[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MANAGEMENT AND SPENDING CHALLENGES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
AND OVERSIGHT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
February 5, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-570 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas BRIAN BABIN, Texas
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
HON. BILL FOSTER, Illinois, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina,
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee Ranking Member
DON BEYER, Virginia ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JERRY McNERNEY, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
February 5, 2020
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Ralph Norman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Written statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 19
Witnesses:
Panel I:
Mr. Daniel Simmons, Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Discussion, Panel I.............................................. 28
Panel II:
Dr. Charles Gay, Member, Sandia National Laboratories Energy and
Homeland Security External Advisory Board; former Director of
the Solar Energy Technologies Office, Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Mr. Anthony M. Reardon, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union
Oral Statement............................................... 138
Written Statement............................................ 140
Mr. Arjun Krishnaswami, Policy Analyst, Climate & Clean Energy
Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Oral Statement............................................... 147
Written Statement............................................ 149
Discussion, Panel II............................................. 167
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Daniel Simmons, Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............... 182
Dr. Charles Gay, Member, Sandia National Laboratories Energy and
Homeland Security External Advisory Board; former Director of
the Solar Energy Technologies Office, Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy............... 224
Mr. Arjun Krishnaswami, Policy Analyst, Climate & Clean Energy
Program, Natural Resources Defense Council..................... 229
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster................... 236
Reports submitted by Arjun Krishnaswami.......................... 247
MANAGEMENT AND SPENDING CHALLENGES
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m.,
in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill
Foster [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Foster. The hearing will now come to order.
And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
a recess at any time.
Well, good morning, and welcome to this joint hearing of
the Investigations and Oversight and Energy Subcommittees. I'm
pleased to be wielding the gavel for the first time as the
Chair of the I&O Subcommittee and to share leadership of this
panel with Ranking Member Norman of South Carolina.
We're here to discuss the Department of Energy's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, and its efforts
to advance clean energy technologies and energy efficiency
programs.
As a scientist who spent over 24 years working at one of
America's great national laboratories, I know firsthand how
vital federally funded research is to scientific breakthroughs.
EERE's investments in clean energy are an excellent example.
The office has supported many of America's best innovators and
businesses in their efforts to research, develop, and
demonstrate cutting-edge technologies in sustainable
transportation, renewable power, and energy efficiency. It is
one of the Federal Government's most powerful tools for
addressing climate change and for generating economic
opportunities.
You know, for those of you who know, I've spent a lot of
my time in Congress as a Co-Chair of the National Labs Caucus
and dragging Members of Congress to the 17 DOE (Department of
Energy) national labs because it's important that they
understand, and they do when they see the wonderful research
that's done there. But when things don't go as Congress expects
them to, I think that's one of the times that we have to just,
you know, put aside our disappointment and try to correct
course. And that's what a big part of the charge of this
Committee is.
You know, unfortunately, you know, we have a budget
process that involves negotiations with the Administration, but
ultimately, Congress gets to decide. The proposals from the
Administration, in the case of EERE, have cut their R&D
(research and development) funding in the past years by more
than 80 percent, so we've had a policy disagreement there. But
when Congress passes a budget, we expect that budget to be
followed. And when we see that it's not and where--and there
are things that will be presented by the subsequent witnesses
where there may not have been very high-quality, good-faith
effort to implement that budget, then there are questions that
we must be asking.
You know, I'm really proud that the budget thing has been
resolved in prior years and this year in favor of research
actually. The--we have had in Congress bipartisan
appropriations agreement that provides robust and historically
large funding for EERE. And this is a great win for the
environment and the future of the U.S. economy.
But yet in recent years it really seems as though EERE has
not spent the money that Congress directed to it, and it's been
slow to release grant funding. For example, EERE carried over
$823 million dollars this fiscal year, which is an increase
over previous years. This represents more than 1/3 of the
budget that EERE was allocated for last year. We want to make
sure that EERE manages its R&D investments in an efficient
manner and in keeping with congressional intent.
Furthermore, it has been brought to this Committee's
attention that EERE canceled a $46 million grant days before
award finalists were be--were to be announced. Ninety-two
applicants, who had submitted proposals to compete for this
funding, which was intended to spur innovation in solar
energies technologies, ended up going away emptyhanded and
confused. It seems as though this decision was made at a
political level at EERE, and it seems to have been fairly
arbitrary and not based--you know, not based on a thoughtful
discussion internally of the issues.
Now, my Committee staff spoke with several researchers
that applied to this grant and said they were confused and
disempowered by EERE's decision to cancel the funding
opportunity so late in the process. And my staff have prepared
a report on this issue, which I would now like to enter the
staff report into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Foster. If potential grantees do not think EERE
is a reliable partner or doubt that the application process is
fair, they are much less likely to engage with DOE in the
future, and that would be a loss to the United States. I'm
concerned about the chilling effect this could have on
scientific research, as well as the potential harm to the
United States' position as a global leader in a clean energy
future. And given its increased funding, it's vital that EERE
manage the R&D spending in as responsible and timely a manner
as possible so that we can solve the most important problems of
this generation and the next. Obviously, EERE must be
adequately staffed so it can manage, administer, and monitor
these millions of research dollars. And here again, we perceive
a problem. The EERE staff level have dropped since 2017 despite
Congress providing more money for salaries and benefits. The
Appropriations Committees have expressed concern over EERE's
low staffing levels and directed DOE to provide a plan for
significantly staffing up by the end of this fiscal year. I
understand that they have yet to receive their briefing from
EERE on this matter and look forward to seeing that report
myself.
Let me be clear that this hearing is not about taking
shots at people. I have tremendous respect particularly for the
career staff who've--you know, many of them have spent a good
hunk of their careers making sure that we have a strong clean
energy future for this country. But we're trying to think, you
know, how to make sure that such a great Federal research
program can really achieve its potential.
This Committee is dedicated to the stewardship of
scientific research and the Federal workforce that carries it
out. EERE has helped deliver a competitive innovation edge to
the United States that requires steady vigilance to maintain.
To maintain this commendable legacy of success, it's vital that
DOE's innovation mission remain independent of political
interference and respectful of the time that stakeholders and
personnel invest in their work with the agency.
Assistant Secretary Simmons, I'm glad that you've been
able to join us today for this discussion of important issues.
I understand, you know, how difficult it can be to find a time
that works for both the Committee and DOE's schedule, and so I
am--well, I won't go there. It would have been nicer to have an
earlier understanding on when we could have an actual official
speak on behalf of EERE here. Happy that you've finally
arrived.
And we also have a distinguished second panel in the
hearing today. And I thank all the witnesses for being here and
their willingness to share their expertise and perspectives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Foster follows:]
Good morning and welcome to this joint hearing of the
Investigations & Oversight and Energy Subcommittees. I'm
pleased to wield the gavel for the first time as the Chair of
Investigations & Oversight and to share leadership of this
panel with Ranking Member Norman of South Carolina. We are here
today to discuss the Department of Energy's Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy-EERE-and its efforts to advance
clean energy technologies and energy efficiency programs.
As a scientist who spent 24 years working at one of
America's great national laboratories, I know firsthand how
vital federally funded research is to scientific breakthroughs.
EERE's investments in clean energy are an excellent example.
This office has supported many of America's best innovators and
businesses in their efforts to develop cutting-edge energy
technologies. It is one of the federal government's most
powerful tools for addressing climate change and for generating
economic opportunities.
Unfortunately, the budget proposed by the Trump
Administration this past year sought to reduce EERE's R&D
funding by more than 80%. I'm proud to say that the bipartisan
appropriations agreement signed into law in December provided
robust funding for EERE in spite of that. Yet, in recent years,
it seems that EERE has been slow to spend. EERE carried over
$823 million dollars into this fiscal year. This represents
more than a third of the budget EERE was allocated for last
year. We want to make sure EERE manages its R&D investments in
an efficient manner and in keeping with Congressional intent.
Further, it has been brought to this Committee's attention
that EERE canceled a $46 million grant days before award
finalists were to be announced. Ninety-two applicants submitted
proposals to compete for this funding, which was intended to
spur innovation in solar energy technologies. However, it seems
political officials at EERE arbitrarily decided to cancel,
rewrite, and reissue the grant, circumventing career staff with
decades of experience, at significant cost to the taxpayer.
My Committee staff spoke with several researchers that
applied to this grant who said they felt confused and
disempowered by EERE's decision to cancel the funding
opportunity so late in the process. My staff have prepared a
report on this issue; I would now like to enter this staff
report into the record.If potential grantees do not think EERE
is a reliable partner, they are less likely to engage with DOE
in the future. I am concerned about the effect this could have
on the United States' position as a global leader in clean
energy. Of course, EERE must also be adequately staffed so that
it can administer its research dollars. EERE staff levels have
severely dropped since 2017, despite Congress providing more
money for salaries and benefits. The Appropriations Committees
have directed DOE to provide a plan for significantly staffing
up by the end of this fiscal year. I understand they have yet
to receive their briefing from EERE on this matter.
Let me be clear that this hearing is not about taking shots
at people. We're here to think about how to make sure a great
federal research program can achieve its potential. This
Committee is dedicated to the stewardship of scientific
research and the federal workforce that carries it out. EERE
has helped deliver a competitive innovation edge to the United
States. To maintain this legacy of success, it is vital that
EERE remain independent of political interference and
respectful of the time that stakeholders and personnel invest
in their work with the agency.
Assistant Secretary Simmons, I'm glad that you can join us
today. I understand how difficult it can be to find a time that
works for all our schedules. That is why Committee staff
reached out four weeks ago to ask DOE to provide a witness for
today's hearing. I look forward to a productive discussion
today, as well as a healthy working relationship in the
future.We also have a distinguished second panel for the
hearing today. I thank the witnesses for being here.
Chairman Foster. And I will now recognize Ranking Member
for the Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight, Mr.
Norman, for an opening statement.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Dr. Foster and Chairwoman Fletcher,
for convening this hearing, and thank you to the Assistant
Secretary Daniel Simmons for your testimony and participation
this morning.
We're here today to discuss the Department of Energy's
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE. We will examine
management and spending challenges at EERE, assess the actions
it has taken to address and resolve these challenges, and
explore its clean energy research, development, demonstration,
and commercialization activities.
EERE's mission is to support the United States leadership
in the global clean energy economy through a wide variety of
research and development initiatives. As such, EERE plays a
significant role in opening the door for the widespread use of
renewable energy technologies.
Having received $2.85 billion in fiscal year 2020, EERE is
the Department's largest applied energy research and
development office. Its current spending levels are more than
$200 million higher than the total amount of R&D funding for
all of DOE's other applied offices combined.
As Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee, I recognize the important role of congressional
oversight and support this Committee's efforts to shine a light
on instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal departments
and agencies. Given its historically high funding levels,
oversight of EERE spending is certainly warranted.
Unfortunately, it seems that the focus of today's oversight
hearing is misguided.
We'll hear claims today about EERE not spending their
carryover balances, inadequate staffing levels, and a funding
opportunity announcement that was canceled. Yet each of these
issues can be addressed in a single sentence.
Traditionally, EERE has carried over 25 to 35 percent of
total available funding to the next fiscal year, and with their
increased budgets, they have continued this trend in each of
fiscal years 2016 through 2019. Simple math shows that funding
is dispensed at the same rate as a percentage of the total
budget. In other words, it's business as usual at EERE.
For staffing, and in accordance with the fiscal year 2020
appropriations package, EERE does owe us a plan to reach the
675 to 700 full-time staff by the end of the fiscal year, but
that won't occur until October. Maybe a hearing then would be
more appropriate?
And finally, the assertation that a funding opportunity
was influenced by political appointees, the Department has
every right to revisit, review, and revise FOAs (funding
opportunity announcements), and grantees fully understand this
when submitting applications. Folks, we do this in our everyday
businesses and our family budgets.
Yes, it is unfortunate that financial resources were used
to revise this announcement and that applications had to be
modified, but I would rather our Federal dollars be spent on a
comprehensive, effective funding opportunity than one that
fails to align with the Department's mission. In other words,
concerns of timeliness must yield to responsible spending.
Additionally, more applications were received for the
revised FOA than the original. This fact cuts against the
argument that DOE's actions somehow deterred applicants from
reapplying for funding. With millions of dollars on the line,
these applications clearly recognize the value of patience and
perseverance.
I appreciate Assistant Secretary Simmons for altering his
schedule and, from what I understand, missing an important
event with the Department. To fully utilize your valuable time,
I would encourage my colleagues to broaden their focus to the
many successes EERE has achieved in the first year in office.
As the Co-Chair of the Solar Caucus, I fully believe in
the benefits that renewable energy solutions can have on
consumers, businesses, and the environment. However, it's
important to stress that the Federal Government should shift
away from funding late-stage development for which there
already exists a viable market and instead focus on
opportunities to fund early stage research and development
initiatives.
When the EERE was first established in 1981, renewables
like solar and wind were neither technologically nor
financially viable energy alternatives. Today, more than
250,000 Americans work in the $17 billion solar industry. It is
abundantly clear that consumer demand is already driving
increased development of solar technologies. I want to help
such technologies grow, but I am not prepared to pay them an
allowance once they have reached maturity.
