our workforce of
the future.
And let me also say we are also trying to think out of the
box in terms of our hiring opportunities. On January 31st, we
actually undertook an enterprise-wide hiring event here in
Crystal City, and we had over 1,700 applicants in that 1-day
hiring event. And so we are trying to find different ways of
challenging our HR directors across our entire enterprise to
find new ways to hire those critical skill sets.
As I also mentioned, we are in, obviously, constant
competition with the private sector. So what we are trying to
do is explain that it is a great opportunity for people to come
to work for our national security enterprise and working in our
very critical areas of nonproliferation and weapons programs
and Naval reactors. So we are trying to find different ways of
hiring for the future.
Just this last Monday we were at Georgia Tech and we did a
hiring event, and we brought all of our labs, plants, and sites
and field offices to work with students that are possibly
coming out, so early career, coming out and working across our
entire workforce. We have also provided grants at different
colleges and universities. In fact, it pains me to say this,
but at Ohio State University we are--as a Michigan alumni, I
have to say that--that we are providing resources, in fact, to
the State of Ohio by doing some nonproliferation work at Ohio
State University and other places across the Nation.
Ms. Kaptur. I would like to invite you to Northern Ohio.
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. Can you provide a list of these strategic
materials that you are seeking?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Absolutely. And I can rattle them off
right now: uranium, plutonian, tritium, lithium. So lithium,
tritium, plutonian, and uranium.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. What management and oversight
functions will be improved with additional Federal staff?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. Most notably the infrastructure
modernization and the recapitalization of the programs is
really where we need to focus our efforts to make sure that our
contractor support staff is absolutely keeping on target, on
schedule, and on budget with our major recapitalization
programs.
In addition, it will also provide the effective oversight
for the modernization programs of our stockpile.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. One of the requests I would have of you,
the hiring event that you held in Crystal City, any materials
that are available relative to that, I would be very interested
in looking at to understand how you go about recruiting and
where you go about recruiting.
It is interesting, we all represent different congressional
districts. Congressman Simpson obviously is in Idaho. Now he
won't accept this, but to me Idaho is like remote. The region
of Ohio that I represent is a heavy manufacturing platform, as
you well know, but not always connected to the government of
the United States. We don't have a lab in my area. And out of
435 congressional districts in terms of median income per
household, my district ranks 407. So people are working hard
and sometimes they--and we have universities, obviously, but
they are not connected to the Federal establishment. And I
often feel that we are bypassed. It is like there is this
overpass that goes over us and it goes somewhere else.
So I am really interested in how you connect to places that
don't have a heavy Federal presence. And I am interested in
offering some of our expertise, if I can find a way to get it
to you. That is not so easy.
And Columbus is a capital city, like so many other capital
cities, including the one we are sitting in. A lot of the
Nation's assets over the last 25 years or so have moved to
those places. But it is the other places that are struggling
where people are eking out a living and trying to move forward.
And I am just someone who is trying to, if there are Federal
opportunities, I am working hard to try to let people know
about those. And it is not so easy from my standpoint.
So I just put that on the table.
And so as you think about recruitment you might look at the
bottom third of congressional districts in this country. And it
is sort of easy to go to other places just because there is a
relationship. But maybe there are some other. If one looks at
the recruitment to the U.S. military in regions like my own, it
is huge. We have a very patriotic population. And we even have
a nuclear sub named after Toledo, so we are pretty proud of
that. And so I am just--it is endemic across the Federal
establishment, it is just more comfortable to be in the capital
complex. But the rest of America is out there, too. And so I
make a plea for them.
Let me ask a final question and we will conclude. Former
NNSA Administrator Lieutenant General Frank Klotz noted before
his departure in early 2018 that the NNSA complex was at full
capacity on multiple fronts, people, materials, facilities, and
GAO has echoed similar concerns.
At a little over a year later, with additional
recommendations from the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, what is
your view on NNSA's capacity issues, and has the Kansas City
plant and the Y-12 facility become choke points?
Ms. Gordon-Hagerty. General Klotz was correct in saying
that we had some challenges. We continue to have challenges,
and as I mentioned, we are busier than we have been since the
Cold War. But we are meeting those challenges. And I can
confidently say that with the great leadership under Dr.
Verdon, we are managing those complex programs, those five
modernization programs. And as with any slippage in possible
areas like Kansas City National Security Complex and at Y-12,
we have risks associated with them, but we believe we are
balancing those risks with a great workforce and a great
Federal oversight.
So while I recognize we do have challenges, we are managing
those challenges. And I make my commitment to you, as we find
those challenges we are not going to inform Congress of those
challenges at the last minute. We will inform you and keep you
apprised of how we are doing with the five modernization
programs.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, do you have further
comments or questions? All right.
Thank you all very, very much. This concludes this
morning's hearing. I would like to thank all of our witnesses
for their service to our country and to our people.
I ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record
that questions for the record and any supporting information
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us
no later than 3 weeks from the time that you will receive them.
Members who have additional questions for the record will have
until the close of business this Friday to provide them to the
subcommittee office.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
MEMBERS' DAY HEARING
Ms. Kaptur. Good morning to everyone. I see there is good
mood here in our subcommittee this morning as we begin our
Member Day Hearing.
Thank you to our colleagues so many who have come before us
today, and others who have submitted requests to the report, we
appreciate the time and the effort that you have taken to be
here with us this morning.
The purpose of today's hearing is to take testimony from
members on the fiscal 2020 budget. And we look forward to
hearing from our attendees about your priorities including
Federal programs of importance to your districts, and I know
you have talked to us privately many times on them.
There are many members who couldn't be here with us today
who have submitted testimony for the record. There are actually
numbers into the thousands of requests.
Today we will hear from our colleagues in 10-minute blocks
with two members scheduled for each time block. Each member
will have approximately 5 minutes to testify.
And with that, we will get started in order of appearance
here before the subcommittee, beginning with Congressman Mast.
Welcome this morning.
---------- --
--------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. BRIAN J. MAST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. Thank you, Ranking
Member Simpson, and other members of the subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development.
I am here to advocate specifically for fully funding
Everglades Restoration and Water Quality Infrastructure
projects, specifically 200 million for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Construction Account for Environmental Restoration
or Compliance, where South Florida Everglades Restoration
projects can be completed or can receive additional funding for
those projects.
Now, the Everglades for Florida, is the drinking water
source for one in three Floridians, a very big deal. Restoring
America's Everglades, it is really not a choice between fiscal
responsibility and environmental protection it has to be both
of those. This is the problem with the entire system.
It was created many decades ago, before any of us were in
place, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and we are now tasked
to fix some of their issues that they created, or else it will
destroy Florida's ecology, and all that relies upon good
ecology in Florida to include drinking water supply. This is
what is on the line there. How did they destroy it?
So, early in the 1900s----
Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me. Will the gentleman, suspend.
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. You have got some excellent footage up there,
and make sure that you reference that as you go through your
testimony.
Mr. Mast. Absolutely. What you are looking at are toxic
algal blooms that we receive in our saltwater coastal estuaries
in the State of Florida. They are not naturally recurring in
our saltwater estuaries, they occur because we get so much
fresh water dumped on us. I will get a little bit into the
fresh water issue, but that is the result of it. It is really
quite a tragedy for our ecosystem there.
So, going back to the history of how this problem was
created, 1900s the Corps of Engineers dug a canal from Lake
Okeechobee to the coastal estuary that you are looking at here,
oftentimes dumping up to 7 million gallons a minute of fresh
water into an area that needs zero of that fresh water. So it
is very harmful, even if it is perfectly clean it is very
harmful, unfortunately it is often very dirty laden with far
too many nutrients that feed those algal blooms.
In the 1930s the Corps of Engineers dammed up Lake
Okeechobee, essentially bringing an end or the beginning of
what would bring an end to the River of Grass, the water
flowing from the Kissimmee River into Lake Okeechobee, down
into the Florida Everglades, out into Florida Bay, that damming
it up was the beginning of the end of that.
In the 1960s the Corps of Engineers took a river that fed
Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River, and it looked like most
rivers, like a river that wound around like a snake, and they
straightened it out into a channel, precipitation that that
lake fill far too fast for what could be drained out, which is
what brings about these freshwater discharges, or the need for
these freshwater discharges, into our coastal estuaries.
So, what is this problem that it created? The Federal
Government, really in the last century, they dammed the Herbert
Hoover Dike, they created artificial canals intended to bring
water to where it wasn't wanted, and now we don't get the water
where it is needed, into the Florida Everglades that work to
provide all of that drinking water supply. This is the issue
that is at stake here.
Now, Congress committed itself to a solution to this
problem back in 2000 when it authorized the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, CERP, this was the framework for
restoring this water system.
CERP has dozens of components and the only hope for
correcting the Federal Government's engineering mistakes of the
20th Century, is to bring these components to completion.
This is what we are advocating for today. This is why we
are out here saying that we committed to a 50/50 partnership
between the State of Florida, and the Federal Government.
The State of Florida is about $1 billion ahead of the
Federal Government in terms of funding these problems.
The Federal Government, in our opinion, needs to step up to
the plate, honor its commitment under CERP, match the State of
Florida in funding these Everglades Restoration projects.
In 2016 the state legislature in Florida committed 200
million in annual state funding for the next 20 years, for
planning, design and engineering of these projects. We are
looking for that same $200 million commitment from the Federal
Government to help correct these problems again, created before
all of our time by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
This is what is at stake. This is what we are working for.
This is my ask today. I thank you all on this subcommittee for
hearing us out on this request.
And with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you
all may have for me.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Mast. I will just say
for the record that the Trump administration's budget request
cuts the Corps Construction funding by approximately 43 percent
over last year, compared to last year. So, we as a subcommittee
know what we have to do. We thank you very much for being here
this morning.
Congressman Simpson, do you have any questions?
Mr. Simpson. No.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Mast. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very, very much. And your full
statement will be included in the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Congressman O'Halleran, thank you for coming today.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. TOM O'HALLERAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Kaptur, and
Ranking Member Simpson, and members. Thank you for hosing this
Member Day, and providing the opportunity for members to speak
about the importance of the Army Corps of Engineers' projects
and policies.
I strongly support the work that Army Corps does to project
communities across our nation from catastrophic flooding. This
work requires that Investigations and Constructions accounts be
funded sufficiently.
Specifically, I ask that the Army Corps general
Investigations Account receive at least $125 million in
funding, and the Construction Account receives at least $2.183
billion. In addition to those funding changes, I ask that the
committee consider removing language that has been included in
the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for the last six years
that prevents the Army Corps from implementing new principles,
requirements and guidelines which has lowered the priority of
rural projects.
This policy has the effect of lowering the competitiveness
of rural projects by keeping their BCR scores lower than those
of urban projects.
For example, Winslow, Arizona, is a rural community in my
district, which has a population of just under 10,000 people,
is disadvantaged in the current system.
A major flood would devastate the downtown area, and the
homes of nearly 700 Native Americans who are forcibly relocated
by government under Public Law 93-531, allowing an update of
the PR&Ss would provide parity for rural communities like
Winslow across the country.
Providing the construction account funding of at least
$2.183 billion would allow for the completion of many projects
which are nearly finished, and in which the Federal Government
has already made significant investments.
I would say that the Winslow location, a flood there could
take out I-40 and the major East-West railroad for the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
For example, for the last 30 years the City of Flagstaff's
top priority has been to mitigate potential flood damage caused
by the Rio de Flag. Since fiscal year 2002 the Rio de Flag
Flood Control Project has received more than 26 million in
Federal appropriations for various phases of the project.
With these resources the USACE has conducted the
reconnaissance and feasibility studies, completed the
preconstruction engineering and design, and begun the
construction phase.
Slowing this project would result in huge losses of
property and increase the risk of the loss of life, as well as
create significant public health and safety issues. A robust
construction amount with at least the $2.1 billion in funding
would allow projects like this to proceed. The community in
Flagstaff has also increased their tax base in order to
contribute to this project.
Providing at least 125 million is dedicated to the general
Investigations Account, will allow the Army Corps to continue
their work on projects that have already begun, and are
important to protecting many growing communities in rural
Arizona; for example, the Lower Santa Cruz River Watershed
Project is critical to residents of Pinal County, Arizona, one
of the fastest-growing counties in the United States.
Last year the project received a little over a million
dollars in general investigations work plan funds that will
help complete the feasibility portion of their project.
Completing feasibility studies will allow the Army Corps to
move on to other projects, and ensure that other communities
receive the attention they need.
Thank you for hosting this Member Day and providing an
opportunity for members to speak about the importance of Army
Corps of Engineers' projects and policies.
I would like to reiterate my support for the work that the
Army Corps does to project communities across our nation. And
to emphasize my support for funding the General Investigations
Account with at least $125 million, and the Construction
Account for at least $2.1 billion.
Additionally, I would like to reiterate the importance of
removing language that prevents the Army Corps from
implementing new PR&Gs, so that rural communities have parity
in the process. And I yield.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman O'Halleran. I
wanted to ask you. Did you bring any map to place up on the
video, to the screen?
Mr. O'Halleran. We did not.
Ms. Kaptur. You did not. Okay. Could you take one extra
minute and talk to us about the challenges. You mentioned one
rural community in particular and the eligibility of rural
communities for attention from the Corps, could you talk a
little bit more, generally, about some of the Corps-related
work? Your district is huge. As I look at the map that is part
of the record. It looks like it covers how much of Arizona?
Mr. O'Halleran. Sixty percent.
Ms. Kaptur. Sixty percent, all right. So, one of the
difficulties of dealing with the Corps is that we tend to get
burrowed into individual projects, but what we lose is the
spatial sense of what it is a part.
You talked about watersheds in your testimony, and then I
am going to ask Congressman Mast the same question, you went
into a little more detail about the Florida rivers, we would
very much appreciate your generalizing from the specific. Could
you do that for your district?
Mr. O'Halleran. Sure. I have tremendous amount of different
watersheds in the district. The Flagstaff one both serves the--
flows into the Colorado River and the Verde River system. The
Winslow, Lower Colorado aquifer flows into, and the surface
waters flow into the Colorado River, and the Santa Cruz River
flows into Mexico.
And so these are fairly significant areas of water for
Arizona, and for the 40 million people in the Colorado River.
We also have a spring that feeds the Colorado River, about
182,000 acre-feet of water a year.
The significance is, each and every one of these locations
has nearby major construction, East-West Corridors for
commerce. And it is critical that we provide some level of
assurance that those corridors are kept open. They feed the
Port of Los Angeles, and all the Eastern United States with
what comes out of that port.
And additionally, the Flagstaff area, the downtown area
also includes the Northern Arizona University. And the Northern
Arizona University is the major university in North Arizona,
and has about 30,000 students.
So, we have a complex process throughout rural Arizona, but
these are the three major projects, and I have another five
watersheds within the area, and some of these have overflow
into those watersheds.
Ms. Kaptur. Looking ahead 50 years, if you had to advise
the Corps for your district, what would you say?
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, first of all, we have been lucky
enough to have the Corps out there on each of these projects, I
have been there with them multiple times.
I would advise that these are growing areas. Arizona is one
of the fastest-growing areas in the country, and if we are to
provide the necessary flood capability, stopping floods now and
into the future, the sooner we get this done the more
availability we will have for funding down the line for other
projects. And these are critical projects.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you anticipated water shortages?
Mr. O'Halleran. Pardon me?
Ms. Kaptur. Do you anticipate water shortages in the future
in your specific district?
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, damage to water but water shortages
are something that Arizona is going to have to live with. And
we are going to have ground water shortages, and surface water
shortages, if we don't address the issue of how we manage our
water, whether it is water that flows through during flood
stages, or water from underground. But that is also supplied by
the amount of water that we can keep in the basin.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I would just say, if you have not been, Madam
Chairwoman, down to the Everglades and taken a tour of it, it
would be very helpful. This is the largest environmental
restoration program that has ever been attempted. And the
Federal Government has been up and down, and up and down in
their funding, and what they need is some consistent funding,
is what I learned. But they will take you on a helicopter and
take you around and show you what they are doing.
It is an amazing restoration project, and as you saw last
year from the red tides, and other things that happened, this
is devastating to the residents of Florida, but also to
restoring the Everglades to what it used to be.
And so I support what you are doing. And look forward to
working with you and see what we can do. We all know that the
Army Corps of Engineers' budget is, what was proposed is
proposed. Every administration does it. And then we have to
fill in the gaps. And we will do that I suspect, because there
are so many members; and when I look at the list of members
that are testifying, a whole of the Army Corps of Engineers
stuff. So, appreciate your being here today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Newhouse, we
went a little over on this panel, you are lucky, because we had
a cancellation of one of our witnesses on this panel. But we
are going to proceed now. And any additional information you
wish to provide to the record. I heard what the Ranking Member
said about the Everglades, several people have invited us down
to the Everglades.
I guess I ask myself the question, looking at the 20th
Century, and then looking at the proposal for what is being
done, my final question really is, do you think that we can
restore the Everglades to their natural state? Or are these
engineered systems simply not meeting the reality of what is
happening in the ecosystem?
