[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM LAB TO MARKET:
ACCELERATING OUR PROGRESS
TOWARD ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
July 17, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-803PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas BRIAN BABIN, Texas
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JERRY McNERNEY, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
July 17, 2020
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Witnesses:
Ms. Jetta Wong, President, JLW Advising and Former Director,
Office of Technology Transitions, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Ms. Jennifer States, Director for Blue Economy, DNV GL and
Project Director, Washington Maritime Blue
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Ms. Farah Benahmed, Climate and Energy Policy Advisor, Third Way
Oral Statement............................................... 39
Written Statement............................................ 41
Dr. Emily Reichert, Chief Executive Officer, Greentown Labs
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Dr. Lee Cheatham, Director of Technology Deployment and Outreach,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 63
Written Statement............................................ 65
Discussion....................................................... 76
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Jetta Wong, President, JLW Advising and Former Director,
Office of Technology Transitions, U.S. Department of Energy.... 100
Ms. Jennifer States, Director for Blue Economy, DNV GL and
Project Director, Washington Maritime Blue..................... 104
Ms. Farah Benahmed, Climate and Energy Policy Advisor, Third Way. 109
Dr. Emily Reichert, Chief Executive Officer, Greentown Labs...... 110
Dr. Lee Cheatham, Director of Technology Deployment and Outreach,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.......................... 115
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 118
Letters submitted by Representative Ben Ray Lujan, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 120
Article submitted by Ms. Jetta Wong, President, JLW Advising and
Former Director, Office of Technology Transitions, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 123
FROM LAB TO MARKET:
ACCELERATING OUR PROGRESS
TOWARD ECONOMIC RECOVERY
AND A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:33 p.m.,
via Webex, Hon. Lizzie Fletcher [Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. This hearing will come to order. I
have my gavel. And without objection, I'm authorized to declare
a recess at any time.
Before I deliver opening remarks, I want to note a few
things because this Committee is meeting today virtually, and
there are a couple of reminders for the Members about the
conduct of the hearing before we get started.
First, Members should keep their video feed on as long as
they are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for
their own microphones. Don't start talking when you're muted,
as I just did. Please also keep your microphones muted unless
you're speaking. And finally, if Members have documents they
wish to submit for the record, please email them to the
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
the hearing.
One more matter before we get going, we may have Mr.
Lujan, who is not a Committee Member, but may try to join us
today. He's very interested in these topics. And if there's no
objection, we will allow him to join the hearing.
OK. Hearing no objections, we will welcome Mr. Lujan if
he's able to join us.
We'll now proceed to our opening remarks and then move on
to the panelists.
So, good afternoon, and thank you all to--for being here
today virtually, and thank you to our witnesses that are
joining us. And I'm excited this afternoon to discuss the
importance of advancing the commercialization of new energy
technologies as an important component of our economic recovery
and--from this ongoing health crisis.
Here in Houston, we're the Nation's energy leaders, and we
believe in an all-of-the-above approach. Texas produces more
energy than any other State, and we are always coming up with
new ideas to do things bigger and better. Texas energy isn't
just the way we get electricity; it's an investment in the
economic development of our communities and our businesses.
And while my home State of Texas is well-known for being
the country's largest oil and gas producer, we are also the
largest wind energy producer in the country, we are now tied as
the fourth-largest generator of solar power. We're also leading
the way in technologies like carbon capture.
The heart of clean energy lies in supporting
entrepreneurship, startups, and innovation. Clean energy
technology faces unique barriers to commercialization that
other technologies aren't subject to, including high upfront
capital costs, long development times, and the need to overcome
incumbent technologies. That's why we need targeted programs to
overcome these barriers and reap the benefits of investing in
clean energy.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has championed several
important programs to help reduce barriers to commercialization
of clean energy technology. This includes programs to
commercialize research done at the national laboratories,
support clean energy incubators across the Nation, and provide
business training and other commercialization assistance to
national lab employees and entrepreneurs.
These and other programs help bolster the efforts of our
fantastic panelists here today, each of whom contributes to the
important mission of strengthening clean energy
commercialization. I'm especially pleased to have Dr. Emily
Reichert here on a panel from Greentown Labs. This leading
clean energy incubator announced last month they would be
opening a new incubator right here in my hometown of Houston.
If we do this right, we can position our country to be the
clean energy technology exporter to the world. Much like the
space race of the 20th century, our Nation is at a critical
moment where we can choose to lead the way in developing 21st-
century technologies or we could lose that role to other
countries who are investing much more in these efforts at this
time. I will do what I can to make sure we are leaders, not
followers. Investing in clean energy means investing in the
economic future not only of Houston, not only of Texas, but of
our entire country.
I want to thank again our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to all of our witnesses that
are joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of
advancing the commercialization of new energy technologies as
an important component of our economic recovery from the
ongoing health crisis.