Ideally, a government program should be designed to
address a concrete issue, tackle it head on, and work itself
out of existence. However, as Ronald Reagan famously said,
``The closest thing to immortality is a government program once
established.'' Yet to the dismay of some Members on this
Committee, this Administration has previously asked for
reductions to EERE applied research funding. For my part, I
applaud the Administration's decision to look and take a
dynamic look at where funding is most needed and will yield the
highest return.
Rather than subsidize established and successful
technologies, we should be pursuing breakthrough discoveries in
areas like materials, which can fundamentally improve the
performance of solar energy technologies. We can prioritize
investments so that our research has broad applications in the
energy sector and helps responsibly grow the American economy.
I would like to thank the DOE for understanding that role and
for being there this morning to defend it.
Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to welcome
Chairman Foster to the Investigations and Oversight Committee.
It's a pleasure to have you on board, Dr. Foster. I look
forward to working with you during the remainder of this
Congress.
And I again want to thank the witnesses for being here
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Let me say I'm a real estate developer. There's nobody
that has more interest in this, in growing this economy in
clean businesses than the real estate industry. That's why I'm
very, very interested in this topic.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norman follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Foster and Chairwoman Fletcher, for
convening this hearing, and thank you to Assistant Secretary
Daniel Simmons for your testimony this morning.
We are here today to discuss the Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We will
examine management and spending challenges at EERE, assess the
actions it has taken to address and resolve these challenges,
and explore its clean energy research, development,
demonstration, and commercialization activities.
EERE's mission is to support U.S. leadership in the global
clean energy economy through a wide variety of research and
development initiatives. As such, EERE plays a significant role
in opening the door for the widespread use of renewable energy
technologies.
Having received $2.85 billion in FY 2020, EERE is the
Department's largest applied energy research and development
office. Its current spending levels are more than $200 million
higher than the total amount of R&D funding for all of DOE's
other applied offices combined.
As Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee, I recognize the important role of congressional
oversight and support this Committee's efforts to shine a light
on instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal departments
and agencies. Given its historically high funding levels,
oversight of EERE spending is certainly warranted.
Unfortunately, it seems that the focus of today's oversight
hearing is misguided.
We'll hear claims today about EERE not spending their
carryover balance, inadequate staffing levels, and a Funding
Opportunity Announcement that was "canceled." Yet each of these
issues can be addressed in a single sentence.
Traditionally, EERE has carried over 25 to 35% of total
available funding to the next fiscal year, and with their
increased budget, they have continued this trend in each of
fiscal years 2016 through 2019. Simple math shows that funding
is dispensed at the same rate as a percentage of the total
budget. In other words, it is business as usual at EERE.
For staffing, and in accordance with the FY 2020
appropriations package, EERE does owe us a plan to reach 675 to
700 full-time staff by the end of the fiscal year, but that
won't occur until October. Maybe a hearing then would be more
appropriate?
And finally, the assertation that a funding opportunity was
influenced by political appointees. The Department has every
right to revisit, review, and revise FOAs, and grantees fully
understand this when submitting applications.
Yes, it is unfortunate that financial resources were used
to revise this announcement and that applications had to be
modified. But I would rather our federal dollars be spent on a
comprehensive, effective funding opportunity than one that
fails to align with the Department's mission. In other words,
concerns of timeliness must yield to responsible spending.
Additionally, more applications were received for the
revised FOA than the original. This fact cuts against the
argument that DOE's actions somehow deterred applicants from
reapplying for funding. With millions of dollars on the line,
these applicants clearly recognized the value of patience and
perseverance.
I appreciate Assistant Secretary Simmons for altering his
schedule and, from what I understand, missing an important
event with the Department.
To fully utilize his valuable time, I would encourage my
colleagues to broaden their focus to the many successes EERE
has achieved in his first year in office.
As the Co-Chair of the Solar Caucus, I fully believe in the
benefits that renewable energy solutions can have on consumers,
businesses, and the environment. However, it's important to
stress that the Federal government should shift away from
funding late-stage development for which there already exists a
viable market, and instead focus on opportunities to fund
early-stage research and development initiatives.
When the EERE was first established in 1981, renewables
like Solar and Wind were neither technologically nor
financially viable energy alternatives. Today, more than
250,000 Americans work in the $17 billion-dollar solar
industry. It is abundantly clear that consumer demand is
already driving increased deployment of solar technologies. I
want to help such technologies grow, but I am not prepared to
pay them an allowance once they have reached maturity.
Ideally, a government program should be designed to address
a concrete issue, tackle it head on, and work itself out of
existence. However, as Reagan famously said: "The closest thing
to immortality is a government program once established."
Yet to the dismay of some Members on this Committee, this
Administration has previously asked for reductions to EERE's
applied research funding. For my part, I applaud the
Administration's decision to look take a dynamic look at where
funding is most needed and will yield the highest gains.
Rather than subsidize established and successful
technologies, we should be pursuing breakthrough discoveries in
areas like materials, which can fundamentally improve the
performance of solar energy technologies.
We can prioritize investments so that our research has
broad applications in the energy sector and helps responsibly
grow the American economy. I would like to thank DOE for
understanding that role and for being here this morning to
defend it.
Before I close, I want to take this opportunity to welcome
Chairman Foster to the Investigations and Oversight
Subcommittee. It's a pleasure to have you on board, Dr. Foster.
I look forward to working with you during the remainder of this
Congress.
I again want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I
look forward to your testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Foster. Well, thank you. We are honored here to
have the full Committee Chairwoman Ms. Johnson with us here
today, and the Chair will now recognize the Chairwoman for an
opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this joint hearing on oversight to the Department of
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, also
known as EERE.
EERE leads the Department's efforts in developing and
delivering affordable energy efficiency and renewable energy
solutions, aiming to help transform the world's energy system
and respond to the global challenges of climate change.
According to EERE, its investments of $12 billion in
taxpayers' money toward clean energy research and development
has yielded an estimated net economic benefit to the United
States of more than $230 billion, with an overall annual return
on investment of more than 20 percent. I'm pleased to hear
this, given that this Committee has jurisdiction over the
Department's vitally important science and energy R&D
activities, laboratories, and facilities.
That being said, we still have significant investments we
need to make to continue to innovate on energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies, further bringing down their
costs and making them even more beneficial to Americans. We
have only begun to touch the surface of what these technologies
can do, and our national labs, universities, and industry
partners possess the expertise to explore them to their fullest
potential. That's why this hearing is so important.
I am disappointed to hear that EERE has been unable to
move hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding out of
the door, and to my knowledge, has even canceled some of those
grant funding days before award finalists were to be announced.
This does not sound like the type of support that our Nation's
scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders can
rely on. If the United States is to become a global leader in
clean energy, EERE needs to be sufficiently and responsibly
funding R&D in these areas.
Beyond funding, it will take the coordinated work of EERE
employees and our stakeholders to turn that vision into a
reality. I join my colleagues in the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees in their bipartisan concerns over
EERE's staffing levels, which have reached new lows. We should
be doing everything we can to ensure that EERE has the staff it
needs to administer and oversee federally funded research as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
Constituents from Member districts on both sides of the
aisle benefit greatly from this research, and we believe it is
our duty to ensure the responsible use of our tax dollars. When
it comes to these issues, this Committee has consistently
demonstrated healthy, bipartisan collaboration. I've been
appreciative of the many substantial energy research bills that
we've advocated and advanced in this Congress with our
colleagues across the aisle.
I am glad that Assistant Secretary Simmons could join us
today and look forward to a productive discussion with our
distinguished witness to learn more about how we can help with
these management and spending challenges.
We can all agree that we are here to support EERE in its
efforts to enhance U.S. energy productivity and our national
competitiveness. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Foster and Chairwoman
Fletcher, for holding this joint hearing on oversight of the
Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy--also known as EERE.
EERE leads the Department's efforts in developing and
delivering affordable energy efficiency and renewable energy
solutions, aiming to help transform the world's energy system
and respond to the global challenge of climate change.
According to EERE, its investments of $12 billion in
taxpayer dollars toward clean energy research and development
has yielded an estimated net economic benefit to the United
States of more than $230 billion, with an overall annual return
on investment of more than 20%. I am pleased to hear this,
given that this Committee has jurisdiction over the
Department's vitally important science and energy R&D
activities, laboratories, and facilities.
That being said, we still have significant investments we
need to make to continue to innovate on energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies, further bringing down their
costs and making them even more beneficial for Americans. We
have only begun to touch the surface of what these technologies
can do, and our national labs, universities, and industry
partners possess the expertise to explore them to their fullest
potential.
That's why this hearing is so important. I am disappointed
to hear that EERE has been unable to move hundreds of millions
of dollars in grant funding out the door, and to my knowledge,
has even cancelled some of that grant funding days before award
finalists were to be announced. This does not sound like the
type of support our nation's scientists, engineers,
entrepreneurs, and industry leaders can rely on. If the United
States is to become a global leader in clean energy, EERE needs
to be sufficiently and responsibly funding R&D in these areas.
Beyond funding, it will take the coordinated work of EERE
employees and our stakeholders to turn that vision into a
reality. I join my colleagues in the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees in their bipartisan concerns over
EERE's staffing levels, which have reached new lows. We should
be doing everything we can to ensure that EERE has the staff it
needs to administer and oversee federally funded research as
effectively and efficiently as possible.
Constituents from Member districts on both sides of the
aisle benefit greatly from this research, and we believe it is
our duty to ensure the responsible use of their tax dollars.
When it comes to these issues, this Committee has consistently
demonstrated healthy, bipartisan collaboration. I've been
appreciative of the many substantial energy research bills that
we have advanced in this Congress with our colleagues across
the aisle.
I am glad that Assistant Secretary Simmons could join us
today and look forward to a productive discussion with our
distinguished witnesses to learn more about how we can help
with these management and spending challenges. We can all
agree-we are here to support EERE in its efforts to enhance
U.S. energy productivity and our national competitiveness.
Thank you, and I yield back
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member for Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Weber, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman Foster. I appreciate you
holding today's joint subcommittee hearing. I'm looking forward
to hearing from our witnesses about DOE's management of its
clean energy research, development, demonstration, as well as
its commercialization activities.
The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, EERE, aims to make advanced clean energy technologies
and services more available and reliable while lowering costs
to both users and society as a whole. EERE is tasked as the
lead Federal agency for clean energy research and development
with programs in transportation, renewable energy, and energy
efficiency. And on the Energy Subcommittee, we've held many
hearings on this work in Congress.
So by now, we all know that after substantial growth
during the Obama Administration, EERE is by far DOE's largest
applied research program. With its fiscal year 2020
appropriated levels approaching $3 billion with a B in annual
funding, EERE is bigger today than all of the R&D funding
provided for, get this, fossil energy, nuclear energy,
electricity, and cybersecurity combined. Let that sink in.
Our national debt, I don't have to tell you all, is at $23
trillion and rising. So any major Federal investment like what
we are seeing in EERE deserves the Department's justification
and full attention every single year. With so many of the
taxpayers' dollars at stake, a blank check tied to a poorly
defined list of priorities is just as wasteful as spending
money on a failed project. Can you say Solyndra? Careful
management of EERE's abundant resources should be a priority of
the Department and of this Committee.
Let me be clear. I'm supportive of congressional oversight
of DOE's R&D activities. It's our job, however, to make
inquiries into the effective management of these programs,
especially the higher-funded ones.
I'd like to take this moment to echo Ranking Member
Norman's comments on today's oversight discussion. I believe
today's inquiry misses the forest for the trees. And we all
want more trees, right? But we don't want it to cause more
misses.
After reviewing documents provided to this Committee, it
is clear that the DOE has operated appropriately and within its
mandate for responsible grant funding review. The Department
did not withhold executed grants or cancel any promise. Simply
stated, EERE simply did its job. And a key part of that job is
to take the necessary time to faithfully review the benefits of
potential grants to the Department and to ensure that they meet
the mission goals as set forth by this current Administration.
We simply can't afford to recklessly spend Federal money. Did I
mention we've got a huge Federal debt and growing?
I applaud the Department's leadership on their attempts to
develop fluid and clearly defined funding opportunities that
advance energy innovation in line with their strategic plan. In
fact, I would respectfully argue that finding additional
opportunities for this kind of goal optimization across the
Department would be a better use of this Committee's time and
oversight resources quite frankly.
It is imperative that we in Congress take a responsible
approach to energy research and ensure that Federal investments
go toward work that actually maximizes our investment in next-
generation technology. To that end, this is going to mean we
must make the best effort to focus Federal programs on
innovative technologies that are not already commercially
deployed and to take the long-term approach to address key
national issues such as energy reliability, resilience,
security.
I look forward to hearing from Assistant Secretary Daniel
Simmons on the programs within EERE that are doing just that.
Since his ceremonial swearing-in exactly one year ago tomorrow,
happy anniversary tomorrow, Assistant Secretary Simmons has
done an excellent job of focusing EERE's work on the overall
mission goals of the Department set by the Secretary of Energy
and the Trump Administration.
I hope we can have a productive conversation this morning
about how we in Congress can continue to support them in that
very mission to address America's energy challenges while
supporting our national security and our prosperity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Foster and Chairwoman Fletcher for
holding today's joint subcommittee hearing. I'm looking forward
to hearing from our witnesses about DOE's management of its
clean energy research, development, demonstration and
commercialization activities.