Mr. Mast. It will never be exactly the same as its natural
state. As much of what used to be the Everglades is now
developed area. That is the nature of development, that is the
nature of literally hundreds of thousands of people moving into
the State of Florida every single year, but it still needs to
be repaired so that it can function in the same way that it
used to, allowing water to flow through the watersheds, coming
all the way down from Orlando, through Lake Okeechobee into the
Florida Everglades and out into the Florida Bay.
This type of kidney system needs to operate that way for
the State of Florida otherwise it messes up everything in
between. So, while it may not look exactly the same, it needs
to go back to functioning in the way God intended it.
Mr. Simpson. If I could, Madam Chairwoman? What is the
State of Florida doing on the nutrient loading? It has been a
challenge.
Mr. Mast. We divide the problems up in the State of Florida
to, one, are you sending fresh water where it needs to go,
versus where it doesn't need to go? But beyond that, when you
are sending fresh water to different places, it doesn't have
too many nutrients in it, and how can we prevent it from being
dirty fresh water?
Those are two separate problems that we deal with. Best
management practices are something that are constantly going
into place, building reservoirs to go out there and store the
water, clean the water, and then send the water into the
appropriate directions, because those are drinking water
supplies, and there are requirements for parts-per-billion in
these different waterways, such as the Everglades, such as
other areas that provide municipal drinking water, like a place
called Grassy Waters.
There are parts-per-billion standards to send that water
into those places, so the State has gone and put in places to
clean these waters, stormwater treatment areas, things like
that, to bring them up to the water quality standard that they
need to be, but it can't keep up with the amount of rainfall
and flow that Florida gets when all of that water rushes from
North down to South. The system can't keep up with it, with the
dammed up lake, and with limited canals to send the water out
to tide, which, as I said, when you are wasting 7 millions a
minute, often, that is just in 1 direction out to tide, that is
a tremendous waste when just a little bit downstream, the water
is needed.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, any
additional material you wish to provide to the record for our
members would be very much appreciated. We have three or four
competing hearings this morning, so our members are running in
every direction. And I wanted to share with you the Algal Bloom
problem up in the Great Lakes. It is very interesting what you
said today about fresh water versus salt water and the impact
of fresh water on Algal Blooms. That was most interesting to
me. We share that common condition and I thank you for your
leadership. Thank you gentlemen both for being here this
morning.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. We appreciate your attendance. Yes, we would
now like to call Congressman Robert Wittman of Virginia and
Representative Dina Titus of Nevada. Congressman Wittman, thank
you for appearing before us this morning.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Mr. Wittman. Madam Chairwoman, thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Please proceed.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today
and as a representative from Virginia, home to the Port of
Virginia, one of the largest and busiest ports in the Eastern
Seaboard, adequately funding the Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Program in directing at least one construction new start
designation for navigation are essential to maintaining and
advancing the work done by the Port of Virginia to expand and
improve its operations. Since 2014, that is what is calling the
Port of Virginia--calling on the Port of Virginia to have
nearly doubled in size from 8,000, 20-foot equivalent units,
which is how they measure containers that go on ships that are
known as TEUs to 14,400 TEUs. And based on this growth, the
Port is preparing for 16 to 18,000 TEU ultra-large container
vessels in the near future. At its current depth and width, the
Port is experiencing an urgent need to deepen and expand its
channels. In January, 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
called for additional deepening and widening of the Port's
Thimble Shoal Channel and in February of 2018, the Corps
recommended to Congress additional widening to 1,400 feet in
the Thimble Shoal Channel at the Port. The deepening to 55 feet
and widening to 1,400 feet as recommended by the Corps of the
Thimble Shoal Channel received full authorization when
President Trump signed into law the Water Resources Development
Act, better known as WRDA of 2018. Currently, the Port of
Virginia is the fifth largest container Port complex in the
United States. It manages cargo ranging from containers,
vehicles and non-containerized cargos and commodities ranging
from forest products, minerals and grains to auto parts and
retail merchandise. It is a national gateway for waterborne
commerce supporting businesses in all 48 contiguous states with
35 percent of its cargo moving by rail. The Port of Virginia
leads the East Coast and Gulf Coast in percentage of rail serve
cargo. So, it is a critical part of a multi-modal
transportation effort underway in the nation. Cargo moving
through the Port operations help support 5,000, excuse me,
530,000 jobs across Virginia, which is about one out of every
nine residents in the state and it generates $88.4 billion in
annual economic impact to Virginia. The frequency of ultra-
large container vessels calling on the Port of Virginia has
increased dramatically, displacing smaller vessels in leading
to one-way traffic through its harbor and channels. These
ultra-large contained vessels are better known as Panamax
vessels because they are the ones that can now traverse the
Panama Canal with the deepening and widening of the Panama
Canal, so that opens up a lot of opportunities obviously here
in the ports. Curtain navigation of one-way traffic is not
sustainable and creates uncertainty and inefficiency for
businesses and their supply chains as well as customers.
Additionally, one-way traffic has led to interruptions of
vessels at Norfolk Naval Station, presenting possible national
security concerns. The canal, even with its initial widening
could not allow for the transactioning of two vessels, the
Naval vessel and one of these ultra-large container commercial
vessels.
Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me, Congressman, did you provide a
visual that we could display with your testimony?
Mr. Wittman. I do not, but I can get one to you and show
you where the widening would take place where these ships can
go through. Essentially, what they have at the Port there is a
station that is actually suspended over the water with people
there that are kind of like the air traffic controllers of the
Port. So, they direct ships going back and forth. With these
areas where you can widen the 1,400 feet, would essential allow
passing lanes, so they could direct traffic, slow it down and
speed it up, so that when these ships got to these areas, they
could transact.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. So, we will do that. In the widening the 1,400
feet will make way for safe and efficient two-way passage
between larger commercial vessels and the other operations in
the harbor and channels, including the Navy. As larger vessels
continue to call on the Port of Virginia, increasing the depth
of the channels at the Port is becoming progressively more
important. By deepening the 55 feet, the port is positioned to
allow larger ships visiting the ships to arrive and depart
fully loaded and will make for safer and more timely passage
through the channels. Public and private non-federal interests
have invested billions of dollars on landsite infrastructure to
prepare for the future and are prepared to provide additional
investments to complete these crucial navigation projects.
Between the Port's two major terminal improvement projects, the
Port and the State of Virginia have invested a combined $670
million that will improve and expand the Port's operations.
Additionally, the State has made an additional investment of
$350 million for navigation improvement to complement federal
investments in the Norfolk Harbor and Channel Project. With the
benefit-to-cost ratio, a more than $5 return for every $1
invested in construction, the Norfolk Harbor deepening and
widening presents a huge return on investment for the nation.
It will allow American business from across the country to
further benefit from the Port of Virginia as an integral part
of their supply chain. To continue the momentum exhibited by
2018 and the $2.5 million included in the President's fiscal
year 2020 budget for preconstruction engineering and design for
the Thimble Shoal's Channel widening and deepening, I have
submitted the following document to the subcommittee. $2.6
billion in total funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
construction account; $50 million in total funding for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account;
donor and energy transfer program; and $1.59 billion in total
funding for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and at least one
construction or new start designation for navigation. Madam
Chairwoman, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Simpson for
your interest and time to come before you today to testify to
relay to you the importance of this project, not only to
Virginia, but all 48 contiguous states here in the continental
United States. The business that goes out of there, the multi-
level transportation connections, all of those elements are
critically important for the nation and our economy. And as I
said, the return on investment for $5 for every $1 invested by
the Federal Government, I think is a very good return on
investment.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Congresswoman Titus, welcome.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking
Member, other members of the Committee. Unlike most of the
people that are before you today asking for money, I am here
asking you not to spend money. The relationship between the
Department of Energy agencies and the State of Nevada has been
a long and difficult one. For 3 decades, DOE has tried to force
Nevada to become the dumping ground for the nation's waste. A
proposal we fought since the Scrutiny of Atta Act was signed
into law in 1987. We do not use nuclear energy; we do not
produce nuclear waste; and we should not be forced to store it.
In 2009, President Obama rightfully announced that the
Administration would not seek funding for this misguided
project. In 2012, then, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
nuclear future advocated for consent-based siting of nuclear
repositories. That sentiment was echoed by the recent reset of
America's Nuclear Waste Management Strategy and Policies Report
that was led by a panel of exports including former Nuclear
Regulatory Commission members. This is what most nuclear
nations around the world have done or are doing to address
nuclear waste. Yet, the Administration, along with some of
their friends here on the Hill are continuing to pursue this
failed strategy. Accordingly, the budget submitted by the
President includes $116 million to restart the Yucca Mountain
licensing process. This figure actually hides the real costs of
continuing down this path. In 2008, DOE estimated that without
major interruptions and at the nearly 400 contentions raised by
the state of Nevada are somehow adjudicated and dismissed, it
would still take $1.66 billion just to complete the licensing
process and if that were to happen according to an estimate by
the State of Nevada, based on cost studies prepared by DOE,
construction to complete the Yucca Mountain repository would
cost an additional $96 billion, $96 billion. That figure does
not even take in account the cost of transportation of this
highly nuclear active waste that would go through 44 states and
the District of Columbia, including 330 Congressional
Districts. It would ride on nearly 100,000 trucks, which is an
average of 4 to 6 trucks every day for 50 years. Congress has
already wasted $15 billion on this doomed project that is now
just a hole in the ground and we should not waste a penny more.
The process that has gotten us this far was driven by bad
politics, not good science. There is serious concerns about
seismic hazards near Yucca Mountain; the project would border
on the largest air and ground military training space in the
United States, that is the Nevada Test and Training Range,
which has caused the Secretary of the Air Force to express
concerns about Yucca Mountain. So, until we recognize here in
Congress that without the consent of the state, the affected
local governments and tribal communities, there is just not
going to be a reasonable solution to storing this waste. I
think we need to look for a solution. We do not want to just
say no, but this is not it. Second, I would like to bring to
your attention another issue of concern with the DOE. Last
year, the State of California sued the Department over its
failure to complete the mixed oxide fuel or Mox facility. That
facility, as you know, is to be built to process weapons grade
plutonium, but the Department failed to take into account the
ballooning costs associated for the facility and the Trump
Administration killed the project. That is when South Carolina
sued. A Federal judge directed the Department then to remove
the plutonium that was being stored in South Carolina and put
it somewhere else. Following the ruling, the DOE proposal
identified two sites, one of which was the Nevada National
Security Site located 70 miles from Las Vegas as one of the two
recipients. The State of Nevada then filed suit arguing that
the state, I mean, the DOE had not adequately studied the
potential dangers of moving this plutonium to an area that is
subject to flash floods and earthquakes. That is a claim that
has since been reinforced by a recent report by the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Now, the real disturbing part
was during oral arguments of this lawsuit, last January, the
DOE failed to disclose to a Federal judge, or to anybody in
Nevada that the plutonium had already been shipped to Nevada
and it was sitting at the test site. They are required to move
an additional 5 metric tons out of South Carolina in the coming
years. After all the flap occurred, the Department now says it
is not going to send any more to Nevada, but considering their
actions and their untrustworthiness to this point, Congress
should prohibit any more funds from being use to insure that
DOE keeps its word. So, I am asking you, please do not spend
any more money on licensing of Yucca Mountain and please do not
give DOE any money to ship those extra 5 metric tons of
plutonium to Nevada. With that, I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Simpson, do
you have any questions?
Mr. Simpson. No. We could have a big discussion that would
go on a long time about pros and cons. They talk about consent
based. I know of no community that will become a permanent
repository for nuclear waste based on consent. Now, some will
take interim storage. I am not sure how willing they are going
to be to do that if we close down the only possible permanent
geological repository that we have been working on for 30
years. So, it is a challenge. I understand where you are coming
from. I understand Nevada does not have any nuclear facilities,
except at that site, or use nuclear power. Idaho actually does
not have, if you can believe it, we do not have any ships of
the nuclear Navy that sail in Idaho. Yet, we take all the waste
from the nuclear Navy. So, it is a challenging issue. It has to
be resolved. Anyway, thank you for being here today. I noticed
that Rob, you are smiling today. Does it have anything to do
with anything beyond your testimony?
Mr. Wittman. Well, there is a pretty spectacular basketball
game that was on last night and we were very happy with the
results. Much to the chagrin of our colleagues in Texas.
Mr. Simpson. Congratulations.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Madam, may I respond to that just briefly.
Ms. Kaptur. Please.
Ms. Titus. And I understand that we do not need to get into
an argument, but I would think that you could equate taking the
Navy's waste to what Nevada has done for the Nevada Test Site
and testing of weapons. Those two things are up for national
security. This is commercial waste we are talking about, Yucca
Mountain and that is a whole different kind of story. Second--
--
Mr. Simpson. Not all commercial waste.
Ms. Titus. I am sorry.
Mr. Simpson. Not all commercial waste. The waste from the
Nuclear Navy is destined for Yucca Mountain if it ever opens.
That is Defense waste.
Ms. Titus. Well, that will be news to us, so that is
another way we need to get more information from DOE. I would
just point out that you are right. To allow and consent for
interim seems to me and not allowing it for permanent, totally
irrational if you are going to allow it for interim, why would
you not allow it for permanent and I have sat right before the
Rules Committee where Former Member Sessions said Texas would
like to have it. So, maybe there are some communities if they
are involved in the decision-making would not be as opposed to
it as we are because it has just been rammed down our throat
and in Europe, that is the way they do it and it has worked
very effectively. So, you are right, it is an argument, but
there are points on both sides that can be made.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah and I would just say, I do not know
anyplace in Europe that has a permanent geological repository.
It is all temporary. And so we are just pushing the can down
the road and have been doing it for 30 or 40 years and we need
to come to some conclusion on this. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to ask the Congresswoman if there are
any materials you could make available to the Committee to
augment the record regarding the seismic information that has
been coming forward. We would be grateful for that. I think the
average member really does not know the size of this facility
and if you have any graphic material that you could provide us,
that would be helpful. You are a very effective spokeswoman for
the State of Nevada. I thank you for testifying.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Chairwoman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. And I wanted to say, as I said to the prior
panel, there are many members in our subcommittee that are
faithful attendees, but we have 3 or 4 concurrent subcommittee
meetings going on, on appropriations, so they all could not be
here with us. Congressman Wittman, I wanted to ask you as this
panel departs, could you describe any changes in the ecosystem
that you see occurring in the Virginia area. I have heard about
rising sea levels that are affecting rail lines in Virginia for
example. Could you kind of orient us a little bit from an
ecosystem standpoint as to some of the environmental
challenges, your region, as you attempt to invest in the Port
complex, what are some of the changing environmental conditions
that you have experienced in Virginia?
Mr. Wittman. Sure, well, there has been some new
construction on the Port facility down there and a heightening
of the tunnels where the rail line goes through, so now they
can double stack containers, but all the rail lines that come
into the new areas there are not impacted by any of the storm
events that are in the area there. The additional sediment that
would come from this project would go to a place called Craney
Island which is a place that is slated to become an expanded
facility for container ships to come to. Obviously, with this,
what they would do is use that sediment to elevate that so it
would be a more resilient and we have done a number of things
with coastal resiliency in the area there concerning the ports,
the port facilities, the connectors, the road connectors, the
rail connectors to make sure it is resilient to the impacts of
storm events. So, I think it----
Ms. Kaptur. You see rising sea levels or more feared storm
events?
Mr. Wittman. Yes, all of those in the same category. The
impact that we are seeing from the storm events, from sea level
conditions, all those elements are either factored into some of
the construction projects that have recently happened with the
advancement of the rail lines there, but the newest port
facility that was built over on the other side of the Elizabeth
River in Portsmouth, was built at a higher elevation to be able
to mitigate, or excuse me, to adapt to these conditions. The
new facility that is being privately built to Craney Island
will be built at a high elevation using the sediment that comes
out of the dredging projects and higher bulkheads, so it will
be resilient based upon the current conditions there and
anything projected out into the future.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both very much for appearing.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. We will seriously consider what you have
recommended.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Thank you Chairman Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Jim Hagedorn of Minnesota and
Representative Fred Upton of Michigan. Come forward Great
Lakes. And I think Hagedorn was first, was he not? Okay. We
will take the witnesses in order of appearance. Congressman
Hagedorn. Thank you very much for joining us today.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JIM HAGEDORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Mr. Hagedorn. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking
Member Simpson, pleasure to be here. I am here on behalf of the
constituents of Southern Minnesota. My district is one of those
rural districts that goes all the way from South Dakota to
Wisconsin and then Iowa up about 80 miles. So there is some
areas with the Mississippi River that we border with Wisconsin
that are very important to us and our way of life.
The first district of Minnesota is one of the top 10
agricultural producing districts in all the Nation. And of
course our farmers and agri-businesses rely quite a bit on
being able to transport their goods. And a lot of that goes
right down the Mississippi River.
So I wanted to be here today to talk about what's going on
there. And I ask for appropriations to make sure that we can
maintain the locks and dams, our infrastructure, can continue
to do the maintenance to make sure we have efficient, effective
ways of delivering our goods and preserving our way of life.
