[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 DOE BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 9, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-33
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-241 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, BILL FLORES, Texas
Massachusetts RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Rick Perry, Secretary, Department of Energy...................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 72
Submitted Material
Report, ``FY 2020 Congressional Budget Request: Budget in
Brief,'' Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Energy, March 2019, \1\ submitted by Mr. Rush
Analysis by the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings,
``Advancing Inclusion Through Clean Energy Jobs,'' by Mark
Muro, et al., April 2019, \2\ submitted by Mr. Rush
Report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and The Solar
Foundation, ``Diversity Best Practices Guide for the Solar
Industry,'' May 2019, \3\ submitted by Mr. Rush
Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy, ``Growth in Energy
Efficiency Demands Investment in a Highly Skilled Workforce,''
April 29, 2019, submitted by Mr. Rush.......................... 70
----------
\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20190509/109433/
HHRG-116-IF03-20190509-SD71415.pdf.
\2\ The analysis has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20190509/109433/
HHRG-116-IF03-20190509-SD121111.pdf.
\3\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20190509/109433/
HHRG-116-IF03-20190509-SD12411.pdf.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 DOE BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Welch,
Schrader, Kennedy, Veasey, Kuster, Barragan, McEachin,
O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone (ex officio), Upton
(subcommittee ranking member), Latta, Rodgers, McKinley,
Kinzinger, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Walberg, Duncan, and
Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Jean
Fruci, Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Tiffany
Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Omar Guzman-Toro, Policy
Analyst; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator;
Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; John Marshall,
Policy Coordinator; Lisa Olson, FERC Detailee; Tuley Wright,
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Mike Bloomquist,
Minority Staff Director; Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor;
Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin,
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brannon Rains,
Minority Staff Assistant; Zach Roday, Minority Director of
Communications; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional
Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Rush. I understand the Secretary has a hard stop at
12:30, so the committee hearing is called to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
I want to thank everyone for today's attendance on the
oversight of DOE's FY20 budget proposal, and I want to welcome
the Secretary of DOE, Secretary Perry, back to this
subcommittee.
Mr. Secretary, DOE's FY 2020 budget requests $31.7 billion,
a $4 billion decrease from FY 2019 that was enacted, the number
in 2019, and it includes extreme reductions to some critical
programs. Federal investments in clean energy programs, power
grid operations, Next Generation energy technologies, and
economic development for tribal communities are drastically
decreased in your proposal. Important departments such as the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is reduced by
86 percent from FY 2019 levels, with the vast majority of these
cuts, more than $700 million, coming from energy efficiency
programs. Additionally, the budget proposal would slash the
Office of Science, which funds the 17 national laboratories by
$1 million from the FY 2019 enacted level, while also
eliminating the Advanced Research Programs Agency: Energy,
ARPA-E, in FY 2020.
Mr. Secretary, as you can imagine, many of these proposed
cuts are nonstarters, as far as I am concerned, as these
reductions would severely impact federally funded investments
in clean energy research and development, harming our economy
and global status, as leadership warrants in these particular
areas.
However, another issue, Mr. Secretary, that I want to
discuss with you today is the dire need for Federal investment
in workforce training to help put thousands of Americans to
work in good-paying jobs and careers. Mr. Secretary, just last
month, Brookings released a groundbreaking and eye-opening
study entitled, ``Advancing Inclusion Through Clean Energy
Jobs''. Some of these key findings in this report found that
employees in clean energy jobs earn higher and more equitable
wages than all workers nationally with mean hourly wages
topping the national average by 8 to 19 percent. The study
found that clean energy jobs provide tremendous opportunities
for low-income workers to increase their salaries by earning up
to $5 to $10 more per hour compared to other jobs. Despite
higher wages, the study found that many clean energy jobs
actually have lower educational requirements, with close to 50
percent of these workers holding only a high school diploma,
but earning higher wages than comparable peers in other
industries.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing from you today as
we discuss these and other important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
I would like to thank everyone for attending today's
oversight hearing on DOE's FY20 Budget proposal and I would
like to welcome Secretary Perry back to the subcommittee.
Mr. Secretary, DOE's FY2020 budget requests $31.7 billion,
a $4 billion decrease from the FY2019 enacted level, and it
includes extreme reductions to critical programs.
Federal investments in clean energy programs, power grid
operations, Next Generation energy technologies, and economic
development for Tribal communities are drastically decreased in
this proposal.
Important departments such as the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is reduced by 86 percent
from FY 2019 levels, with the vast majority of these cuts, more
than $700 million, coming from energy efficiency programs.
Additionally, the budget proposal would slash the Office of
Science, which funds the 17 national laboratories, by $1
billion from the FY 2019 enacted level, while also eliminating
the Advanced Research Programs Agency: Energy (ARPA-E) in FY
2020.
As you can imagine, many of these proposed cuts are
nonstarters as far as I am concerned as these reductions would
severely impact federally funded investment in clean energy
research and development, harming our economy and global status
as leaders in these areas.
However, another issue that I would like to discuss with
you today is the dire need for Federal investment in workforce
training to help put thousands of Americans to work in good-
paying jobs and career.
Mr. Secretary, just last month Brookings released a
groundbreaking and eye-opening study entitled: ``Advancing
Inclusion Through Clean Energy Jobs.''
Some of the key findings in this report found that
employees in clean energy jobs earn higher and more equitable
wages than all workers nationally, with mean hourly wages
topping national averages by 8 to 19 percent.
The study found that clean energy jobs provide tremendous
opportunities for low-income workers to increase their salaries
by earning up to $5-$10 more per hour compared to other jobs.
Despite higher wages, the study found that many clean
energy jobs actually have lower educational requirements, with
close to 50-percent of these workers holding only a high school
diploma but earning higher wages than comparable peers in other
industries.
Mr. Secretary, as you may be aware, the energy workforce
overall is currently dominated by older, white, male workers,
and this also holds true within the clean energy sector, as
women make up less than 20-percent of workers in the clean
energy production and energy efficiency sectors, and less than
ten percent of these workers are African American.
Many of the recommendations for addressing these
disparities are included in my workforce bill, HR 1315,
including a focus on STEM education, aligning education and
training with industry needs locally and regionally, and
increasing apprenticeships and on-the-job learning.
So, I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Secretary, on
the importance of investing in a program to train
underrepresented workers as a way to meet the needs of
industry, while also helping families and communities by
providing employment opportunity and promoting economic
inclusion.
With that I yield the balance of my time and I now
recognize my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Upton for 5
minutes
Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield back and I recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend from Michigan,
Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, my friend and chairman.
Secretary Perry, welcome. There is something about the
Department of Energy that brings out enthusiasm about our
Nation's energy and environmental future, and I think you
demonstrate that enthusiasm better than just about anyone who
has ever led that Department. And I welcome that enthusiasm and
look forward to your testimony, obviously, this morning.
Over the last decade, we have emerged as the world's
leading producer of oil and natural gas, and at the same time
we lead the world in CO2 emission reductions, a fact that
proves that energy production and environmental protection are
not mutually exclusive goals. So, today we are more energy
secure than at any point in our Nation's history. Fifteen years
ago, we thought that we were running out, and I believe that we
owe this dramatic turnaround to free market competition,
American ingenuity, and certainly technological innovations
that were driven, in part, through research conducted by the
DOE.
Our energy abundance is supporting millions of American
jobs and strengthening our economy, while at the same time
providing our allies with a stable and secure new supplier.
U.S. energy exports, especially LNG, also have the potential to
help drive down emissions, which gives our trading partners
another reason to do business with us.
The shifting patterns of energy supply and use, both here
in the U.S. and around the world, present both challenges and
opportunities. I bring this up because the energy revolution
represents a new economic fact of life for us. More communities
are reliant on the supply of natural gas, for example, as more
utilities use this energy for electric power. This raises
another important issue for the Department, which is the core
mission to ensure the reliable supply of energy to the public.
In recent years, we have worked with you to address
electric critical infrastructure security, including cyber, to
make sure that DOE has the statutory authorities to protect and
respond to risks in bulk power systems. And I commend your
continuing focus on that mission which you demonstrated in your
formation of the Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency
Response Office, CESER.
One area that is particularly of concern to most of us is
the nexus between natural gas pipelines and electric-generating
units. So, I would like to understand this morning what DOE is
doing to assess risks in energy systems, particularly security
and cybersecurity risks that threaten the supply of energy to
our electricity systems. And while pipeline safety and security
certainly falls under the jurisdiction of other agencies, DOE
maintains the prime responsibility for ensuring the supply of
energy. So, it is important to understand how you address these
risks.
This work on energy security also involves what happens in
an emergency. What happens when there is a major disruption at
a major event that impedes the supply of energy? The CESER
office addresses this, but you also have offices under other
Department components that assist State energy offices. I would
like to get a sense of your priorities for working with States
and territories to ensure that they have the information and
tools to respond in emergencies.
In the last Congress, committee members moved several bills
that would have helped strengthen your authorities to
coordinate and provide technical assistance to other Federal
agencies, States, utilities, to help strengthen our defense
against attack. This is an area that this committee will
continue to press.
In Michigan, the electric power system is moving to more
renewable energy. In fact, we will be at 40 percent by 2040.
For this to work economically in the long term, technology is
necessary to continue to drive down costs and to enable the
reliable supply during peak electric demand. And I would like
to understand how your budget aligns DOE research priorities to
address the needs for a cleaner electricity system.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, there are other important
priorities that are going to help our country develop and
deploy the new clean technologies. As you know, one area of
interest for this committee concerns nuclear energy, which
provides one of the best paths to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. We have done a lot of work in this Congress. We
intend to do a lot more. And on this point, I would much
appreciate your proposal to include some funding to restart the
defense of the Yucca Mountain license before the NRC.
I would also like to note that we have competing
subcommittee meetings this morning, but we are missing our good
Texas colleague, Mr. Olson, who went back yesterday to look at
some of the storm and flood damage in your great State.
Again, Mr. Secretary, welcome. We look forward to working
with you.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Secretary Perry, there is something about the Department of
Energy that brings out enthusiasm about our Nation's energy and
environmental future. And I think you demonstrate that
enthusiasm more than most who have led the Department. I
welcome your enthusiasm and look forward to your testimony this
morning.
Over the past decade, we have emerged as the world's
leading producer of oil and natural gas. At the same time,
we're also leading the world in CO2 emissions reductions, a
fact that proves that energy production and environmental
protection are not mutually exclusive goals.
Today, we are more energy secure than at any point in our
Nation's history. Fifteen years ago, we thought we were running
out. I believe we owe this dramatic turnaround to free market
competition, American ingenuity, and technological innovations
that were driven, in part, through research conducted by the
Department of Energy.
Our energy abundance is supporting millions of American
jobs and strengthening our economy, while at the same time
providing our allies with a stable and secure new supplier.
U.S. energy exports, especially LNG, also have the potential to
help drive down emissions, which gives our trading partners
another reason to do business with us.
The shifting patterns of energy supply and use both here in
the United States and around the world present both challenges
and opportunities.
I bring this up, because this energy revolution represents
a new economic fact of life for the United States. More
communities are reliant on the supply of natural gas, for
example, as more utilities use this energy for electric power.
This raises another important issue for the Department, which
has the core mission to ensure the reliable supply of energy to
the public.
In recent years, we have worked with you to address
electric critical infrastructure security, including
cybersecurity, to make sure DOE has the statutory authorities
to protect and respond to risks in bulk power systems. I
commend your continuing focus on this mission, which you
demonstrated in your formation of the Cyber Security, Energy
Security, and Emergency Response office, (CESER).
One area that particularly concerns me is the nexus between
natural gas pipelines and electric generating units. I'd like
to understand this morning what DOE is doing to assess risks in
energy systems, particularly security and cybersecurity risks
that threaten the supply of energy to our electricity systems.
While pipeline safety and security falls under the jurisdiction
of other agencies, DOE maintains the prime responsibility for
ensuring the supply of energy, so it is important to understand
how you are addressing these risks.
This work on energy security also involves what happens in
an emergency, what happens when there is a major disruption or
a major event the impedes the supply of energy.
The CESER office addresses this, but you also have offices
under other Department components that assist State energy
offices. I would like to get a sense of your priorities for
working with States and territories, to ensure they have the
information and tools to respond in emergencies.
In the last Congress, committee members moved several bills
that would have helped to strengthen your authorities to
coordinate and provide technical assistance to other Federal
agencies, States, utilities, to help strengthen our defenses
against attacks. This is an area Energy and Commerce members
will continue to press.
In Michigan, the electric power system is moving to more
renewable energy. For this to work economically in the long
term, technology is necessary to continue to drive down costs
and to enable the reliable supply during peak electric demand.
I'd like to understand how your budget aligns DOE research
priorities to address the needs for cleaner electricity
systems.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, there are other important
priorities that will help the Nation develop and deploy new
clean technologies. As you know, one area of interest for the
committee concerns nuclear energy, which provides one of the
best paths to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We have done a lot of work over the past several Congresses
to ensure there is a framework for advanced nuclear energy,
that we can more efficiently export U.S. nuclear technology,
that we have a pathway for the spent fuel form our civil
nuclear industry.
On this latter point, I very much appreciate your budget
proposal to include some funding to restart the defense of the
Yucca Mountain license before the NRC.
It seems to me, there is no quicker path to resolving the
issue than getting a final license decision on the safety of
Yucca Mountain. That will do more to inform public acceptance
than anything else we can do.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
Let me thank the Secretary for appearing here this morning.
I do really appreciate your being here, but I am still
frustrated and disappointed about the fiscal year 2020
Department of Energy budget because it is largely the same,
what I call, out-of-touch document that we saw last year. The
drastic cuts contained in President Trump's budget last year
were rejected by Congress, and I expect that to be the case
again this year. So, rather than talking about a budget that is
essentially dead on arrival, I would like to discuss several
energy policy issues, including energy efficiency, legacy site
cleanup, nuclear waste, and cybersecurity.
Unfortunately, the Department's track record on efficiency
standards for consumer products is not good. Since the
beginning of the Trump administration, the Department has
ignored 17 legally mandated deadlines to finalize efficiency
standards for common consumer appliances. And rather than
updating those standards, DOE has spent its time working to
discard lightbulb efficiency standards. And this rollback will
lead to years of unnecessary electricity generation and carbon
emissions just to power inefficient and outdated lightbulbs. It
is unclear who benefits from this, absent a handful of
lightbulb manufacturers.