The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy aims to make advanced clean energy technologies and
services more available and reliable while lowering costs to
both users and society as a whole.
EERE is tasked as the lead federal agency for clean energy
research and development, with programs in transportation,
renewable energy, and energy efficiency. And on the Energy
Subcommittee, we've held many hearings on its work this
Congress.
So by now, we all know that after substantial growth during
the Obama Administration, EERE is by far DOE's largest applied
research program.
With its fiscal year 2020 appropriated levels approaching
$3 billion in annual funding, EERE is bigger today than all of
the R&D funding provided for fossil energy, nuclear energy,
electricity, and cybersecurity combined.
Our national debt is at $23 trillion and rising. So any
major federal investment like what we are seeing at EERE
deserves the Department's justification and our full attention
each year. With so many of the taxpayer's dollars at stake, a
blank check tied to poorly defined priorities is just as
wasteful as spending money on a failed project. Careful
management of EERE's abundant resources should be a priority of
the Department and of this Committee.
That's why I want to be clear--I'm supportive of
Congressional oversight of DOE's R&D activities. It is our job
to make inquiries into the effective management of these
programs--especially the highly funded ones. But I'd like to
take this moment to echo Ranking Member Norman's comments on
today's oversight discussion. I believe today's inquiry misses
the forest for the trees.After reviewing documents provided to
this Committee, it is clear that DOE has operated appropriately
and within its mandate for responsible grant funding review.
The Department did not withhold executed grants or cancel any
promise, EERE simply did its job.
And a key part of that job is to take the necessary time to
faithfully review the benefits of potential grants to the
Department and ensure they meet the mission goals set forth by
the current Administration.
We simply can't afford to recklessly spend Federal money. I
applaud the Department's leadership on their attempts to
develop fluid and clearly defined funding opportunities that
advance energy innovation in line with their strategic plan.
In fact, I would respectfully argue that finding additional
opportunities for this kind of goal optimization across the
Department would be a better use of this Committee's time and
oversight resources. It is imperative that we in Congress, take
a responsible approach to energy research, and ensure that
federal investments go towards work that maximizes our
investment in nextgeneration technologies. That means we must
make the best effort to focus federal programs on innovative
technologies that aren't already commercially deployed and to
take the long-term approach to address key national issues of
energy reliability, resilience, and security.
I look forward to hearing from Assistant Secretary Daniel
Simmons on the programs within EERE that are doing just that.
Since his ceremonial swearing-in exactly one year ago tomorrow,
Assistant Secretary Simmons has done an excellent job of
focusing EERE's work on the overall mission goals of the
Department set by the Secretary of Energy and the Trump
Administration. I hope we can have a productive conversation
this morning about how we in Congress can continue to support
them in that mission to address America's energy challenges
while supporting our national security and prosperity.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Foster. Thank you.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Fletcher follows:]
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
Throughout this Congress, this Committee has demonstrated
strong, bipartisan support for innovation in energy
technologies that will both address the growing impacts of
climate change and ensure that Americans are building and
leading the industries of the future.
I believe I can speak for all of us when I say that we also
have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer funds to address
these critical missions are being managed wisely, and in
accordance with law. But the Department of Energy's record in
managing the various programs stewarded by its Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy over the last three years
raises troubling questions.
First, how can the significant declines in EERE's staffing
levels and overall expertise be reconciled with the significant
increases in its budget over the last few years. Second, why
has EERE been unable to spend such a historically large portion
of its prior year funds for clean energy research activities
despite clear Congressional direction on how these funds should
be allocated. Third, we need a far better justification for why
EERE would cancel a $46 million funding opportunity after
already carrying out a rigorous merit review and selection
process for hundreds of applicants from companies and
universities across the country. Some of the best and brightest
in our nation collectively spent thousands of hours developing
and reviewing their applications. They deserve a clear
explanation for why their time and resources were wasted by the
Department.
I look forward to gaining a better understanding from the
Department and our second distinguished panel of witnesses
about how to best resolve these issues, and how to
furtherenable EERE to achieve its mission to advance clean
energy innovation as effectively as possible.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Foster. At this time I'd like to introduce our
first witness. Mr. Daniel Simmons is the Assistant Secretary
for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Assistant Secretary Simmons, you may now
begin.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DANIEL SIMMONS,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Mr. Simmons. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
Weber, the Subcommittee on Energy, Ranking--Chairman Foster and
Ranking Member Norman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today, as well as thank you for the
support, as we've heard in these opening statements, for EERE
and EERE staff. That is very much appreciated.
Since 2019 when I was sworn in as Assistant Secretary, the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, has
announced over $1.3 billion in competitive funding opportunity
announcements, also known as FOAs, which advance America's
economic growth and energy security while enhancing reliability
and resilience of the U.S. energy system. We have also provided
over $1.2 billion in funding to support research at our
national laboratories, which play a central role in advancing
America's leadership in scientific and energy development.
I'd like to begin by highlighting this morning's
announcement of up to $125.5 million in new funding to advance
solar energy research. In addition to this announcement,
yesterday, EERE announced up to $43.8 billion to advance
geothermal research and development. These funding
opportunities, along with more than--along with $300 million in
funding for transportation made last month, total more than
$463 million, making this the largest amount of EERE funding
made this early in the fiscal year in at least the past 6
years, which is to note that we take very seriously our
responsibility to make sure the money is not just coming to the
Department but it is also going out in funding opportunity
announcements.
These recent announcements are a direct reflection of the
EERE's intention to fully utilize its appropriated research
funding to fund technologies and innovation consistent with
congressional guidance and Administration priorities. We live
in an exciting time for energy technologies with more
competitive and affordable energy resources than ever before.
To achieve this mission of creating and sustaining American
leadership in the global energy economy, EERE works with groups
across DOE and in some cases the world.
A great example of departmental coordination is the launch
of the Energy Storage Grand Challenge announced earlier this
year. The grand challenge is a comprehensive program to
accelerate the development, commercialization, and utilization
of next-generation energy storage technologies to sustain
American global leadership in energy storage. The grand
challenge builds on the $158 million Energy Storage Initiative
announced in the President's FY (fiscal year) 2020 budget. In
the fiscal year--in fiscal year 2020, EERE plans to spend $283
million to support this critical work.
In November 2019, DOE announced the plan--announced the
launch of the Plastics Innovation Challenge, an EERE-led effort
to accelerate innovations in energy-efficient plastics
recycling technologies and develop new plastics that are
recyclable--don't know why I just tripped up on that--
recyclable by design. The innovation challenge will draw on
both fundamental and applied research capabilities within the
national laboratories, universities, and industry.
EERE's collaboration extends far beyond DOE. Earlier this
week, DOE signed a memorandum of understanding between the
United States and Norway to facilitate collaboration and
leveraging of R&D advances in hydropowers--in hydropower
between the two countries. This MOU is one example of recent
EERE global collaboration, and it amplifies EERE's effort--
reputation as a world leader in research and development of
energy technologies.
All of this valuable work would not be possible without
the dedication of our outstanding staff. EERE cares deeply
about its staff and is actively working through the hiring
process to recruit and hire additional talent. One of my top
priorities upon confirmation was to address staffing needs
within EERE.
In FY 2019, we ramped up our hiring efforts. We worked
with DOE's Office of Human Capital to leverage the STEM
(scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics) direct
hiring authority to recruit top talent for our engineering and
scientific positions. EERE participated in a job fair last year
from which we are able to extend over 20 job offers. In FY 2020
we have identified a staffing plan, and we are taking
additional steps to reach 700--or 675 employees, as directed by
Congress. We continue to make hiring a top priority.
We look forward to working with you to continue promoting
affordable and reliable energy to enhance America's growth and
energy security. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
the Subcommittee today and to discuss the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Thank you for your time. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we will now start our
first round of questions, and the Chair recognizes himself for
5 minutes.
Mr. Simmons, EERE told my staff that the staffing count at
the end of September was 553. This is actually one fewer than
the number that we heard in July even though we'd heard at the
time that EERE was working hard to get more people on board. Do
you have an updated figure on what the staff on board is today?
Mr. Simmons. That's--that number is roughly accurate. I
mean, it's----
Chairman Foster. Still five----
Mr. Simmons [continuing]. It's accurate----
Chairman Foster. Still 553----
Mr. Simmons [continuing]. Within a couple----
Chairman Foster [continuing]. Approximately?
Mr. Simmons. Approximately, yes.
Chairman Foster. OK. Now, DOE was instructed in the fiscal
year 2020 appropriations package signed into law by President
Trump, I believe, on December 20th to generate a report within
30 days on how you plan to achieve a staffing level in the
range of 675 to 700. Can we see this report?
Mr. Simmons. Well, we are producing that briefing to----
Chairman Foster. Have you seen this report at least in
draft form?
Mr. Simmons. No. We are working on it.
Chairman Foster. So you have not yet seen this report
personally even in draft form?
Mr. Simmons. Not seen it. We are working on putting it
together, yes.
Chairman Foster. All right. Do you have an estimate for
when--how much longer we'll have to wait for something that
should have been here a couple weeks ago?
Mr. Simmons. Within the next few weeks we should have this
together, and we will be briefing obviously appropriations
staff. We will be--our plan is also to include the Office of
Human Capital to make sure that we have a holistic DOE
perspective on our hiring--one, our hiring challenges, and two,
how we can----
Chairman Foster. Can you simply say whether you're
actually committed to achieving the goal?
Mr. Simmons. Oh, yes. Yes.
Chairman Foster. Well--all right. Well, that would--you
know, that would be really valuable, and we really intend to
hold you to that commitment.
And, you know, we have--you have several things in your
toolkit to actually increase. It's my understanding that EERE
has actually abandoned the Presidential Management Fellows
program in recent months. The PMF program is designed to put
highly talented young people with advanced degrees in a
demonstrated leadership ability and to serve in Federal
agencies. Is that something you may consider, restoring that
program by taking on new PMFs and offering placements to PMFs
who've completed fellowships successfully?
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Chairman Foster. All right. On October 2018 the OPM put
out new guidance for Federal agencies that would allow hiring
to move more quickly for positions specifically in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM fields. It seems
like the majority of EERE needs would fit into the STEM bucket.
Has EERE taken advantage of this special hiring authority to
try to get more employees in place?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, we have.
Chairman Foster. All right. And why have you not been
effective at using this authority? And how many employees have
you actually placed with this special authority?
Mr. Simmons. Well, I'll have to get back with you on the
exact numbers. Last year when we had the job fair, that is the
authority that we used at the job fair to extend the over 20
offers from that--from that outcome----
Chairman Foster. So over 20 offers, how many people are on
board as a result of that?
Mr. Simmons. I don't have those numbers right now. We'll
have to get back you with you on those specific numbers.
Chairman Foster. So the difficulty you're encountering is
that people may be extended offers but don't in the end take
them. Do you find that when you're trying to recruit people,
there is an obstacle in place that the Administration's
position is to largely or substantially defund EERE and it
wouldn't really be a very good place to be hired into?
Mr. Simmons. I have not heard that and plus I push back on
that in that what matters at the end of the day is appropriated
dollars. The President's proposed budget comes out as the
beginning of the process----
Chairman Foster. No, I understand that----
Mr. Simmons [continuing]. The beginning of negotiation,
but----
Chairman Foster. --Congress is in charge of final
appropriations. I understand that very clearly. And our--one of
the sources of our unhappiness here is that when we make a
clear statement that we want something, you know, funded at a
certain level, we expect that executed in good faith. And, you
know, there is--it's unclear to many of us that there has been
a completely good-faith effort in all of the areas. Many of the
areas I think you--as you correctly point out, you've done an
excellent job, but there are areas where I perceive that you've
fallen short, and that will be the subject----
Mr. Simmons. May I make one comment? From my perspective
this has been a very good-faith effort. As you noted, we have
fallen short. It is not a--it's not because of good faith.
Chairman Foster. No, I understand the decision to
improve--approve both the position descriptions and the
decision for who to actually hire for these positions must go
before the Under Secretary for Energy or even the Secretary
himself. Even junior-level positions, as I understand it, must
go through this additional step that's new in this
Administration. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Simmons. Well, the process is that we have internal
approvals at EERE. They then get sent to Human Capital. Human
Capital then takes care of any other additional approvals in
the process. There could be additional approvals in the
process, so that----
Chairman Foster. There could be----
Mr. Simmons. But let me----
Chairman Foster. But are those----
Mr. Simmons. But let me also say----
Chairman Foster. Anyway, I'm out of time here, but I will
return to this question----
Mr. Simmons. OK.
Chairman Foster [continuing]. Because this seems like----
Mr. Simmons. Yes. No----
Chairman Foster [continuing]. An unnecessary new feature.
Mr. Simmons. Happy to do that.
Chairman Foster. All right. Thank you. And I now yield to
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairman Foster. And, Mr. Simmons,
let me say, and I think Congressman Weber alluded to this, we'd
be derelict in our duties if we didn't question the funding.
We're $22 trillion in debt. We do this in our businesses. We do
this in our budgets. Any responsible elected official should be
doing this.
The specific topics that we've discussed today is
management and spending challenges within the EERE. These
include the upper trend and carryover balances, staffing levels
and revision of a fiscal year 2018 funding opportunity
announcement. Can you describe the actions EERE has taken since
your confirmation to address on a macro level each of these
issues?