And frankly, it is a national security issue. Where would we be
if we couldn't have a vibrant agricultural base and we ended up
having to import our food and things of that nature. We would
be in big trouble.
So it is evident that keeping our Nation's waterways
transportation system modernized and maintained is essential to
our economy and our way of life. And I am before you today to
ask and encourage two funding requests with regard to our
Nation's waterway systems. This system carries about 600
million tons of cargo to and from 38 States, including a
significant portion of our Nation's agricultural products.
However, much of the physical infrastructure of our inland
waterway system is aging and in critical need of maintenance.
Commercial navigational locks have a design life of about 50
years, and yet over half of the existing locks on our Nation's
waterways are more than 60 years old.
I have met with the mayor of Winona, I have met with the
city administrator there, the county officials, people in
Houston County, and they can tell you, along with the Army
Corps of Engineers, I met with them, and Farm Bureau and
others, that it is really, really critical that we continue to
maintain the locks and dams and we have our shipping in good
shape.
At first I respectfully request the subcommittee to
appropriate an Army Corps of Engineers operating and
maintenance account funding level of at least 3.74 billion for
fiscal year 2020 and for the operation and maintenance of
activities of the Corps, including those affecting inland and
coastal navigation throughout the Nation.
This appropriation request is the same level signed in the
law in the fiscal year 2019, the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill. And it is my belief that investing in the
maintenance of our infrastructure today will benefit taxpayers
in the future.
Second, I would ask and encourage the subcommittee to
provide 10 million in fiscal year 2020 for the investigations
account of the Corps of Engineers to continue pre-construction
engineering and design for the navigation and eco
sustainability program, upper Mississippi River and Illinois
Waterway System as authorized in Title VIII of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. This funding will support
continued pre-construction engineering and design funding for
already authorized projects at Lock and Dam 25 on the
Mississippi River in Missouri, and at the LaGrange Lock and Dam
on the Illinois Waterway in Illinois.
Both projects have been identified as priority authorized
projects in the Inland Marine Transportation Systems Capital
Projects Business Model, the Joint U.S. Corps of Engineers
Industry Capital Development Plan. And that's all from April
13, 2010.
In closing, I would like to emphasize again the vital role
inland waterways play in transporting our Nation's commodities
in a cost-effective manner. Hard-working Southern Minnesota
farmers abundantly produce some of the finest agricultural
products in all the world, a maintained inland waterway system
is critical to their ability to distribute these products to
the Nation and the world efficiently and effectively. And I
encourage my colleagues to appropriately fund those needed
moneys.
So with that, Madam Chair, thank you for your time, and
Ranking Member, happy to answer any questions you might have.
And I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Hagedorn. And
if you have any visuals that you want to submit, we would
greatly appreciate those, particularly because you represent a
piece of a very long corridor.
And I will just say when the Corps testified earlier this
year, they said that between the Rocky Mountains and the
Appalachians, that whole basin has about 42 percent of the
Nation's rainfall that fell this past year. Eventually comes
down the Mississippi, down to New Orleans, and it was 125 year
high. And we see Members from that corridor struggling with
their districts and different issues, levees broke, lot of
things happened.
As I said on prior panels, individual members come here,
they talk about the project in their district. I think it would
be really valuable if a leader like yourself could work on a
bipartisan basis with members along that corridor, and once we
finish our formal hearings, could come together to talk about
what's happening in the entire corridor. Because I think over
the next 50 to 100 years the country is going to have to do
some additional things in terms of Corps planning for this vast
region where we have so much water fall. And, yes, we are
repairing damage and we can't really sustain the President's
cuts that he has recommended in this budget. That would be
really backward looking for the Nation. So we appreciate your
appearance today.
But I think Members need to understand what is happening in
that corridor. I think you can help in that. You are very
savvy, you are paying attention to what's happening in your
region, and rather than just having someone come from the
Northern part, the Red River, let's say, Valley, or down from
New Orleans, it would be really nice to have the
representatives from the Mississippi River and Missouri come
together here and just have a discussion. I look forward to
that once the formal hearings are over. So I just mention it to
you.
Mr. Hagedorn. It's a very good idea, something that I would
like to do and work with Members on a bipartisan basis. And you
notice today I mentioned a couple of projects that are far
south of the particular district. So we are in this together
and I understand how important it is for the entire river to
maintain.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. There are so many choke points. Thank you. Your
colleague from the Wolverine State, Congressman Fred Upton,
thank you so very much for taking time from your own
responsibilities to be here today.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well thank you, Madam Chair, and my friend, Mr.
Simpson, as well. It is a delight to be here, and I am here to
express my strong support for the President's request. It is a
pleasure to be here. Thank you my two friends, and colleague.
I am here to urge this subcommittee to act favorably to the
President's request. And in fact if he doubled it it would even
be better. To restart Federal efforts to complete the licensing
process for a nuclear waste repository.
We need to complete the licensing process. This has been a
bipartisan issue for decades. We need to complete the licensing
because it is absolutely critical to opening the path to
meeting the Nation's legal and moral obligations to dispose of
the used nuclear fuel and other high level waste currently
stranded at 121 sites in 39 states around the country.
I would note that Michigan has three active nuclear energy
reactors and one closed one. In fact that closed one has been
closed for nearly 40 years. It is time to get it off sensitive
environmental areas and into one safe place.
This Congress has worked, we have worked as a Congress for
many years on a bipartisan basis. Thanks to Mr. Shimkus' lead
in the last Congress we had 49 votes, as I recall, in the
Energy and Commerce Committee. Traditionally we have well over
300 votes on the House floor when this issue is brought up. And
it is time to actually deliver. And we have got a President who
will sign this, it is in his budget, we need to take action so
that we can restart this process.
I would recognize that the failure to take timely action
will continue to strand waste in our states, and certainly in
the Great Lakes, where rate payers have paid some $40 billion
towards the permanent repository. We are looking at nearly a
billion dollars a year in delays. It needs to happen.
And as I have you, I would also urge that we have strong
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers navigation and
maintenance and operation activities.
Again in the Great Lakes we have a good number of
commercial and recreational harbors. But in particular I would
note funds for section 216 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1970 which enables the Corps to review operations of completed
projects, the physical, economic, or environmental conditions
and a final report is made to Congress on advisability for
modifying the structure for operations.
I have one small community, the city of New Buffalo, which
is just north of the State line in Mr. Visclosky's district
where we have had severe erosion. It has damaged private
property, it could potentially threaten the water supply as the
pump house is located in the area being eroded. This is a
project that is eligible to compete for section 216 funding,
but obviously we have to have adequate resources there, and I
would urge you to continue to work in a bipartisan basis so
that we Members not on the subcommittee and Appropriations can
continue to support your good efforts.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much. As you know, both the
Ranking Member and myself are uncomfortable, I think it is fair
to say that, with the administration slashing the Corps
accounts, the investigations accounts, so many of the accounts
that we have a responsibility to care for the Nation through
passage of this bill.
So we are very grateful for your testimony today. If
Congressman Simpson has any questions or comments he wishes to
make at this point?
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate both of you being here. Obviously
we agree on Yucca Mountain. We have taken, I don't know, a
gazillion votes on the Floor since I have been here on Yucca
Mountain, and as you said, it always gets 300 or so votes. It
is bipartisan. Politics has stopped us from solving this
problem. And we need to just move on and get it done.
So I agree with what you said, Jim. Is Redwood Falls in
your district?
Mr. Hagedorn. No, it's not.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I was just wondering because I had my
Legislative Director here and then my Staff Director out in the
district, his father was from Redwood Falls and on the City
Council, that's where he is from and he brought a lot of
Minnesotan to our----
Mr. Hagedorn. That's like 30 miles north of where our
district is.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. Anyway, I agree with you that--the
President's budget is always a little bit concerning, they
never spend down the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, the
anticipated revenue. This year I think it is around half of
what we anticipate in revenue. If you are going to tax somebody
for a purpose, and for a need, and you still have that need,
why not spend that money on that need? But yet it makes it
easier for them to put together a budget where they slash the
heck out of the Army Corps of Engineers.
So that's something that the Chairwoman and I are concerned
about, obviously, with the President's request on the Army
Corps. I don't suspect it is going to stay where it is. We need
to continue having this fight.
I'm sorry, I was going to ask you a question. I will wait
for Congressman Shimkus' testimony because he is the author of
the legislation that we passed last year in the House.
So anyway, thank you all for being here.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Fleischmann, do you have any
questions or comments?
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I, too, will be
waiting for Mr. Shimkus' testimony, but Congressman Upton and
Hagedorn, thank you so much.
Yucca, to reiterate these sentiments, needs to be done. It
has been funded, it has been largely constructed, it is ready
to go. And the American people need this done. We are going to
have a nuclear renaissance in this country and we need that
final repository.
But kudos do go to my dear, dear friend from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus, on the authorizing side. He has been the hero of this
since I have been in Congress. And as an appropriator,
gentlemen, I give you my word that we are going to continue to
do everything to get this funded. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Madam Chair, if I might just again compliment
Mr. Shimkus for a moment. It does appear that we are on the
cusp of actually getting something through. But we have to take
the initiative here in the House. But it appears as though the
Senate, with the Members that are there, particularly Senator
Alexander and McConnell, are ready to have a vote on this
issue. But that is why it is important that we show our stuff
here in the House. Because if we are unable to do that, I am
not sure that that would happen.
So this is the opportunity for us to really embark on early
in the year, get it done in the first year so we can get it
done and this stuff off the shores of Lake Michigan and other
environmental sensitive areas, and really make a move forward.
Long overdue. Thank you. Yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And Congressman Upton, I
want to thank you for your leadership on many Great Lakes
issues. They are sorely needed and they are effective. You are
held in such high esteem.
And, Congressman Hagedorn, we thank you very much for being
here this morning. I would ask both of you, if you have visual
material that we can incorporate in the record on the specific
projects you talked about, that would be most useful to the
Membership.
Mr. Hagedorn. Okay. I will get to work on it.
Mr. Simpson. If you would like, we used to have a great big
picture in here of Yucca Mountain.
Ms. Kaptur. I was referring to the Corps project.
Mr. Upton. At one time we were ready to name if Marky
Mountain because it was opposition. What is it we can do to get
you to support this thing?
Mr. Simpson. They didn't take that down, I took it down,
out of the room.
Ms. Kaptur. Actually it is a good idea though. We should
probably have some type of geographic footprint of that
facility so Members can contemplate their positions.
Thank you both for being here this morning. We have many
Members waiting.
We would like to invite Congressman John Shimkus of
Illinois to the table, and Congressman Rick Allen of Georgia.
Thank you for joining us this morning. Congressman Shimkus, we
are going to begin with you. Thank you for your dogged efforts
on trying to reach a reasonable solution for our country on
spent nuclear fuels. And we welcome your testimony this
morning.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is really great
to be here, and I am going to try to use my time effectively
and efficiently.
That the simple task is is to support the President's
request of $116 million for DOE and $38.5 million for the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In addition to my prepared testimony submitted to the
Committee, I placed state appropriate folders at your desk. So
I would like to go through what's in those files, or in the
folder.
First there is a copy of the bipartisan letter signed by
colleagues to support this appropriation request, bipartisan. A
chart and table that is showing the request and an enacted
appropriations since 1997. That's the year I entered Congress,
that is why I went back to 97. We also have a sheet explaining
the 30 billion and growing cost of inaction. And I want to
focus on this a little bit because these blue bars are non-
appropriated money. It is out of the Judgment Fund. So it is
spending that we have to do that we don't account for. And it
is going to grow, and, unfortunately, I think it is $2 million
a day that we are spending to do nothing.
You also will see a picture of the country that has all the
31 States, 120 locations where there is spent fuel or defense
waste throughout. Then you should have, and I have mine, a fact
sheet from your State in there, where your spent fuel or your
defense waste is.
And everyone on this subcommittee has some in their State,
with the exception of Mr. Visclosky. The State of Indiana has
no defense waste or no nuclear power plants. So I wanted to
make sure I highlighted those issues.
The Nuclear Waste Fund has around $40 billion currently on
the books to finish licensing, construction, and operation of a
geological repository for high level waste. Now this is what
rate payers have paid into a fund to solve this problem.
Over the past 30 years, $15 billion has been spent to
provide us with these two stacks of science that I brought
before you right now, on this dolly right here. I think there
are 16 volumes. Sixteen volumes, which accounts for billions of
dollars in research by our national labs. It is all national
labs research done on Yucca Mountain.
It demonstrates that DOE can safely build--through this
report, DOE says it can safely build and operate the repository
in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Now on the desk here, so it went from DOE to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
an independent agency, so it is independent. So they took those
16 volumes and they created five volumes of their analysis of
the science. So we have had two Federal Government smart people
groups look at the science behind this.
This is the NRC staff's detailed and comprehensive review
of DOE's application. As I said, it is five volumes, and the
final volume was published in January, 2015. This was reviewed
by experts in geochemistry, hydrology, climatology, structural
geology, volcanology, seismology, and health physics, as well
as chemical, civil, mechanical, and nuclear mining materials
and geological engineering. So that's who looked at that to
come up this conclusion.
The law gives the State of Nevada the right to make their
case against these two pieces of science against the DOE
analysis and the NRC evaluations before the Atomic Safety
Licensing Board panel. This panel is composed of administrative
judges who are lawyers, engineers and scientists, so pretty
smart folks. The folders contain background document from the
NRC explaining the entire licensing process and that's also in
the folder I just gave you. On the left side is the NRC
analysis.
From the NRC Background document, it says this. If the
adjudication were to resume, one or more boards would hear
evidence and issue decisions on approximately 300 admitted
issues contesting the DOE's application and the NRC staffs
decision to adopt the DOE environmental impact statement.
Nevada may appeal the Board's decision to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The commission's final decision may also
be appealed by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
What is the bottom line? The money that we are asking for
does not turn one shovel of dirt. That is unfortunate because
we need to move forward. What it does, it gives a state a say
in the science which is something if you've read the recent
press sometimes that they want. They want a chance to argue the
science.
So this money request is a simple request, let's get a
final decision on the science and then decide how we want to
move forward. If through this process this licensing board says
it's not safe, per the law we are done. But to keep the rate
payers and the states and the communities held hostage because
we are unwilling to have the final debate on the science, I
just don't think it is good public policy. And with that I went
over my time I thank you and I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Well, Congressman Shimkus, you are the only
witness that has appeared before us that was respectful of the
time limit. Thank you so very, very much. And we will hold the
question for the moment. We would like to hear from Congressman
Allen.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. RICK W. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the
committee for allowing me to provide this testimony and
highlight issues that are critical to the 12th Congressional
District of Georgia.
My district is home to many constituents that work at the
Savannah River Site, a Department of Energy Environmental
Management site right across the river in South Carolina.
The Savannah River Site is home to many critical missions,
including H-Canyon, the Nation's only hardened nuclear chemical
separations facility, the Tritium Extraction Facility, tank
closure, and the Savannah River National Lab, to mention a few.
The President's budget request includes full funding for
the Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and Disposition
account, and I urge the committee to do the same.
To ensure that the Risk Management Operations can proceed
uninterrupted, especially H-Canyon's mission of safely
processing highly radioactive materials, I request that the
subcommittee fund this account at a total of $597,405,000 for
fiscal year 2020, an additional $50 million above the
President's budget request.
Additionally, the Nuclear National Security Administration,
NNSA, has recommended the Savannah River Site as the most
viable location for the proposed two site solution for
plutonium pit production.
I support this decision, and ask the committee to fully
fund the Directed Stockpile Work account, which would support
the design of the Savannah River Plutonium Process Facility
Project. The President included this recommendation and full
funding in his budget request.
The Savannah River Site has repeatedly answered the call to
safeguard our National security, and we must ensure we meet the
Department of Defense requirements for plutonium pit production
and an aggressive timeline for a modernized nuclear inventory.
Georgia's 12th Congressional District is also home to two
nuclear power plants, Plant Vogtle and Plant Hatch. In fact,
the 12th District of Georgia has about--will have about 80
percent of the nuclear generating capacity of the Southern
Company.
The first two nuclear reactors to be built in 30 years are
currently under construction at Plant Vogtle. We have thousands
of spent fuel rods being held in spent fuel pools and dry cask
storage containers on site, and with the next two reactors set
to come online, the amount of spent fuel will increase.
We must have a permanent geological site, the Yucca
Mountain, to manage our nuclear waste. I urge the committee to
support the President's budget request for FY 2020 for nuclear
waste disposal.
Finally, just south of my district is Savannah, Georgia,
home of the fastest growing port in the United States, the Port
of Savannah. The Port of Savannah is in the midst of a
multiyear deepening project. One that will add approximately
$282 million in annual economic benefits when completed.
The President's budget for FY 2020 recommends full funding
for the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project at $130 million. And
I urge the subcommittee to support and allocate that amount in
their FY 2020 Energy and Water bill.
All of the issues I have highlighted today have strong,
bipartisan support. I want to thank the House Appropriations
Committee for their work, and I look forward to working with
them to provide the funds necessary for these projects. And I
appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony before you
today. Thank you very much and I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Again, thank you both for coming. Congressman
Shimkus we know of your leadership on many issues including
championing Yucca Mountain and trying to reach a scientific
decision.