In fact, the electricity generators support the lightbulb
efficiency, and 37 electric utilities sent a letter to DOE last
week opposing the lightbulb rollback. They know that efficiency
improvements reduce the need for new infrastructure and improve
the reliability of the existing electricity supply.
I am also concerned about the Department's environmental
management program which is tasked with cleaning up the legacy
wastesites where nuclear weapons were developed and built. The
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on
DOE's growing environmental liability just last week, which, as
of this year, has climbed to a staggering $377 billion. The GAO
highlighted serious mismanagement at these sites and included
the Department's mounting environmental liabilities on its high
risk list.
Now I recognize that this is a problem you did not create,
Mr. Secretary. Unfortunately, the President's budget makes your
job more daunting by cutting the environmental management
program by over $700 million from last year's level. And this
is concerning, and I hope we see better management of this
program moving forward. We want to work with you to accomplish
that goal.
We must also find a solution to the storage and disposition
of commercial spent nuclear fuel that currently resides at our
Nation's nuclear power plants. Each year more nuclear power
plants are ceasing operation. Until we come up with a Federal
solution to this issue, that spent fuel will be stored onsite
at those plants which no longer generate power. And this
effectively freezes any efforts to redevelop those sites. So,
we need interim storage solutions to bridge the gap until a
permanent repository is licensed and constructed.
Mr. Secretary, I hope to work with you and my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to give the Department the authority it
needs to store this spent fuel at interim storage sites until
we can permanently dispose of it. I know that both Mr. Upton
and Mr. Rush are similarly concerned.
Another area where I know we can work together is
cybersecurity. I am troubled by the report last week that
earlier this year there was, for the first time, the successful
cyberattack on our electricity system. It was not a
sophisticated attack and, thankfully, no consumer outages
occurred, but that might not be the case next time. Our
country's energy infrastructure is critical. We must ensure our
Nation's electric system as well as the associated dams,
railways, and pipelines are all protected from an attack.
So, I am concerned by a recent GAO report I commissioned
that found the Transportation Security Administration's
pipeline security program has troubling weaknesses. At a
hearing we held on pipeline safety and security last week, GAO
informed us that TSA has only four employees to oversee the
security of our Nation's nearly 3 million miles of pipeline,
and that is, obviously, unacceptable and frightening.
So, I support legislation introduced by Ranking Member
Upton and Representative Loebsack that would allow DOE to
develop a program to establish policies and procedures to
improve the physical and cybersecurity of our Nation's
pipelines. And I hope you work with us to enact that bill as
well.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here tonight.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Secretary Perry, thank you for appearing before the
committee this morning. While I appreciate you being here, I am
extremely frustrated and disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2020
Department of Energy budget is largely the same flawed, out of
touch document that we saw last year. The drastic cuts
contained in President Trump's budget last year were roundly
rejected by Congress and I expect that to be the case again
this year.
So, rather than talking about a budget that's basically
dead on arrival I would like to discuss several important
energy policy issues, including energy efficiency, legacy site
cleanup, nuclear waste and cybersecurity.
Unfortunately, the Department's track record on efficiency
standards for consumer products is, abysmal. Since the
beginning of the Trump administration, the Department has
ignored 16 legally mandated deadlines to finalize efficiency
standards for common consumer appliances. Rather than updating
these standards, DOE has spent its time working to discard
lightbulb efficiency standards.
This reckless rollback will lead to years of unnecessary
electricity generation and carbon emissions--just to power
inefficient and outdated lightbulbs. It's unclear who benefits
from this, absent a handful of lightbulb manufacturers.
Not even electricity generators support this action. In
fact, 37 electric utilities sent a letter to DOE last week
opposing the lightbulb rollback. They know that efficiency
improvements reduce the need for new infrastructure and improve
the reliability of the existing electricity supply.
I'm also concerned about the Department's Environmental
Management program, which is tasked with cleaning up the legacy
waste sites where nuclear weapons were developed and built. The
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on
DOE's growing environmental liability just last week--which, as
of this year, has climbed to a staggering $377 billion. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted serious
mismanagement at these sites and included the Department's
mounting environmental liabilities on its ``High-Risk List.''
I recognize this is a problem you did not create.
Unfortunately, the President's budget makes your job even more
daunting by cutting the Environmental Management program by
over $700 million from last year's level. This is concerning,
but I hope that we see better management of this program moving
forward, and we want to work with you to accomplish that goal.
We must also find a solution to the storage and disposition
of commercial spent nuclear fuel that currently resides at our
Nation's nuclear power plants. Each year, more nuclear power
plants are ceasing operations. Until we come up with a Federal
solution to this issue, that spent fuel will be stored onsite
at those plants which no longer generate power. This
effectively freezes any efforts to redevelop those sites.
We need interim storage solutions to bridge the gap until a
permanent repository is licensed and constructed. Mr.
Secretary, I hope to work with you and my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to give the Department the authority it
needs to store this spent fuel at interim storage sites until
we can permanently dispose of it.
Another area where I know we can work together is
cybersecurity. I am extremely troubled by the report last week
that earlier this year there was, for the first time, a
successful cyber-attack on our electricity system. It was not a
sophisticated attack and, thankfully, no customer outages
occurred, but that might not be the case next time. Our
country's energy infrastructure is critical. We must ensure our
Nation's electric system, as well as the associated dams,
railways and pipelines, are all protected from an attack.
I am concerned by a recent GAO report I commissioned that
found the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
Pipeline Security Program has troubling weaknesses. At a
hearing we held on pipeline safety and security last week, GAO
informed us that TSA has only four employees to oversee the
security of our Nation's nearly 3 million miles of pipelines.
That's both unacceptable and frightening. I support legislation
introduced by Ranking Member Upton and Representative Loebsack
that would allow DOE to develop a program to establish policies
and procedures to improve the physical and cyber security of
our Nation's pipeline network. I hope you'll work with us to
enact that bill into law.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for testifying before our
committee today. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Walden, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. Good morning.
Mr. Walden. And thanks for having this hearing.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Welcome back to the Energy and
Commerce Committee. We are delighted to have you here.
The Department of Energy's $32 billion budget proposal
serves as a reminder of the broad range of defense, science,
energy, and environmental activities that your agency pursues
to perform its really important, critical I would say, national
and energy security missions. The breadth of DOE's
responsibilities is impressive, Mr. Secretary. DOE's work,
which is conducted here in Washington, DC, and at national labs
and field stations across the Nation, includes maintenance of
our nuclear weapons, support for international nonproliferation
programs, and nuclear propulsion work with the U.S. Navy. It
includes the cleanup of Cold War era environmental
contamination and management/disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste.
DOE also supports cutting-edge, early-stage scientific
research at our 17 national laboratories, including PNNL, which
you and I got to visit in 2017. It establishes efficiency
standards for appliances and equipment, conducts energy-related
research/development, and demonstration across all forms of
energy and technologies. It maintains the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and exercises authorities to respond to energy supply
disruptions and maintain the resilience of our electric grid
and pipeline systems.
DOE also provides central energy data collection and
analysis through the Energy Information Administration, very
valuable data for our public policy work. Managing this
portfolio, as we all know, remains a challenge, which is why I
believe that it is so important to stay focused on DOE's core
missions.
During your time at the Department, Mr. Secretary, this
committee, on a bipartisan basis, has sought to ensure that you
have adequate resources and the statutory authorities required
to align, manage, and fund programs to cost-effectively execute
the Department's mission. Today, I hope you can update the
committee on the progress you have made modernizing the
Department of Energy and the challenges and opportunities that
you see going forward.
Just a week ago, as you heard earlier, our Oversight
Subcommittee examined the DOE's work to address environmental
liabilities and what can be done to accelerate cleanup and save
taxpayer money. This is of particular interest to me, as you
know, given the Hanford site across the Columbia River from
Oregon in my district. You and I saw firsthand the vast scope
of the work that remains, and I would like to hear from you on
how you plan to accelerate the cleanup at Hanford.
Hanford, as with other major cleanup sites, initially
provided for our Nation's defense needs. In fact, over time it
fostered technological and scientific capabilities that
continue to benefit the Nation on energy, environmental, and
security matters. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was
established as an R&D complex at Hanford for the Manhattan
Project. Now it serves a broader range of missions for the
Nation. This technological and innovative capability that now
threads through the Department's labs and field sites provides
the tools for addressing future energy and security challenges.
You can see this in the tremendous advances in DOE's
supercomputing capabilities that we talked about yesterday.
Originally developed for weapons work, DOE supercomputers now
promise tremendous advances across the agency's missions and
national priorities, from carbon-free fossil energy to helping
cure diseases. So, I am excited about the potential to utilize
DOE's advanced computing to support the next wave of American
innovation.
Now when you testified before us last year, Mr. Secretary,
the committee had been moving legislation to help DOE enhance
our energy security, spread the strategic benefits of our
Nation's energy revolution, and further our drive to reduce
emissions. For example, we worked to streamline the export of
LNG and nuclear technology. We sought to enable future
innovations that would lead to a more reliable, modern electric
grid. We sought to increase DOE's capabilities to prepare and
respond to emergencies, including from extreme weather events.
We sought to ensure DOE is able to develop the infrastructure
for advanced nuclear energy currently being pursued by
companies such as NuScale in Oregon and others.
So, I must say I am encouraged by the work you and your
team are doing in support of transformative breakthroughs in
carbon-free fossil energy, carbon capture technologies,
advanced nuclear energy efficiency, advanced energy storage
technologies, and modeling for increased energy resilience, all
to lower greenhouse gas emissions and help consumers get
affordable power.
I would like to understand how DOE could more effectively
support innovation, how it can help bridge the gap between the
lab and commercial development while minimizing taxpayer risk.
What can DOE do to attract and harness private capital to help
accelerate deployment of future clean technologies? I also look
forward to learning about your priorities to enhance DOE's
capabilities to ensure the reliable delivery of power, given
ongoing threats from bad actors.
So, Mr. Secretary, how we harness DOE's incredible
capabilities to support future energy innovation, security, and
public interest, given ongoing budget constraints, will be our
focus today, but I look forward to working with you on this and
so much more going forward.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Secretary Perry, welcome back.
The Department of Energy's 32-billion-dollar budget
proposal serves as a reminder of the broad range of defense,
science, energy and environmental activities the agency pursues
to perform its important national and energy security missions.
The breadth of DOE's responsibilities is impressive, Mr.
Secretary. DOE's work, which is conducted here in DC and at
national labs and field sites across the Nation, includes
maintenance of our nuclear weapons, support for international
nonproliferation programs, and nuclear propulsion work for the
U.S. Navy. It includes cleanup of Cold War-era environmental
contamination, and management and disposal of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
DOE also supports cutting-edge, early-stage scientific
research at our seventeen National Laboratories, including
PNNL, which you and I visited in 2017, Mr. Secretary. It
establishes efficiency standards for appliances and equipment,
and conducts energy-related research, development, and
demonstration across all forms of energy and technologies. It
maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and exercises
authorities to respond to energy supply disruptions and
maintain the resilience of our electric grid and pipeline
systems. DOE also provides central energy data collection and
analysis through the Energy Information Administration.
Managing this portfolio, as we all know, remains a
challenge, which is why I believe it is so important to stay
focused on DOE's core missions.
During your time at the Department, this committee, on a
bipartisan basis, has sought to ensure that you have adequate
resources and the statutory authorities required to align,
manage, and fund programs to cost-effectively execute DOE's
missions.
Today, I hope you can update the committee on the progress
you have made modernizing the Department and the challenges and
opportunities you see going forward.
Just a week ago, our Oversight Subcommittee examined DOE's
work to address environmental liabilities, and what can be done
to accelerate cleanup and save taxpayers money. This is of
particular interest to me, as you know, given the Hanford site
sits across the Columbia river from my district. You and I saw
firsthand the vast scope of the work that remains, and I would
like to hear from you how you plan to accelerate cleanup.
Hanford, as with other major cleanup sites, initially
provided for our Nation's defense needs. Over time it fostered
technological and scientific capabilities that continue to
benefit the Nation on energy, environmental, and security
matters. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was
established as an R&D complex at Hanford for the Manhattan
Project. Now it serves a broader range of missions for the
Nation.
This technological and innovative capability that now
threads through the Department's labs and field sites provides
the tools for addressing future energy and security challenges.
You can see this in the tremendous advances in DOE's
supercomputing capabilities. Originally developed for weapons
work, DOE supercomputers now promise tremendous advances across
agency missions and national priorities, from carbon free
fossil energy to helping to cure diseases. I am excited about
the potential to utilize DOE's advanced computing to support
the next wave of American innovation.
When you testified before us last year, the committee had
been moving legislation that would help DOE enhance our energy
security, spread the strategic benefits of our Nation's energy
revolution, and further our drive to reduce emissions.
For example, we worked to streamline the export of LNG and
nuclear technology.
We sought to enable future innovations that would lead to a
more reliable, modern electric grid.
We sought to increase DOE's capabilities to prepare and
respond to energy emergencies, including from extreme weather
events.
We sought to ensure DOE is able to develop the
infrastructure for advanced nuclear energy currently being
pursued by companies such as NuScale out of Oregon.
I must say I am encourages by the work DOE is doing to
support transformative breakthroughs in ``carbon free'' fossil
energy, carbon capture technologies, advanced nuclear, energy
efficiency, advanced energy storage technologies, and modeling
for increased energy resilience, all to lower greenhouse gas
emissions.
I would like to understand how DOE could more effectively
support innovation, and how it can help bridge the gap between
the lab and commercial deployment, while minimizing taxpayer
risk. What can DOE do to attract and harness private capital to
help accelerate deployment of future clean technologies?
I also look forward to learning about your priorities to
enhance DOE's capabilities to ensure the reliable delivery of
power, given ongoing threats from bad actors.
Mr. Secretary, how we harness DOE's capabilities to support
future energy innovation, energy security, and the public
interest given ongoing budget constraints, will continue to be
our focus. I look forward to working with you on this.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.
And now, it is my responsibility to introduce our witness
for today's hearing, the honorable Rick Perry, who is the
Secretary of the United States Department of Energy. Mr.
Secretary, we certainly want to welcome you to the Energy
Subcommittee, and we all look forward to your testimony and
eagerly await your participation in this hearing.
So now, I will recognize the Secretary for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. Secretary, you have been here countless times and you
are well aware of the lighting system. So, we don't want to
take time to explain something that you already know. So, with
that, we recognize you for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RICK PERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And to the
Members, thank you all for your kindness and hospitality, those
of you that I have had the opportunity to be in your offices
and in your districts as we are going forward.