Mr. Simmons. In terms of carryover, one of the--you know,
we have carried over a--consistently about--you know, if you
were to--so in fiscal year 2020 we carried over about 35
percent of our prior-year funding to fiscal year 2020. In
fiscal year 2016, which is the previous Administration, they
carried over 35 percent. To fiscal year 2017 they carried over
37 percent. Like we are roughly in line. And the reason for
that is it takes a while to do--to go through the entire FOA
process. We are trying to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
When Congress does not appropriate, you know, final year
appropriations till later in the fiscal year, it takes a while
to get the--those funding announcements out the door. It then
takes at least 9 months before we can make selections. So that
is--that's a part of the challenge. It is the process.
In terms of staffing, I will state that it is--staffing is
a harder challenge than I thought that it was a year ago, and
we are continuing to take actions working with Human Capital to
make sure to the best of our ability that our--the people that
work on EERE positions in Human Capital are given the resources
that they need to be able to get those jobs posted. There's
over 70 positions that are currently in process as in have been
signed--there's no more approvals in terms of the building that
needs to happen for these 70 positions where it is--17 offers
have been extended, 22 positions are in the interview and
selection process, an additional 35 selections are with Human
Capital for processing.
There's currently four open announcements, which does not
sound like a lot, but it is more than there's been in years.
What I'm trying to say is we take this issue very seriously of
staffing because what matters to me from a staff perspective is
the staff is able to execute on the moneys that Congress has
provided. And when we have fewer staff, that is more
challenging.
So I don't remember if there was something else in your
question that I should answer.
Mr. Norman. OK. Thank you. And as Co-Chairman of the Solar
Caucus, I'm fully aware of the benefits that renewable energy
solutions can have on consumers' businesses and on the
environment. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is
appropriate for the Federal Government to pick winners and
losers in the market. How does EERE ensure that it is not
picking winners and losers in the market while simultaneously
fulfilling its mission to support the United States' leadership
in the global clean energy economy through the many research
and development initiatives?
Mr. Simmons. Two ways. First of all, there is an emphasis
on early stage research. On early stage research, particularly
things such as materials research that is--that is
precompetitive research. That is research that we think can
help all parties in the solar area. Also that the--the funding
opportunity announcements, when they--when those go out, by
focusing on early- to mid-stage and then partnering with the
private sector for later stage, we are working through that
process so we're not--we're not trying to pick a winner and
loser for the company but advancing technology. And so by
focusing on advancing technology, I think that that helps us do
a good job of not picking winners and losers.
Mr. Norman. Well, I want to applaud your efforts in that
because, yes, the private sector is the competitiveness that is
what made this country so great that this President is trying
to get through a Congress that has been unwilling to listen to
many of them. I'm running out of time. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr.
Simmons, thanks for being here with us.
The first question I had is--maybe I'll walk you through
the process as I understand it that when DOE decides who should
win a competitive grant, it conducts a merit review in which
applications are evaluated and scored against specific
preestablished merit review criteria and program policy
factors, so I imagine all of those are capitalized. Is that
correct from your perspective?
Mr. Simmons. We would go back before that to the--when the
funding opportunity announcement comes out, the funding
opportunity announcement has the topics, as well as the
criteria in the very beginning.
Mr. Beyer. And then these reviews are performed by
internal or external reviewers with knowledge and expertise,
technical and scientific fields?
Mr. Simmons. Both, as in there is an external merit review
panel, as well as a Federal panel that reviews----
Mr. Beyer. And then they submit their recommendations with
numeric scores, too, to the designated selection official,
again, capital----
Mr. Simmons. Correct.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Capital O, to make the official
award decision.
Mr. Simmons. Correct.
Mr. Beyer. So my concern is in your tenure have EERE
political appointees ever stepped in to change the award
selections after the merit review?
Mr. Simmons. I don't know of a specific case. What--there
is a part of the process that you did not--that was not
included that the selection officials briefs me on the--you
know, on the process, and I talk through the process of how
they selected the officials. But I can't think of a--like in my
experience of changing one of those selections.
Mr. Beyer. OK. And I just want to make clear that our
concern as Democrats and Republicans would be when political
ideological concerns come and override the merit review of the
scientific and technical profession.
Mr. Simmons. And that's something I take very seriously,
that responsibility, because the--I definitely do not want to
be in a situation of having political--those decisions made for
political reasons.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. We've talked a lot about the
$824 million postponed, but we also have--DOE has now missed 21
legally mandated deadlines for 21 energy efficiency standards.
And in your testimony in front of the Energy and Commerce
Committee nearly a year ago you committed to meeting those
legal obligations, but DOE continues to miss the deadlines.
What's happening with these legally mandated standards, and
how--what are you going to correct this lapse?
Mr. Simmons. Well, since July 1--or--July--January 1 of
last year, we have published 26 notices relating to energy
conservation standards, including 7 final and 14 notices
related to test procedures. Over the next 6 months we plan to
issue 34 notices related to energy conservation standards,
including 2 final rules and 29 notices related to test
procedures, including 4 final rules.
Congress should receive a--you are due a report to
Congress on the status of the Appliance Standards Program. It
is currently in agency review, but that report should be sent
to Congress.
Mr. Beyer. OK. Thank you. And we just--as Members of the
Oversight Committee want to keep the pressure on you, so----
Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Assistant Secretary, too, you know, one of
the concerns that, for example, my friend Mr. Norman talks
about is the--making sure that the private sector continues to
do this. But the Appropriations Committee in Congress has made
clear that they want EERE not to just do early stage but also
mid-stage and late stage. But the concern is that you--
structurally, you've been pushing back to early stage only. Is
department leadership giving you direction to steer away from
mid- and late-stage R&D to focus on early stage?
Mr. Simmons. No. The--you know, the memo that comes out
every year from OMB states to focus on early stage R&D. Then,
Congress also has in the--in appropriations report language
instructs us to be working all across from early to late stage.
We think that--you know, we're trying very hard to find the
appropriate balance of all of those, and we have funded just
recently some demonstration projects. We are--we take this--
let's call it a challenge of working from late to kind of
middle to late and demonstration--we take that challenge
seriously and are working very hard to be able to have the--to
move the work along appropriately so that, you know, these
technologies--these technologies cannot stay in the national
labs, for example. We need to get them into the real world.
Mr. Beyer. Great. But we just want to make sure that
you're committed to----
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Following the congressional----
Mr. Simmons. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Chairman Foster. The Chair will now recognize the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Simmons, today, renewable energy
sources are becoming an integral part of the U.S. electricity
generation mix. This increase is almost entirely due to the
incorporation of additional wind and solar power. And I'm quite
frankly pleased to see American industry leading the way in
supporting the growth of these clean-energy technologies.
You're probably aware Texas is No. 1 in wind energy and No. 5
in solar panels.
So my question to you is what are you going to do to see
to see that Texas gets to be No. 1 in solar panels? No, no, no,
that's not it.
However, as our energy portfolio continues to diversify,
I'm very concerned about the security and the reliability of
our Nation's electric grid. As you know, Texas has 85 percent
of ERCOTs (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) and its own
electric grid, very, very concerning to us. So as more more
renewable energy technologies come online, how significant is
the need for Federal R&D dollars into grid resiliency and
cybersecurity in your opinion?
Mr. Simmons. This is a very important topic. This is one
of the reasons that Secretary Perry stood up the new
Cybersecurity--the Office of Cybersecurity and Emergency
Response to, one, demonstrate the level of commitment the
Department has in terms of cybersecurity. The Office of
Electricity has a laser-like focus on improving resiliency,
protecting defense-critical energy infrastructure. These are
two critical areas.
And one of the things that matters for me as the head of
EERE is to make sure that my offices are coordinating with
those offices. This is--that collaboration is critical to make
sure that we're working together across the DOE to promote
these--like--these incredibly important topics.
Mr. Weber. Well, thanks for saying that. My next question
was as Assistant Secretary how do you collaborate with DOE's
relevant offices like Office of Electricity, Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response? And I
think, quite frankly, what you're saying here today is that, as
part of that good-faith effort you were describing to the
Chairman earlier on that you're doing everything you can to
make that work together.
Mr. Simmons. I am. When--like it is something that I talk
about when we have all-hands meeting, this need for
collaboration. The need--the future of energy is not at all
clear. There is going to be a lot of changes that we see in the
future, and so one of the things that matters that we are
collaborating across the offices in EERE and that we are
collaborating across DOE because no matter what happens, that's
a win-win, you know, if the cost of wind continues to come
down, the cost of solar, so we need to be collaborating across
the Department.
And when we work on FOAs and--that it--is on something
that touches the grid or touches cybersecurity, it's one of the
things that I ask the staff--try to every single time, what
have we done to work with the Office of Electricity or the
Office of Cybersecurity and Emergency Response on this topic
because--to demonstrate that needed collaboration.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for saying that. As Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Energy, I believe that we need to
take that balanced and responsible approach to energy research
and ensure that Federal investments go toward work that truly
could not be accomplished by the private sector. And I'm
encouraged to hear that you work with the other agencies as
well.
So as I mentioned in my opening statement, it is up to
Congress to wisely invest taxpayer dollars in fundamental
research that lays the foundation for the next generation. So
in your opinion what areas of fundamental research and
development within EERE are expected to lead to technological
breakthroughs in renewable energy and energy efficiency? You
got anything on the horizon?
Mr. Simmons. A couple areas I think are really important.
One is fundamental materials research around solar energy. What
are the next-generation materials where we can really see
improvements? Also, the fundamental research of battery
materials, that's--that is critically important. Lithium-ion
batteries are great, but we would like to see energy storage
that is even better than that where we have more dense storage
at lower cost.
And then a third area generally is early stage research on
critical--on the critical materials challenges such as rare-
earth elements, what can we do in terms of separations and
processing so that those supply chains are more in the United
States and more with our, you know, trusted partners around the
world because so many of those only run through China. And so
it's an important materials question and how we can do a better
job of dealing with those issues because those materials are
critical for future energy technologies.
Mr. Weber. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Simmons. Excuse me.
You mentioned a moment ago that the future of energy is
hard to predict. Having spent 20 years in the sector, I kind of
disagree with you. It's really easy to predict what's happening
in the energy sector. It's just hard to predict the timing.
It's big and capital-intensive, and you can see things coming.
But I'd also point out Abraham Lincoln's great line that
the best way to predict the future is to create it. And
particularly given as the recently departed Secretary of Energy
campaigned on eliminating the Department of Energy, you
understand why we want to understand the future you're trying
to create.
And, historically, as you pointed out a moment ago,
there's the political level staff, and then there's the
exceptional career staff. And I want to understand, following
on Mr. Foster's comments, some of the decisions you've made.
Can you confirm that at this point either the Under Secretary
or Secretary must sign off on all position descriptions and
hiring decisions within EERE?
Mr. Simmons. There are some positions that I believe that
I have the authority to sign off on. I would have to--like any
specifics there I would have to get back with you on.
Mr. Casten. Well, if you could clarify because my
understanding in the Obama Administration is that anything GS-
15 or below was done at the Assistant Secretary level. What is
your explicit guidance for what level you can approve and at
what level you have to go to the Secretary or Under Secretary?
Mr. Simmons. So I'd have to get back to you on that
because I can't remember what that--where that level is
crossed.
Mr. Casten. Do you believe it's consistent with what it
was in the Obama Administration or has it been moved?
Mr. Simmons. I think it is--I think it's been moved, but I
don't know--I don't know what----
Mr. Casten. Moved lower or higher?
Mr. Simmons. It could be lower, but again, that is--that
would be speculation. I can't really speculate on that.
Mr. Casten. Do you know why it was moved?
Mr. Simmons. No.
Mr. Casten. Do you have a concern that allowing even
junior staff to be approved by senior people could risk
politicizing your staff?
Mr. Simmons. No. Currently, there are over 70 hiring
actions that are currently in process. The issue of those type
of approvals is not the--is not our hiring challenge.
Mr. Casten. When you----
Mr. Simmons. There are other parts of the process that are
the hiring challenge.
Mr. Casten. Well, look, I was a CEO for 16 years. Hiring
processes take time. The more people you have reviewing, the
longer time it takes to get it done, so I'm part of this is
the--is who is getting hired. The other process is delays. So
when you recommend someone and send it up the chain, how long
does that process take for you to get an answer?
Mr. Simmons. An answer for----
Mr. Casten. For a hiring decision. Do you make
recommendations to the senior staff, or do those bypass you
completely?
Mr. Simmons. I'm not exactly--not exactly sure what you're
asking. What happens is that we develop a staffing plan. We
identify vacancies within EERE. We then go through the internal
EERE approvals, and those get sent to our Human Capital Office.
Mr. Casten. And when--and just when you say ``we,'' is
that at your level and below?
Mr. Simmons. Yes----
Mr. Casten. Who is----
Mr. Simmons [continuing]. That is the ``we,'' but I sign
off on every single hiring action within EERE. I sign off on
new hiring actions every single week. Every month that--we then
send those along to the--to Human Capital and the rest of the
process.
Mr. Casten. And for any of those people do you have the
authority to make a unilateral decision or do you need a
permission slip?
Mr. Simmons. When it comes to like what that actual
approvals are, we approve, but, you know, one clarifying thing
here is like we approve positions. We don't approve, you know,
who is going to be hired in those--for those career positions.