Congressman Allen, thank you so very much for providing us
with visual materials also about your district and about the
needs of the Port of Savannah and other energy related projects
in your region.
And we thank you both for your appearance today. Let's turn
it over to the ranking member. Do you have any questions or
comments, Congressman Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Sure. Thank you, Rick, for being here today. I
have been both to Savannah River, the DOE site there, three or
four times over the years and I have also been out to the port,
this was years ago when Hobson was chairman of this committee.
We went down and took a look at it. So I am familiar with your
issues there but thanks for being here today.
John, as you know this has been a struggle over the last
several years. What happens if we don't continue funding for
Yucca Mountain and we go to conference with the Senate and they
adopt their language for interim storage, which I view as
inadequate? That's always been the debate we have been having.
Now you have passed a bill. They've never actually brought
a bill to the floor and passed it.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. I think what--no one really knows
what will happen. First of all, I think there is going to be a
lot more opposition than people think because de facto interim
could be de facto long term. The NRC does a short term
evaluation for interim 40 to 60 years.
So then what happens in 40, 60 years? You picked it up and
move it again? Or that the scientific consensus of the world
and we see this going on in other places is long term
geological storage. Which would require then that you all, and
us, to start looking for another site of a long term geological
repository.
And my guess it would take another 30 years and another $15
billion to come back with this type of information on another
state in the union.
Now, you know, the importance of this is that the DOE and
our labs have done the scientific analysis and more ologists
than I even knew existed from volcanologists to hydrologists
and all this other stuff. And then the independent Nuclear
Regulatory Commission did this.
So they have evaluated the science. I think the other thing
to mention and for those of us who have traveled out to Yucca
Mountain, I would encourage Madam Chairman to take your
subcommittee out there. It's very instructive.
Because that's where we had the nuclear test explosions,
you have Yucca Flats there, the Federal Government land mass is
the size of the state of Connecticut. So it's really not, we
are not taking private property. We are not taking, this is
government land that's been used for our Nation's security.
We would have to look elsewhere and when this process
started, there were 10 states that they started going down the
path. Nevada was always that top of each evaluation list.
But you think we are not going to revisit this in 30 years?
If--again, the financial request is just, is really simple.
It's not to build. It's to have a debate on the science. And
the sooner we get that done, the sooner we decide we can move
in or we have to start looking for another place.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. If either of you wish to provide
additional visual material that we can include with your
testimony, please do. And we will share it with the entire
membership.
We thank you both for your--oh, did you have a question,
Mr. Fleischmann? I'm sorry.
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chairman, thank you. I just have a
brief comment to Congressman Allen. Thank you for your
avocation for environmental cleanup.
Our distinguished ranking member from Idaho has a DOE
reservation. I have Oak Ridge but the Savannah River site is a
great site so the cleanup issues are critically important. We
have a very strong bipartisan Nuclear Cleanup Caucus and
National Labs Caucus where Republicans and Democrats work very
well together. So I thank you for being here.
Again, I just have to reiterate what and affirm what
Congressman Shimkus has said and done. Yucca needs to go
forward. The interim storage options are too burdensome, too
costly and that is the site that was chosen, that is the site
that was legally funded and the science is sound. And that will
be proven out.
The reality is unfortunately the politics has gotten
involved and the politics of Nevada and there is equal blame.
At one point in time it was the Republicans and now it is the
Democrats. And one point in time it was the Senate and let's
hope and pray it's not the House.
So that the American people know, we had a very strong
overwhelming vote in the House led by Mr. Shimkus's bill but
this needs to go forward. There are other states that are
looking at long term storage, like our friends in Texas, and we
know that but that will be 30-plus years, decades away.
So the American people need to have this done on the
appropriations side. I am so pleased that the administration
has put this in its budget but its long overdue and we need to
move forward.
Mr. Shimkus. Madam Chairman, can I just say one more thing?
Previous Congresses have already done the tough decision. They
have already cast the votes for where the law is today and for
us to at least finish this.
So, I mean, and this is people who were here, maybe when
you were around, Madam Chairman, but not when--since I have
been around.
I mean they have already struggled with this debate. All we
are trying to do is at least finish the scientific debate on
that site and that's why I appropriate your comments.
Mr. Allen. Let me add one quick note here.
Ms. Kaptur. Very quick.
Mr. Allen. The state of South Carolina has an agreement
with the Federal Government to store that waste. The Federal
Government has not complied with that agreement. And in fact,
the state of South Carolina is now in a lawsuit with the
Federal Government which is going to cost the tax payers more
money.
So we need to make a decision because we are just going to
see more, I mean, it is unconscionable to have this waste in
130 something locations around the country. So I think with
haste we need to move forward with a decision on this. Thank
you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both very much. I think we are aware
of your complete dedication to this issue and the necessity for
our country to move forward. Thank you both for being here this
morning.
We have several other members waiting. We would like to ask
ranking member of the full committee, Kay Granger to come to
the witness table and Rodney, Congressman Rodney Davis of
Illinois.
We are honored to have the ranking member of the full
committee before us today. Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas,
we welcome you and we will hear from you first and then we will
turn to Congressman Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you both
for being here.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. KAY GRANGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson, and Members of the subcommittee. Good
morning, and thank you for allowing me to testify before you
today on my priorities for the fiscal year 2020 Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
I have two priorities I'd like to bring to your attention,
both with a history of strong bipartisan support.
First, I request that you support, at a minimum, the
President's budget request for nuclear waste disposal for the
Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This funding will allow the two agencies to resume regulatory
activities concerning Yucca Mountain.
Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste is temporarily stored at 121 locations across 39 states.
While those locations provide safe storage, they were never
intended to be permanent. This material needs to be relocated
to a more secure, safe, and reliable facility. By law, Yucca
Mountain is that facility.
We must provide the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission with the resources necessary to continue
and complete the licensing process. This process will provide
the answers the public needs on long-term safety of the site.
My second priority for the fiscal year 2020 Energy and
Water bill is robust funding for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers civil works program, specifically the Construction
account.
The civil works program supports our economy, protects
public health and safety, and improves the environment.
Of paramount importance to my constituents is the future of
my hometown of Fort Worth is a Corps project called by the
Corps Central City. The federally authorized project known
locally as the Trinity River Vision and Panther Island Flood
Control Project, will reestablish essential levels of flood
protection in the Corps built Fort Worth Floodway.
This effort is vital to protecting over 2,400 acres of
existing neighborhoods valued at over $2 billion. This ongoing
construction project enjoys widespread support in the Fort
Worth community, as evidenced by the recent and overwhelming
passage of a $250 million bond issue to reinforce the local
funding for the project.
At this subcommittee's hearing on the Corps budget request
2 weeks ago, in response to questions Ranking Member Simpson
asked on my behalf, and I thank him for that, Assistant
Secretary James reaffirmed his support for the project and
Lieutenant General Semonite agreed that the Corps has an
obligation to complete a project once it has begun.
Unfortunately, the budget request is woefully inadequate to
address our Nation's water resources infrastructure needs.
Therefore, I ask the subcommittee to once again prioritize
robust funding for the Corps of Engineers as you develop the
fiscal year 2020 bill.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on my
priorities for the fiscal year 2020 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. We will
hold questions just for a moment until we hear from Mr. Davis.
Welcome.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. RODNEY DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Mr.
Ranking Member Simpson and my good colleague and fellow
baseball player, Mr. Fleischmann. I truly appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today.
As you may know, I am here in support of funding levels in
the President's budget request for nuclear waste disposal. I
represent the 13th district of Illinois which is home to the
Clinton Power Station, one of 11 nuclear reactors in Illinois.
The most of any State in the Nation.
These reactors generate approximately 53 percent of our
States electricity, and 89 percent of the state's emissions--89
percent of the State's emissions free electricity. Roughly
5,900 people are employed as a result.
These sites are also home to over 10,000 metric tons of
spent nuclear fuel, which is also the most of any other State
in the Nation. This is why this issue is very important to me.
Over the past 36 years, rate payers have paid over $40
billion into a fund set up by the Federal Government to create
a national nuclear waste depository.
Despite the Act requiring DOE to begin moving spent nuclear
fuel by January 31, 1998, it has yet to be moved. The DOE's
failure to take custody of commercially spent nuclear fuel at
the 1998 deadline, has resulted in the Federal Government
paying the industry over $8 billion in damages. Projected
future liabilities are estimated at roughly $30 billion more
tax payer dollars.
This should not be a partisan issue, and if you look at the
numerous votes we have taken in the House over the years it has
not been. In the previous Congress we voted 340-72, to advance
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, which was
introduced by my good friend, my former boss and now our
colleague, Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, if enacted
this legislation would have moved forward with both permanent
and interim storage and fulfill the promise Congress made to
our communities over 30 years ago.
Currently there is over 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear
fuels stored at 121 locations across 39 states. Roughly a
quarter of this waste is stored in dry casks, and the rest sits
in wet pools, like at Japans Fukushima site.
It sits in Republican districts and Democrat districts.
Unless we finally act to restart the project at Yucca Mountain,
the issue will remain there indefinitely.
I urge you to support the funding levels in the President's
budget request for $116 million for nuclear waste disposal, and
$38.5 million to restart the licensing process with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
And while I am here and have a couple of extra minutes, I
do want to also reiterate the importance of the Lock and Dam
systems along the Illinois and Mississippi waterways. It is
crucial to districts like mine, and I certainly hope that this
committee will consider funding levels at appropriate levels
for the Corps of Engineers.
Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Davis. And we
heard what you said about the Mississippi River Corridor. A
prior panel I talked about, after our formal hearings are over,
all way from the Red River, all the way down to the Port of New
Orleans, having members come in on a bipartisan basis and talk
about what is happening in that major bowl of our country in
terms of water flows, and maybe we can get the Corps to join us
for that, so we get a systemic understanding of what is
actually going to be required over the next several decades----
Mr. Davis. We would love to be back for that, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Congressman Simpson, any comments,
or questions?
Mr. Simpson. I don't have any questions. I think I just
received my marching orders.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. I think the chairman and ranking member
are absolutely correct. We are hearing a consistent theme on
Yucca, and we have heard that. And Congressman Davis, thank you
for your avocation, represents the University of Illinois, and
Champaign-Urbana, one of my alma maters. So, thank you, sir.
And to Ranking Member Granger, thank you for your service,
as ranking member on the full committee, it is the first time I
think in our history, that the full committee chair, and the
ranking member are both women, and I think that just speaks
great volumes to where we have come in this country. So, thank
you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for noticing that, Congressman
Fleischmann. When I first arrived in Congress there were only
two women on the Appropriations Committee, no clerk was a
female. It was a very different era, and so we have actually
lived the history, and transformed the history for the sake of
the country. And it will be a good thing. History will attest
to that.
Congressman Davis, I wondered if you have, on the issue of
the Mississippi, do you have any additional visual materials
you could provide to the record on how your district is
connected to the entire chain, the spine of the flow.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely, I will. And I came here specifically
to talk about Yucca Mountain because of the efforts of my
colleague, and again, my former boss for 16 years, Congressman
John Shimkus, I would be glad to provide you with some updates
of our requests for funding for the NESP Program.
I am very happy that the administration has allowed dollars
to flow into the La Grange Lock and Dam on the Illinois River,
to begin major rehab that will start the process of rehab in
the Locks and Dams up along the Illinois, Mississippi Rivers
that are so crucial to our farmers and to our manufacturers.
But I will get you documentation, and I appreciate the
offer, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Kaptur. It is a piece of a bigger puzzle.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely it is. And I look forward to working
with the subcommittee and this committee on getting that puzzle
put together.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I also appreciate in your
testimony, you talk about Illinois having the most nuclear
reactors and the most spent fuel in the country. I take it
there is no depository in Illinois that could take that.
Mr. Davis. There is not, and I don't think geologically, we
could do that, but they are all sitting there right now, which
is obviously in my opinion, a national security threat in our
own backyard.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. All right. And I wanted to move to the ranking
member of the full committee, Congresswoman Granger. When you
talked about Fort Worth and what is happening with the Central
City Project. Could you describe to us, and for those that
don't know that project in detail, what actually is happening
in the ecosystem at Fort Worth?
Ms. Granger. It is a flood control issue, because the Corps
of Engineers came in 40 years ago in Fort Worth there was a
massive flood. And went to the third storey of most of the
buildings there, and they came in and did some wonderful work
with levees, but now that we have outgrown that, because there
is such enormous growth in Fort Worth, so we have a project to
widen and deepen that river, and take care of that flood
control.
It has been authorized for the Congress, it has been
authorized by two Presidents, and it has been funded up until
the last 2 years. And we will make sure there is enough to
finish that project. It is a half--it is 50 percent paid by the
city and the State, and 50 percent by the Federal Government.
Ms. Kaptur. As the rains come, do you have increasing
rainfall?
Ms. Granger. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. So, there is no--it would be great
if you would provide some mapping material for our members to
review on exactly with population growth, what is happening
with demographics and water, water runoff.
Ms. Granger. All right.
Ms. Kaptur. Some of us have heard rumors, you know, that
the communities in Texas don't have zoning. Maybe that was only
Houston, I don't know. But I think it is important for us to
understand some of the scope of what is happening around the
country, as we meet with the Corps and work with them on ideas
for handling water runoff in a more sophisticated manner.
I am not disagreeing with your project. I am just saying it
would be great to have a greater understanding of what is
happening in Fort Worth, if you can provide it.
Ms. Granger. When I was at Fort Worth it had at 370,000
people, and it now has 800,000 people.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both, so very much for appearing
today.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. The next panel, we will call Congressman
Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, and Congressman Joe Wilson of
South California.
Mr. Wilson. I was here. I am looking forward to being with
both of you.
Ms. Kaptur. We thank you so very much for appearing this
morning. We have several members who wish to testify, and we
are asking members if they could stay within the 5-minute rule,
we would greatly appreciate that.
Congressman Duncan was here first, so we are going to call
on him, and then Congressman Wilson, you will be second on this
panel. Thank you so very much for coming today. Congressman
Duncan.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am here today to
speak in support of the funding levels in President Trump's
budget request for nuclear waste disposal. As you begin to work
on the Fiscal 2020 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill, I urge you to support the President's budget request of
$116 million for nuclear waste disposal, specifically the $38.5
million in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Nuclear
Materials and Waste Safety Program for related activities at
Yucca Mountain.
I am, and I will continue to be an advocate for nuclear
energy. When we generate electricity from nuclear power, we
also create waste. Not only do we need a national solution to
this problem, we have one, a permanent geologic repository in
Nevada known as Yucca Mountain.
Congress has already established a comprehensive nuclear
waste management strategy over 35 years ago when we enacted the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This assigned the responsibility of
permanently disposing spent nuclear fuel to the Department of
Energy. It also established a fee-for-service funding model in
which fees assessed for electricity generated by nuclear power
are paid to the federal government to finance a disposal
program.
Because the Department of Energy and the Federal Government
have defaulted on their contractual obligation, ratepayers
across the United States, notice I said, ratepayers across the
United States, have paid around $40 billion in fees for the
construction, and operation of a permanent nuclear waste
repository.
Federal law required the Department of Energy to begin
disposing of nuclear waste by 1998. Clearly the Federal
Government has aggressively failed to meet this contractual
deadline by over 20 years, unnecessarily costing Americans
billions of dollars.
In addition to what ratepayers have paid, taxpayers have
paid nearly $7 billion in legal damages. In fiscal year 2017
alone, taxpayers paid nearly $732 million, which breaks down to
about $2 million a day in damages.
And for what? Given our rising $22 trillion debt, it is
important to remain cognizant of what else this money could be
funding. Despite the billions of American ratepayers have paid,
American taxpayers are liable for nearly $30 billion in
payments to manage the spent nuclear fuel that sits in 121
communities across 39 states.
Appropriating funding to restart the program is the first
step towards reducing and ultimately eliminating these
escalating costs. It is time the Federal Government stop
kicking the can down the road. Doing this for 40 years has
resulted in about 80,000 tons of commercial and non-defense
spent nuclear fuel, and 14,000 tons of defense waste currently
scattered in temporary storage sites in over 100 different
sites.
Most of these commercial spent nuclear fuel storage sites
are near large population centers and large bodies of water.
Over 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these
facilities.
The issue of nuclear waste is one of particular interest to
my constituents and South Carolina as a whole. Nuclear energy
generates over 58 percent of our state's electricity. South
Carolina is home to 7 nuclear reactors at 4 locations. These
sites in South Carolina store 4,798 metric tons of used nuclear
fuel as of 2017.
In addition, just outside my district, the Department of
Energy's Savannah River Site site stores approximately 8,000
tons of vitrified nuclear waste, along with 35 million gallons
of high-level liquid waste.
There are over 4,000 canisters filled with vitrified glass
waste sitting at the Savannah River Site ready to ship to Yucca
Mountain.
They started this mission over 20 years ago and have since
been waiting for us to license a permanent repository. Until
Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Savannah River Site will
continue to be the custodians of the waste, which was never the
intended purpose of the site.