Mr. Chairman, you have been so kind, as Members of both
sides of the aisle, to allow us to show you a brief video that
I think will be substantially more interesting than me going on
here for a minute and a half. But if I could, I would like to
direct your attention over to----
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, thank you.
[Video played.]
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the
opportunity to show that. I think the stuff you talked about, I
reflect a lot of excitement about the Energy Department and the
men and women who work there, the technology that comes out of
that. And you are absolutely correct. You all have heard me say
this before. This is the coolest job I have ever had in my
life.
And I might add, Mr. Pallone, this is the most interesting
job I have ever had in my life. Not the best, but the most
interesting.
[Laughter.]
Anyway, to each of you, it is my privilege to be before you
today and to respond to the 2020 budget request for the
Department. The budget is a request to the American people,
through you, the Representatives, and Congress to secure
America's future through energy independence, scientific
innovation, and national security.
As I have already said, this is an exciting time, exciting
time to be at the helm of DOE. It continues to be a great
privilege to serve as the 14th Secretary of Energy. I look
forward to working with each of you as we go forward, passing a
budget that invests in the Nation's priorities in energy and
science and national security, while at the same time
continuing our shared support of innovations that have led to
America's world-leading, yet often overlooked progress in
reducing energy-related emissions.
When I appeared before the committee last year, I committed
to rebuild and restore our Nation's security, to protect our
critical energy infrastructure from cyber threats, to improve
the resilience and the reliability of the Nation's electrical
system, to invest in early-stage, cutting-edge research and
development, to advance our leadership in exascale and quantum
computing, and to continue to seek a Federal storage repository
for the Nation's spent nuclear fuel.
And concerning that last point, let me thank each of the
members of the committee, certainly on both sides of this
aisle, for you joined us in searching for a solution to deal
with the waste disposal needs. I am proud to report that, since
last year, DOE has advanced each of these goals that I just
cited by investing in reliable, affordable energy,
transformative innovation, national security. We are
approaching the dawn of, as I made reference to in that film,
the new American energy era, a time of energy abundance,
security, and, yes, even independence.
This past fall I fulfilled a commitment to visit all 17 of
the national labs, and I got to witness firsthand the brilliant
work that is performed by these dedicated professionals.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I must say that you are on a hard
deadline.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. So, could you move----
Mr. Perry. Rock and roll, sir. I am ready.
Mr. Rush. OK. Sorry.
Mr. Perry. No, sir.
Mr. Rush. Meaning no disrespect. You are on a hard deadline
here.
Mr. Perry. I am working for you, sir.
Mr. Rush. All right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. That concludes the opening statement, and I want
to recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purposes of asking
questions of our witness.
Mr. Secretary, as you made me aware, the energy workforce
overall is currently dominated by older, white, male workers.
And this is also true within the clean energy sector, as women
make up less than 20 percent of workers in the clean energy
production and energy efficiency sectors, and less than 10
percent of these workers are African-American. Many of the
recommendations for addressing these disparities are included
in my workforce bill, H.R. 1315, including a focus on STEM
education, aligning education and training with industry needs
locally and regionally and increasing apprenticeships and on-
the-job learning.
Mr. Secretary, within the past month alone, there have been
three different studies that have been released discussing the
need for a younger, more diverse, trained workforce within the
energy sector. There was the Brookings study that I cited in my
opening statement, a report by the Solar Energy Industries
Association entitled, ``Diversity Best Practices Guide for the
Solar Industry,'' and an Alliance to Save Energy study
entitled, ``Growth in Energy Efficiency Demands Investment in a
Highly Skilled Workforce''.
Mr. Secretary, during your time as Secretary, have you
personally heard from companies within the energy sector
regarding their dire need to find trained workers? Are you
aware that the energy workforce overall is mostly comprised of
older, white men and that many sectors are looking to diversify
their labor force by going into previously underrepresented
communities? Do you believe that it is worth Federal investment
to support initiatives to accomplish this goal?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you are excited and
kept us focused on this issue of the potential in the clean
energy sector in this country. According to the Bureau of Labor
statistics, solar installers and wind technicians are projected
to be two of the fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. as we
go forward, and leading even the projected growth and demand
for healthcare professionals. So, I think you are a spot-on in
your focus on this, in developing that workforce.
American wind energy--Mr. Veasey, who is from my home
State, he knows the work that we did together to expand the
wind energy in the State of Texas. It produces more wind than
all but five other countries, and an incredible impact into
those rural areas where that showed up, and then, obviously,
the jobs that get created, and what have you. It is a major job
creator in America today. There are over 105,000 U.S. workers
who have wind-powered careers. All 50 States are affected by
this. And I think there are 242,000 U.S. workers that are
employed in the solar side of it. So that is just good news,
and we look forward to expanding that. Ninety percent growth in
the solar side in the last 2 years in this country.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, so you would think that this would
be a priority for Federal investment to----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, both the majority and minority sides have
been touch with your agency about obtaining data on the funding
levels for workforce programs that the Department currently
conducts. Understanding your staff has been working vigorously
to get us that information, but I really wanted to know and to
remind you that we are still waiting to hear back from you. And
it is important to understand that this is, indeed, a priority
for Members of both sides of the aisle. Will you commit to this
committee----
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. That you will make sure that we
receive the data in a timely fashion?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And we have a couple of
programs of which you have been briefed, and your staff has
been briefed on. The Equity in Energy is the name of the new
program. It was called Diversity in Energy, but we changed it
over to Equity in Energy. And you will have that data, and we
are working hard.
And just as an addition, Mr. Chairman, these XLab projects
that we are working on where we bring the private sector in to
our national labs, as a matter of fact, I think there is one
coming in Argonne. You will, obviously, have more than a
passing interest in Argonne because of your home of residence
there in Chicago. But, anyway, it is an artificial intelligence
and machine-learning project that is going to be working in the
early fall of 2019. So, we obviously will invite you and your
staff to be there as we do that.
But a great opportunity for us, not only to showcase the
clean jobs, but also to recruit those young men and women, a
diverse workforce, and maybe prick their interest in science
and technology, engineering, and in math, to bring them into a
future that is going to be not only exciting, but, obviously, a
great opportunity for them to better their lives.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member on
the full committee, for the purposes of questioning the
witness.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr.
Upton, too, for yielding. I have a meeting I have to get to
down at the White House.
Mr. Secretary, thanks again for being here.
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. Walden. Thanks for your leadership at the agency. We
work with a number of presidential appointees on this
committee, and you are one of the best we work with in terms of
communication with your team, and going back and forth with us
on these energy policy issues.
Now there is one you and I talked about last year, and I
think probably the year before, and everything else. And it
should come as no surprise, related to the proposal to sell off
the Bonneville Power Administration and the idea of selling it
off. So, the question is, the idea of selling off Bonneville
Power Administration's electricity transmission assets and
abandoning cost-based rates is broadly rejected by practically
every Member of the Pacific Northwest Congressional Delegation
in the House and the Senate. Can you assure me the Department
of Energy will not sell off BPA unless Congress provides
explicit authorization?
Mr. Perry. I can assure you with great assurance that we
will follow your direction, sir, and this committee, and
Congress' direction.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Now let's move on to innovation. I note this past week DOE
announced a contract to build the Frontier supercomputer at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, which is anticipated to debut as the
world's most powerful computer. Can you talk about the research
benefits of DOE's supercomputer program?
Mr. Perry. That will be difficult in a short period of
time, but I will do my best and I will talk fast, which is a
pretty good test for an Aggie.
Mr. Walden. For a Texan.
Mr. Perry. But the breadth of what these supercomputers are
allowing us to get answers for of questions that have vexed us
in the past just because we did not have the computing
capacity, we didn't have the bandwidth, if you will, to put all
the data in to get the answers back. These computers, here is
the speed of which they are, a billion billion calculations per
second. I mean, I will be honest with you, I can't get my
little mind around that, the ability to manage that much data.
But it gives us the potential in health care, for instance,
to be able to find some cures for cancer, to go back through
every dataset that has been done since time immemorial, on drug
tests that ended up over in a pile. They were failures because
we couldn't get to the final answer. Go back and take all of
that data, and run it through these computers, because they are
so powerful. And we will find new drugs to work on.
In brain science, and this is where Mr. McNerney and I were
talking about it. I know of his interest in traumatic brain
injury and the work that is being done there. We are in a
partnership with the University of California, San Francisco,
Dr. Geoffrey Manley out there, finding new solutions on
traumatic brain injury, post traumatic stress, CTE, which
obviously the professional football league is very interested
in some of those studies. And that is just in the health care
side.
Mr. Walden. What can you say about energy? Can we get to
where coal could be burned with no emissions, do you think?
Mr. Perry. Here is my example, Mr. Chairman. Fifteen years
ago, people told us we had found all the energy that there was
to be found, you know, just get used to it. We have found it
all. Even if you find any more, you won't be able to afford to
produce it. Well, that conventional wisdom was massively wrong.
I will suggest to you, those that say you can't use coal, for
instance, in a clean, almost emission-free way, they can be
proven wrong, too. And it is going to be these supercomputers
that are working with our scientists. And I will suggest to
you, the private sector and our national labs in partnership to
find some energy solutions to this incredibly abundant resource
that we have in this country. So, you are absolutely correct.
Mr. Walden. Let me go to a different topic, if I could. We
have spent a lot of time in this committee looking at nuclear
waste storage. We appreciate your leadership in this, and we
hope to renew that effort going forward, but, also, at how we
harness new nuclear energy technologies. And so, I know that
the Department is looking at doing some work on micronuclear as
well as some of the other proposals, NuScale, and others. In
the 20 seconds I have left, can you just give us a quick update
on small modular and micro?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. The work that is being done in the
agency, along with the private sector, INL, Idaho National Lab
and NuScale, they are in a partnership out there. I know Bill
Gates and his company, Terra Energy, they are a different
technology, but these small modular reactors and these
microreactors, the microreactor is even smaller from the
standpoint of using these in our military and in places around
the world.
And the small modular reactors also, not only are they
smaller, they are cheaper, they are easier to build, and they
are safer. The fuel that they use is safer. So, the future of
clean energy has never been brighter than it is today.
Mr. Walden. Can you give me the horizon? Are we talking 2
years, 10 years, 30 years?
Mr. Perry. 2025, if I am correct on that number, 2025 is
the projected date on some of the SMRs to be out with their
prototypes.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questioning the
witness.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
I wanted to go back to the lightbulbs, Mr. Secretary. You
recently proposed to rescind rules that would extend 2020
lightbulb standards to the full range of bulb shapes and sizes
commonly used in U.S. homes. And the effect of your proposed
rule is to take back a standard that would save the average
U.S. household about $100 per year, and by saving electricity,
would deliver very large reductions in carbon emissions. The
comment period on the proposed rule closed last Friday. So, can
you tell me how many comments you received in support of this
proposed rule and who submitted comments in support?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I will get that information to
you. I don't have it at the tip of my--if I may, can I respond,
just to kind of share with you what we are doing?
Mr. Pallone. Well, look, you can get back to me with the
comments. I mean, I have something that was prepared by staff
that gives us some information, like a summary, about it. So, I
wanted to discuss that, if I could.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pallone. But if you would get back to me in answer to
that previous question?
Mr. Perry. Absolutely.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate it.
Now the summary I have--and I am not going to introduce it
for the record because I would rather get your actual official
document, if we could. But while the Department has been slow
to get all comments posted so far, those opposing your rollback
so far include more than 40 electric utilities; the U.S.
Climate Alliance, which includes Republican and Democratic
Governors from 24 States representing 60 percent of the U.S.
population, and a wide range of consumer advocates, energy
efficiency groups, and environmental groups. And also, 15 State
Attorney Generals have opposed the proposal. To date--again, I
only have the information so far--to date, the only
organizations on the record supporting your action are the
lightbulb manufacturers and their trade association. So, you
have more than 15,000 citizen comments so far have been filed,
with the vast majority opposed to the rollback.
So, again, Mr. Secretary, why is it that at the same time
that DOE has missed 17 congressionally mandated legal deadlines
for updating a wide range of appliance standards, the
Department is spending scarce time and taxpayer money on
eliminating standards for lightbulbs that will save consumers
money and cut carbon emissions? Why is it that you are so
intent on going backwards on the lightbulb efficiency? Why has
this become a priority?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I think the bigger issue from my
perspective is the challenge with the way that the statute is
written. I will tell you, we are working hard to meet our legal
obligations on this, but the deadlines for issuing regulations,
whether it is appliances or equipment, I have instructed the
staff to develop a plan to address the missed deadlines and
that plan is in the forthcoming spring unified regulatory
agenda.
Mr. Pallone. But, you see, Mr. Secretary, no one--I mean, I
only have a limited amount of time, and I appreciate your being
here--but no one seems to agree with your proposal, not the
utility industry, not the 15 State AGs, not consumer advocates.
As far as I can see, the only voice supporting your action is a
handful of companies that want to keep on selling outmoded,
grossly inefficient lightbulbs that are a bad deal for
consumers and harm the environment. So, I just don't agree, and
I don't really even understand your argument.
But, anyway, let me move on to the LNG. Mr. Chairman, we
have only got a minute and a half here. Last December, DOE
determined that liquefied natural gas export volumes to non-
free-trade agreement countries equal to 52.8 billion cubic feet
a day, a volume equal to 71 percent of U.S. demand, is
inconsistent with the public interest under the Natural Gas
Act. And DOE also stated it intends to approve LNG export
applications of those countries up to this volume. And then,
DOE has also approved LNG export volumes to free trade
agreement countries equal to 58.1 billion cubic feet per day,
and my understanding is that LNG export application approvals
are for periods of 20 to 30 years.
My concern with this, because we are running out of time,
is the impact of these approvals on domestic supply and
pricing; that these approvals are going to have a greater
demand for more pipeline infrastructure. The communities and
landowners bear the cost of building out the support for this
enterprise. Have you ever denied any export application for
LNG? Not just you, but has the DOE ever denied an export
application?
Mr. Perry. I can't speak for prior administrations, but I
can assure you that we have not, and if I am still the
Secretary of Energy, we will not, because we have the most
massive supply in the world, sir. The issue, if the question
here is there are some folks over in the Northeast that are
concerned about the availability or the cost of natural gas, it
has got a lot more to do with the inability to build a pipeline
across New York, for instance, to get into the Northeast than
it does with our supply.