Mr. Casten. In June, this Committee asked EERE to share
with us the written workflow for hiring decisionmaking in EERE.
We have not yet received anything back. Can you commit to when
you will share that information with us?
Mr. Simmons. I will commit to finding out where that is
and what the situation is.
Mr. Casten. By when?
Mr. Simmons. Well, as soon as practicable. I mean, I don't
know if I can commit the Department to more than that.
Mr. Casten. Is this a written policy? Do you know what the
policy is?
Mr. Simmons. I do not know what all of our written
policies around hiring are.
Mr. Casten. So, respectfully, do you understand the
Department's hiring policy? I mean, this is--I get it if you
might not know it right now, but I can't imagine running an
organization your size and not having a written hiring policy.
Mr. Simmons. Well, it would--come work for the Federal
Government----
Mr. Casten. I do.
Mr. Simmons. The Federal hiring----
Mr. Casten. I can give you the hiring policy in my office
tomorrow. I have it. I run a much smaller organization than you
do.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
Mr. Casten. It is not hard.
Mr. Simmons. It is----
Mr. Casten. Can you commit to a time to provide this----
Mr. Simmons. And all of your employees are political
appointees, and that's the challenge is dealing with the--
dealing with the--all of the hiring policies that it is--it is
extensive, so I----
Mr. Casten. Are you satisfied with the pace of hiring?
Mr. Simmons. No, not at all. I'm quite frustrated with it.
You know, I would--there's--there are many other things I would
like to be doing than being here today at an oversight hearing
talking about this issue, but the value is that I am frustrated
about the pace of hiring. I generally thought that it would--
you know, that the process would not take this long. I am
committed to working to do a better job. There are steps in the
process that I have learned in preparing for this--preparing
today that we are going to go back, and we are going to go work
on smoothing out those processes.
Mr. Casten. I'm out of time. We're trying to help you.
Please respond to the request we gave you in June. Please
provide it in a timely fashion, and please let us know
precisely at what level you have authority and what level you
need permission slips so that we can try to fix it.
Mr. Simmons. OK.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I
appreciate you being here today.
I think the question I have at this point are what are
some of the challenges that you feel that the EERE is going to
face when we're trying to reach the number, the 675 to 700? And
then could you relate how the STEM education program, the
internships, the research opportunities at DOE assist in
attracting these kind of individuals?
Mr. Simmons. Sure. As was noted earlier, our hiring--our
onboard count is very similar today than what it was when my
staff briefed the subcommittee staff last June. That is
frustrating. I would like to have a better story to tell on
hiring than that. We need to do a much better job, and we
will--and we have done some--we have taken some actions such as
hiring fairs, which making sure that we are spreading the word
as widely as possible about open positions. We will continue
to.
But what a lot of it comes down to is the processing that
goes through not only Human Capital but other parts of the
onboarding process such as--things such as badging, which might
not sound like it is an issue but can actually like add time to
the process. And that is something that we are going to go back
and discuss and find out what we need to do to facilitate that
process because we have not done a great job in the last year,
and I want to do a much better job in this year. So it is--yes.
So I'm a bit frustrated about that because there's only
certain parts that are in my control. We have, you know, 70
actions that are fully approved that are moving through the
process, and I would like as much as possible to facilitate
that.
And I--with that, I--oh, the--one of the things that the
offices have done that I'm very grateful is to use all of their
hiring authorities, bringing on certain--some fellows such as
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
fellows. I met a large number of AAAS fellows. Every month, we
try to have lunch with the staff, whoever wants to come and
have lunch with me, and there's always a very good turnout from
the AAAS fellows.
And it is--you know, that's one of the things to see these
people early in their career and to hear what they're excited
about because one of the things that I want to make sure with
the staff at EERE is that it continues to be excited about our
mission. I think that the staff at EERE is incredibly dedicated
to the mission of the Department and the mission of EERE. And
it is--it's, you know, one of my goals to keep it that way.
Mr. Baird. You might make one comment if you would about,
you know, we're putting a lot of emphasis on STEM education
programs and encouraging the ability to fill that pipeline, to
get employees like you're looking for. Any thoughts in that
regard that you see what your observations might be?
Mr. Simmons. Sure. Two things there. We do have some
direct hiring authority for certain STEM positions. We want to
use that to its--we want to use that authority to its fullest
to make sure that we are getting good candidates in EERE,
making sure that the--you know, that the technical staff, the
program offices are well-staffed because that is our least
burdensome way of hiring people.
Also, because STEM is critical in the very near future, we
should be coming out with a $20 million effort to--that's not
to hire Federal staff, but a $20 million effort in terms of
hiring--not hiring but in terms of STEM education that was also
in the most recent budget, to highlight the importance of that.
Plus our offices, our individual offices such as the office--
our Water Power Technologies Office and others are going to
have additional work on STEM as well to make sure that we are
doing everything we can in that area.
Mr. Baird. One quick question, and I only got about 22
seconds, so, anyway, I'm interested in agriculture and the
trucking industry. Any comment about the biofuels and what
you're doing in that area?
Mr. Simmons. Well, that--one quick thing is on the solar
FOA that just came out today, there's an interesting topic
about solar and--solar and agriculture, looking how we can do a
better job combining those two things in terms of trucking,
heavy-duty trucking is an important area, looking at what that
looks like in terms of electrification, in terms of using other
fuels, in terms of bioenergy. Our Bioenergy Technologies Office
I think is working on a lot of exciting--a lot of exciting
areas. The--just last week I was at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory reviewing some of our work there participating in a
summit on biomanufacturing and our Bioenergy Technologies
Office is really leaders in this area.
Biofuels have been somewhat of a challenge. We haven't
been able to accomplish what we, you know, hoped we would 10,
15 years ago in terms of the efficiency of some of those fuels.
But we're making progress.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. And I yield back.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chairs and Ranking Members,
and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I came to this hearing from a hearing in the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis. I know that the climate crisis
is a--one of the greatest existential threats of our time, and
I'm extremely concerned by this Administration's attempts to
disregard congressional intent when spending or delaying this
spending of appropriated dollars on clean energy research,
development, and demonstration, which are all part of the--
going to be part of the solution to addressing this crisis.
And in fact the Department doesn't have a great record. In
2017 the GAO found that the Department had violated the
Impoundment Control Act regarding the distribution of the ARPA-
E funds. So, Mr. Simmons, are you aware that Secretary Perry
testified before this Committee in June 2019?
Mr. Simmons. I'm--I would imagine that I knew that at the
time, but I have no recollection of that specific hearing.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, are you aware that during that hearing
then-Secretary Perry committed to distributing the Department's
appropriated funds for fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 in
accordance with congressional intent?
Mr. Simmons. I know that Secretary Perry has always been
very clear about distributing funds consistent with
congressional intent.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And has the Department
distributed appropriated funds for fiscal year 2019 in
accordance with congressional intent?
Mr. Simmons. I believe so.
Ms. Bonamici. Do you know so?
Mr. Simmons. Well, as an in my office, which I can't
really speak to other offices because I don't know all of the
situations, we have worked very hard to comply with
congressional intent.
Ms. Bonamici. We appreciate that certainly. According to
testimony from one of our witnesses from the Natural Resources
Defense Council on our second panel today, which I hope you'll
be able to listen to if you haven't already reviewed the
testimony, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
entered FY 2020 with $820 million of unobligated funds from
previous years. So that's equivalent to nearly 1/3 of the
office's annual budget. Do you agree with that figure? Is that
correct?
Mr. Simmons. It's close. It's 35 percent of our budget.
Ms. Bonamici. OK. But $800--about $820 million of
unobligated funds?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, $835.
Ms. Bonamici. In your testimony you're quick to point to
examples of EERE issuing large FOAs totally millions of
dollars, and you suggest you will release the remainder of your
FY 2020 FOAs in the coming months. How can this Committee be
certain that the Department is deliberately allocating these
dollars consistent with congressional intent and scientific
integrity principles rather than with the President's goals, as
outlined in his budget request?
Mr. Simmons. To that I think is just to say look at our
track record in terms of unobligated funding. Our track record,
you know, for fiscal year--coming into fiscal year 2020 is
consistent with the previous Administration's unobligated
funding going into fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 in
terms of the funding opportunity announcements themselves.
Those topics are very much aligned.
When the program directors come and brief me on upcoming
FOAs, one of the things that is discussed every single time
about every single topic is what is the congressional language
around this topic? You know, why are we doing this topic? I
take very seriously that--you know, that direction from
Congress and want to make sure that we are allocating funding
and our funding opportunity announcements are consistent with--
you know, with that direction from Congress.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that response, but it seems
inconsistent with having $820 million of unobligated funds that
could be used for research and development that we so
desperately need.
Mr. Simmons. The--from the--from the time of--from a FOA
is released, it takes about 9 months till we have the first
award of that funding opportunity announcement. That means that
when we get kind of--when we get to later in the fiscal year,
we're going to have some carryover. We're going to have some
carryover money into the next fiscal year just because it is
a--it takes a while to go through that process to have--for
applications to come back, to have the merit reviews, and then
to go through the award process because even after we have
selected the winners, it then takes time for--to negotiate
the--to negotiate the actual award.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, I----
Mr. Simmons. Unfortunately, that is longer than I would--
longer than I would wish, but it does take 9 to 12 months
frequently.
Ms. Bonamici. And I do want to just--and--as I yield back
express my concern about this situation where the Department of
Energy withdrew and then reissued the--with regard to the
advanced solar energy technologies. And I know there's some
documentation that's likely to be included in the record in
this.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Foster. Well, I'd like to thank our witness for
his testimony. At this point we look forward to the follow-up
that you've committed to, the follow-up information.
And we will now have a short 5-minute break while we seat
our next panel of witnesses.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Foster. Well, welcome back. At this time I would
like to introduce our second panel of witnesses.
First, we have Dr. Charles Gay. Dr. Gay is a member of the
Sandia National Laboratory Energy and Homeland Security
External Advisory Board. Formerly, he served as the Director of
the Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) at the Department
of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Next, Mr. Anthony Reardon. Mr. Reardon is the National
President of the National Treasury Employees Union.
And last, we have Mr. Arjun Krishnaswami, a political--a
policy analyst and--for the Climate and Clean Energy Program at
the National Resources Defense Council. And we will start with
Dr. Charles Gay.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES GAY,
MEMBER, SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES' ENERGY AND HOMELAND
SECURITY EXTERNAL ADVISORY BOARD,
AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Dr. Gay. Thank you, Chairman Foster and Ranking Member
Norman, Chairman Fletcher, Ranking Member Weber, Chairwoman
Johnson, and Ranking Member Lucas, and distinguished Members.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you know, I
appear pursuant to subpoena. I am committed to cooperating
fully and truthfully. I will provide facts as I understand them
and as I've been refreshed by having had access to redacted
information produced by the Department of Energy under Freedom
of Information Act discovery, which is available online. I'm
speaking today as an individual with 45 years of experience in
renewable energy, including 3 years at the solar energy office.
I'm speaking on the basis of personal experience and do not
represent the views of, nor am I speaking on behalf of Sandia
National Laboratory or any other organization.
With respect to the broad subject matter of this hearing,
I'd like to thank Congress for maintaining a high level of
steadfast support over more than a decade. It's this stability
that was at the heart of SunShot's success in reaching our 6-
cent-a-kilowatt-hour goal 3 years ahead of schedule.
As a natural effect of government's annual budget cycles,
challenges sometimes arise when widely varying projections of
forward-looking budgets are in play and plans for staffing and
for execution of the annual FOA cycle are impacted by these
uncertainties.
The FY 2018 planning process was daunting because the
final budget was not in place until halfway through the year.
Compounding this challenge is the added complexity which is the
result of rapid progress in renewable energy cost reduction. In
SETO's case, we had numerous points of collaboration with other
offices in DOE, which have included the Offices of Electricity,
Nuclear, and Fossil Energy. It's these collaborations that help
assure that we don't duplicate funding for the same work.
In FY 2018 the Solar Office consolidated what had been
subprogram specific FOAs into one mega-FOA comprised of four
topic areas to save time and merge multiple parallel processes
into one. I will summarize one eccentric event, the decision by
acting EE1 Tripodi to cancel Topic 1 of that FOA just a few
days before selections were slated to be approved in late
August of 2018. Topic 1 addressed the congressional line item
activity identified as systems integration. Leadership provided
alternate language for reissuing this Topic 1.
The rationale given for cancelation was that the FOA
language was not understandable and that appropriate
collaboration with the Office of Electricity had not taken
place. I will challenge these two assertions.
First, understandability. There were over 90 full
proposals submitted for the original Topic 1. These were
generated by organizations with technical expertise in the
subject area, and in fact leadership's alternate language had
to be rewritten. The ultimate reissuance of Topic 1 had all the
essential attributes of the original and was expanded to
include validation.
Secondly related to collaboration, there is a documented
record of email exchanges between the Solar Office and Office
of Electricity demonstrating collaboration. My written
testimony includes a chronology of collaboration that I
initiated in October 2017 and which continued with numerous
members of the Office of Electricity all the way through the
Federal consensus panel evaluations. There are nearly a half-
dozen email threads in my written testimony referencing not
just collaboration but editing of our Topic 1 to respond to
requests from the Office of Electricity. Reviews and
concurrence by Office of Electricity management included the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Advanced Grid Research and
Development and the Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary.