In addition to the waste still sitting in my state, through
September of 2016, South Carolina ratepayers have contributed,
including interest, approximately $3.1 billion to the
Department of Energy's Nuclear Waste Fund, to permanently
dispose of this used nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. This is
the third most of any state.
I would also like to take a moment to express my strong
support for the Department of Energy's funding request at the
Savannah River Site, specifically funding for both the H-Canyon
facility and the proposed Savannah River Plutonium Processing
Facility.
H-Canyon is the Nation's only remaining production scale
facility capable of processing nuclear materials for reuse or
proper disposition.
In the interest of time, I will skip down and say I was
extremely supportive of the President's 2017 initial step, to
request funding to restart the Yucca Mountain Project, and it
has been overwhelmingly proven that Yucca Mountain will protect
the people and the environment for thousands of generations.
The natural features of the mountain, geology, climate,
distance above water table, and isolation, make it a perfect
place for the repository. I have been there myself. I have seen
first-hand how suitable the site is. It is a geologically
perfect location. We need to restart this.
And I urge the committee to support the President's
request. And with that, I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Duncan.
Congressman Wilson.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Simpson. We appreciate your leadership on the
subcommittee. I am here today representing the Second District
of South Carolina, the home of the Savannah River Site.
The Savanna River Site was constructed in the early 1950s
to support our national defense programs during the Cold War.
The site maintains that responsibility 70 years later with
victory in the Cold War.
According to the Nuclear Posture Review, it is critical
that the United States produces 80 pits per year by 2030 to
ensure defense readiness. Since the cancellation of the Mixed
Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility last October, the NNSA has
recommended repurposing the MOX facility for pit production to
satisfy 80 pits per year goal.
With the facility already being 70 percent complete, the
site is the most viable option for a two-site solution and I
request the committee support full funding of critical weapons
activities.
With the closure of MOX, South Carolina was left with the
storage of weapons grade plutonium that was originally going to
be processed through the MOX facility for commercial fuel use.
I support the request of the President for $79 million for
the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project to support the dilute
and dispose strategy to remove the plutonium from the site.
Additionally, I support the President's budget request for
Yucca Mountain to ensure the country has a safe and permanent
repository for management of nuclear waste.
The site is also home to H-Canyon, the only hardened
nuclear chemical separations plant still in operation in the
United States. Unfortunately, H-Canyon has been under-funded
both this year and in previous years, with approximately 240
metric tons of LEU yet to be processed through H-Canyon, I am
requesting an additional $50 million to the President's budget
request to accelerate the operations of this vital asset.
I also support the President's budget request for the full
funding of the Radioactive Liquid Tank Waste Stabilization and
Disposition Account and urge the committee to do the same.
With the site spanning over 300 square miles, it is
important that the community is adequately served by the
Federal Government.
In the President's budget the payment in lieu of taxes was
removed from receiving funding under community and regulatory
support. And I ask that the committee reinstate the $6.5
million, to ensure the local schools and emergency services are
adequately served.
While it may be interpreted that the site is getting a
significant increase in funding, a large portion is due to an
increase in pension payments. It is projected that pensions
will require an additional $28.6 million from FY 19 and up to
an approximate $98 million over the next 5 years, with the
pensions only being funded at about 80 percent. Lack of
appropriate funding for pension payments will result in
discontinuity in operations and potential layoffs due to
funding being sourced from the Risk Management Operations
Account.
A final community-related area of importance is the
Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative facility. The AMC will be
an innovation hub that will not only allow experts in emerging
technologies to collaborate with industry, academia, and
government to improve manufacturing, but also assist the DOE
complex by accelerating technology development for the cleanup
mission.
I am grateful that the President requested funding for the
design and construction of this facility, and I encourage the
committee to support this private-public partnership,
specifically for location at the USC Aiken Campus.
Additionally, I strongly support the President's full
funding request of over $138 million for the completion of the
Charleston Harbor Deepening Project.
In 2017, the South Carolina Ports Authority signed a
Project Partnership Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers,
which allows for the use of advanced funds from the SC Ports
Authority for the federal share in addition to the non-federal
share of the construction costs.
Responsible, collaborative infrastructure investments like
the Port of Charleston are in the best interest of American
taxpayers, creating jobs. The Port of Charleston contributes
$53 billion in annual economic impact to the state of South
Carolina, and is a key economic driver for the region.
In direct testament to the competitiveness of this project,
the U.S. Corps of Engineers recently found the recalculated
cost-benefit ratio of the project to be over 6 to 1.
I urge you to provide the full funding in the Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works construction funding for the Charleston
Harbor Deepening Project.
And I am grateful to speak with you in support of this
positive infrastructure investment. Thank you both for your
time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both for appearing this morning.
Quickly, could I ask you, Congressman Wilson, and both of you
represent really important elements of our Nation's security,
and economic activity.
Mr. Wilson. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. Based on the regions you represent, the
districts you represent, have you seen any changes in the
ecosystem that impact either your port, in this future, or any
of the energy sites that you referenced? South Carolina has
taken a battering at least on the coast, but I am just curious,
over the last several years, the changes you see. I take it you
are both Native South Carolinians. Right?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. What changes do you see occurring there that we
might need to know about as a subcommittee?
Mr. Wilson. We are both inland districts, and so other
changes that may be occurring on the Coast would not impact
substantially. And we have recurring droughts, recurring high
levels of rain, and we have had significant rainfall to the
point of a thousand-year flood, so this all is of concern to
everyone.
Ms. Kaptur. But not entirely----
Mr. Duncan. Joe hit on the environmental impacts of El
Nino, and just in the natural cycle, but if we focus on the
idea of climate change, one thing that we can lower our carbon
footprint as a nation, is use more nuclear power. But the
downside of that is as we create more nuclear waste when we do
that.
And there are two reactors in two different plants in your
home state of Ohio that currently have 1,387 metric tons of
spent waste sitting on the shores of Lake Erie.
In my district we have it sitting on the shores of Lake
Keowee, it is a man-made reservoir. We also have it sitting on
the Broad River in South Carolina.
So, it concerns me that we are not doing enough--and
chosen, and selected, and is the law of the land as a
repository for both defense and non-defense waste. And so as we
try to balance our efforts on climate change, we also should
try to balance a long-term repository for the waste that sits
in your State and 121 different sites around the country.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Don't have any questions. Thank you for being
here, appreciate your testimony. And you didn't mention that
the Savannah River site is where the location of the first
cloverleaf on an interstate was built. It is an historical
thing.
Mr. Duncan. We have somebody that knows that.
Ms. Kaptur. How did you know that?
Mr. Simpson. Because I went there.
Mr. Duncan. And we appreciate you visiting. And South
Carolina is very grateful for many positive firsts.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. I just wish to thank both my distinguished
colleagues and friends from South Carolina. I support your
initiatives, and I thank you for appearing before us today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both very much. I am going to call
now Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia and Congressman Jerry
McNerney of California. Thank you gentlemen for waiting. Oh,
I'm sorry, they are here. Calling Congressman Mike Johnson of
Louisiana. We are trying to call in order of appearance.
Congressman Carter, why don't we begin with you on this panel,
you appeared first. And then Congressman Johnson.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Carter. Well thank you, Madam Chair. And thank all of
the Members for entertaining us today, we appreciate the
opportunity to speak before you.
And I want to share my concerns. I have the honor and
privilege of representing the First Congressional District of
Georgia. The First Congressional District of Georgia includes
the entire coast of Georgia, over 100 miles of coastline.
Starts up in the State line of South Carolina and goes all the
way down to Florida. We have a lot of natural resources, as you
can imagine, and a lot of history in our district as well.
One of the things that we are most proud of is that we are
home to two major seaports. The Port of Savannah, the second
largest container port on the Atlantic Seaboard, the fourth
busiest in the United States. And, I might add, one of the
fastest growing ports in the world. Only two ports in China are
growing faster than the Port of Savannah.
Also we have the Port of Brunswick. The Port of Brunswick
is the No. 2 roll-on/roll-off port in the country. They have
really found their niche there with cars and trucks that are
going in and out of that port.
Currently we are expanding our, I should say deepening the
Savannah Harbor. The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project carries
us from 42 feet depth to 47 foot depth. And it allows us to
accommodate the post-Panamax ships that are now calling on
these ports. It is extremely important. This project has
received $130 million this year in the fiscal year, from the
President. This will help us in finishing this project. We need
one more year. If we can get one more year after this then we
should be able to finish this project in 2020 or 2021 at the
latest.
I would ask for your help and your approval of that funding
request by the President of $130 million this year. That will
keep us on schedule with that.
The economic benefit, I might add, of that project is one
of the highest in ratio of any project in the country, with a
return for every dollar that we spend, we get a return of
$7.50. Who wouldn't take that kind of input?
Also I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. As you can imagine, with two major
ports it is very important that we maintain those ports and
that we keep the United States competitive in a global stage.
Without the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and without it being
funded, we are definitely going to be in trouble. So that is
extremely important, I would ask for that as well.
Also on the coast we have weather-related impacts on our
district, as you can imagine. We had two major hurricanes in an
11-month period, which really impacted our district. And this
is very important that the Corps of Engineers be funded
properly so that they can help us in mitigating this.
I have submitted a language request that appropriate levels
of funding be allocated within the dredging operation
environmental research account to help maintain the progress
that we have made.
Also in Georgia nuclear power plays a large role in our
Nation's power portfolio, but especially in Georgia. Currently
we are the only State and the only place where we have two
major nuclear reactors under construction at Plant Vogtle. This
is extremely important. And because of that we need to find a
safe long-term solution for the storage of nuclear waste.
That's why I submitted a request that will help us to move one
step further to the construction and use of Yucca Mountain.
That's very important.
Finally, I have submitted a request for both inland
waterways and short protection accounts. As you can imagine, a
district with over 100 miles of coastline and an ample stretch
of intercostal waterway, it is imperative that we pay attention
to these areas in the country, such as the Barrier Islands of
Georgia. They are very, very important. Funding for those
efforts will help ensure storm resistant and weather resistant
communities of the future, and that is extremely important.
Again, Madam Chair and Members, I want to thank you for
giving me the opportunity to testify today and thank you for
your work in this area. It is extremely important, particularly
to us on the coast.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Carter. We
will move to Congressman Johnson. I just want to say we will
not have questions in this period in deference to Congressman
Scalise who has a drop dead deadline here very shortly. So
please proceed.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Mr. Johnson. I do my best to give deference to my colleague
from Louisiana, Whip Scalise. I'll speak quickly and I'll make
it brief.
Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, all of our
colleagues on the Subcommittee, greatly appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I am here to express to you just simply the importance of
developing and maintaining the Nation's water infrastructure
needs, particularly as they relate to my district in Northwest
Louisiana.
As such I respectfully request the Committee prioritize
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Division
for operations in maintenance and for their general
construction needs.
Our inland waterways provide tremendous flood management
and navigation benefits. And they provide critical jobs to
support our Nation's maritime economy. Some of the biggest
challenges and opportunities in my district revolve around port
infrastructure and further development of the navigation of our
rivers.
My district is home to four shallow draft port authorities
that serve 485 miles of navigable waterways and shallow draft
river miles. The J. Bennett Johnston Waterway is a commercially
navigable portion of the Red River. It is by far the most
robust waterway in our district. And it supports economic
development through both recreation and shipping.
The last time I testified before you I discussed our
experience with the catastrophic flooding event that we
experienced on the Red River in 2015. Homes, businesses,
agricultural lands, critical infrastructure were severely
damaged and destroyed. Four years later we are still coping
with finding resources to repair our navigation structures. And
a lack of investment in the waterway poses threats to the
maintenance to the channel.
Interestingly, recent severe flood threats from the Red
River have been triggered by relatively lower volumes of water
flooding through the channels. In essence, we are experiencing
worse flooding from less water.
The Army Corps has initiated a sedimentation study to
determine the reasons for this discrepancy, and a preliminary
report is expected this summer. The Army Corps hasn't yet
released their findings, but we believe, many experts believe,
that sediment buildup is the primary driver of the increase in
the severity of our flood events.
To fight this problem we need robust funding under the Army
Corps Operations and Maintenance Account to perform dredging of
the channel. This will preserve the River's navigability and it
will provide an additional buffer for flood relief as the
channel will be capable of holding higher volumes of water. Of
course that is a cost savings to the Federal Government, the
State, and everyone involved.
Additionally, operations and maintenance funding will help
restore dykes and revetments that have deteriorated from the
floods we have experienced in 2015, 2016, and 2018. These are
historic events.
Second, I respectfully request that the Committee
appropriate robust funding for the Army Corps General
Construction Account. The construction features at the J.
Bennett Johnston Waterway, those features are only 93 percent
complete at present, and the funds are needed to acquire
mitigation lands so the Army Corps can bring the waterway up to
the standards that were originally intended.
My understanding is that stakeholders have identified
willing sellers of the required mitigation lands, and the Army
Corps just needs funding to complete the transaction and move
the project forward.
Ultimately this funding will create a more resilient
waterway for our constituents and allow us to expand the
economy of Northwest Louisiana and the broader region. Once the
Army Corps is able to dredge the River and complete the
construction features of the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, we
will be able to explore further developments, future
developments that will have a greater regional impact, and will
extend all the way to Texas and Arkansas.
In sum, I strongly urge the subcommittee to prioritize
investments in our ports and waterways as you work your way
through the fiscal year 20 appropriations process. And I stand
ready to work with each of you in the administration to develop
solutions that will enhance our water infrastructure system,
and I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to testify
before you on these issues. Thank you so much.
Ms. Kaptur. You both have done a fine job in your
testimony, and you have a Subcommittee that will grapple with
your recommendations as we try to repair the budget for 2020
that was sent to us from the administration. We thank you for
your appearance today.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana, and
Congressman Pete Olson of Texas, please. Let us begin with
Congressman Scalise. Thank you so very much, knowing your
responsibilities for appearing before our subcommittee today.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Well thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, and Ranking
Member Simpson, for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee on the importance of investing in Corps of
Engineers projects and feasibility studies that primarily focus
on protecting our communities from natural disasters, and
strengthening our Nation's waterways.
Specifically I am here to talk about a few projects that
are both in my district but also have a very large impact on
America's national security and energy security infrastructure.
This includes deepening the Mississippi River from 45 to 50
feet, as well as the St. Tammany Feasibility Study and the
Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane and Storm Surge Protection
Project.
Lastly, I am also here to express my support to the
Subcommittee on investing in the safety and security of our
nuclear waste repository, I know a few other Members have
talked about, the importance of Yucca Mountain.
Louisiana is one of the top five energy producing states in
the country and is home to the mouth of the Mississippi River.
My district serves as a critical gateway to the world, moving
500 million tons of cargo in international trade. I am asking
this subcommittee to consider providing necessary funding that
gives the Corps of Engineers flexibility they need to invest in
deepening the Lower Mississippi River from 45 to 50 feet. As
you can imagine, when we saw the widening of the Panama Canal,
it created a lot of opportunities to move larger vessels. The
Corps was able to, through this Committee's work and the
authorizing committee's work, to authorize an expansion from 45
to 50 feet of dredging. And by making that investment it would
allow the larger vessels that are moving through the Panama
Canal to be able to get access to our inland waterways. And of
course with the mouth of the Mississippi River.
We knew back when Thomas Jefferson made that $15 million
investment in 1803 to double the Nation's size, it was to get
access to the Port of New Orleans through the Mississippi
River. And that Port and that waterway, the Mississippi, is
still the gateway to so many of our Nation's producers of a lot
of our agricultural products and so many other products, that
we are able to export. We could take even further advantage of
the deepening of the Panama Canal by deepening to 50 feet on
the Mississippi River.
Additionally, it provides dual benefit of rebuilding
Louisiana's vanishing coastline. Because we have finally
entered into a contract, both Louisiana and the Corps of
Engineers now have an agreement that as they are dredging the
Mississippi River in the past, that sediment used to be just
dumped into the Gulf of Mexico where you don't get any
beneficial use. We are now able to use that sediment from
dredging to rebuild Louisiana's vanishing coastline. So we lose
about a football field of land every single hour in Louisiana.
It is a major national crisis. In our State we have dedicated
things like drilling, deep water drilling revenues to restoring
our coast. The State's also put up large amounts of money. We
dedicated what would probably amount to well over a billion
dollars of the BP settlement from the Deep Water Horizon
disaster. That money will go to rebuilding the coastland that
has been eroding.
But the dredging of the Mississippi River also allows us
the ability to take that sediment and use it to rebuild land
and coastline, which also helps defend against future storms.
In recent years Louisiana has managed to secure long-
awaited Corps project authorization that were held up due to
bureaucratic red tape. But as Members of this Subcommittee, you
all know that authorization is only the beginning of turning
studies into reality.
In 2016 Congress authorized a new start feasibility study
for St. Tammany Parish which would examine the need for
hurricane, surge, flood, and shoreline protection projects in a
vulnerable area of my district. While the Southern and Western
Portions of Lake Pontchartrain have received funding for
related projects, the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain, which
during Katrina saw storm surges ranging from 7 to 16 feet,
destroyed thousands of homes and small businesses. And yet they
have not seen a single Federal dollar dedicated to flood
protection.