The American natural gas-producing regions of this
country--and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. That is
not my quote. That is the quote of the International Energy
Agency head, Fatih Birol, last week when I was in the EU,
telling the Europeans that we have more gas than they can
purchase. So, I would suggest that this country is really
blessed to have this low-emissions, this clean-burning fuel,
and being able to build the infrastructure out across the
country, so that all Americans can enjoy that fuel.
The folks in the Northeast are paying 40 percent more for
their residential and 60 percent more for their commercial
electricity because of the inability to move that natural gas
into those regions and, then, use it. And I haven't even talked
about the negative effect on our environment because of the
fuel oil that is having to be burned instead of natural gas.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, we have a lot of Members who want
to ask questions.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. So, will you be a little bit more succinct with
your answers?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. All right.
Mr. Perry. That one, I am just really passionate about,
sir.
Mr. Rush. Yes, I understand, but you have a hard deadline.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to get through three questions, if I can.
A number of decades ago, I worked for President Reagan, and
I can remember him, when he signed the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act, saying that this was going to be the bill that actually
resolved the issue, certainly within the next 20 years. We are
now 40 years later, and this committee, as you know, voted 49
to 4 in the last Congress, widely bipartisan, to move John
Shimkus' bill, which we passed with a pretty good margin on the
House Floor.
For us to finish the job, the one thing that we really need
to spend money on, I think, is to complete the licensing
process at the NRC. Do you agree that that is the case? And can
you commit to trying to help us get to that final stage?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. If you don't have the permitting
process finalized, then you are not going to--this is a map;
every one of those red States has waste, and that is your plan.
That is the repository for America.
Mr. Upton. And that is why we have to complete the
licensing process.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. We have to get that.
Mr. Perry. If we don't finish that licensing--and, listen,
I am not a Yucca-or-bust person. I am let's find a solution to
this. Yucca is one of the solutions. But if you do not have a
permitting process that is finalized, you are never going to be
able to move this out of your States. And there are 38 of them
here. Your States are going to be the ones that are the final
solution for this.
Mr. Upton. That is a good answer. That is a good answer.
You can go to ``Double Jeopardy'' now, right.
There was a report earlier this week, a public report, that
disclosed a cyberattack on March 5th. I don't know if you saw
this story. ``The Cybersecurity 202: a cyberattack just
disrupted grid operations in the U.S. But it could have been
far worse. A recently disclosed hack at an electric utility in
the Western U.S. crosses a disturbing new line.'' What can you
tell us about that a couple of months later?
Mr. Perry. Yes. Well, we received the report about a
denial-of-service condition that occurred at an electric
utility. I think it was on or around the 1st of March of 2019.
And the incident did not impact generation, the reliability of
the grid, or cause any customer outages. We were in contact
with that utility, and they are managing the incident
coordination with their firewall manufacturer.
Mr. Upton. Any lessons learned from that experience?
Mr. Perry. Well, yes, when you get a direction to put a
patch on your firewall, you need to put your patch on the
firewall. I mean, it is pretty simple. They made an error. And
so, we are trying to reiterate to the utilities, no matter what
their size, when you get a directive to protect your firewall,
you need to do it.
Mr. Upton. And are you working with the EEI to make sure
that they pass that word along to all their member companies as
well?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, and the Subsector Coordinating
Council, the folks that deal with these issues, and our
counterparts, if you will, in the private sector, yes, sir.
Mr. Upton. So, as you know, we are currently working, I
think, on a Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity
Preparedness Act. I have introduced a bill, H.R. 370, which
codifies some of what DOE is currently doing on the
coordination side and by authorizing R&D in pilot demonstration
projects. Has the Department looked to this bill at all? Can
you offer some support, some guidance in terms of what we need
to do to make sure that we diminish any threat of cyberattack
on our Nation's pipeline system?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Obviously, we will give you any
technical information, any technical help that we can on
developing it. And whatever you all decide, we are going to
implement. We are coordinating and working with any threats
that are out there, best practices. We manage the information
flow with the private sector, I think, in a fairly positive
way, in a fairly transparent way, to mitigate any of the
challenges that we have got to best practices. The investment
incentives, the cost recovery practices in the energy sector,
pipeline security, we touch all of those. And I think we have
got, for pipelines and the electrical grid, I think we have got
a good flow of information and we are as on top of this as we
can be.
Mr. Upton. I appreciate your leadership.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Peters from
California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Last year we had a similar hearing where we were critical
of the President's proposed budget. They cut a lot of things,
and I think you were candid that some of this was not your
idea. And ultimately, we were able to restore some of the
investments that I think were important.
Let me make two observations about that this year, and
then, I had a particular question for you. The first is on
ARPA-E. The Trump administration's continued attempt to fully
defund ARPA-E, which is the basic research component of the
Department of Energy, it just doesn't make any sense. It is
inconsistent with your own initial video that talks about
innovation. I think we would all like to get behind that.
One of the largest ARPA-E grants ever awarded was in my
district to a company called Achates Power. They successfully
developed and opposed-piston engine that creates more power
with lower toxic emissions and increased fuel efficiency, and
it is such a great advance that it is now on the way to being
the future engine of many U.S. Army vehicles. And I don't think
you would dispute that that was an important investment for the
country. It is not the kind of thing we want to defend.
Second, with respect to carbon capture, as you may know, I
introduced the USE IT Act with my colleague from West Virginia,
Mr. McKinley. There is an example of a West Virginian and a
Californian working together on energy and an environmental
issue. I think that is a good idea. It focuses on the need for
increased investment in carbon capture utilization and
sequestration technology as well as direct air capture
technology.
The International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, has said
that carbon capture is going to have to be part of any strategy
to get us to net carbon zero by mid-century. The Department of
Energy, your own handout here says that you want to reduce the
cost of carbon capture utilization and storage. That is great,
but the commitment is not reflected in a 65 percent cut to CCUS
in this budget. I am not asking for a response on that, other
than to tell you that it is obvious that it is inconsistent
with your goals, Mr. Secretary, as they are stated.
But I did want to ask you a particular question about
subsidies. Earlier this week, the IMF updated a working paper
on global fossil fuel subsidies; reported the annual global
subsidy for fossil fuels at $5.2 trillion. The United States
contributes the second largest portion of that, behind only
China, subsidizing energy efforts that are not part of our
sustainable future. According to the report, quote, ``Removing
those subsidies would lower global emissions by 28 percent and
deaths from air pollution by 46 percent.'' It is my
understanding that the amount that the DOE proposes to
subsidize fossil fuels is $489 million. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. Perry. If that is what your numbers show, sir. I don't
know that off the top of my head, but----
Mr. Peters. This is from the handout.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Yes, I would stick with that.
Mr. Peters. And I would just ask you, how is it appropriate
for us to subsidize parts of the fossil fuel industry that are
so mature? Is that really the right role for government? And I
am asking you as a rock-ribbed conservative Texan. Is that
really the way we want to use the money, government taxpayer
money, to subsidize a mature industry like fossil fuel
extraction?
Mr. Perry. Here is what I see, sir. I see the United States
and our fossil fuel industry, particularly through the
development of our natural gas, then turned into liquefied
natural gas--we drove down the emissions in the State of Texas
by a substantial margin. I will just give you the numbers
quickly. Sixty percent on SOx, 50 percent on NOx, almost 20
percent on the carbon dioxide side of it, in the period of time
from about 2007 through 2015, while I was the Governor there,
while we were leading the Nation in the creation of jobs and
wealth, I might add. That occurred because of the transition
that we did from old, inefficient power plants to clean-burning
natural gas.
So, I will make the statement--and I think we will stand by
it--that the tax incentives, the other ways that they calculate
a subsidy of the fossil fuel energy, that will have a massive
amount of impact as American LNG goes to Europe to take out
old, inefficient power plants and transition away from coal
plants in Germany, for instance. So, I think that the tax
subsidies that occur to continue to get American technology
into these countries and American natural resources, like our
LNG, is absolutely a good investment of our tax dollars.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Secretary, just so we are not confused, I
am not even talking about the tax subsidies. This is direct
spending on subsidies out of the Department of Energy.
Mr. Perry. I still support them, sir.
Mr. Peters. And I would say, from my perspective, and I
think if you look at your goals, to be able to spend $489
million on ARPA-E, which was $366 million last year, is a lot
more cost-effective.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us
today. Good to have you back.
The Department of Energy has important responsibilities to
secure the Nation's energy infrastructure against all hazards,
including severe weather, reduce the risk of potential
cyberattack, and to assist with energy restoration and recovery
efforts. DOE's newly created Office of Cybersecurity, Energy
Security, and Emergency Response leads these efforts.
And I would like to kind of follow up on the ranking
member's questions a little bit on strengthening. I know you
talked about the situation with the patch that should have
occurred, but would you talk about your efforts to strengthen
the Nation's energy infrastructure against cyberattacks?
Mr. Perry. Sure. That is the reason that the CESER office
was stood up. The Department of Energy is the sector-specific
agency dealing with our electrical grid. We obviously work with
our partners at DHS and at U.S. DOT on the pipeline side of it,
too. But the SCADA systems and the cybersecurity aspects,
cybersecurity is an integral part of energy security. And that
is assessing the risks, the vulnerabilities that occur, both by
natural disasters and by manmade. So, it is not all about the
manmade attacks, if you will, the viruses that get put in
place. This is also about how are we going to deal with
hurricanes; how are we going to deal with polar vortex that
comes in and knocks out--how you manage and have this diverse
portfolio.
I think one of my jobs is to make sure that Americans
understand that, if we don't have this baseload of electricity
out there that is 24/7, and frankly, onsite, which is basically
either nuclear or coal, because all the others are
interruptible in some form or fashion. But I think it is good
to have that conversation with Americans, that if we had a
triple whammy, if you will, if we had a polar vortex and we had
a cyberattack that occurred at the same time, along with a
physical attack on a pipeline, how that could massively affect
the Northeast, for instance, the city of New York with the
millions of people that live there.
So, we want to make sure that Americans know, No. 1, that
we have the technical ability to deal with this; that we are
very good at analyzing and blocking the attacks that come, and
we keep our private sector partners advised of this. And we
have a number of our private sector utility types that come in
that we have the ability to brief them on classified
information about what is happening in the cybersecurity front.
Mr. Latta. I appreciate that because I know in my district
and when I go across the State of Ohio with the folks that are
not only producing the power, but transmitting that power, the
amount of time and energy, and all, that they are taking now
just because of the cyber threats that they face every day, and
it is interesting, when you talk to the customers out there,
they don't realize what is being transferred over just to try
to make sure that those threats aren't done. And I am glad and
it is very important that information is transmitted back to
all these individuals and companies that you deal with.
If I could, in my last minute, real quick, if I may, I am
also very interested in the ENERGY STAR program, which you may
know had the appliance portion managed by DOE from 1994 to
2009. In 2009, the previous administration moved the appliance
manufacturers into have a dual-management that is split between
DOE and EPA. And so, these companies out there now are faced
with duplicative reporting requirements and a lot more red tape
that is added up to about $35 million annually, according to
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. And just in my
last 30 seconds, would it make more sense and fit with the
administration's goal to cut that red tape to return that
management back to DOE?
Mr. Perry. I am sorry, as your last question again, sir? I
was distracted. I apologize.
Mr. Latta. Would it make more sense to have DOE on the
ENERGY STAR split between EPA and DOE, have it just being
underneath the DOE?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latta. I appreciate that answer.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Secretary Perry, welcome back to the committee.
Investment in research and advanced technologies, it is
critical if we are going to reduce harmful emissions from
fossil energy sources like coal and gas. And in your testimony
you mentioned your commitment to R&D, particularly for fossil
energy. But the DOE budget cuts funding for fossil energy
programs by 25 percent, including 24 percent to the fossil
energy research and development, which is vital for funding the
National Energy Technology Labs in Pittsburgh and in
Morgantown, West Virginia.
Mr. McKinley and I had sent a letter requesting $100
million increase in this category, and what we got was $178
million decrease. I would just like to say that what you say
your goals are and what your budget says are diametrically
opposite, and it is puzzling to see where the commitment is.
Let me also echo what Mr. Peters says. It is craziness to
eliminate ARPA-E. I mean, this is a program that is focused on
high-risk, high-reward innovation, particularly when it is
clear that the industry is not going to take on this kind of
risk and other DOE offices haven't quickly produced this type
of early-stage, high-risk technology. Cutting this program
makes absolutely no sense. And again, it seems contrary to the
goals that you state that the Department has.
Now let me give you a compliment. I am glad to see that
your budget focuses on energy storage. I have introduced the
Energy Storage Tax Incentive and Deployment Act to expand the
investment tax credit to encompass battery storage
technologies. I think that is a critical component needed to
expand our use of renewables and strengthening our grid. So, I
appreciate your focus on this initiative and I look forward to
working with you on that.
Let me ask you, Secretary Perry, yesterday Exelon announced
that Three Mile Island would prematurely retire in September.
This means the loss of carbon-free baseload power and it means
the loss of a lot of good-paying jobs. And we know that, as
nuclear plants are prematurely being retired, this energy is
being replaced by coal and natural gas, which is putting more
greenhouse gases up into the air. Now I have had concerns with
the NOPR proposal or the FirstEnergy 202(c) proposal, but I
still support the nuclear industry because we can't meet our
climate change goals and obligations without it. So, tell me,
what are other options that are available to address this issue
for nuclear power plants across the country that are starting
to close down prematurely?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Doyle, we totally agree with you on your
observation about you cannot meet your goals, no matter where
you may land in the spectrum out there, for the fight to reduce
emissions without nuclear. So, you ask what some of the options
are, and I think they are twofold.
One, having been a Governor, I think it would behoove the
States that have nuclear plants to look at whether or not they
want to at the State level subsidize those plants. Listen, I
don't necessarily think that the word ``subsidy'' is a bad
term. I believe that it is up to the people to decide, do you
want to have these options, this diversity of energy sources?
Nuclear is, I think, one of the most important ones.
So, that is on the old plants that are there today and to
extend their life cycles. And those can be done, and they can
be done safely. How we deal with that waste is part of it, but
the other side of this is----
Mr. Doyle. Yes, but, Mr. Secretary, it is beyond the
ability of a lot of States to do what you are suggesting. And
your responsibility, as Secretary of the Department of Energy,
is for our national energy portfolio. We know that nuclear is
about 25 percent of that portfolio, and that if we start to
lose--we are not building new plants because they cost so much
money--if we start to lose existing ones prematurely, our
greenhouse gases go nowhere but up.