This unfortunate situation not only slowed progress in
expanding resilient, reliable, lower-cost solar power but made
it more difficult to engage partners because we pulled the plug
on our own operational process.
Allow me to thank you again for the opportunity to provide
this testimony, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gay follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Foster. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Reardon
for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANTHONY M. REARDON,
NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Mr. Reardon. Thank you, Chairman Foster, Ranking Member
Weber, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
As the National President of NTEU, I have the honor of
leading a union that represents 150,000 Federal employees at 33
agencies, including employees at DOE and its Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. EERE is a leader in the
transition to a global clean energy economy and a prosperous
United States powered by clean, affordable, and secure energy.
The employees at EERE are committed to the principle that
government-funded research is necessary to foster innovative
ideas that aren't yet viable in the private sector.
According to the Energy Department's own statistics, the
$20 billion in taxpayer investment in EERE over the last 12
years has yielded a net economic benefit to our country of $230
billion. However, despite its clear economic benefits, the
Administration's budget request for the past 3 years have
called for at least a 70 percent reduction in funding to EERE.
Budget cuts of this size would cripple the mission of EERE,
undercut its work and its economic impact, and would require
the agency to lay off much of the workforce.
Unsurprisingly, the proposed budget cuts created a morale
crisis for the employees at EERE. The scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers who work there could be earning
much larger paychecks elsewhere but chose a career in civil
service out of a desire to serve their country. Former EERE
employees with immense knowledge and expertise have told us
they retired earlier than originally planned because of
declining morale. Midcareer employees have taken other
positions either within DOE or outside the Department where
they tell us they feel much more valued and their talent and
skill more valued.
Despite Congress' rejection of the proposed budget cuts,
EERE is still significantly understaffed. Due to several
issues, including hiring failures by management and poor
employee relations, EERE is currently operating with only 553
FTEs, down from 710 in January of 2017. As a result, important
work is left undone or employees are overburdened, making EERE
an even less attractive place to work as it seeks to fill
positions.
In addition, the lack of adequate staffing has resulted in
fewer site visits to monitor projects funded by EERE and ensure
that they are on track. I'm sure Members of the Science
Oversight Subcommittee and other Members here today understand
how important project oversight is.
Further, there have been at least 20 employees transferred
out of EERE, and at least some of these transfers were not
performed in accordance with the collective bargaining
agreement currently in place. Employees have told us that they
were dismayed at the lack of process and explanation.
Employees have also reported that there is a strong
perception that EERE management does not value longer-tenured
employees and seems to encourage eligible employees to retire
rather than stay with EERE. Our union stewards there have told
me grievances and EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) complaints
are now more frequent and more egregious.
While the 2017 hiring freeze guidance was lifted, many
stringent and hampering conditions and approvals still seem to
be standing in the way of hiring at EERE. It is our
understanding that the Department of Energy human resources has
had vacant positions pending classification and next steps in
the hiring process since the summer of 2019. We understand the
agency plans to hire at least 80--we heard today 70 FTEs--but
so far, we've seen no evidence that they've been taking the
steps needed to fill these positions.
In addition to the challenges within EERE, the past few
years have been a trying time for all civil servants who work
hard every day for the American people. Federal employees have
faced government shutdowns and threats of shutdowns. They've
been subjected to unnecessary forced relocations and proposed
agency closures. They've been disparaged by government leaders
who refer to them as bureaucrats and swamp creatures.
Federal employees have faced pay freezes, hiring freezes,
threatened cuts to employee benefits, elimination of key work-
life balance benefits such as telework, and ongoing efforts to
roll back employee collective bargaining and due process rights
and protections. This creates a constant state of uncertainty
for Federal employees, and that has a significant impact on
morale both at EERE and across the government, as well as the
government's ability to recruit and retain talented employees.
So I thank you again for the opportunity to be here on
behalf of the skilled and talented employees NTEU (National
Treasury Employees Union) represents at EERE, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize Mr. Krishnaswami.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ARJUN KRISHNASWAMI, POLICY ANALYST,
CLIMATE AND CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair
Foster, Chairs Johnson and Fletcher, and Ranking Members
Norman, Weber, and Lucas. My name is Arjun Krishnaswami, and I
appear today on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Thank you for the opportunity to address troubling
trends in the Trump Administration's management of DOE
programs, including EERE and ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy).
I will make three key points. First, DOE's programs are
impactful, popular, and have strong bipartisan support. Second,
the programs have faced significant delays in spending and
holdups to hiring. And third, Congress can and should act to
remediate these issues.
To my first point, DOE's clean energy innovation work has
already had a profound positive impact, including through
millions of clean energy jobs and bill savings for everyday
Americans. In fact, every dollar invested through EERE programs
results in about $33 of benefit to the American people. These
are wise investments of taxpayer investments--of taxpayer
dollars.
Thankfully, these programs have received bipartisan
support from Congress. Congress has rejected President Trump's
serious cuts and instead increased funding for clean energy
R&D. But when the Administration fails to spend the money that
Congress gives it, the American people miss out.
Which brings me to my second point. These programs have
faced serious delays in spending and holdups to staffing. NRDC
began tracking spending patterns for ARPA-E and EERE in 2018
using publicly available data, which is why I'm here today. Our
analysis found that both offices were significantly behind on
spending their appropriated money over the past 2 years. ARPA-E
hadn't spent between 80 and 90 percent at the end of each
fiscal year. And EERE hadn't spent 14 to 18 percent. That's
about $300-$400 million in unspent funds for EERE. That's a
result of both issuing and announcing FOAs late and not
following the expected timeline to spend that money, including
delays in the Solar Office, the Wind Office, and the Waterpower
Office over the last 2 years.
As a result, both offices carry large sums of unspent any
into 2020. For EERE, as has been noted, the carryover balance
was equal to about 1/3 of its annual budget. That's the
greatest carryover in at least the last 10 years, and ARPA-E
similarly carried a carryover balance equal to about the annual
budget of the agency.
I want to make one note here, which is that though there
have been carryover balances in the past, the--prior
Administrations have not proposed to cancel unspent money,
whereas under this Administration, the Administration has
proposed to cancel unobligated balances every year, 2017, 2018,
and last year 2019. So the--there's extra diligence due here
around carryover balances.
Put simply, these delays and carryovers that I've noted
mean that less money is getting to researchers and businesses
to do their critical work. That's money that Congress has said
it wants invested in clean energy R&D.
In a related troubling trend, EERE has become severely
understaffed, meaning that a smaller staff must manage
significantly more money. If the office has been--had
maintained the same funding-to-staff ratio present at the end
of the prior Administration, it would have 950 full-time
equivalents as opposed to approximately 550 that were in place
last year. We heard earlier today that that number has actually
decreased since last summer. That's 400 fewer employees to do
the same amount of work. Understaffing contributes to funding
delays, reduced morale for Federal employees, and higher
attrition that create a vicious cycle for these problems.
To summarize what we've observed, an agency with large
amounts of unspent money, a history of delays and cancelations
getting money out the door, and an increasing budget is
deciding to hold up staffing and reduce staffing, all at a time
when the agency should be spending the money more quickly and
staffing up to comply with congressional will and support
American innovators and businesses.
These trends do not make sense unless you consider them in
the context of the Administration's explicit proposals to gut
these programs. As you've heard, the last three budget request
would have totally eliminated ARPA-E and cut EERE funding by
70, 71, and 86 percent respectively. Two of the requests, as I
noted, also proposed canceling unspent funds from prior years,
and each request proposed to cut staff. Even though Congress
has outright rejected these proposals, the agency has delayed
funds and reduced staff, as we've shown.
That leads to my third and final point, which is that
these issues merit congressional action. Increased oversight,
including hearings like this one, can help identify problems
and encourage the agency to execute its important research and
development mission. I was pleased to hear from Mr. Simmons
about the FOA announcements over the last 2 days leading up to
this hearing and the publicizing of open positions in EERE. We
hope that progress continues.
I'll just say these programs need to expand, and with
larger programs it will be even more critical to do this work.
We hope you take these steps, and I thank you for the
opportunity to discuss them in more detail.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krishnaswami follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And at this point we'll begin
our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for
5 minutes.
Dr. Gay, the documents produced pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act request from Democracy Forward contained an
email from August 29, 2018, from the then-leader of EERE Cathy
Tripodi to a staffer at the DOE Golden Field Office. She said
in that email that she was going to meet with you later the
same day to discuss language of the new F-O-A, FOA. She emailed
a few hours later that she told the--and told the Golden Field
Office that ``Charlie seems fine with the language.'' Now, do
you recall being asked about the specified alternative language
in a meeting on October--on August 29 and reporting back that
you were fine with the language?
Dr. Gay. No.
Chairman Foster. No, you do not. And so the--this is the
two pages, the two pages that appear in your testimony.
Dr. Gay. Yes.
Chairman Foster. And I have to say when I read those, I
was embarrassed for our government, that those two pages were
so far from the level of competence that you saw in the
original FOA or in fact in the--we saw when the career staff
had done their best to repair the faulty thinking in those two
pages. So I understand why you were not fine with that
proposal.
Dr. Gay, the documents produced by the Democracy Forward
contained an email from July 30 from Ms. Tripodi to political
appointees in the Office of Electricity. Now, she reported that
the Solar Office has offered to rewrite Topic 1 in the solar
FOA. To your knowledge have you or any representative of SETO
offered to rewrite Topic 1 at that point?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. And so this was something that she was
going to personally rewrite herself?
Dr. Gay. I don't know what she had in mind.
Chairman Foster. Is it normal practice to have non-
technical political appointees rewrite the technical aspects of
FOAs?
Dr. Gay. Not in my experience.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. Dr. Gay, the documents
produced by Democracy Forward contained an email from September
18th, 2018, from Ms. Tripodi to DOE Under Secretary Mark
Menezes. In this email she told Mr. Menezes that she had met
with EERE staff three times to, quote, ``ask them to explain
what the words of--in the actual solar FOA in Topic 1 meant''
and that staff was unable to explain. Is that your
recollection?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. Do you recall any confusion on the part
of the entities that responded to the FOA? Were they confused
by it?
Dr. Gay. It did not appear to be the case.
Chairman Foster. So the confusion seems to be limited to
Ms. Tripodi. In this email she said EERE staff told her that,
quote, ``they would issue an amendment and never did and then
proceeded to score Topic 1 against direction.'' Is that your
recollection?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. Did you or others in EERE commit to issue
an amendment to the SETO FOA and that you did not then see
through?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. Did anyone advise SETO staff not to score
the applicants to Topic 1 before SETO had already done so?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. Dr. Gay, we understand that Ms. Tripodi
apparently drafted the new SETO FOA language herself in
collaboration with other political officials in the Office of
Electricity and contracting staff from DOE Golden Field Office.
Do you believe that to be correct?
Dr. Gay. I don't have evidence to show how that rewrite
came to be.
Chairman Foster. OK. Well, it's very generous of you to
refer to it as a rewrite. Briefly, what is the usual role of
the Golden Field Office in preparing a FOA?
Dr. Gay. Field offices are contracting partners, so the
Solar Energy Technology Office is based here in Washington, DC,
and the Golden Field Office is our partner for contracting
purposes. The contracting lead there for most of our work has
been Diana Bobo, and the Contract Grants Management Specialist,
a gentleman named Clay Pfrangle. So when we issue a FOA, we
write the technical part of the FOA here in our office, and
when a FOA is issued, there's a very thick compendium of
documentation about the mechanics of the review process, the
protocols to be followed in submitting applications, and the
protocols for review of those applications.
Chairman Foster. So the Golden Field Office does not
normally contribute to the technical substance of a FOA. Is
that----
Dr. Gay. That's correct.
Chairman Foster. That is correct. So this was apparently
an anomaly to the extent there was technical substance in that
two-page rewrite. How unusual is it for a political official to
take this on themselves, that a political appointee will just
decide to do a complete technical rewrite?
Dr. Gay. I have no idea.
Chairman Foster. Have you ever experienced it in the time
that you've been with the Department of Energy?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Chairman Foster. Or heard of it in the past?
Dr. Gay. I have not heard of it before.
Chairman Foster. OK. All right. Well, at this point I will
yield the rest of my time and recognize the Ranking Member from
Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, sir. Dr. Gay, I was looking a little
bit of your bio. You started a company called Greenstar?
Dr. Gay. Yes, I did. It's basically a foundation.
Mr. Weber. Sure. And it says in 1990 you were the
President and Chief Operating Officer of Siemens Solar
Industries?
Dr. Gay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. And now, of course if you read it on, you know,
Facebook or Wikipedia, you know it's true, right? So it said
you were responsible for increasing the sales in 110 countries.
Dr. Gay. That's correct.
Mr. Weber. And they're Siemens thin solar film. Were you
successful at that?
Dr. Gay. I believe that we were. We expanded the business
and grew the company. We were able to add manufacturing
capacity in both California and the State of Washington.
Mr. Weber. So would you say the research done by the
Department of Energy actually helped move that forward a little
bit?
Dr. Gay. Yes, it did. We were actually a recipient of
funding for some of our R&D work at Arco Solar and Siemens
Solar, the successor company.
Mr. Weber. And then in 1997 you were on the board, and I
was trying to read very quickly here, appointed to the board of
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, NREL?