I ask this subcommittee to consider including necessary
funds for new start studies so projects like the St. Tammany
Parish Project can move forward.
In 2014, Congress reauthorized Morganza to the Gulf, our
hurricane and storm protection reduction project located within
my district of Terrebonne and La Farge Parishes. Unfortunately,
this reauthorization came after nearly 20 years of studies that
spent more than $70 million, all without the Corps of Engineers
putting a single shovel in the ground. Any funding provided to
this project should strengthen our community in Southeast
Louisiana as well as the billions of dollars in economic
activity that provide valuable energy resources to fuel this
country.
It is also important to note that while this project has
yet to receive any Federal funding, local and State funds have
allowed $400 million to be invested in this project. So that's
all local money that they have put up to help advance more
gains in the Gulf.
I ask this subcommittee to consider providing the Corps of
Engineers additional resources for construction projects like
Morganza and the Gulf to be completed.
And lastly, I want to express my strong support for
including robust funding for the Department of Energy and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission that gives them the ability to
complete the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository. I am glad that President Trump has included
$116 million for the Department of Energy and $38.5 million for
the NRC for this purpose. I urge this subcommittee to seriously
consider and support this request. These funds would ensure
that the State of Nevada and other stakeholders have an
opportunity to participate in the licensing process and have
their views heard. Our decades-long failure to move this
project along costs the American taxpayers nearly $2 million a
day. Reports show we have already spent $8 billion in taxpayer
money because of needless delays and our inability to meet our
legal obligations to the Nation's electric utilities. Failure
to provide funding that secures spent nuclear fuel will only
cause further financial hardship on the American taxpayer and
uncertainty for rate payers, who in many parts of the country
rely on nuclear energy, one of our most reliable sources of
electric generation.
So in closing, I again want to thank the Subcommittee for
the important work you are doing. And I know you are
considering a lot of requests, and especially when you look at
the Corps of Engineers and the role that they play all across
this country in strengthening and securing our infrastructure
needs. I appreciate the work that you do, and I would be happy
to take any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Congressman Olson.
Welcome.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Olson. Chairman Kaptur, GOP Leader Simpson, my de facto
Congressman from Idaho. My wife and I own a place at Bays River
Run right there on Wood River, haven't been there for about two
years. That's the wife, that's the wife's side of the family.
Thank you so much for the chance to remind you how
important the Houston Ship Channel is to all America, including
Ohio, Idaho, and Texas 22.
The Houston Ship Channel is 52 miles long, from the buoy to
the turn basin. Includes the Port of Galveston, the Port of
Texas City, the Port of Houston, has two huge container ports,
one at Barbour's Cut and one at Bayport. It has been two way
traffic that provides access from the largest petro chemical
complex in the world to America's allies and trading partners.
The Port of Houston has been the number one exporting port
in America for over the last decade. And right now we are
getting busier because of this Committee's efforts, all of our
efforts to repeal the ban on crude oil exports. They're going
crazy in the Port of Houston, going overseas. Also LNG exports,
which are destroying the sway of OPEC and Russia on the global
market.
All the Members here may recall what happened to gasoline
prices in August of 2017, September of that year. In some parts
of our country the prices spiked up about 25 cents per gallon.
That's because Hurricane Harvey hit that large petrochemical
complex with all our refineries on the target there. It was
shut down for a few days.
We lost three feet of water depth. We had to go one way for
about eight miles of parts of the ship channel. That's still in
effect. That means we risk collisions and spills that didn't
exist before Harvey.
I ask this Subcommittee to fully fund the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund and put the highest priority on projects
which have the biggest impact on our U.S. economy. We cannot
afford to spend these precious tax dollars on lower priority
projects.
Harvey hit Southeast Texas hard. August 25th. Two days
later it turned around from San Antonio and hit us again. The
whole world learned how the ordinary Texans did extraordinary
things to recover from Hurricane Harvey. We were and are
Houston Strong. We need to be Houston Stronger. Since Harvey
came ashore, we have been working with the Corps of Engineers
on measures to prevent future floods from hurricanes. We have
made small progress, small amounts of money. We have got
studies going on. We need your help. Our recovery has been way
too slow. Harvey hit us almost two years ago, and right now, as
I speak, we are 21 days away from the hurricane season of 2019
starting. These pleas help to break through legal and
obligatory walls hitting our building to stop flooding from
another Harvey.
I would also like to talk about what happened during
Hurricane Harvey, and how important it is to have a diversified
energy policy. A coal plant had four plants go down during
Hurricane Harvey. They were knocked offline. Also, right on
site, four natural gas plants kept up and running, but the
biggest power source through Hurricane Harvey was the South
Texas Nuclear Project, in Bay City, Texas. She was hit directly
by the bad side of Harvey, the northeast quadrant; not a blip,
not a flicker throughout that terrible storm. That nuclear
plant kept our community online and saved countless lives.
Nuclear power is critical to our power grid and an
important part of our energy future. We have companies working
on small modular reactors to build the next generation of
nuclear plants. They are safe, reliable, and very clean, but
their future is uncertain. I hope this Subcommittee will put
emphasis on small modular reactors.
Years ago, great payers agreed to pay for nuclear power if
the Federal government created a place to put the spent nuclear
fuel, to store it. That place is Yucca Mountain, Nevada. We
have had a law for all our hazardous waste, the radioactive
waste, to be stored at Yucca Mountain. It has been the law of
the nation for over 20 years. We have spent over $15 billion on
Yucca Mountain to date, and, yet, no waste from these reactors
has been stored at Yucca Mountain.
I ask this Subcommittee to fully fund Yucca Mountain in
this appropriations bill. We have failed to deliver our
promises for too long. Thank you for your time and commitment
to our ports and our diversified power sources; happy to answer
any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both, for your excellent testimony.
Congressman Scalise, as we attempt to help you, on the
Mississippi River and other projects in your region, I would
like to ask your help, as a member from the Great Lakes, where
we face a real threat from something called the Asian Bighead
Carp, that got its start down in the Mississippi-Louisiana area
and it moved its way all the way up the Mississippi River,
almost to Chicago now. So, I want to make you aware of a
serious invasive species that could destroy our entire fishery
in the Great Lakes. So, I just--let you know.
Mr. Scalise. I have heard of that. Yeah, I have heard of
that issue and would be happy to help because Asian Carp
invasion has been a--has been a growing threat, and whatever we
can do to help.
Ms. Kaptur. And we hope to bring together members all along
the Mississippi River Corridor. Your statement about the amount
of dredge material you have, and so forth, will be of interest
to those who come from the Red River Valley, of all places, and
Illinois, Minnesota; we have had them before the Committee this
morning. We want to look at systemic solutions and, maybe, have
the Corps present, with several members, as we look at what
the--what we can do to help make the future more livable in our
country. So, we thank you very much for your appearance today.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Congressman Olson, thank you very much. Thanks
for mentioning LNG and the importance that your port plays, the
Port of Houston plays, in the global security challenges that
we attempt to surmount with--through those energy exports. So,
thank you so very much. I know we are running a little bit
over. Congressman Simpson, do you want to ask anything?
Mr. Simpson. I would just say thank you for being here,
today, and your testimony; Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, very
important. You know, there is a target that we have to meet, or
are supposed to meet, that was passed. We have exceeded that
target in the last two years. The way the fund works, now, is
that, if we exceed the target, the target does not go down to
what it would have been next year. It goes to what it was last
year, plus 103%, I mean 103% of what it was. So, that is always
a challenge, but I am one that believes if you, as I have said
earlier on the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, if you tax people
for a purpose and that need still exists, then you ought to be
able to spend the money on that need. It just makes sense. So,
thank you for being here today.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. We would now like to call Congresswoman Debbie
Mucarsel-Powell, from Florida, and Congressman Jerry McNerney,
of the great state of California. All right. Congresswoman
Mucarsel-Powell, you will be first, and then we will move to
Congressman McNerney. Welcome.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you so much, Chairman Kaptur and
Ranking Chair Simpson, for giving us the opportunity to come
forth today to talk about our priorities. One of my top
priorities in Congress was, when I got elected, is to make
significant progress in the effort to restore the Everglades.
Congress authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, known as CERP, in 2000, which is now the largest
ecological restoration project in the world.
Although the plan was originally expected to take many
years, given its immensity, it has moved along unpredictably
slow. Unfortunately, almost two decades later, we have made
very little progress. This has to change, and that means we
need to properly fund it. I, along with many of our Florida
colleagues on a--in a bipartisan manner, have urged your
Committee to provide the maximum funding possible for CERP. We
have also called for a significant increase in the Army Corps
construction account, for additional funding for environmental
restoration or compliance, from $50 million to $200 million.
This increase of $150 million will make available more funds,
for which Everglades restoration projects can compete, and once
the appropriations bill is signed to law, you can be certain
that I will be pressuring the Army Corps to include full
funding for Everglades restoration projects in their workplan.
Healthy Everglades are essential to a healthy economy in
South Florida. The 1.5-million-acre wetland is a source of jobs
and economic livelihood for hundreds of thousands of people.
They attract visitors from across the country and around the
world, contributing immensely to the tourism industry. The
Everglades adds billions of dollars to the South Florida
economy annually. Yet, with each year that passes without
significant restoration, our economy is put at risk. More
importantly, a thriving Everglades ecosystem is crucial to our
health and the wellbeing of the families that live in Florida.
We have already experienced consequences of our current system.
This past year, we suffered through disastrous algae blooms
that are not only toxic to marine life and our fishing and
tourism industry, but are harmful to human health, and I just
want to remind everyone, and I brought some pictures of the
images that we saw in Florida.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for bringing this. Thank you.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. The overgrowth of algae causes
respiratory issues and eye irritation, so much so that some
people are unable to go outside over the duration of the bloom.
We have also had countless fish wash ashore; thousands and
thousands of tons of fish that are washing ashore our coasts,
in Florida.
These naturally occurring events are significantly
exasperated by our polluted and damaged Everglades ecosystems.
The Everglades also provide drinking water for more than one-
third of Floridians. That is over eight million people who rely
on the ecosystem for their most basic needs. Furthermore, the
Everglades are natural barriers to floodwaters. They act as
sponges during floods and storm surges. With rising sea levels
and stronger and more frequent storms, due to climate change,
the natural infrastructure provided by the Everglades is even
more vital to the existence of our South Florida environment.
I think of the Everglades as our circulatory system. They
are the arteries that provide life to all of us, in South
Florida. They are a certified nationwide treasure. This is a
bipartisan issue with support at the Federal level, state
level, and local level. This has to be a national priority. I
strongly urge you to provide the highest funding possible for
Army Corps accounts, so that we can propel Everglades
restoration projects ahead, for the sake of our economy, our
health, and the beautiful landscape and biodiversity of South
Florida.
I just want to finish by quoting one of my favorite
authors. As Marjory Stoneman Douglas said, in her book, The
Everglades: River of Grass, ``There are no other Everglades in
the world. They are, they have, always been one of the unique
regions of the Earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing
anywhere else is like them.'', which is--I urge the Committee
to protect them. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for being the effective spokesman for
your region--spokeswoman for your region. Congressman McNerney.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. McNerney. Chairman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson,
thanks for the opportunity to testify today. This is my first
time to testify before this subcommittee. So, I wore pink to
show you my softer side, this morning. Fundamentally, we must
act aggressively on climate change. I spent over 20 years in
the wind industry business, and I am determined on this issue.
We can create good jobs, provide clean energy, and mitigate the
damage from climate change through strong, immediate action.
I would like to use my time today to talk about three of my
priorities for this year's appropriations bill. First, fund
cutting edge research for renewable energy, energy storage, and
climate intervention technologies. Second, start the process
for a nuclear waste repository or restart the process for a
nuclear waste repository; and three, adapt adaptation measures
to make our communities more resilient to the effects of
climate change.
As vice chair of the Energy Subcommittee on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, I urge the subcommittee to find our--to
fund our clean energy priorities. Importantly, this includes
the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, as well as the Office of Electricity and
Delivery, and the new cyber office within it, the Office of
Science--Sciences Basic Research Mission. Cyber is a very
critical issue, and it is growing in its importance.
I have also co-chaired the Grid Innovation Caucus for many
years, and we must transform our grid into a bidirectional,
fluid, and resilient backbone of our electricity
infrastructure. We must fund technology, research, and
development programs to create an energy system that adapts the
changing distributed resources, climate, and cost. The DOE's
programs across the spectrum, from the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, or EERE, to RPE, to the Office of Science,
including our national labs, are central to this effort. I must
add that climate adaptation, mitigation, and intervention
strategies, across the board, should be on the table. We must
also work together to find a permanent solution to nuclear
waste. While we have not had a major accident yet, there are
tens of thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste sitting
in relatively exposed conditions. This is a tragedy waiting to
happen. I was a graduate student in mathematics at the
University of New Mexico, and studied at the Waste Isolation
Pilot Project, near Carlsbad. Nuclear waste has engineering
solutions. This is a political problem. A successful nuclear
storage project will need transparency with the community, and
while there will always be some amount of opposition, Congress
must work with the community for a local buy-in. This is why we
must work towards an interim storage solution that ties to a
permanent repository. The one requires the other.
Finally, I urge the Committee to fund adaptation and
mitigation efforts through the Army Corps of Engineers.
Specifically, the operations, and maintenance, and construction
accounts are important to flood control and resilience efforts.
Two projects in my district are a part of the Army Corps'
workplan, and I encourage full funding for these accounts, and
before I close, I will just say I have the California Delta in
my region, which is similar, in some ways, to the Florida
Everglades. We need to protect those vital resources because
they are sources of economic growth and the health of the
community. With that, I yield.
[The information follows:)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. I would like to thank both witnesses for
testifying. They have been most articulate, and you have
mentioned issues that others have not. I thank you, both. If
you have visual materials that you wish to append to the
record, we will receive those materials. We try to put them up
on our website, so that we can help the public, and our own
members, understand how an individual project in one place
might be part of a much larger, systemic set of issues that
change as the environment around us adapts, and so I think
those are very important. I want to thank Congressman McNerney
for your leadership on so many--and, both personally and as a
representative from California, on the new energy systems that
we have to develop across this country, and for your
suggestions on how we move forward on a serious question, such
as interim storage as a first step toward permanent storage
and--in the future. We need ideas there because, obviously,
there is a lot of disagreement and, for the sake of the
country, we have to find a positive step forward. So, thank you
so very much for being with us today. There are others waiting,
so. Congressman Simpson, did you have--notice I did not call
you Shimkus this time?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. You did not call me Shimkus this time.
Yeah, well. As the leading Republican on this Committee, I will
not tell you that I disagree with anything either of you said.
I have been a huge supporter of the Everglades, continue to be,
spent a couple days down there. If you could, do something to
get rid of those pythons. That would be really important to me.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Do you want to see an image of the
largest female python that was just caught, I think, last
week----
Mr. Simpson. I do not want to see that. They scare the hell
out of me, but, anyway, thank you for being here. I look
forward to working with you. Energy grid resilience and
security is a huge issue. So, thank you for being here today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both. Thank you. Our next panel--let
us call Congressman Conor Lamb, of Pennsylvania, and also
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, from Puerto Rico. Thank you, both,
for appearing today. We will take Congressman Lamb first. We
are calling in the order of appearance.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. CONOR LAMB, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Simpson, for allowing me to be here today. I am Conor Lamb,
proudly representing the people of Western Pennsylvania's 17th
district. Madam Chairwoman, if I told you that I had a policy
in mind that would definitely reduce the amount of carbon in
our atmosphere, create jobs, make it cheaper for small
businesses to move their goods, create jobs, and cut traffic on
our roadways, as well as creating jobs. Most people would agree
that those are pretty good bipartisan objectives. Thankfully,
that is something that we can do, and we can do it by
supporting our inland waterway system, specifically, our
rivers.
Pittsburgh is known as the City of Three Rivers. We have
three beautiful rivers, the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and the
Ohio, that come together in downtown Pittsburgh, and we built
an infrastructure to make it possible for us to move cargo, to
supply our municipal drinking water systems, to engage in
recreation to protect the environment, but this infrastructure
is aging, and it is aging fast.
Specifically, we have three locks on the upper Ohio River,
which are in my district, that are included in what is called
the Upper Ohio Navigation Project, and these locks are called
the Emsworth, Dashields, and Montgomery locks. They are the
oldest in the entire Ohio River system. They are all over 70
years old. If I asked you which is older, between a Slinky and
the locks on the upper Ohio River, unfortunately, the answer
would be the locks on the upper Ohio, and they are expected to
do a lot more work every day than the Slinky is.