I want to ask you one final question. Worker safety is a
priority of mine, especially for workers employed in
environmental remediation and decontamination, because they
have an uncreased risk of exposure to harmful substances.
Incorporating robotics into remediation for hazardous or
radioactive material can not only increase the efficiency of
remediation, but it protects workers also. What is the
Department doing to incorporate robotics into cleaning up
sites?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, we are, obviously, working with that.
As a matter of fact, we have some projects. Fukushima is one of
those that the Department is working with the folks. I actually
was over there a year-plus ago to observe at an appropriate
distance----
Mr. Doyle. I see our time is up. I am going to respect Mr.
Rush. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Perry. So, the robotics side of it, we are working with
that. So, our national labs are working with that.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and the Chair now
recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Secretary Perry. I, too, want to join in
applauding your enthusiastic leadership at the Department of
Energy to lead the drive to a new American energy era.
And energy innovation is the key. On this committee, we are
regularly debating the best ways to promote new American
energy. And today, because of American ingenuity, we are
celebrating energy independence. We are celebrating a booming
economy, and we are also celebrating the fact that we are
leading the world in bringing down harmful carbon emissions.
In eastern Washington, I am proud to represent many who are
on the forefront of these energy solutions, research and
development, production and storage. Right now, there is an
exciting partnership between Washington State University and
PNNL.
I just wanted to ask you to share some of the details, some
of the work that is being done at the Department of Energy
right now on grid modernization space or within grid
modernization, and how the work of PNNL is benefitting those
efforts. I also, in that line, wanted just to ask you what you
believe needs to be done to ensure that the United States
remains on the forefront of innovation and grid modernization,
and do you fear that other countries may ultimately surpass the
United States in this field?
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
A great example of what we are doing, I think, and it kind
of goes to Mr. Peters, when you talked about ARPA-E, and I do
have a rather strong commitment to the whole concept of public-
private partnerships and working those together. And sometimes
the budget doesn't reflect the commitment that I have, that the
agency has, and through some of our cross-cutting. And this is
one of the great examples of it, of the private sector working
with us. At Idaho National Lab, for instance, we actually
operate a grid out there, a standalone grid where we can go in
and break things and put viruses on, and to really put these
electrical grids to the test. And we have got very capable
private sector partners.
And so, one of the things we are focusing on is resilience
modeling, you know, grid services that energy storage could
provide for us in this case; you know, advanced sensors. There
is the institutional support that comes along with that. I
think we have some $200 million at DOE in FY16 through '18 for
those types of services.
And again, the Grid Modernization Initiative is something
that we certainly support. The Grid Modernization, GMLC, Lab,
$40 million for some foundational work from our applied energy
program. So, we have got multiple offices, and this is kind of
our philosophy, particularly on the area that ARPA-E and the
folks that support ARPA-E and that concept of advanced
research, this is a great example of some of the foundational
work that DOE is still involved with, and I think it doesn't
get counted towards ARPA-E conceptually, but it is the type of
cross-cutting management that we try to do at DOE that keeps
these types of programs alive and going, although the old ARPA-
E structure, the money doesn't flow through it.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
On another note, I just wanted to give you--others have
brought up Hanford. I wanted just to ask you in the time
remaining what you believe could be done, should be done to
ensure that the site is cleaned up in a timely and cost-
effective manner.
Mr. Perry. Yes, and we are making some progress. I mean,
that was one of the biggest frustrations that I saw when I came
to DOE, was the massive amounts of money that had been done in
the past. There hadn't been a baseline study done on that thing
for, I think, the previous 9 years. And we went in and did
that, and it was a shocking amount of money that is going to be
needed. But we are making progress.
For instance, I know Chairman Walden cares about that
Columbia River, as do you. The last reactor is going to be
cleaned up. We are going to be able to go announce the last
reactor in the basin of the Columbia River this fall. So, we
are making some progress there, the low-level waste facility
over there. I mean, we are ready to move some of that material
out of the region and go to either some interim, or, obviously,
I am looking for some permanent wastesites in this country as
well.
So, I think we are making some pretty darn good progress
out there. We have got a couple of those tunnels now grouted
and filled. And so, there are some good stories. It is going to
be a long time and it is going to cost a hell of a lot of
money.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. But we are making some good progress.
Mrs. Rodgers. And thanks for being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, Secretary, for being here.
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. Sarbanes. You said a moment ago that sometimes the
budget doesn't reflect the commitment you have and the agency
has on certain things.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. So, how do we solve for that here? Because
the budget is obviously reflecting something. And I guess you
are between a rock and a hard place, the rock being your
personal commitment, if I can give you credit for that, and
wanting to invest in these things, and the hard place being
orders that are coming from someplace else in the
administration, where that commitment is not as strong.
So, I am looking at the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, which has done some great work over the
years. I mean, I think some of the estimates on the return on
investment there, that it has netted about $230 billion for the
taxpayers, which is just incredible. But the budget you have
brought here today would cut that office by 86 percent.
And then, you look at the Solar Energy Technologies Office.
Again, they have done terrific work. It has been an economic
driver, generating economies, employing over 240,000 Americans,
$17 billion of investment in the Nation's economy. And these
are award-winning numbers by any measure, helping to keep
driving the cost, commercial cost, of solar energy down because
of the continuous attention and focus that that office brings.
And that office in your budget would be reduced by 70 percent.
Last year when you were here, we were talking about the
importance of the Solar Energy Technologies Office's work, how
it was helping to make solar electricity more affordable. In
Baltimore, we have been working on a project that DOE was a
partner in to bring this opportunity to low-income homeowners,
create a workforce pipeline in the solar industry for people in
some of the hard-hit parts of Baltimore City, et cetera.
So, I guess the first question is, do you agree that this
Solar Energy Technologies Office has done good work and helps
to improve affordability, reliability, and performance of solar
technologies on the grid? And how can they continue to do that
good work if they are going to experience, according to the
budget request you are making, a 70 percent cut in their
resources?
Mr. Perry. The short answer is, yes, sir, I do think that
that office and the whole of EERE and what they do--and as a
matter of fact, in March, we announced the largest-ever solar
funding opportunity. It was $130 million in new research to
advanced early-stage solar technologies.
Speaking specifically to this line item that you make
reference to, the Solar Energy Technologies Office, we had a
FOA reissue and it went through the process. And on the 25th of
March, we announced, I think, $36 million worth of projects
there.
So, there are two things that I would like to just lay out
for your consideration. One is you have made reference to, and
you are absolutely correct, the historic progress and the
historic winds, if you will, that EERE has had historically.
And now, we are seeing the industry, both solar and wind,
become substantially more mature and be able to stand on its
own two feet, so to speak, and not be requiring the amounts of
dollars that we had historically. So, I hope there is some
recognition about the shifting of dollars has been because of
the maturing of the wind and the solar energy.
As a matter of fact, since 2016, since this administration
has come into office, there has been a 90 percent increase in
the growth of the solar----
Mr. Sarbanes. Let me just interrupt because I have got 5
seconds. I understand your argument about it matures and maybe
the investment doesn't have to be at the same levels. But I
think if you maintain that investment, you will keep us on the
cutting edge. We will be more competitive compared with our
peers around the world than if we start to pull back from that
investment. So, I hope you will reconsider this as we move
forward.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, welcome again back to this, and thank
you.
There are several things I would like to run past you a
little bit. I liked your opening film clip about energy
independence in the new era. Can you give us a perspective,
however, of what is happening in New England? Because I don't
know that we can suggest, or should be offering, that New
England is energy-independent. Especially last year in Boston
Harbor there was an LNG tanker from Russia providing LNG gas to
New England, and the fact that other New England States and
across the country were importing 73 terawatt hours of
electricity from Canada. That, in and of itself, doing some
rough math, represents about 9 percent of the population in
this country of America is getting its electricity from Canada.
So, could you address a little bit, just briefly, on that?
Because I have got two other questions.
Mr. Perry. Mr. McKinley, I think what you bring up here is
really important, and I touched on it a little earlier when I
think Mr. Pallone and I were having our discussion. But being
able to deliver energy, U.S.-produced energy, to the totality
of the United States is really important. What the President
talked about in his Executive Order on infrastructure was, I
think, spot-on, of focusing on our ability to deliver the
energy all across this country. And by and large, that is going
to be in the form of natural gas. It is going to be in the form
of nuclear energy, and it is going to be in the form of coal-
powered energy flowing from, you know----
Mr. McKinley. But we are at the discretion, unfortunately,
as we are finding out--that is my second question--of how
States are interacting with the 401 permitting process. We have
got now four States--New York, Washington, Maryland, and now
Oregon--that have stepped in and said they are going to use
this Federal permitting process to prevent us from using fossil
fuels or crossing fossil fuels in their State. I am just
wondering, where is the administration in the pushback about
this commerce clause? Is that troubling----
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. The administration?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, it is. As a matter of fact, the
President talked about it yesterday during the Cabinet meeting,
Mr. Chairman. He brought it up. Sonny Perdue and myself are
both former Governors. And I wrote a book about the 10th
Amendment. I am kind of on the record of being a pretty strong
proponent of States being able to decide what is in their best
interest.
With that said, I think it does beg the question, is it in
America's national security for a State to block a pipeline
that is going to have an impact from a national security
standpoint? At that particular point in time, I think both the
Commerce Clause and the national security of this country
trumps a State being able to stop a pipeline going across, for
whatever reason that might be.
And not even to mention what it is doing to the citizens of
the Northeast from the standpoint, when they are having to pay
60 percent more for energy, when the emissions are going up
because they are having to use fuel oil instead of natural gas,
I mean, not only are they affecting the environment in a very
negative way, their citizens are having to pay more expensive
energy.
So, this isn't just about this issue of is it OK for the
Governor of New York to stop a pipeline going across the State.
The citizens of New York need to be engaged in this
conversation as well about the cost of their energy. And then,
all of the people of the Northeast need to be talking about
here is what you are doing to our environment because you
choose to block a natural gas pipeline going across your State.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So, I am hoping the administration
gets active in joining other States that are trying to fight
back against this. I know we have got the Crow Tribe in Montana
is trying to ship gas or coal across, export it, and they are
being blocked.
But let me close in the 10 seconds I have on, can you give
us an update of what is going on with the status of
petrochemical complex in the Appalachia?
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. McKinley. I know the President has called for a study
to see if that is not something for energy independence----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's----
Mr. Perry. It is going forward.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Let me remind Members, please be succinct with
your questions. We have 18 Members who have not asked
questions, and we have a hard conclusion at 12:30.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rush. So, please.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman.
I thank Secretary Perry for coming here this morning. I
appreciate your diligence in running the Department and, also,
your passion about traumatic brain injury. I hope we get to
work together on that issue.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, absolutely, we will, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am sure you can know that I am not
thrilled about the Department of Energy's proposed budget. A 10
percent reduction in environmental management, an 8 percent
reduction in the Office of Science, 86 percent reduction in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. My gosh, a complete
elimination of RPE. None of these are acceptable, and Congress
will create its own budget that looks a lot more like last
year's. I am sure you are aware of that.
So, tell me, how committed is the Department of Energy, and
how committed are you, to reducing carbon emissions?
Mr. Perry. I think our record, I will stand on our record,
sir. Not only did I bring to the agency, as my work as the
Governor of Texas, the State that was reducing emissions as
much as any State in the Nation, but this country is doing it
as well. So, we have got a great story to tell about our
emissions reduction. I think we can help the world by selling
them American LNG and by getting our products, not only our
natural resources, but also our technology and our innovation--
--
Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, LNG sounds good, but LNG has
fugitive emissions, both at the wellhead and throughout the
system.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Emissions of natural gas are worse by a
factor of 20 maybe than carbon. So, we have a lot of cleaning
up to do. We are not there where we need to be, and I am sure
you understand that.
Let me ask you a question about cyber. I have introduced
two cyber bills on grid security with my friend, Bob Latta. And
that will promote a partnership with industry to mitigate
physical and cyber risks. So, how did the CESER office learn
about the March 5th denial-of-service attack on the SCADA
system? That affected Western States. And when did they notify
the utilities to be more watchful?
Mr. Perry. Well, we were in contact with the utilities. And
I will suggest to you we have very timely--I can't tell you
time and hour at this particular point in time. I can get that
to you as best I can. But we not only facilitated contact with
the Department of Homeland Security and their hunt and incident
response teams and the FBI----
Mr. McNerney. So, is that how you learned about the attack?
How did you learn about the attack? How did the Department of
Energy learn about the----
Mr. Perry. Our Emergency Management Office was contacted.
Mr. McNerney. Well, it is clear that we should work with
industry, government and industry, to create public-private
partnerships to make the utilities more secure.
And in a desire to move on, as I mentioned, the budget
would cut the Renewable Power Office by 86 percent. That is
disappointing to me personally since I spent a career
developing renewable energy. Specifically, however, the budget
intends on ending the origination of new loans in the Loan
Program Office. However, Congress has been repeatedly funding
this office at over $20 million a year. Has the office
continues to process loan applications and do due diligence on
the applications, as Congress intended?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Good. I am glad to hear that. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Succinct.
Mr. McNerney. We are following the chairman's----
Mr. Perry. We are making progress, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Nuclear waste, I have been a strong voice in dealing with
nuclear waste. We have nuclear waste, a lot of nuclear waste,
around the country sitting in poorly secured sites. Any
solution, however, absolutely must work with nearby
communities, which we have seen fail in the past. However, on
October 10th, 2018, the DOE issued a public notice about the
way it interprets the words ``high-level nuclear waste''. If
this were suddenly reinterpreted or reclassified, then the DOE
could dispose of it in less secure sites. Can you tell us how
much high-level radioactive waste the Department is considering
reclassifying?
Mr. Perry. Mr. McNerney, here I think what is really
important for us to have a conversation about and be very open,
this issue is about identifying not where waste comes from,
whether it is from a weapons program or whether it is from a
civil nuclear program. And that is how we decide where this
waste goes at this particular point in time. I think it makes
abundant good sense for us to identify this waste by its
radioactivity levels rather than where it comes from. And that
is what we are talking about doing, is being able to put waste
where it needs to be, based on its radioactivity and the
strength of that radioactivity, rather than where it came from.
And that is what we are trying to decide.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here.
I am concerned about the news this week that our European
and NATO ally, Romania, is now seriously considering doing
business with a Chinese state-owned enterprise, China General
Nuclear Power Group. Just this week, the Romanians signed a
preliminary agreement with the Chinese to refurbish and build
multibillion-dollar nuclear reactors in Romania. We have
American companies vying for the project that have been shut
out by the Romanian government because of this growing Chinese
influence in Bucharest. To make matters worse, these two new
Romanian nuclear reactors near the Black Sea sit merely 30
miles from Camp MK, where we have boots on the ground. Mr.