Dr. Gay. I was Director, sir.
Mr. Weber. Director, OK. Do you feel like you all had some
success there?
Dr. Gay. I feel like we did. It was a daunting time
because I arrived shortly after the November 1994 election. And
our budget had been cut by 1/3, which would have meant the need
to lay off--if I did it proportionately--almost 400 employees.
But by streamlining our processes, our business practices, I
kept the layoff down to about 40 people.
Mr. Weber. So it can be done with less employees. And
refresh my memory. Who was the President back then?
Dr. Gay. This took place--I don't recall actually.
Mr. Weber. It was Bill Clinton.
Dr. Gay. Clinton.
Mr. Weber. By way of reminder. Well, it's good to hear
that, you know, those agencies can be run, you know, even with
less people.
Are you aware that EERE received more applications to the
revised assist FOA than the original 129 versus 92?
Dr. Gay. Yes, I'd like to clarify the scope here.
Mr. Weber. I'm glad you are because that's my next
question.
Dr. Gay. The two FOAs, the original FOA included a process
called submission of a concept paper. There were 322 concept
papers that were submitted, and of those 322, 67 of them were
recommended for full proposals. We actually received 92 full
proposals, which is the 92 referenced in the original FOA. In
the second issuance of the FOA, there was no concept paper
process. There was a notice of intent, which had about 220, 225
responses. And of those people who responded to the notice of
intent, we received something on the order of 120 proposals. So
we actually received more proposals, but it was a different
process sequence.
Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you. You also say that if potential
grantees do not think EERE is a reliable partner or doubt that
the competitive process is fair, they are less likely to engage
with DOE in the future. Did you experience that back in 1997?
Dr. Gay. Repeat that first part if you would.
Mr. Weber. You say that if potential grantees do not think
that EERE is a reliable partner or doubt that the competitive
process is fair, they are less likely to engage with DOE in the
future. Back in 1997 you became the Chairman of NREL. Did you
experience that then?
Dr. Gay. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Weber. No? Is there any proof that this revised FOA
gave awards in an unfair process or unfair manner?
Dr. Gay. No, sir.
Mr. Weber. None that you know of?
Dr. Gay. No.
Mr. Weber. OK. Are you aware of any institutions or anyone
that now refuses to seek DOE grants because they think EERE is,
in your opinion, unreliable?
Dr. Gay. No, sir. I don't believe that I used the word
unreliable in my own written or oral testimony.
Mr. Weber. No? What word did you use? Refresh my memory. I
was trying to read quickly on two fronts.
Dr. Gay. I didn't reference the projected behavior of
somebody else at all.
Mr. Weber. Yes. OK. Thank you. All right. Well, I'm out of
time. I've got other questions, so I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you
all for being with us today.
I--as Mr. Reardon knows, I represent more Federal
employees in the Virginia's 8th District than any other Member
of Congress. I'm close with Ms. Wexton here, but--and so this
is a--the core of this hearing is really important to me and my
constituents.
And I've been deeply distressed over the last 3 years
about the negative impact this Administration is having on our
Federal workforce, especially the belittling of Government
employees, the harsh and critical budget cuts to Federal
agencies, programs that do untold damage to our Federal
workforce. So I just want to use this opportunity to shout out
to the wonderful good government we have and the wonderful
Federal employees we have who do make us--this wonderful
country.
And, by the way, last night's speech was very difficult to
listen to, but one of the things I took most objection to was
the President's taking credit for the paid maternity and
paternity leave for Federal employees. Let's point out that
we've been fighting that for years up here without a single
Republican cosponsor. And that was a tradeoff made, a
compromise made to get his space force, that the only reason we
got that was because we strongly negotiated for it, and the
return was that he got the space force that he needed.
Mr. Reardon, you mentioned in your testimony higher rates
of attrition among existing EERE staff. Assistant Secretary
Simmons talked about a 5.8 percent increase in the global
satisfaction of EERE employees in the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey. Can you tell us where they started? With the
5.8 percent was an increase from?
Mr. Reardon. Yes, I'm not certain exactly what the
specific number is. I mean, certainly I could get that back
to--get back to you on that. But, you know, I think what's
important to recognize is, No. 1, who's taking the--who's
actually taking the survey. Are frontline employees taking it?
What we've seen historically is there are often times when I am
really pushing our members to take the survey, I think it's
important for their views to be known. And because frequently
frontline employees don't believe anything is really done with
the findings in the survey, oftentimes they will refuse to take
it. They won't take it. I don't know that that's the case here,
but that's what we've seen over the years to a pretty great
extent.
Mr. Beyer. What are you saying in terms of attrition at
EERE, especially among the GS-14s and 15s?
Mr. Reardon. Well, we're seeing--we're certainly seeing
people leave. And I will tell you that I--I think, Congressman
Beyer, that it is in large measure due to the way that the
agency is treating employees. You know, I think it's--I think
we all recognize that when you work at a place and you don't
feel valued, that morale goes down. And when morale goes down,
what typically happens? People leave.
And so, you know, we've got--I've been hearing from folks,
we've been hearing from folks that are letting us know that
those who are near retirement, they feel like they are really
being pushed out the door. Those who aren't near retirement,
they're being moved, transferred out of EERE, or being pushed
out. And, you know, news travels quickly when people in a
workplace do not feel valued or that they're treated with
dignity and respect candidly.
And I--and one quick story is that we have a--we had a
former member. He--this particular individual, as I understand
it, no longer is alive but was an organ--had an organ
transplant. And this individual's doctor had said, you know, it
is important that you stay home so, you know, it would be
appropriate for you to telework. And in--it took us a great
deal of fighting with the agency in order to get them to follow
their own telework policy so that this individual could work at
home. And that just shouldn't happen.
So I think it's important that employees feel that they're
treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and I think we might
be able to see people sticking around if that were to be the
case.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Reardon, one of the great fun things is
that political leadership, literally the White House, thinks
that EERE is too top-heavy, too--the average person is too
senior. How do you react to that?
Mr. Reardon. Well, I think, first of all, to the extent
that there are a significant number of senior personnel, it
seems to me that we've got a lot of folks that have to be
highly qualified to do a lot of this work. And so, you know,
what I am really concerned about, Congressman, is, you know,
we've heard some testimony today and some comments from Members
today suggesting that, you know, we need to make certain that
there is oversight, that we're paying attention to what work is
actually being done by these grant recipients. And the fact is
that that is impossible to do properly without an appropriate
number of staff. And so that ends up being a significant
problem.
Chairman Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to the Committee. Excuse me.
What I've seen throughout the investigation of EERE's
cancelation and reinstatement of solar power grants is the
infiltration of partisan politics into grantmaking, which is
designed to be an apolitical process. The political appointee,
without consulting with the career public servants with decades
of experience administering grant programs like these, pulled
the plug on the Topic 1 grants. You know, given this
Administration's track record and their hostility to using data
to inform decisions from tax policy to climate policy and on,
it's hard not to believe that their opposition played a role in
that.
And frankly it's also--it's not the only time we've seen
this. In this department my staff and I have spoken with public
servants who said that since this incident it's become
commonplace for political appointees to review FOAs, the
funding opportunity announcements, or calls for grant proposals
before they're released. And, as we heard in the prior hearing,
the office's leadership and particularly the Deputy Assistant
Secretaries are increasingly political appointees that are
required to be approved by senior staff at a level that was not
true in the prior Administration.
Dr. Gay, is it safe for me to paraphrase your testimony to
say that you believe that political appointees and their
partisan motivations were influencing how FOAs were written and
how grants were awarded?
Dr. Gay. I have no special insight to their motivations,
sir. The mechanics here are what they are and what I
experienced. But the--behind that storyline I don't know how to
explain it.
Mr. Casten. Do you--would you care to speculate on why you
think--I mean, this process that Mr. Foster described of a
rigorous, thoughtful FOA becoming a two-page memo--why--what do
you think drove that?
Dr. Gay. I'm not one to speculate, sir. I don't know.
Mr. Casten. OK. I appreciate your willingness to stick to
facts that we understand.
Mr. Reardon, you mentioned in your testimony that the
career public servants that comprise your union membership
believe their expertise is being disregarded by this
Administration. Have your members spoken about partisan
motivations encroaching on grantmaking and similar
decisionmaking?
Mr. Reardon. I've not personally heard anything about that
issue.
Mr. Casten. OK. Mr. Krishnaswami, in your written
testimony you explicitly called the delay in the solar power
grants politically motivated. Do you care to speak to what you
meant by that and----
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you, Congressman. I would note two
things here. One is that leading up to the solar FOA, the
funding opportunity had already been through rigorous review
both by the program staff, as well as by--through a new
political process that was instated in 2017 by the
Administration to vet the funding opportunities. So the funding
opportunity had been through that entire process, and then days
before it was announced, you know, was canceled by a different
political appointee who was in an acting position, as we've
heard, and actually, it was initially approved by Mr. Simmons
before that. So that points to the fact that there was a
circumventing of the process that was already established to
cancel this funding opportunity.
The second thing I'd point out is that looking at the data
that we presented, as well as the cancelation of this funding
opportunity, it aligns with what the Administration has
publicly proposed in its budget request, cutting the Solar
Energy Office, cutting the other programs within EERE, as well
as rescinding prior--you know, prior funds from earlier years.
So it's hard for us not to draw the connection between those
explicit proposals and the actions that we've seen.
Mr. Casten. Final question just for any of you who'd care
to answer, I spent 16 years in the clean-energy industry. I
sold about 80 clean-power projects and with one exception I
never sold it to anybody because they cared about climate
change. I did. They just wanted to save money because if you're
generating energy with less raw energy input, you tend to have
more cash in your wallet at the end of the day.
I'm trying to understand why an Administration that on its
face they like to talk about how much they love capitalism and
markets. Can you speculate, any of you, on why it is that they
seem to be working so hard to block the deployment of
technologies that would make us wealthier?
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you, Congressman. I would just add
that these actions align with other actions that the
Administration has taken to limit clean-energy development and
prevent clean-energy development despite the well-proven
economic benefits and savings that clean energy provides to the
public.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Casten.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. And thank all
of the witnesses for being here for this panel this morning.
My first question, Dr. Gay, is addressed to you. DOE told
us that they needed to cancel the original Topic 1 solar
funding opportunity announcement, or FOA, because the Solar
Energy Technologies Office didn't adequately consider grid
integration concerns. But I'm looking at the original FOA now,
and Topic 1 is titled ``Advanced Solar Systems Integration.''
It describes, quote, ``SETO research priorities and the
seamless integration of high penetrations of solar energy onto
the Nation's electricity grid.'' So would you agree with DOE's
assertions to Congress, the public, and hundreds of applicants
from companies and universities across the country that the
original FOA did not sufficiently address grid integration
issues?
Dr. Gay. I would not agree, and to reinforce that, I want
to reinforce the message of how much work we did to collaborate
with the Office of Electricity. We made modifications to the
FOA in response to their recommendations for what wording we
used in the FOA. We carried out reviews all the way back to
October of 2017 of what our plans were. I personally met with
staff in the Office of Electricity to preview our plans, to
cover the scope of anticipated work, to solicit their feedback
on what we had and how we could better optimize together what
we were looking to do.
So the facts here are that there was a great deal of
collaboration, especially I wanted to highlight the
contributions of two people in the Office of Electricity who
did a terrific job of helping build bridges here. One is the
Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Pesin and one is a gentleman
named Gil Bindewald. We also collaborated with the
cybersecurity folks at the beginning of the FOA period. It was
with Carol Hawk, who was in the Office of Electricity
responsible for cybersecurity of the grid. She moved into the
CESER office, the Cyber Energy Reliability Office. And we
continued to have her involved, along with representatives from
the Office of Electricity in the reviews of the FOA, in the
scoring of the FOA, and the selection--down-selection process
that were part of the Federal Consensus Review Panel.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I think in your answer you
anticipated a couple of my other questions, but I do want to
follow up on sort of two things related to your testimony about
your time there as the Director and the work that you did with
the Office of Electricity. So I guess sort of two thoughts.
One, based on your time and experience, can you provide any
insights into the origin of the claim that there wasn't
sufficient research if you have any? And, two, kind of with
that in mind, is it your opinion that there is any reasonable
justification for canceling the original FOA?
Dr. Gay. I am not aware of any conversations that took
place before the cancelation where there was an engagement to
discuss what a rewrite would entail. The rationale for
canceling, as I pointed out, were twofold, one that we had not
done adequate collaboration with the Office of Electricity,
which I think I've spoken to well enough here. And the other
was that the writing was not understandable. Part of the
understandable nature of the writing I found befuddling because
the document I was handed to replace the original FOA with was
itself not understandable. It called for putting distributed
energy resources into the transmission system. Distributed
energy resources are in the distribution system, and they are
operated separately from the transmission system. So the
document that I was given to form the foundation of reissuing
was not technically understandable.
Mrs. Fletcher. And as a follow-up to that, what was the
origin of that document you were--who gave it to you?
Dr. Gay. It was handed to me by acting EE1 Tripodi.
Mrs. Fletcher. And, I'm sorry, did I let you finish the
remainder of your answer there on whether there was any
reasonable justification? I think you've identified the two
reasons that were given, and it's my understanding that you
don't think that those reasons are sufficient. Is that a fair
takeaway?