I brought some pictures with me, today, to show the state
of degradation that these locks are in. This is just an overall
view of the Montgomery lock, to give you a sense of what it
looks like, but if we go to the next picture, that is a giant
crack in the outside of a structure that is meant to manage and
hold tons and tons of river water. Moving to the next one, this
is a Lieutenant General, from the Army Corps of Engineers,
pointing out a crack in the middle wall gallery at the
Montgomery lock. So, this is actually a wall that separates two
different chambers of the locks. We have a large chamber, which
is capable of holding lots of barges at once and carrying huge
construction cargo, and we have a smaller chamber, which is,
obviously, much smaller. There is a concrete wall in between
them that holds the whole thing together, and there are cracks
on both the inside and outside of it. One more shot is a crack
in what you can see is, kind of, a ceiling structure. Again,
that is just holding massive amounts of river water. The reason
we have these cracks, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking Member,
is because, over the years, we have not fully funded the
reconstruction of these locks and dams. We have done it
piecemeal. It does not help our business owners. It does not
help the structures, themselves, but, most importantly, it does
not help the taxpayer. When we pay for these things piecemeal,
they become more expensive over time. We are just due to finish
another lock and dam project, in Western Pennsylvania, that was
initially authorized in 1994, and it is going to end up costing
the taxpayers three-four times what it originally should have
because we never paid for and finished all the work at once.
One of the problems we have with this particular lock,
which is why I have highlighted it as that, it sits very close
to one of the largest construction sites in the United States,
right now, which is the Shell Corporation building, a
petrochemical plant, in my district. There are--by this summer,
it will be 6,000 people working, on site, to build it. It will
create thousands and thousands of jobs in downstream
manufacturing because of the plastic that is being created.
They are all coming from the natural gas in Western
Pennsylvania.
Well, the project is so large that there are certain pieces
of construction equipment that they have to bring up the river,
that can only fit in the large chamber of the lock that I
mentioned. It will be closed for large parts of this summer
because of this piecemeal reconstruction that has to be done.
They, literally, have to put pieces of steel rebar in where
those cracks are, every so often, to keep the entire thing from
falling apart. So, Shell is busy trying to schedule the
delivery of some of this construction equipment. Construction
workers and their families are waiting on the jobs that have
been created there, but no one will get paid, and this project
will not advance if we cannot improve this situation. Shell's
going to be able to figure it out. They are a large company,
but the small, downstream business owners will never have that
kind of advantage.
It is only 2 cents a ton to ship their goods on the river,
versus close to 10 cents on the road, at this point. So, if you
are a business owner, which are you going to choose, but you
need certainty and predictability to get to your customers. So,
this is the issue. What I ask, for your consideration, is to
fully fund the investigations account, so that this project can
compete for funding in the future, and that we also make sure
we fully fund the construction part of the Waterways Trust Fund
Account. We also ask you to consider providing and FY-20 O&M
funding level at, or above, the level provided for in the
Energy & Water Development Appropriations Act of 2019.
This is a bipartisan cause. We have several members,
Congressman Johnson, Congressman McKinley, Congressman
Reschenthaler, from the Republican Party, and myself, and
Congressman Doyle, from the Democratic Party. We can do better
than this, I believe, and I really thank you for hearing me out
today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much Congressman Lamb, for
appearing. Representative Gonzalez-Colon.
---------- --
--------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO
RICO
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson, for holding this important hearing and
having me here today. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects
are instrumental for restoring critical infrastructure and
maintaining financial stability. In the case of Puerto Rico,
the Army Corps oversee multiple projects in several
municipalities on the island, and, as you are probably aware,
reconstruction and recovery efforts remain underway on the
island, and my constituents continue to face challenges tied to
the devastation of the 2017 hurricane season. One of the Corps
projects that remain a priority in Puerto Rico is the Cano
Martin Pena Echo System Restoration Project, located in San
Juan Metropolitan Area. The Cano Martin Pena Community is
located alongside a 3.75-mile-long tidal channel, and is home
to over 26,000 residents, making it one of the most densely
populated areas on the island. For decades, the community has
struggled with frequent flooding, resulting from debris and
waste water accumulation in the channel. Flooding also
negatively impacts all the neighboring communities San Juan and
the International Airport.
To make matters worse, the hurricane season of 2017
exacerbated flooding problems, by increasing the amount of
debris that already clogged the channel, and, therefore,
increased the level of pollution and health concerns that
existed prior to the storms. As all of you already know, my
district was not only--the only one effected by natural
disasters during the last two years. Several older states and
territories were impacted and, most likely, share similar
hardships. This is partly due to projects like this, that
secure improper funding for the Corps--for the Corps is
essential. As an effort to achieve this goal, I submitted a
request to maintain the inactive level of funding, of $2.18
billion for the Army Corps construction account, to the fiscal
year 2020. Additionally, I respectfully request these funds to
be used to authorize no less than five new construction
projects, to be used or start--for new starts, and no less than
two of the five new starts to be on ecosystem restoration
projects. According to the Army Corps, restoring ecosystems to
their normal, self-regulated function remains a priority.
Therefore, they shall have the resources available to undertake
this important task.
Lastly, I request inclusion of the--of report language
about the Cano Martin Pena Ecosystem Restoration Project that
recognize the importance of this project that has been working
since the 1970s, and including this, its lock protection
benefits, and encourage the Corps to work with a--with a non-
Federal sponsor to continue the next phase at the earliest
practicable opportunity. In closing, the Government of Puerto
Rico has already invested over $100 million in this project. It
is currently on track to finalize the pre-construction phase,
and design, by the end of the current fiscal year. I would like
to acknowledge the leadership of my colleagues in the House,
and in the Senate, for providing funds during the last two
years. It was because of you that this project has continued to
happen, and so many visits from different representatives in
the House and in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that this
community and several NGOs are working together, and that is
the reason I am here today, not just to say thank you, but to
continue and encourage you to continue support in this
community. I will like, also, to continue the Cano Martin Pena,
to fulfill their goal. I would like also to recognize the
diligent and dedicated work of ENLACE, the non-Federal sponsor,
and I am confident that their hard work and commitment will
remain as an example for similar projects on the island. I will
continue to propel the project forward. With that, I yield
back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both, very much. We have members
waiting, so I will be very quick, but Congressman Lamb, thank
you so very much for your excellent testimony, and visual
illustrations of the real infrastructure challenge we face with
the Corps. We cannot agree with the President's cutting back on
the Corps construction accounts, their operations and
maintenance accounts. I mean, that is simply dangerous for the
nation. I, actually, think that, if anyone is listening over in
the Trump Administration, that we should move the Corps Budget
forward, not cut it by a third, but move it as our first step
to infrastructure for this country. If we cannot have a T&I
Bill that emerges, to fully fund the Corps accounts, they could
get the job done across this country. We would make a
significant difference, and I think we could pass it. So, that
is just a personal opinion, but we thank you for your testimony
today, for your true leadership, and, Congresswoman Colon,
thank you very much for your dutiful representation during a
very difficult time. I am proud of what the Corps was able to
do in Puerto Rico, and continues to do, and we look for ways to
be constructive as we move forward. Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Don't really have any questions. I have been
up on the Mon--I cannot pronounce the name of the river. How do
you say it?
Mr. Lamb. The Monongahela.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I always screw it up. So, I just say the
Mon, but I went up there. The Army Corps took me up there, and
I was stunned at the locks and dams along there, and the repair
that is needed, and what I was really stunned about is, one of
those goes down, what it does to commerce in the area. It shuts
it down. So, it is very important that we do this. In fact, you
might be interested that they were showing us how they brought
a barge in one time, and it was a little too wide for the lock,
but they said, ``Just go ahead. It will give.'' What? It will
give? Well, it is wooden posts, and you can shove this thing
about a foot either way, you know? It is kind of spooky. So, it
is certainly something that needs to get done; appreciate you
both being here.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both. If you would have any
augmented material you wish to submit to the record, we will
be--happily accept it.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. I want to submit a letter for more
details, under project. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, both. Our next panel,
Congressman Raul Ruiz, of California, and Congressman T.J. Cox,
of California. Welcome, gentlemen. We will begin with
Congressman Ruiz. Sorry to keep you waiting a few minutes.
---------- --
--------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
WITNESS
HON. RAUL RUIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member
Simpson. Thank you for inviting me here, today, to testify--
Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson. Thank
you for inviting me here, today, to testify about an issue that
is of incredible importance to my district in Southern
California. The Salton Sea is California's largest inland body
of water, stretching more than 30 miles across Imperial and
Riverside Counties, in Southern California. It is also a
rapidly unfolding environmental disaster. The Salton Sea is
shrinking, and that presents a massive public health crisis, as
the shoreline recedes and the playa becomes exposed, salty,
chemically, laden dust becomes airborne and blows across the
region that my constituents call home. This dust is made up of
fine microparticles that, when breathed, can get into the blood
stream and cause asthma and other respiratory ailments.
It is also--it has pesticides, heavy metals, and other
toxins. The Salton Sea is also critical to the economy of my
region. Tourism is in the top three industries. You might have
heard of Palm Springs and The Coachella Valley, California. So,
you can recognize that it is--tourism is important. National
parks, like Joshua Tree, desert habitat, and gorgeous
landscapes, that cannot be found anywhere else in the country,
are part of the draw to our region. So, tourism, property
values, and more are all threatened by the potential
contaminated dust bowl. In fact, a 2014 study by The Pacific
Institute, put the cost of inaction at more than $70 billion.
Finally, the Salton Sea is an important natural habitat for
fish and wildlife. More than 400 species of birds can be found
stopping at the sea, as part of the Pacific Flyway. However, as
the sea shrinks and the salinity increases, this habitat is at
risk of vanishing. Already, most fish species have died, and
even the tilapia, which can withstand salty water, are
succumbing to the pollution. In 2016, I helped facilitate a
memorandum of understanding between the state of California and
The Department of Interior to work together on the management
of the Salton Sea. This MOU was a great step forward. It still
needs to be funded by Congress, and I intend to see it through.
This Appropriations Committee, in fact, has recognized the
importance of that MOU and has included report language
supporting it. I would encourage the Committee to not only once
again include this critical language, but also expand the
language to include the cooperation from the Army Corps, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture,
to further the objectives outlined in the 2016 MOU. The 2016
MOU included a commitment for $30 million for both operation
and maintenance of Habitat Restoration and Dust Suppression
Projects, and additional projects associated with California's
Salton Sea Management Plan. I strongly urge the Committee to
follow through on the commitments made to the residents of
Southern California.
The success of the mitigation of the Salton Sea hinges on
the cooperation of all government partners, and it should be
noted that Department of Interior is the largest land owner at
the Salton Sea. In addition, I am requesting that your
Committee include vital reporting, which under the Army Corps
of Engineer section of the report, encouraging the Corps to
prioritize permitting for this Salton Sea Management Plan.
Expediting these projects is critical. Each day that shovel-
ready projects sit idle is detrimental to health of residents
in Southern California. Finally, I would like to address the
impacts of the Drought Contingency Plan. As you may know, the
DCP is a critical plan between seven Western Basin states to
conserve water and to keep the Colorado River operational.
During the course of DCP negations, my constituents, including
Senator Boxer, expressed concerns that the authority granted to
the Bureau of Reclamation could result in decreased inflow, or
wading environmental protections for the Salton Sea. I would
strongly encourage the committee to draft report language that
reiterates Congress' commitment to both the Salton Sea and the
DCP, and make it clear that any actions taken with regard to
the DCP should be done only in a way that does not exacerbate
the unfolding public health crisis at the Salton Sea. The
Salton Sea is a public health environmental and economic crisis
that is unfolding rapidly and will affect residents far beyond
the receding shoreline. Thank you for inviting me to testify,
and I hope the committee will include these important requests
in the fiscal year 2020 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Ruiz. We thank you so much for
your testimony, today. Congressman Cox.
---------- --
--------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. TJ COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member
Simpson, for this opportunity to testify, as you develop the
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020. As a proud
representative of California's 21st Congressional District, I'm
here on behalf of the farmers, the ranchers, and, most
importantly, the communities of California's San Joaquin
Valley. As you know, my congressional district is stressed by a
lack of water supply reliability, and the work done by this
subcommittee is of critical importance to the future of the San
Joaquin Valley. As such, I'll be advocating for a number of
different topics that would increase water supply reliability,
and, today, I would like to highlight three of critical
importance. One, I urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the
administration's water infrastructure improvement for the
Nation, when act--request of $134 million, and two, the Bureau
of Reclamation's full request for the Safety of Dams Program,
which will advance critical safety work for improving the
seismic stability of the B.F. Sisk Dam; and three, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Water Operations Technical Support, the
WOTS program, in the amount of five and a half million.
Our 21st Congressional District has some of the most severe
water needs in the country, and faces unique challenges, in
terms of addressing imbalanced groundwater use, resulting from
decreased surface water supplies from the Delta. It is
unacceptable that, even today, 2 years after the worst drought
in California's history, there are families in my district that
cannot drink the water out of their taps, due to water quality
issues. As the number one agriculturally productive district in
California, the top agricultural state, access to a clean and
reliable water supply is the driving force behind our
community, and critical to the health and well-being of our
communities.
I am here, today, to urge the subcommittee to include
sufficient funding to maintain and upgrade California's water
storage and conveyance systems. This is imperative, not only
for today, but to also prepare for future droughts, which we
know are coming, due to our changing climate. In regard to
wind, I recently signed onto a bipartisan letter, urging
funding for projects across 17 western reclamation States. With
increasing erratic winter storms, uncertain snowpack, and
prolonged drought, we need to be able to capture and store more
water during wet years for use during dry years.
One way we can easily mitigate the detrimental impacts of
climate change on the hardworking families of my district is by
adapting our water systems, such that we build resilient water
supplies and related infrastructures to meet future needs.
In regard to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WOTS program,
within operations, maintenance, FUD risk management account, I
recently signed onto a bipartisan letter, sponsored by
Representatives Costa and LaMalfa, to accelerate development
of, and improved decision-making tools at Western Reservoirs.
Recent scientific advancements have allowed us to increase the
forecast accuracy of atmospheric rivers, which deliver us much
of California's water supply on an annual basis. This increased
accuracy of the--the increased accuracy of these forecasts
should inform the operations of our reservoir systems to
stretch our water supplies as far as possible, without
increasing flood risk. The WOTS program is critical to the
effort.
As established by sections 4007 and 4009 of Public Law 114-
322, resilient water supply is not only a purpose for Federal
expenditures, but is, in fact, required without further
congressional approval, and it is in this capacity that I
testify before you today. To date, Congress has enacted funding
for storage projects under sections 4007 and 4009 of the WIN
Act within the Bureau of Reclamation's water and related
resources account. The WIN Act established a process for
Federal funding to be allocated, based on Administration,
Administrative recommendations, and the letter was provided to
this committee, recommending WIN Act funding allocations on
February 13, 2019.
In conclusion, I request that the Committee fund, one, the
WIN Act, in the amount of $134 million; two, Reclamations' Dam
Safety Program; and three, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WOTS program, in the amount of $5.5 million. The Congress and
the Administration should fully support the use of the funds
that accrue to the Reclamation fund, for their intended purpose
of supporting Western Water Development, including water
infrastructure projects that continue conservation to meet our
future community, energy, and infrastructure needs. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, both, for testifying. I consider the
two districts you represent extremely predictive, as to how we
are going to live in this new century, and so I am very
grateful for your testimony today. If you have other materials
you wish to submit to the record, your districts do not live in
isolation, they relate to a larger ecosystem, and any way you
can help us understand, more specifically, what is happening in
your areas, throughout California. Today, we had a great deal
of testimony about regions that are flooding around the
country, and how we handle water runoff and, obviously, you do
not have to be a genius to sit up here and figure out, well,
you know, what do we do? How do we better store the water that
is showering down on us? How do we move it to places that need
it? How do we better manage the assets we have in this new
century? So, I think what you know and what you have lived, in
your regions, is important for the country to know. Any way you
can help us better explain it, through our website, through
materials you provide, photos you provide. I just think we have
a hurdle to overcome in public education of what is going on
around this country, including the desertification of the West,
and how we meet the challenge. So, I am really grateful for
your appearance today.
I wanted to move to Congressman Simpson, if he has anything
he would like to say.
Mr. Simpson. I would just say, thank you both for your
testimony. I have spent time in your district. I have never
been to the Salton Sea. It would be interesting to go see. That
is my impression that has been created over time.
I have to get out and drive around and see the West. And
one of these days I might call you up and we would be driving,
I mean, California is just like next door.
Mr. Ruiz. We can arrange that.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. I think the relationship between food, land,
water and people in places such as you represent, needs to be
more fully fleshed out. The Salton Sea, obviously, is
experiencing a serious condition because of runoff that
happened over the years, and a lot of the materials that I am
sure are being airborne now, because of the drought that you
have had to endure is related to a, I don't want to say a
mismatch, between food, land, water and people, but somehow we
have got to put the equation together in a smarter way for the
country in each congressional district, and we are not there
yet.
Mr. Ruiz. That would be an example of how we can prevent
dust exposure with pesticides, arsenic, heavy metals and other
toxins from getting into the blood of human beings.
That, as a doctor, is my priority, and we have a plan, it
is the California Salton Sea Management Plan, we have some
funding in this, but the Federal Government has to do its part
in cooperation with the state and other local actors in order
to prevent this from happening, and to potentially save many,
many lives.