Secretary, from a national security standpoint, do you have
concerns with the Chinese investment in the energy
infrastructure of our NATO allies such as Romania?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Luckily, the agreement between Romania and
China is not yet finalized. So, how can we engage with our
partners in Romania to ensure that the bidding process for
these projects is fair and transparent?
Mr. Perry. We are headed back over in that part of the
world the first week of June. I was just back from Brussels,
meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister of Romania this last
week. We are in active engagement with our allies and our
friends in the European theater on the U.S. engagement on civil
nuclear projects. It is incredibly important for the future of
the U.S. civil nuclear industry to be engaged there, to be
partners with them, to develop the new technologies. Because if
we don't, then at some point in time--and the challenges that
we face in America today are pretty abundant and pretty clear,
when we have only got one project that is ongoing today
building a new reactor. It is why small modular reactors and
the work that we are doing on funding those small modular
reactors is so important going forward. So, yes, sir.
Mr. Kinzinger. Excellent. Thank you.
And this question, you can take as much time as I have left
to answer it. But the U.S. is now predicted to be a net energy
exporter, as you have well noted. That is a stunning turnaround
from about 15 years ago, when we thought our own resources were
dwindling and we would be forever reliant on foreign energy.
U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil export, which come into full
force this November, would not have been possible were it not
for the shale boom in the U.S. I understand that you have been
actively engaged with your counterparts in the world's major
oil-supplying nations, and that you have expressed confidence
that we can offset any potential disruptions in supply. How has
America's energy abundance strengthened our hand diplomatically
as we deal with global threats such as Iran? And you could even
add maybe Venezuela into that.
Mr. Perry. I think most of us, even in this room, don't
understand the leverage that the United States now has. When I
talked to, for instance, our European allies in the EU last
week, they understand, maybe better than we do, the leverage
that Russia has over those countries. One of the reasons that
the Russians fight our LNG coming into Europe is so that they
can be the dominant source of energy to those countries. And
Ukraine will share with you, and other countries as well, that
the Russians will cut off your gas supply if it is in their
best political interest at any given time.
So, the U.S., our message isn't you have got to buy U.S.
gas. Ours is there needs to be a diversity of supply, a
diversity of routes, and a diversity of suppliers.
Mr. Kinzinger. And let me just say, you know, kind of
piggybacking on that, I want to thank you for your leadership
with the European allies at the Three Seas Initiative Business
Forum in Bucharest in September. I appreciate the Department's
recent creation of the Partnership for Transatlantic Energy
Cooperation.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger. I would like to just mention, in short, a
bill that we passed out of the House, the European Energy
Security and Diversification Act. In short, it would help both
U.S. as well as European and Eurasian countries attain energy
security diversification and improve supply routes and energy
infrastructure through partnerships. Thankfully, it passed the
House in March with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it
awaits action in the Senate. If the bill is enacted, I would
just ask you to commit to working with Congress and the State
Department, and any other relevant agencies, to coordinate a
national strategy for European energy diversification.
And, Mr. Secretary, I deeply appreciate your service and
your leadership.
And I yield back my still remaining 5 seconds.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
York for 10 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perry, thank you for being here. I appreciate the
work you are doing at the agency, although, like many of my
colleagues, I do have concerns about the President's budget.
Mr. Secretary, you have made a point to visit all of our
national labs. And from a New York perspective, focusing on
Brookhaven, I can say the research being done is truly cutting-
edge.
In recent months, we have been having a good, bipartisan
dialog about how energy innovation can play a role in our
Nation's clean energy transition and contribute to greenhouse
gas emissions reductions. In the past, you have testified that
spurring innovation is a part of DOE's core mission. Do you
believe that DOE must continue to play an important role in
funding RD&D----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. To support the United States'
private sector in making innovative energy breakthroughs?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Well, we all agree that innovation can unlock
tremendous opportunities, including creating jobs, empowering
consumers, lowering energy costs, and reducing pollution. But,
in many cases, when we talk about innovation, we mean
breakthroughs in less proven technologies. This requires
riskier investments, and DOE can play an important role in
shaping that risk. We should also accept that not all research
projects are going to work out. When it comes to research
failure, it is often a down payment on success.
So, Mr. Secretary, setting aside the President's budget
request, do you believe that it is a good thing for DOE to make
investments in riskier, emerging technologies and processes;
for example, the type of work done by ARPA-E?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. ARPA-E is really the proven model for incubating
innovation. I want to provide one example where I believe these
investments are essential. Last year, ARPA-E initiated the DAYS
project, which is focused on long-duration energy storage. In
my mind, technology development and cost reductions in storage,
particularly long duration, are absolutely necessary for us to
achieve ambitious clean energy goals. Mr. Secretary, do you
believe ARPA-E has played a constructive role in identifying
energy challenges and helping to find solutions and foster
innovation?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, there have been programs that ARPA-E
funded that certainly made progress in that direction.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Not all of them.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
We have other big challenges just around the corner. Low-
emissions industrial products, cleaner fuels for aviation and
shipping, battery recycling and disposal, direct air capture
technology development. DOE needs to lead the efforts in these
areas, and I would be eager to work with the Department and
other Members on these issues.
Now I understand, you know, I heard your exchange with some
colleagues about solar technology and the like, but I also want
to focus on the role DOE can play in reducing costs to
encourage deployment of existing technologies. For example, DOE
has identified inconsistent permitting requirements and
processes as a significant cost of residential energy
installations. The patchwork of permitting requirements across
thousands of local jurisdictions causes unnecessary delays and
adds administrative costs. This not only increases energy
prices for consumers, but also stifles homeowner and business
investment in these technologies, such as rooftop solar. Other
countries like Germany and Australia have sought ways to
streamline permitting. The average cost of a residential solar
installation, for example, in Australia is less than half the
cost in the United States.
So, Mr. Secretary, DOE and NREL have worked on reducing
these permitting costs. Do you believe DOE or another Federal
entity can continue to play a role in helping to streamline the
permitting process itself for residential energy systems?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tonko. Can you give us any examples of how they might
be able to work with us, the agency itself or others?
Mr. Perry. Yes, and certainly, I think you all have a role
to play in that as well from the standpoint of analyzing where
there may be some duplication of effort, where there are some
places that we can cut back on the regulatory side without
there being a cost. You know, do a cost-benefit analysis of the
rules and regulations that Congress puts into place. I think,
having been a member of a legislature and having been a chief
executive in a State, I can assure you that there is probably a
legitimate conversation that can be had about Federal
regulations and how those could be streamlined.
The President is focused on that. He has given all of us in
his Cabinet a clear directive to look at the regulations that
you have where you can reduce the regulation and, obviously,
not affect the public safety or the reason that it was put
there. If it was a good reason, leave them alone. But, if not,
reduce them. So, I think there are some great opportunities of
us continuing to make progress on that.
Mr. Tonko. We look forward to working with you and NREl and
get the President to believe in climate change.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you here today.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Several topics to talk with you about. You and
I have discussed the emergence of NGL opportunities within the
eastern and southeastern Ohio region, a region of the country
that has become known as the Shale Crescent. Your Department
and others have put out studies showcasing the economic
advantages of investing in this region, where companies can
build directly on top of the NGL feedstock, which can result in
an increase of steady, reliable jobs. Factors like market
proximity also make this region an extremely compelling
economic opportunity, as roughly 70 percent of North American
polyethylene and 77 percent of North American polypropylene is
within a day's drive of this region, my district. These two
factors, among others, greatly lower the production cost of
ethylene and polyethylene.
So, my question to you is, what else can Congress or DOE do
to ensure these opportunities are fully realized? I mean, is
there a need to increase our focus on workforce development or
ensure smart regulations are in place to encourage the safe
development of these opportunities? What else should we be
thinking about or looking at?
Mr. Perry. Yes, certainly that is two of the areas that we
should be focused on. But the key here is to put a plan
together. There are four States, in particular--your home
State, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky--that have
extraordinary opportunity to both deliver products to this
country that are very important, and the value-added side of
that that comes with that, the jobs that get created, using the
feedstock that you are actually sitting on top of.
So, this is not one of those where the Government needs to
go, well, here is ``X'' numbers of hundreds of millions of
dollars. This is one of those where we need to tell those
companies, look, government is going to get out of your way.
And I am confident that those four States also have that goal
as well. So, you are not at loggerheads with the States in this
case. You know, we talked about some challenges with States
relative to pipeline transferring across their States. But this
one is, we don't have that type of--we are going to be sending
Mark Menezes, who is our Under Secretary, in the coming weeks
to meet with the States on these.
So, I think what those States need to hear is that the
Federal Government is going to be a very good partner. We are
going to be not in their way. We are going to remove any
hurdles that are there. We have obviously met with the folks in
West Virginia already. We will come and work with Ohio and
Pennsylvania and Kentucky as well.
I don't think there is a more important project in the U.S.
than to see that development of a petrochemical, a duplicative
petrochemical industry, because the State of Texas could have a
hurricane that could have massive impact on that, not only that
region, but also that industry.
Mr. Johnson. We certainly agree on that, Mr. Secretary. We
have seen studies that indicate that as much as 45 percent of
our Nation's natural gas needs will be produced by that Shale
Crescent region by 2040. I mean, there are a lot of energy
resources there.
Shifting gears just real quick, you and I have also talked
about, and your budget funds, a demonstration project that can
help ensure we have a domestic enrichment capability for our
emerging HALEU needs, as well as a domestic enrichment
capability to help meet our national security needs. You and
Representative Kinzinger talked about that a few minutes ago.
As you know, Piketon, Ohio has a long tradition of helping
the U.S. meet its national security needs by working on these
domestic enrichment capabilities. Can you discuss briefly the
importance of this project in your budget request?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. To have a stable, growing, small
modular reactor industry, advanced reactors, we are going to
have a high-assay, low-enriched uranium source. Obviously, at
Piketon there is a project there that is working on that. I
think the DOE is funding some of that effort there.
Every advanced reactor under development is going to
require this. So, having that access to that HALEU is very
important. So, the Department intends to contract with Centrus
that is in Piketon.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. I thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this important hearing today.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Often
when you are here, I note that you and I have something in
common, and that is all the wind energy that we produce in our
respective States. We are doing more every day, and I thank you
for supporting that----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. Both in your State and
nationwide. It is very, very important.
My home State of Iowa, as you know, leads the Nation in
biofuels production. Right now, there is a significant concern
in the biofuels community, which includes our corn and soybean
farmers, surrounding the drastic increase in the number of so-
called small refinery exemptions that have been issued under
this administration. And I think we have talked about this
briefly before.
As you know, the small refinery waiver process requires
that the EPA consult with the Secretary of Energy in the review
of exemption petitions. And unfortunately, we still have
essentially no transparency regarding this process. So, my
first question, Mr. Secretary, is, has the DOE submitted its
recommendations to the EPA for the 40 pending small refinery
waiver requests for compliance for the year 2018?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. April 26th is the date that we
transmitted over to EPA the--I think there were 37 petitions.
Mr. Loebsack. Thirty-seven?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. Thank you. I do appreciate that.
Question two: last month, Administrator Wheeler testified
that EPA has taken the advice of DOE on all but one waiver
application, contradicting press reports the EPA has disagreed
many times in the past with DOE's recommendations. I am talking
about historically. Please confirm how many times EPA's
decision to grant a waiver request since 2016 has contradicted
DOE's recommendation, if you could.
Mr. Perry. Yes, let me give you the high level here.
Mr. Loebsack. Sure.
Mr. Perry. I will get back with you with a specific number.
But we give guidance to EPA after analyzing a small refinery's
petition to determine if there is disproportionate economic
hardship.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Mr. Perry. So, you know, I will get you the specific number
of times that we have said yes and they have said no.
Mr. Loebsack. And I realize it is supposedly refineries
that produce 75,000 barrels, and we have a lot of concerns,
obviously, because we think it is much larger refineries that
have been granted these exemptions in the past as well. And
this is a concern, it is a bipartisan concern that a lot of us
have, especially in corn and soybean country. But I would like
to request you provide us with a list of refiners that have
received the waivers from the EPA in cases where DOE
recommended a denial. And thank you for providing that
information.
A number of companies that receive waivers are publicly
traded, as you know, publicly traded firms that report on the
waivers they have received in their SEC filings. Since the
information from these companies is disclosed, at least to the
SEC, why does the DOE need to treat similar information as
confidential business information? Clearly, it is not. Can you
answer that question?
Mr. Perry. Let me get back with you on that.
Mr. Loebsack. OK. All right. That would be great, if you
would. I would really appreciate it.
The fourth question, on April 12th, EPA released a request
for comment on a proposal to make some information regarding
small refinery waivers available to the public, some
information. However, it appears that EPA has walked back this
proposal under pressure from the White House and the oil
industry. And, Mr. Secretary, was DOE consulted in the
development of this proposal and in the decision to walk back
this attempt to provide even a basic level of transparency?
Secretary Perry. Yes, I am going to share with you that
that is an EPA question. That one really is not in my purview.
Mr. Loebsack. But we would like you to clarify, if you
would, whether DOE was consulted on that? And if you need to
look into that further, that is fine.
Mr. Perry. What I will tell you is that we get asked about
the issue of seeing if there is a substantial hardship that
these waivers would--that is our role here. I am not sure we
get into the area that you have just mentioned, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, we are just trying to track down,
obviously, and provide as much transparency as possible----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. For what happens with these
small refinery exemptions. And I know DOE does have a role to
play in all of this.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Loebsack. So, the transparency issue, we will continue
to follow up with you on that.
Just final comments I would like to make. Mr. Chairman, a
prolific number of small refinery exemptions issued has
undermined the renewable fuels standards, caused significant
demand destruction across the biofuel industries, and has hurt
our farmers. The EPA, under this administration, has not denied
a single waiver request, and the number of refineries applying
to be exempted from their obligation continues to increase each
year, despite falling RIN prices. It is very frustrating,
obviously. I am going to continue to pursue this relationship
that you folks have with the EPA on this issue. And I thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Mr. Loebsack. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5
minutes.
And the Chair would ask the Members, if you could--we have
got about seven, eight Members now--if you could quickly to
your questions? You don't have to use your entire 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am an ``all-of-the-above'' energy supporter.
And, Secretary Perry, thank you for being here.