Dr. Gay. Yes, it is, and it's reinforced by the fact that
the rewrite had to be rewritten.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I only have a short--actually,
I've gone over my time, so if we do a second round of
questions, I have another question for you. But otherwise, I
will yield back, and I will recognize Ms. Bonamici for 5
minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair, and thank you to all
the witnesses for being here.
I represent a district in northwest Oregon, and I know at
home in the Northwest but also across the country and around
the globe people are demanding comprehensive action to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to address the climate crisis. It's
such a critical issue. And to meaningfully do that, to reduce
emissions, we need to accelerate our transition, adjust
transition to 100 percent clean-energy economy, and that is
going to take robust investments in EERE.
And even as, Mr. Reardon, your testimony pointed out, over
the last 12 years the investments in EERE, $20 billion, has
yielded a net economic benefit of $230 billion. So going back
to Mr. Casten's point about these are good investments, and
that's why we need to be making them.
Mr. Krishnaswami, we appreciate the NRDC's continued
efforts to provide oversight and transparency on the DOE's
attempts to sideline congressional intent in allocating the
EERE and ARPA-E funds. And in your testimony you noted that
EERE ended fiscal year 2019 with about 4 percent of the
office's funds unallocated and 18 percent unspent. And ARPA-E
ended with 48 to 68 percent of its funds unallocated and up to
91 percent unspent. How do these carryover amounts compare to
previous Administrations? And how has the delayed distribution
of those funds affected our Nation's capabilities to
effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a
clean-energy economy? When we look at the return we get on
those investments, what has that meant to our energy future?
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you, Congresswoman. I'd note two
points. The first is that when we looked back at this--the--at
this analysis, we went back several years in the prior
Administration, and we found that consistently both EERE and
ARPA-E were putting out the announcements of funding
opportunities later in the year and actually awarding the--
choosing the selections also later in the year or after the
fiscal year had ended. So especially over the last 2 years
ARPA-E and EERE were behind where we were under the prior
Administration.
And to your broader question, the second point is really
that we know that these programs, as has been stated several
times, are really beneficial in terms of the return on taxpayer
investment to the public. We also know that they've already
made a dent in the climate challenge and that they need to be
much, much larger to actually match the scale of the climate
crisis. So any delays in getting those money--that money to
researchers and businesses or preventing it from getting to the
public is really a delay in those benefits from reaching people
and a delay in combating this urgent climate crisis.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. And I'll note I just--I came--
prior to this hearing, this morning we had a hearing in the
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis where we were talking
about the health effects of the climate crisis. And former EPA
Administrator McCarthy was there. We were talking about the
social cost of carbon and the healthcare costs that are also so
important to consider. So it's--we need to consider all those
aspects as well.
So I wanted to also ask again, Mr. Krishnaswami and Mr.
Reardon. I share your concerns that given the significant
backlog of unobligated funds within EERE, the Department has
not hired more staff to help process more FOAs since the
Federal hiring freeze was lifted. So in your opinion what--
what's delaying the Department? Mr. Gay, you might want to
weigh in on this as well. What's delaying the Department in
hiring more staff? And as we look to the President's budget
proposal next week, how will the Administration respond to the
2020 report language that--about the Department reaching a
staffing level of 650 FTEs this year?
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you. I would note that, you know,
we don't know exactly what has changed within the hiring
process at DOE or what is causing each individual holdup in
announcing positions or filling the positions. But we do see
the trends in the data, which show that the number of staff
have decreased and particularly with increasing budgets. So
really I think it's really important to understand and identify
what those holdups are, what has changed in the process of
hiring. And we encourage you to work with the DOE to determine
that, identify it, and change it so that EERE can hire faster.
Ms. Bonamici. And thank you. I have a little bit of time
left. Mr. Reardon and Mr.--Dr. Gay?
Mr. Reardon. Yeah, I'd be happy to jump in there. I have
no idea what is--what's causing the holdup. Clearly, there is
one. Clearly the EERE is far too understaffed. The point that I
think I would add to other things I've already said is that,
you know, we've talked about not having a blank check to these
companies that have--that are receiving these grant funds. One
way to make certain that we are not in fact giving a blank
check is to ensure that we have enough staff to be out there--
--
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Mr. Reardon [continuing]. Tracking and providing the
absolutely necessary oversight that the American people
deserve.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes. And the light turned red, but Dr. Gay,
very briefly, do you have a couple words to----
Dr. Gay. Yes. This is about delegation of authority, that
being able to delegate the responsibility and hold people
accountable. During the course of the past several years, the
hurdle has raised rather than stayed where it was or been
lowered in order to have the authority to carry out the hiring.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'd now like to recognize
Representative Wexton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the
witnesses for joining us today. This has been very informative.
Your testimonies have really shed a light on the important work
that EERE is doing for America and our use of renewables.
This--as we've heard, this use of new technology helps
drop the cost of renewables and provides greater opportunity to
adapt them to these technologies and drive job growth. In
Virginia, for example, in my home State growth in the solar
sector grew by 9 percent, job growth did in 2018. Now, it could
have been better, but that's still pretty good.
Now, it's alarming to hear the extent to which
congressionally appropriated dollars for growth in this
industry have not been spent and that there are great
opportunities that are just languishing. And it's very
disturbing to hear about the impact on EERE's workforce.
You know, Mr. Reardon, you said in your testimony
something that was very important about Federal workers and
career civil servants, that they do this work out of a desire
to serve their country. And they are experts in the field, and
they get paid a lot less than they do in the private sector,
but they do this work because they believe in the mission of
the agency, and they love it. And so I'd like to talk a little
bit about what they actually do at the EERE.
Dr. Gay, can you elaborate a little bit on what it means
to actually oversee an EERE grant? What do the workers do in
those cases on a day-to-day basis?
Dr. Gay. Typically, there's a process for follow-up with
each of the awardees for reviewing their process. As part of
their proposals that are submitted, they have to submit
milestones and goals and a timeline. In the office we review
the progress against those milestones, and if things seem to
veer from the course that was projected, we collaborate with
the awardee on what actions to take, whether it's appropriate
to pivot, whether it's appropriate for them to add more
emphasis in a different way. So there's a lot of follow-through
with the awardees to assure that the intention of the original
funding from Congress is maintained and it continues throughout
the period of execution of that award.
Ms. Wexton. So it's a part of being good stewards of the
Federal resources, of the taxpayer dollars and making sure that
we get results for our investment. Is that correct?
Dr. Gay. Yes. I'm a taxpayer, too, and I care about what
happens here. And I especially care about clean energy. So it's
a combination of the business background that I bring to follow
that structure, to follow the roadmaps and the processes so
that we execute on schedule, on time, and on budget.
During the time that I ran the office, we actually----
Ms. Wexton. And, I'm sorry, I'm going to reclaim my time
because I'm running out. But with fewer employees doing this
important work, there's going to be some impacts to their
ability to perform their jobs. Is that correct, Mr. Reardon?
Mr. Reardon. That is correct. And----
Ms. Wexton. And are you hearing concerns from your members
about how their workload is suffering given the--or how the
work product is suffering given the workload that they are
required to complete?
Mr. Reardon. Absolutely, we are.
Ms. Wexton. Are there--do you have any data about
personnel complaints that you may have received for--from DOE
or from Department of Energy because of being overwhelmed or
anything like that?
Mr. Reardon. Well, clearly, we have ongoing conversations
with our members, so we're hearing all the time about that. In
terms of specific data, I don't have that today. But I can
assure you there is a great deal of concern, and the morale is
pretty low.
Ms. Wexton. And have you heard of DOE employees taking on
obligations that they didn't have--that they didn't have in the
past or that weren't necessarily parts of their general job
description?
Mr. Reardon. Well, what I've primarily heard is where
employees are having to take on a much bigger portfolio. And,
as a result, they're not able to, you know, do the work that
they think is necessary to provide proper oversight.
Ms. Wexton. OK. Dr. Gay, do you have anything to add to
the employee oversight issue?
Dr. Gay. I care a lot about the workload that the
employees carry, and our budgets have been increasing as time
has gone by. The staffing level has been shrinking. There's
normal attrition maybe on the order of 6 percent per year. So
not even being able to backfill for attrition puts more burden
on the existing workforce.
Ms. Wexton. Well, Doctor, we heard from Assistant
Secretary Simmons earlier today, and he said that hiring new
employees was a top priority for him. But clearly, that seems
to be in conflict with the facts. And thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr. Lamb for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all three
of you for being with us this morning and sticking out this
kind of long hearing.
Mr. Reardon, you mentioned in your testimony that when
your employees are driven out of public service, they have very
competitive private-sector opportunities often in places that
are willing to play to pay them more and treat them with more
dignity and respect. Could you state a little bit more about
that? I don't know how specific you can get, but what types of
jobs are they leaving the government for?
Mr. Reardon. Well, I don't know specifically with regard
to folks from EERE. What I can tell you is NTEU represents
employees in 33 different Federal agencies, and there is no
question but that--whether they're from the Internal Revenue
Service or FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) or
wherever, they have the ability to go out and earn far larger
paychecks in the private sector.
What I can tell you is that, as I said, we represent
employees in 33 agencies. I talk to employees across the
Federal Government all the time. And so what is it--if they can
get a bigger paycheck somewhere else, what is it that drives
them to come to Federal service or drives them to stay in
Federal service? And I'll tell you what it is. It is to serve
this country. They believe in the mission. They believe in this
country, and they believe in serving the American taxpayer.
That's what keeps them here. That's what brings them here in
the first place.
Mr. Lamb. Yes. I think that's absolutely right. That's
been my experience with public servants across agencies as
well. I think in this case it's even more glaring because we
make the comparison all the time between our race for carbon-
free, affordable energy to the space race and to the Manhattan
Project. And I think it's a fair analogy. You can tell me if
you agree. But I think this is a fair analogy to if President
Eisenhower or President Kennedy had chased out NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) employees after Sputnik
or if, you know, the folks who were working on the Manhattan
Project all of a sudden were getting run out the door, you
know, as we got further and further along during World War II.
I think that the threat of losing this race to a peer
competitor like China is that real. I mean, we know the
investments that they're making. They are all State-led and
State-directed, and they are making themselves the sole
employer in their country. They're not having this same
problem. Would you agree?
Mr. Reardon. Well, I don't want to pretend that I'm a
scientist or that I'm an expert in this field. It sounds right
to me, but I'll leave the--I'll leave some of that to some of
the experts.
Mr. Lamb. Thanks.
Mr. Reardon. I am concerned, though, anytime I think we're
talking about important science like this, if we're leaving it
whether countries to kind of come in and fill the void, as an
American taxpayer, that would concern me.
Mr. Lamb. And again, if you're someone who doesn't believe
that the Government has an important role to play in all of
this, you know, maybe some of this makes sense. But we--history
does not support that. I mean, history supports that the role
of the Federal Government is essential and that it has helped
distinguish us from our peer competitors in the past and will
do so again if we do it right.
Mr. Krishnaswami, thank you for the information that
you've added to this debate today. I think apart from the
workforce issues that we're, you know, tragically having, the
fact that we are not even spending the research and grant
dollars that we're allocating is even more alarming
particularly because Members in both parties on this Committee,
full Committee have supported increased funding for ARPA-E. I
think was actually one of the great bipartisan success stories
of 2019 was that we were able to reach an agreement across the
aisle and in sort of old-fashioned way to increase the budget
for ARPA-E for the first time since it was created after 2008.
Any insight or explanations that you can see as to why--I
mean, if these numbers you're giving us are accurate, the vast
bulk of their funding in 2018 and 2019 just wasn't spent?
Mr. Krishnaswami. Thank you, Congressman. So I'd note two
things. One is that the analysis that I presented were we
conducted them at the end of the fiscal year, right? So what
we're looking at was by the time the fiscal year was over how
much has each--has ARPA-E or EERE actually allocated announced
in funding opportunities and then spent? And we found that at
the end of last fiscal year ARPA-E had allocated some of its
money but far less than the total, so it had announced funding
opportunities. And then based on the publicly available
announcements had not actually--had spent very little of that
money. Since then, I believe that they have spent some of that
money, but we were looking at by the end of the fiscal year----
Mr. Lamb. Right. There's a sense of urgency that they need
to be operating with here given the scale of the problem but
also given the number of people who want to participate in
being part of the solution. I mean, part of the reason we voted
again across party lines to support the budget increase for
this program is that they told us they were only able to accept
like 1 out of every 100 applications they were getting. There
was massive demand to be part of this program, and we needed to
give them more resources in order to be able to take gambles
essentially on a higher number of good ideas. So thank you for
bringing that information to light. Everybody needs to know
about it, especially Members of this Committee, and hopefully
we can take steps to try to force some accountability from the
Administration.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. And I thank you, too,
for the issues that you've raised and brought to the
Committee's attention today and your testimony. I want to thank
you all for being here today.
Before I bring the hearing to a close, I would like to
mention that the record will be open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members and for any additional questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses. I know I mentioned early on
that I had a few more questions, so I'll be submitting some
questions for the record. And we'll look forward to seeing your
responses.
At this point in time the witnesses are excused and the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Daniel Simmons
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Charles Gay
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Arjun Krishnaswami
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Representative Bill Foster
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reports submitted by Arjun Krishnaswami,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]