So, I appreciate your interest, and I will take you up on
that suggestion, and I will invite the both of you for a
wonderful trip to the Coachella Valley during the winter months
when you are all covered with snow. And I will give you tour of
the Salton Sea. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. As we are facing in the Great Lakes, a
monumental challenge of additional rainfall that is washing
over our watersheds at a much higher rate and taking with it a
lot of nutrients. And with warming soils, conditions, science
doesn't fully understand. I am sure you all saw the stories
internationally about the new type of fungus that has infected
people for which there is no antibiotic.
Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. And with the warming earth, there is a soil
science that is not completely understood either. So it is
incumbent on all of us to put the pieces together, try to
figure out new ways of moving forward, and I am, again, most
grateful for your testimony today. I know what responsible
members you are. So, thank you for being here.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. We would like to call our next panel. Is this
our last panel?
We may have one more? Okay. Thank everyone, for their
patience. Scott Peters of California, and Morgan Griffith of
Virginia. Thank you, Congressmen, so much for waiting today,
and for being with us. And we will begin with Congressman
Peters.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. SCOTT PETERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson. Thank you for hosting Member Day, for your colleagues
like me who have important requests for the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bills.
I know you are talking about a lot of things. I want to
just give a nod to similarly important priorities for me,
Energy Efficient Building Grants, Carbon Capture Utilization
and Sequestration incentives, water power innovations and more.
All high on my list and all connected to environmental
stewardship in the San Diego in particular. You have no--that
received the appropriations letters we have written to support
those programs.
But today I wanted to highlight one particular topic where
the issue of where Americans can safely store spent nuclear
fuel. As you may know, the San Diego Region is home to the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, or SONGS, which is being
decommissioned. As part of that decommissioning spent nuclear
fuel is being relocated to on site, dry cask storage.
Now this cannot be the final resting for this material. It
is located on a Military Base, and Camp Pendleton, about 100
feet from the Pacific Ocean, and the corrosive ocean air, miles
from massive fault lines, and most alarmingly, close enough to
communities to severely affect millions of Southern
Californians.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the storage
process is safe, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in
the wrong place. While San Diego bears unique risks with onsite
storage, many other communities have spent nuclear fuel near
their homes, schools and offices, and shouldn't. We need a
safer storage location.
In fact, we have one planned, but due to the lack of
political will, Congress has not advanced on this planned
solution, and I suggest that that needs to change.
The Department of Energy needs to continue its path, both
toward interim storage options, and permanent storage at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. That is why a bipartisan letter with
Congressman Jeff Duncan, in support of the administration's
budget request for funding.
The request includes $116 million to the Department of
Energy, the split between $90 million for the Nuclear Waste
Disposal Account, $26 million for the Defense Nuclear Waste
Disposal Account, and $38.5 million in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program.
Basically the funding for three accounts will be used to take
the next steps on licensing and design activities at Yucca
Mountain, which includes the judicatory hearings. All this is
to make sure that we work with Nevada, and we make sure that
the storage is safe there as well.
Last year the House passed legislation for these solutions,
and my colleagues and I strongly urge you to support this
request. It is really beyond time to get something done to
secure the spent fuel that threatens communities.
And I want to thank you for your time and consideration.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much for appearing, Congressman
Peters. Congressman Griffith.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Griffith. Let me just say that John Shimkus is very
happy you said that. And I know they heard from him earlier
today, and I would echo those comments, not for the reasons,
but just because we, as a Nation, have to figure it out.
As you all know, I don't come from an area that has nuclear
waste in the southwest section of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
That is not one of our issues. We have lots of issues and I do
appreciate the opportunity to highlight some of the matters
that are of great importance to my district, and to the country
as we move forward in this process.
And I would like to address the importance of research and
development funding at the Department of Energy, in general,
and specifically at the Office of Fossil Energy.
As this Congress continues to examine our global climate,
it is imperative that an effective plan to counter climate
change include our Nation's vast supply of natural resources,
and our talent for technological innovation.
Far more room exists for exploration and innovation in the
energy space, and DOE plays an important role in this research
and development.
During a recent district work period, I visited Virginia
Tech where a team of experts is focusing on developing
processes to extract rare earth elements from coal. But as
often happens with research, sometimes you are working on one
thing, and you actually solve a different problem. Now they are
still working on getting the rare elements from coal, because
it appears that Appalachia has a rich segment of where the coal
meets the rock, we have a lot of rare earth. It is still rare,
but not as rare.
And so a consortium of universities including Virginia
Tech, won a $2-million grant from DOE for a pilot project to
test a hydrophobic, hydrophilic, don't ask me what all that
means, separation process to produce clean coal and especially
carbon products from discarded, or for discarded coal wastes.
As a result of this research, they have also found a way to
improve the quality of coal burn at steel plants. So, what they
are able to do, is they are able to take a poor quality coal,
get the higher quality carbon ready for use, and then it can be
used for making steel, even if it is a low quality coal.
As a result of that research two steel facilities in India
are now licensing their technology, not because they are
looking for rare earth, but because they are looking--India
wants to have cleaner processes, but their main fuel source is
coal, and it is not very good coal.
So they are going to use our technology that we did the
research on to get a higher burn from their coal, for their
steel plants, which lowers their carbon footprint. So, when we
talk about doing research on coal, what so many people don't
realize is, the rest of the world is going to continue to burn
coal.
India wants to have a clean environment, I am not saying
they don't, but if all they have got between themselves and
their people having good jobs, or better jobs, and having a
better lifestyle, is to be able to use their coal as it
currently is, a dirtier form of coal, they are going to use it.
But if we can use our research and development and come up
with better ways to use the coal, or to make it cleaner, then
we can export that technology to the world, because if we could
do everything in this country to lower our carbon footprint,
and if the rest of the world, particularly the large emerging
economies, don't follow suit, and they won't if it means
impoverishment of their people, then we haven't really done a
whole lot.
And this is one of those exciting technologies where we
were looking for one thing, but because we were working on
clean coal, we found another. This is just one example of how
DOE and research and development funding can be used in
conjunction with our national labs and research universities to
get projects like this off the ground.
I would love to see overall increases in research, but at
the minimum parity between the amount of money appropriated for
fossil energy research, and other DOE research accounts,
particularly with the Office of Energy, Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, would be greatly appreciated.
A comprehensive of all of the above energy policies must
include robust funding for R&D at the Federal level. These
funds will continue to shorten the timeline that it take, ready
to make clean energy technologies available, not just for us,
but for the world.
I would also like to share my support for work done by the
Appalachian Regulations Commission, particularly on the
Appalachian Highway projects, HEART funding can be used for a
variety of projects that directly benefit economic development
in the Appalachian Region through grants and contracts.
This money has gone towards important issues in the
Appalachian communities including expansion of broadband
services, community planning and roads. The projects this money
funds are important for the success of Southwest Virginia, and
really for all of Appalachia.
I understand that the funding of the Appalachian Highway
Program isn't under this committee's jurisdiction, but HEART
plays a critical role in administering the Appalachian
Development Highway System. These highway projects serve as
economic lifelines to small communities throughout Central
Appalachia, bringing in tourism, jobs, et cetera.
I urge you to work with the Transportation Subcommittee,
and with the Appalachian Regional Commission to ensure that
they have the resources needed to expand and improve highway
access in Central Appalachian.
And that being said, I appreciate you all, time here today,
I know you have heard a lot. But thank you so much for doing
it, it is important to us to be able to come in and look you in
the eye and say, this stuff is important. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much for representing your
districts, but also the larger needs of the country, embracing
all energy forms in trying to help our nation transition where
we must.
I think you have both been very upfront about that. Thank
you for helping us to produce a more balanced bill, as this
committee is known to do, and for the sake of the country.
I heard, Congressman Peters, what you have recommended
regarding nuclear spent fuel storage. We have had several
witnesses testify today. It is a very prickly issue, as you
well know, but I think all of us want to see a momentum on
that.
And Congressman Griffith, I think you are the--we had two
witnesses from Virginia today. So, thank you for representing
the Western portion, so that we gain an understanding of the
coal corridor that ends up passing through Ohio as well, the
southern part of our state, in West Virginia, and so forth, the
very place in America that cannot be ignored.
And we have to find answers, and science is our friend on
this. Although she seems to be very slow. I have been voting
for clean coal since I got here many years ago, and we don't
seem to be there yet. But we have learned a lot about the
ecosystem in which we must jointly exist. So, thank you for
testifying today.
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I would just say, thank you for your
testimony, for being here. We will take it, obviously, under
consideration, when we put this bill together. Congressman
Whitman was the other Congressman from Virginia, and I noticed
that he had a smile on his face, just like yours, so there must
be something that happened that----
Mr. Griffith. Yes. We had some good things happen last
night in Virginia over the weekend, and last week.
Mr. Simpson. Congratulations.
Ms. Kaptur. And if either of you wish to submit additional
material to the record, including visual material, or broader
ecosystem data that you think would be important for our own
information, please do so.
Mr. Simpson. Thanks very much to both of you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much. And finally, I think
our last witness of today will be Garret, Congressman Garret
Graves from Louisiana. We have had quite a contingent from
Louisiana today. So we warmly welcome you.
----------
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
WITNESS
HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Mr. Graves. It must be kind of important.
Ms. Kaptur. Must be pretty important.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member Simpson.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I do very
much appreciate your patience. I know that sitting here though
testimony from all these members from problems, energy, water,
across the issues is challenging, and I do very much appreciate
you opening the doors, and your patience being here today.
So you have had other people from Louisiana who have come,
and so I am sure that they have said everything, I just want to
say it better. Now, so seriously.
Madam Chair, a little bit of background. Louisiana, is at
the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world, and
we drain Canada, we drain Montana, we drain New York, and
everything in between.
As all of these areas develop, including your state, more
water is put into this river system, it comes to us. And so we
have this challenge of our spillway systems, our emergency
relief valves have been opened on average once every 10 years.
We have had to open them, 3 of the past 4 years, 3 of the past
4 years, we have had to open them, breaking this once per
decade sort of theme, or average that we have seen over the
last several decades. Showing again, more water is coming to us
and it does make us more vulnerable.
At the same time on the ecological side, we have lost 2,000
square miles of our coast, 2,000 square miles. Jurisdiction of
wetlands, we had the EPA and the Corps of Engineers that
regulate the wetlands, yet, their own actions. This is largely
attributable to the Corps of Engineers actions, have caused us
to lose 2,000 square miles of our coast, once again, making us
more vulnerable, and it is a very challenging situation to be
in.
This area is nationally significant, one of the top energy
producers, one of the top refiners, five of the top 15 tonnage
ports in the United States, one of two places in the Nation has
all six class one rail lines, top commercial seafood production
in the Continental United States.
I mean, these are nationally significant areas, assets,
resources that we have. And so these vulnerabilities affect not
just Louisiana, they affect the entire Nation.
We are talking a lot about the National Flood Insurance
Program lately, that is the defense, you are the offense, and
you have a $100 billion backlog in project with the Corps of
Engineers, $100 billion.
We can appropriate the amount of money that the
administration, whether it is Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, have
asked for, we will not have these projects for over 100 years.
We obviously know it doesn't make sense. We are exacerbating
the problem through a few things we are doing here.
Number one, some of the barriers in place that are
preventing in some cases pre-disaster mitigation, hazard
mitigation, community development disaster recovery funds from
being used on Corps of Engineer projects.
There is no project process as arduous as the Corps of
Engineers. None. We should actually be incentivizing other
funds when they are eligible to be put towards these types of
projects. Not prohibiting it. Helping to address our backlog,
and more importantly helping to make our community more
resilient.
Helping to bring down the liability of the Flood Insurance
Program. Helping to reduce the flood insurance cost. And most
importantly, helping to reduce the trillions of dollars in
disaster cost that we have spent over the last few decades.
This is deficit spending.
I think that we need to look, and I know this gets into
authorization, I think we need to look very seriously about
whether the Department of Defense is the right agency to house
this mission.
I know a decade, excuse me, a hundred years ago it was, I
am not sure today that it still is the appropriate place for it
to be. Should it be an infrastructure agency? Should we set up
an administrative account to where the Corps is not billing
individual projects accounting, instead, have an administrative
account to bill the Corps of Engineers to where we can put
money toward projects, and not allow them to keep living off of
these projects, where they are siphoning off millions and
millions of dollars each year to pay for agency costs,
including our Colonel in Louisiana that had a fleet of vehicles
driving around places.
And I want to give a shout out to our Colonel Clancy who
now drives himself. But I am just not sure that there is a
pressure for efficiency there. We have a project in Louisiana
that has been in the study phase since 1993. We spent over $80
million studying it, and they haven't put a shovel in the
ground.
That is not doing justice to anyone. An authorization
should mean something to someone, it should mean something to
our residence, not the actual death sentence, or mean that
nothing is going to happen, and you can't use other funds to
progress the project.
And a few other things, very quickly. We have, as I
mentioned, 5 of the top 15 ports in the United States, yet we
don't have the ability to handle post-Panamax ships. We have
had a deepening project on the Mississippi River that has been
authorized now for decades. We have done some additional
perfection to the authorization language.
This isn't just an opportunity for us to meet new shipping
trends, it is an opportunity for us to take the sediment that
we dredge, and use it for restoring our coastal wetlands, which
also have billions of dollars in federally authorized projects
there. It is an opportunity for us to have symbiotic
relationship.
Again, I want to mention the Morganza and the Gulf Project
which is hurricane protection for Terrebonne and Lafourche
Parishes that dates back to 1993. We have had over a billion
dollars in FEMA claims in this region without any work on this
project.
It saves money, we are working right now to help to refine
the projects, because I think the Corps' estimated cost is
outrageous. It was in excess of $10 billion. I wouldn't fund it
either if it was that high. So we think it was gold-plated out
of hand so we are working to reduce those costs.
And lastly Madam Chair, we have a programmatic project
called the Louisiana Coastal Area, LCA, it's about 100 percent
about restoring our coastal wetlands.
It's about ecological productivity, helping to address sea
rise challenges and vulnerabilities, and coastal Louisiana
projects have been authorized since 2007. This is comparable.
The Chesapeake Bay Everglades, Great Lakes, except that it is
even more important.
And I would urge that you continue working to help improve
efficiency, and providing funding for these important national
projects.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much Congressman Graves.
Congressman Scalise testified a little bit earlier, and I said
to him that when our formal hearings are over, I really want to
create a sort of Mississippi River Corridor discussion, all the
way from the Red River Valley up in Minnesota, all the way down
to you in Louisiana, and have the Corps present, so we can get
our arms around what the future requires of us today.
And I am completely in agreement with you that the
infrastructure needs of the Corps budget are so huge, and we
have not been able to fund what is necessary around the
country. We patch a lot, and projects take a long time, because
there are a lot of projects and there is not enough money.
So, if you could have any influence over the Trump
administration that has proposed a budget that cut the Corps by
a third, and several other accounts that are very important to
us in the Department of Energy.
I mean, we really need more vision, and I believe that the
President should move an infrastructure bill starting with this
account. The Army Corps of Engineers Account. We have our arms
around the backlog, we know where it exists, and let us be the
base hit. Maybe we are not the homerun, but we could do so much
from coast to coast, but we can't do it if we have only one
leg.
And right now, we are limping around because we don't have
sufficient funding to meet all of the Corps' requirements
around the country, including in Louisiana.
So, I just put that on the table. I don't know what some of
those people think over there. We generally get an
administration in place that doesn't give us enough money for
the Corps knowing how vital this is to people's districts that
we will restore it.
Well, that doesn't show very much leadership. But I just
think somebody ought to, some group of people, maybe
Congressman Scalise could have an influence over there, but why
fight about some other infrastructure bill that will involve
several other committees. Our subcommittee could move a bill
very quickly, and all the projects are outline, including those
that are needed in your area. So I just put that on the table.
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I would say all we need is a big 302(b)
allocation. That has always been the challenge, and it is not
just from this administration. As I have said many times during
hearings, unfortunately their budget has to abide by the law,
and the law right now is sequestration. So, until we fix that,
we have got a problem.
I don't suspect that sequestration is going to be where
appropriation bills end. So we will come to an agreement, and
we will put funding in for those things. But a $100-billion
backlog in the Army Corps of Engineers, and $750-billion
backlog at the EPA in clean water and sewage systems, and so
forth. An $11-billion backlog in our national parks. A huge
problem.
Mr. Graves. Yeah. It is. It is. And if I can just respond
very briefly. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, in regard to the
White House, and as Ranking Member Simpson noted, this has been
a problem under consecutive administrations. I think one of the
challenges that everybody has is people look at the Corps of
Engineers and say, this isn't a good investment, they are not
fast enough.
And so it is kind of a chicken and an egg thing. I think we
have got some work to do on the authorization side as well as
to help improve the efficiency of this project in development
and the delivery process to where you all look at it, and the
White House looks at it like a good investment.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much. And we will accept your
written testimony for the record, and any visual materials that
you wish to provide along with it.
Mr. Graves. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Ms. Kaptur. We will post them on our website. Thank you so
very much.
Mr. Graves. Thanks, again, for opening up the committee. I
appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. All right. And I want to thank the Ranking
Member for his dutiful participation. And all the members who
have attended this morning. All of our witnesses.
The committee is adjourned.
[Additional material submitted for inclusion in the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]