As you know, solar power electricity is growing at a rapid
pace. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association,
solar has ranked first or second in new electric capacity
additions in each of the last 6 years. After reaching 1 million
solar panel installations in 2016, 2 million installations are
projected to hit in early 2019 and 4 million by 2023.
In Evansville, Indiana, we have two 2-megawatt universal
solar projects and an additional 50-megawatt facility scheduled
to be in operation by 2020. My point being, there are a lot of
solar panels operating in the field today. I understand, with
the normal life expectancy between 20 and 30 years for these
solar panels, it may not be on the forefront of many people's
mind, but I worry about how we will properly recycle and/or
dispose of solar panels at the end of their lifecycle. Solar
panels, as you probably know, harbor several toxic chemicals,
including cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, and lead,
which, if not disposed of or recycled properly, can be harmful
to the environment and extremely wasteful. As of right now,
most solar panels in the United States at the end of their
lifecycle are landfilled, unless specified by State law.
Secretary Perry, is the DOE aware of any recycling
procedures or guidelines in place today by either the
manufacturers or the end-users for when these panels reach the
end of their lifecycle?
Mr. Perry. I am not aware of any at this particular point
in time, and I think there is, obviously, some additional
research that is going to be required to understand just how
these systems are being handled, not only by the owners, but by
the waste management operations. If they are going to end up
in, whether it is--or however they are going to be. So, I think
there are good points you make, sir, and I think the national
labs and the private sector, and probably in conjunction with
some States as well that have a preponderance of these, finding
some public-private partnerships to work together and come up
with some solutions.
Mr. Bucshon. Because my understanding, the Europeans in
Europe do have a process that is included in the manufacturing
process that also relates to end-of-the-lifecycle disposal of
those. And right now, I am working on draft legislation that
would ask the Department of Energy, in consultation with EPA,
to conduct a study on the environmental impact and analysis of
the disposal procedures in place for solar panels at the end of
their full cycle. Is that something that you think the DOE
might be supportive of?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much. I do think that it is
important, when we look at any source of energy, we look at the
entire lifecycle of that product. Again, I support an ``all-of-
the-above'' energy approach, but in this particular area this
is just one example, I think, where we are not looking at the
entire lifecycle and the overall not only economic, but
environmental impact of a way that we generate energy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to ask you about energy efficiency. I want to ask
you about some impounded money that would help on energy
efficiency. First of all, I want to say, it is very dispiriting
that we are not making the progress on energy efficiency that
both sides know is really good. We can bring down carbon
emissions. We can save homeowners and businesses money. And all
of the efficiency measures usually require local labor. So, I
know as a former Governor, that would be very important to you.
And I don't necessarily think it is you. I just don't know what
the stall is.
The administration has been consistent in its efforts to
strip funding from the ARPA-E program. And the GAO found that
the Department of Energy was impounding funds from ARPA-E in
2017. And this is very concerning. The President's budget
proposed using $350 million of funding Congress had previously
appropriated to help the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy in FY 2020. And I know that the Department has
authority to carry over funds between fiscal years to support
research efforts, and I understand funding delays can happen,
but it is starting to appear that this is much more like an
impoundment. Can you address that and tell us how we are going
to get that money in the pipeline? That has been appropriated.
Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. I just wanted to make sure--you used
the term ``impounded'' some dollars, and I want to, just for
the committee----
Mr. Welch. No, it is looking that way to me.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. All right? At a certain point, it goes from
repurposing to----
Mr. Perry. You are interested in the results----
Mr. Welch. Exactly.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Whether you use the word
``impoundment,'' or whatever.
Mr. Welch. That is exactly right.
Mr. Perry. And I just want to share with you, from my
perspective, when we came in, you know, I obviously, a new
administration, new to the job, and I wanted to take a look at
these programs. And that is one of the reasons these dollars
didn't flow. I will take full responsibility. It was me getting
up-to-speed on these programs, knowing where these dollars were
going to be spent. With that said, they now have been released
and gone forward.
Mr. Welch. Well, I would like to see what those projects
are because my understanding is that money is not getting out
the door. Whether it is going to Mr. Bucshon's district or my
district----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. That is all intended to try to make
progress----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. On energy efficiency.
Let me ask you about the appliance standards. There is
always debate about that, and there are some improvements in
the appliance standard program that can be made. Mr. Latta and
I have been working to try to do that.
But the bottom line here is these efficiency standards
where you set a requirement that all manufacturers have to meet
have saved homeowners and businesses a lot of money. In fact,
because there has been no action on these standards, like the
lightbulb standards----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Individual States like Vermont, and
now other States, are adopting the Federal standard and getting
the benefit of that. But there is obviously an advantage all
around if this is Federal. Can you tell me what you are doing
about these efficiency standards?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. And here is what I would ask you, Mr.
Welch. One of the things that I found when I got to the agency
and we were looking at this specific was that I think that the
statute needs to be revisited. I think there are some
cumbersomeness that has been put into place. I think there are
some hurdles in place.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Mr. Perry. And I told somebody, I said, listen, the way
this thing is written, because you can never back up a
standard, is that I think there is more time being taken than
needs to be taken on this because we are more interested in
getting it right than we are getting it fast.
Mr. Welch. All right. Let me just make a suggestion. I am
always open to improving the standard. OK? And I would be
willing to work with my colleagues and with you----
Mr. Perry. Let's do this.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. But the standards have made a
difference. You know, there are about 2.7 billion lightbulb
sockets where, if we use those, it is going to save homeowners
about 100 bucks a year. That is real money in Vermont, and I
know it is for some of your folks in Texas.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. Let's work on this together.
Mr. Welch. But let's not kill any notion of standards
because we can make progress there.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. And then, finally----
Mr. Perry. I don't think that is what--that is certainly
not my intention.
Mr. Welch. All right. Well, I am going to follow up with
your office.
Mr. Perry. Yes, fir.
Mr. Welch. Finally, the DOE loan program, there is about $5
billion in that. That actually gets out and works well. So,
let's get it out the door.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Leader Upton, for
hosting today's meeting.
Howdy, Secretary Perry. It is great to have you in front of
the committee again, and it is also great to have a fellow
Texan leading the Department of Energy, a State that has done
more than any other to reduce emissions, at the same time
becoming a leader in energy production for this country. That
has done two things. It has made the U.S. a net energy exporter
over time, and, also, we are part of the overall emissions
reductions in the United States, which leads the world in
emissions reduction among industrialized countries.
So, three quick things. The first one has to do with
nuclear energy. You talked about the impact of small modular
reactors, microreactors, and advanced nuclear reactors when it
comes to helping to decarbonize the environment. As you said
also, one of the essential elements of that is to have a new
fuel, high-assay, low-enriched uranium, to do that. Can you
expand on the importance of HALEU to be able to put these
reactors into service and, also, the impact it has on
decarbonizing the environment?
Mr. Perry. Sure. Mr. Flores, I think it is really important
that we recognize that the project that we are working on in
Piketon on the HALEU is the only domestically owned source of
HALEU. So, that is one of our reasons to be focused on that.
But these small modular reactors, we truly believe that
that is the answer to being able to have a reasonably priced,
sustainable civil nuclear program in the United States. So,
having that fuel available by a domestically owned company is
very important. I mean, without the fueling, then you are
wasting your time with all of the other work that you are
doing.
So, your question about SMRs, they are linked together. You
can't have one without the other. The SMR programs are going to
go forward. I have got a lot of faith that America will lead
the world in nuclear power. And when we do that, we will be
able to sell this innovation to the rest of the world and be
able to get old, inefficient greenhouse, massive-producing
power supplies out of the world's fleet out there and doing our
part not just for the United States, but for the entire world
from the standpoint of emissions reduction.
Mr. Flores. Mr. McNerney and I introduced legislation in
the House that actually passed the House unanimously last year
to help create that structure for HALEU, and I am hoping that
we can do that again and, also, get it to the Senate; get it to
the President's desk. Your Department provided good advice to
us in terms of the structure of that legislation. So, we hope
to get that back on the table before too long.
I would like to talk about another issue to expand on what
Mr. Bucshon was talking about in terms of the environmental
impact of silicon-based PV panels. That is a concern in terms
of the environmental impact at the end of their lives. You
don't have to respond to this. This is just a question. People
seem to think that lithium batteries are the way to go when it
comes to trying to make intermittent sources of electricity, to
make them part of a baseload power supply. Lithium has a
variety of environmental issues that are part of it, a part of
the end-of-life problems----
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Flores [continuing]. When batteries are disposed of.
And so, I would ask your Department, if you would, to be
looking at this in the future. It is going to be more of an EPA
issue, but the DOE is obviously going to have a seat at the
table. So, keep that in mind in your future plans.
Mr. Perry. EPA has probably has the back end of it. The
front of it is come up with innovative ideas and new compounds,
so that EPA doesn't have a problem.
Mr. Flores. Yes, that is a good idea. I like that.
So, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. I apologize--I
was in another meeting--for dashing up and down.
I would like to take a little bit of time discussing my
favorite topic, the Power Marketing Administrations,
specifically the 2020 budget proposal. At page 8 of your
testimony, you state, ``The budget proposes the sale of the
transmission assets of Western Area Power Administration, the
Bonneville Power Administration, and the Southwestern Power
Administration, and to reform the laws governing how the PMAs
establish power rates to require the consideration of market-
based incentives, including whether rates are just and
reasonable.''
This is exactly the same testimony that we had in the 2019
budget. And I think last year, when you came before the
committee, we chatted about this a bit. And at the time, you
said, ``I'm reminded of a Kenny Rogers song when he talked
about you need to know when to hold them and when to fold them.
Congress has been very clear about the issue. I will be more
than happy to carry the message back.'' So, the obvious
question, Mr. Secretary, is, were you able to follow up, take
that message back, and was it just not received?
Mr. Perry. I can't answer whether it was received or not.
It was given.
Mr. Schrader. All right. Well, I appreciate that, and I am
going to give you a little more ammunition.
Mr. Perry. But I will go on the record one more time in
saying that I suspect that the outcome is going to be the same
this time as it was in 2018 and 2017.
Mr. Schrader. Congress does have the ability to dispose of
what the taxpayers' use of our----
Mr. Perry. I know how to salute, sir.
Mr. Schrader. Well, let me help you a little bit here. Nine
members of this committee, including my fellow Northwest
colleagues, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Walden,
have asked our colleagues in the administration to please
reject this misguided proposal. As a Member in the Northwest, I
remain concerned about the administration's continued
insistence on this.
It seems ill-advised for several reasons. It is a nonprofit
Federal wholesale utility and power marketer. It receives no
congressional appropriations. It doesn't cost the taxpayer. It
must recover its costs with revenues that it earns from selling
wholesale power and its transmission services.
BPA provides approximately half the electricity used in the
Pacific Northwest, operates three-quarters of our high-voltage
transmission grid. Selling these assets would just fragment the
grid, cause national security issues. Requiring BPA to sell at
market rates would essentially be the death knell of BPA. The
whole goal here is to have low-cost energy, low-cost
opportunity for our municipalities as well as our industry
partners. They sell the power at cost. That is an advantage
economically to individuals and to businesses in the Pacific
Northwest.
We have had some problems with natural gas. Certainly, it
is competitive, putting pressure on BPA, the Bonneville Power
Administration. And we also have increased costs with mandated
spill to take care of the fish and wildlife mitigation out
there. Fully a third of our electric bill goes for fish
mitigation. Without BPA, the Federal Government would be having
to pick up those costs.
And frankly, at this point in time, it is really exciting.
The Bonneville Power Administration has entered into this
historic agreement with fish groups, industry groups,
municipalities, to share the Columbia River in a way that
allows for increased marketing opportunities to our neighbors
to the south that require a lot of energy during different
times of the day, during different times of the year. And you
get a lot of fish passage that heretofore has been a problem
with the dams in the river. So, it is an historic opportunity
to get us out of the courts and into the power generation
business and into the fish passage business, where all boats
rise at the same level.
So, I would just ask us to ask you to do the easiest thing
in the world. Just leave us alone at the end of the day, sir.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schrader. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Schrader, could I just share with you one
thing? We just left Oak Ridge, and I would like to bring to
your office and show you some technology there on new turbines
for hydro that they are working on at our national labs, in
conjunction with the private sector.
Mr. Schrader. All right.
Mr. Perry. So, I would like to bring those to you.
Mr. Schrader. Excellent.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary, for being here, and I appreciate
your work.
I appreciate very much the increased dollars that have been
put in for CESER. I think it is an important function, as we
are considering this week in the House potentially a
supplemental disaster funding package, and potentially more
hurricanes coming in the season that we can expect. How
important is it that DOE have the resources to proactively plan
for and deploy resources to respond to emergency situations in
carrying out this mission as the sector-specific agency for the
energy sector?
Mr. Perry. Yes, very important, sir. I mean, obviously,
this is one where the game never stops getting played, where
the bar is moved higher. Every time we come up with a patch or
a way to deflect those that would do nefarious deeds to our
national security through our electrical grid, they come up
with a new way to attack it. So, it is a never-ending--this is
just as important as what the DoD does on keeping this country
safe through the work that they do.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that. And representing the energy
district for Michigan on the banks of Lake Erie with nuclear
and all of the rest, we appreciate knowing that.
Would DOE be better positioned to carry out these functions
in the long term if the Assistant Secretary position
responsible for the functions were made permanent in your
organization?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, I think so.
Mr. Walberg. Then, let me cut to the chase and ask if you
would commit to working with Chairman Rush and myself on our
important legislation to elevate and ensure that these critical
functions will continue to be led by an Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Perry. In the appropriate way for me to participate,
yes, sir.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms.
O'Halleran, for 5 minutes. No, no, I am sorry. The gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Perry, for appearing before the
committee today to discuss the critical work underway at the
Department of Energy to modernize and support our economy.
Americans deserve access to reliable and efficient energy
resources, and I firmly believe the U.S. should always strive
to lead the world in innovation within the energy sector. It is
no secret that solar energy technologies are rapidly advancing.
It is also no secret that Arizona leads the Nation in total
days of sunshine per year. With the abundance of sun my State
has to offer, we are at the forefront of the energy transition,
and I am looking forward to working on legislation that
advances resilient, grid-scale storage technologies.
According to the Department's 2020 budget request, energy
storage can effectively buffer increased variable supply and
demand in our electric grids. While the Department has invested
significantly in research for grid-scale storage technology,
how will the proposed Advanced Energy Storage Initiative
supplement other research across the Department also related to
energy storage?
Mr. Perry. Mr. O'Halleran, less than 90 days ago, we were
outside of Phoenix, or Tucson, at a facility visiting that
solar-top-generated power that was going into the batteries, I
mean, an Arizona Power Service, APS, project out there. So,
they are a model for some of the Southwestern States to look at
from the standpoint of generation and storage of electrical
power.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Secretary.
Beyond research and tax incentives, are there other ways
Congress could further help storage technologies become
scalable into electric utility markets? Are targeted pilot
projects with local communities a possibility?
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, well, obviously, the work that is
being done at some of our national labs, I totally believe that
the holy grail of battery storage will be found in the not-too-
distant future, and I will suggest it will be a public-private
partnership with a national lab, a DOE national lab, and some
private sector partners.
Mr. O'Halleran. I would be interested in visiting one of
your laboratories also.
While our energy market continues to evolve, I continue to
maintain an ``all-of-the-above'' approach to energy policy.
However, I am mindful of the impacts felt in communities when a
coal-fired power plant closes. My district is home to the
Navajo Generation Station, which is facing hardship. In fact,
it is going to be closed. Its closure would simply devastate
the Navajo and Hopi Tribes.
Secretary, in terms of helping communities have access to
the resources they need for an economic transition of displaced
workers in these dire situations, what role can DOE and
Congress play? Cuts to the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program
are not going to help us.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, I think one of the ways--and this gets
back to Chairman Rush's effort on clean energy jobs. The
transition, if the decision is made to shut that plant down, I
think the focus on the diversity of that workforce and being
able to bring those individuals into some of the clean energy
jobs is one of the alternatives that we can do, too.
And the other side of it is that, hopefully, the innovation
that you are going to see out of, again, DOE labs dealing with
the usage of coal, and the technologies that come of that, can
keep that plant going and be able to be a source of energy and
a source of innovation for the country.
Mr. O'Halleran. It will be interesting to see what those
programs look like----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'Halleran [continuing]. Since the plants are scheduled
for closure across the entire Western United States fairly
quickly----
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. O'Halleran [continuing]. Within the next 10 years.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Secretary, for providing your
insight into these critical issues facing the energy sector. As
a member of this committee, we will continue to work on
ensuring the Department continues to advance American
leadership in energy policy. And I look forward to trying to
understand the entire Department's focus on renewables and the
ability to address the considerable impact climate change has
in our society.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. O'Halleran. And thank you, Secretary.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I know you have a hard stop. I
know you have a hard stop this morning at 12:30. We have three
more Members. Can you indulge us? If they will be brief, can
you indulge us?
Mr. Perry. And I will be brief, too, sir.
Mr. Rush. All right.
Mr. Perry. I promise.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Thank you, Secretary Perry, for being here, and thank you
for taking some extra time. I know you had a hard break.
Back in March of this year, President Trump released an
Executive Order on coordinating national resilience to
electromagnetic pulses. A key component of the President's
strategy is enhancing grid resiliency and hardening, which you
mentioned in your testimony, and I couldn't agree more.
Securing our Nation's electric grid infrastructure is vital to
our Nation.
But, down in Charleston, South Carolina, Clemson
University--go Tigers--and private partners like Duke Energy
have established the eGRID facility. It is providing a platform
for innovating and validating and testing multimegawatt
electrical grid components and real grid conditions without the
risk to the wider grid. This capability is needed to facilitate
the rapid introduction of new technologies in our grid system.
There is no other facility in the country with the capabilities
of the Clemson-Duke Energy eGRID, and the project is way ahead
of anyone else in the Nation.
I believe grid resiliency is critical to our national
security, but I am also a fiscal conservative and I don't
believe we should duplicate tax dollars and spending. The
obvious choice for completion of the testbed is at the eGRID
facility in Charleston, in conjunction with Clemson University.
It is the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars.
Secretary Perry, are you familiar with the work being done
at that facility?
Mr. Perry. Yes. This North American Energy Reliability and
Resiliency Model, I think it is a $30,000 program that I am
looking at here--excuse me--$30 million. I missed it by a few
zeroes there.
Mr. Duncan. Have you visited that facility?
Mr. Perry. No, sir, but----
Mr. Duncan. I know it is Clemson University and I know of
Texas A&M, but I want to invite you to come.
Mr. Perry. Texas A&M is playing Clemson this fall. So that
seems like it might be a good time for me to come visit. What
do you think, sir?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. I look forward to hosting you in South Carolina
and, hopefully, down in Charleston for that.
Mr. Perry. I have been there before. I hope the outcome is
different than it was the last time we were there.
Mr. Duncan. Right.
Mr. Perry. I am speaking from a Texas A&M perspective, of
course, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Duncan. Let me shift gears because I want you to come
down to Charleston, and we are going to make that happen,
because it is important for our Nation. The threat of natural
or manmade EMPs, and just where our grid system, this is a
vital component. There is also a drivetrain facility, which you
will see, testing all of the wind turbines for all the dynamics
that the wind can put on those. It is a neat facility. I was
down there Tuesday. And you will find it fascinating, and you
will understand how important that is to the Nation, just like
H Canyon is at Savannah River Site.
And I think you visited the Savannah River Site. H Canyon
is a chemical separation facility. It is vital to pit
production.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. New missions at the Savannah River Site that I
know you support, the transition from MOX over to pit
production is important. You have mentioned that. I want to
tell you, I stand with you on that for the folks down at the
Savannah River Site.
In the interest of time, I just want to mention one last
thing. It is something you and I agree with. A national
solution to a national problem, and that is Yucca Mountain. A
hundred and twenty-one sites around this country currently hold
commercial spent fuel. We also have defense waste sitting at
places like Savannah River and Hanford. Yucca Mountain is the
law of the land, and I support the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act. And I know you do as well. I look forward to
working with you and John Shimkus and others to get Yucca
Mountain back on track.
And I want to give you an opportunity to comment on either
Yucca Mountain, or anything you would like to, for this last
couple of seconds.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir. We have spent $8 billion on Yucca
Mountain. We spend $2 million a day keeping it right here. That
is the plan right now. And I don't think that is what Americans
want to see. I think they want to have a permanent repository.
The law of the land, you are correct, is Yucca, but we can't
get an answer on whether Yucca is the right place or some other
place is the proper disposal site unless we have the permitting
process going forward. So, we can stand up in front of
Americans and say we have found a solution to this $2-million-
a-day problem that we got, but also here is our solution to it;
here are the sites that we need to look at. And we can't do
that unless the permitting process at NRC goes forward and DOE.
Mr. Duncan. I will just remind this committee that
ratepayers paid for the construction and operation fees for
Yucca Mountain. In South Carolina, that has amounted to $1.3
billion--not tax dollars, ratepayer dollars. And it is the same
way in all the States. There is nuclear waste is sitting on the
shores of Lake Erie in Ohio, sitting on the shores of Lake
Keowee in South Carolina, and other places that we don't want
to see anything negative happening. Yucca Mountain is a
national solution to a national problem and something we need
to support the Secretary on and get Yucca Mountain back,
because, as he said, and I have said, it is the law of the
land.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perry, in 2017, the Department of Energy
finalized and published a comprehensive policy to incorporate
environmental justice into the decisionmaking process at the
Department. Secretary Perry, do you know what environmental
justice means?
Mr. Perry. I can tell you what it means to me.
Ms. Barragan. What does it mean to you?
Mr. Perry. Environmental justice to me is being able to pay
an electrical rate that I can afford and at the same time
knowing that the emissions are not going up because of a
decision that is made. I see environmental justice being
attacked every day when the folks in the Northeast have to pay
an exorbitant amount of money for the cost and the emissions
are going up. To me, that would be a----
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Secretary, let----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Social and an economic injustice.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Mr. Secretary, I represent a district
that is a majority minority. It is 88 percent Latino, African-
American. They disproportionately have the burden of injustices
that are happening from air pollution, from the lack of
efficiency, not investing enough in energy efficiency. But let
me tell you, your own report here says the Department of Energy
defines environmental justice as, quote, ``the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies''. That is directly from this
report here from your Department, and your photo is right in
the front here.
So, what progress has your Department made in achieving
these goals in the 2 years since it was published?
Mr. Perry. I would suggest we are making progress.
Ms. Barragan. OK, well, you know, that is not a very
specific answer. I would like to know what specific progress
you are making. Just to help remind you of the goals here, goal
No. 1 says to fully implement Executive Order 12898, the
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations''. Goal No. 3 says, ``to
minimize climate change impacts on vulnerable populations''.
Many of those populations are just like my district, low-
income, communities of color.
And I would like, if you could, please, to make sure that
you follow up with me on what progress your Department has
made. Unfortunately, your answer just that you are making
progress doesn't help us know what it is you are working on.
Mr. Perry. Well, can I expand then? I am just trying to
follow the chairman's lead and be as concise as I can be.
When you look at what the United States is doing from the
standpoint of reducing emissions, I think that goes right to
the heart of what you are talking about. That goes right to the
heart of, if your constituents care about the emissions going
down, the United States and what we are doing with liquefied
natural gas--as a matter of fact, I would think it would make
sense to go across the State of California and export that gas
off the West Coast somewhere, so they can go and impact the
rest of the globe somewhere. So, all of those things
collectively I think go to the heart of what you are talking
about from the standpoint of environmental justice.
And if we are going to be serious about this, we can't
block an emission-reducing fuel like natural gas from going
across New York into the Northeast. You can't block that type
of fuel going across your State to keep it from going to
somewhere in the world. I mean, you can't, on the one hand,
talk about environmental justice, and then, say, ``Oh, but we
can't send any of this fuel across our state because, for
whatever reason, we don't like that particular fuel.``
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Secretary, will you commit to giving me
in writing something about what you are doing on environmental
justice in your Department, to just supplement what you said
here today?
Mr. Perry. Sure. Absolutely.
Ms. Barragan. That would be great. I just want to say,
look, I know a lot of my colleagues have talked about the cuts
to research and development. I am a firm believer that we need
to fund, adequately fund, investment in renewable energy
programs. Because if we don't, it is going to put the U.S. at a
geopolitical disadvantage, considering how aggressively some
other nations are phasing out fossil fuels. And I think there
is a great tie here to environmental justice, and given time,
maybe we can have this conversation another time.
Mr. Perry. We will do it.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I know it
has been a long day. I apologize that I have not been here for
the entire hearing. I have been upstairs working on trying to
figure out ways to lower drug prices in another subcommittee,
and that is important as well. You are doing great work. We
appreciate you. When you come to testify, it is usually one of
my favorite days. So, I really do regret that I have not been
able to be here all day.
And I would just have to say that there is a lot of great
stuff going on. Now I am concerned about cuts to research. I
think there needs to be more money on research, but that needs
to be a parity between our fossil fuels and making sure that we
are finding the best ways that we can use them. As you know,
the rest of the world is not going to stop using fossil fuels,
even if we do.
And one of the things that is interesting is, a couple of
years ago, you all gave a research grant for trying to separate
rare earth minerals from coal.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Well, here is what happened. It has just been
really exciting, and I have just learned about this in the last
couple of weeks. I have been talking about it everywhere I go.
They haven't got that perfected. In fact, Dr. Yoon at
Virginia Tech, who I greatly respect, said they weren't ready
to go to phase 2; that DOE was working on it. They were hoping
you all might go to phase 1.5 on that. But they have licensed
that technology to steel mills in India. Why? Because, as a
part of their research, they are separating things from coal
and they can separate out the dirtier coal from the cleaner
coal, the higher-carbon coal. And now, we have got steel plants
in India that are going to use that technology to get a higher
grade of coal to burn, to make their steel, which means that
they are lowering their carbon footprint because of technology
financed, in part, by the Department of Energy at Virginia Tech
and other places. And that is progress.
When you say we are making progress, I don't know how you
could ever list out everything that you all are doing because,
as we work as a nation, both on renewables and on fossil fuels,
to make it better, to burn it cleaner, to do more, we are going
to find things that benefit the rest of the world as well. And
we should be able to export that. I congratulate you on that.
Are there any things that you all can do to help us export
those technologies as they come up? Because when we are dealing
with climate change and we are talking about CO2 in the
atmosphere, we are not talking about just the United States or
the State of Virginia.
By the way, thanks for stealing our coach at Virginia Tech,
my district, but that is all right, to Texas A&M in basketball.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perry. A good man.
Mr. Griffith. He is a good man.
But we can do a lot for the world if we will export
American technology----
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. To the rest of the world, so
they can lower their carbon footprint. Because the Indians are
going to burn coal, no matter what. The Sub-Saharan and African
nations have plenty of coal. They are going to burn it. What
say you?
Mr. Perry. Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. And is there anything that you can do to help
us export that technology as we come up with it?
Mr. Perry. It is really interesting, as I was having the
discourse previously and we were talking about our European
friends who are getting out of the natural gas--or, no, excuse
me--they are getting out of the coal. They are going to all
renewables, et cetera. And, you know, they criticize us for
leaving the Paris Accord.
Yet, what I tell them is, I said, when you all have the
reductions in emissions that the United States has, then you
can lecture me about getting out of the Paris Accord, but until
you do that, please don't. And then, when you close the door,
they say, ``And by the way, how can we buy some of that LNG?''
So, I mean, they get it, that it is the United States'
ability to deliver liquefied natural gas. It is our ability to
deliver technology like you are talking about to help lower
emissions around the world. That, I will suggest, is the
absolute definition of environmental justice.
Mr. Griffith. And you are absolutely right. And as a part
of that, we also keep rates low.
Mr. Perry. We do.
Mr. Griffith. I thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Secretary, for your
participation in today's hearing. And now, Mr. Secretary, I
know you have to leave. You really were gracious with your
time, and thank you so very much for your participation.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Now the Chair wants to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witness who has appeared.
And I ask, Mr. Secretary, if you will respond promptly to
any such questions that you may receive.
The Chair has a unanimous consent request to enter into the
record the following submissions: a study from the Brookings
Institute entitled ``Advancing Inclusion Through Clean Energy
Jobs,'' a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association
entitled ``Diversity Best Practices Guide for the Solar
Industry,'' and an article from the Alliance to Save Energy
entitled ``Growth in Energy Efficiency Demands Investment in a
Highly Skilled Workforce.''
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The Alliance to Save Energy article appears at the
conclusion of the hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Brookings Institute study and the Solar Energy Industries
Association report as well as a Department of Energy FY 2020 Budget in
Brief report have been retained in committee files and also are
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109433.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]