Here in Houston, Texas, we are the Nation's energy leaders
and believe in an all-of-the-above approach. Texas produces
more energy than any other state and we are always coming up
with new ideas to do things bigger and better. In Texas, energy
isn't just the way get electricity, it's an investment in the
economic development of our communities and businesses.
While my home state of Texas is well known for being the
country's largest oil and gas producer, we are also the largest
wind energy producer in the country as well and are now tied as
the fourth largest generator of solar power. We are also
leading the way in technologies like carbon capture.
At the heart of clean energy lies supporting
entrepreneurship, startups, and innovation. Clean energy
technology faces unique barriers to commercialization that
other technologies aren't subject to, including high up-front
capital costs, long development times, and the need to overcome
incumbent technologies. That's why we need targeted programs to
overcome these barriers and reap the benefits of investing in
clean energy.
The Department of Energy has championed several important
programs to help reduce barriers to commercialization of clean
energy technologies. This includes programs to commercialize
research done at the national laboratories, support clean
energy incubators across the Nation, and provide business
training and other commercialization assistance to national lab
employees and entrepreneurs.
These and other programs help bolster the efforts of our
fantastic panelists here today, each of whom contributes to the
important mission of strengthening clean energy
commercialization. I am especially pleased to have Dr. Emily
Reichert here on our panel from Greentown Labs. This leading
clean energy incubator announced last month that they would be
opening a new incubator right here in my hometown of Houston.
If we do this right, we can position our country to be the
clean energy technology exporter of the world. Much like the
Space Race of the 20th century, our Nation is at a critical
moment where we can choose to lead the way in developing 21st
century technologies, or we could lose that role to other
countries who are investing much more in these efforts. I will
do what I can to make sure we are leaders, not followers.
Investing in clean energy innovation means investing in the
economic future of Houston, Texas, and our entire country.
I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. And with that, I would like to
recognize Mr. Weber for an opening statement. I'm not seeing
Mr. Weber.
Voice. Mr. Weber is not currently on the call, ma'am.
Chairwoman Fletcher. OK. I'd like to go ahead. I believe
Mr. Lucas is on the call. I think I see him, so, Mr. Lucas, you
are recognized for opening remarks if you would like to give
them.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking forward to
today's hearing on Federal technology transfer initiatives,
which is incredibly important to the success of U.S. research
and development (R&D).
Technology transfer maximizes the return on investments of
Federal research dollars by putting groundbreaking technologies
and scientific discoveries in the hands of the private sector.
It is an essential component of any plan to maintain U.S.
leadership in science and technology, and it's why we have a
history of bipartisan support for it. And supporting our
Federal research enterprise has never been more important.
Today, in addition to the task of recovering from the
COVID-19 pandemic and restarting both our economy and our
research enterprise, the United States is facing two
fundamental challenges to our competitiveness and success as a
nation. First, foreign countries, especially China, are
threatening to outpace us in science and technology,
jeopardizing the long-term stability of our supply chains,
research workforce, and technological growth. Second, we must
respond to our changing climate and develop next-generation
technologies to understand it, address it, and manage its
effects.
Back in January, I introduced H.R. 5685, the ``Securing
American Leadership in Science and Technology Act,'' which
creates a long-term strategy for investment in basic research
and infrastructure to protect these economic, environmental,
and national security interests of the United States. A key
provision of this bill is to provide the effectiveness of
Federal R&D investments through comprehensive technology
transfer reform, which promotes both better collaboration
between the Federal Government and private industry using a
whole-approach-of-government activity. We need this focus not
just at the Department of Energy, but also through the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency,
the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
We know that our technology transfer capacities are highly
diverse and extend well beyond the reach of any one agency.
When we consider technology transfer policy, we must ensure
that all of our Federal research agencies have tools that they
require for efficiently and effectively transferring R&D
outcomes to the private sector where they can be utilized by
American industry.
Today's hearing gives us the chance to consider
legislation to authorize tech transfer activities at the
Department of Energy. I believe that limiting our technology
transfer discussion to the scope of a single agency's
activities, we may be missing out on the big-picture issues,
collaborative mechanisms, and innovative new ways to facilitate
technology transfer.
That said, I support both the concepts outlined within
these bills, commonsense provisions in the regional clean
energy innovation partnerships, the small business voucher
program, and the establishment of signature authority for
national laboratory directors, an issue we have long championed
on the Science Committee.
I believe there are important governmentwide lessons to be
learned from the technology transfer activities at DOE national
laboratories, and I am pleased that we have Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory's (PNNL's) Dr. Lee Cheatham with us today.
Not only does the doctor serve as the Director of the
Technology Deployment and Outreach at PNNL, and Chair of the
National Laboratory Technology Transfer Working Group (NLTT),
he also brings insight into the broader Federal activities
through his service on the National Science Foundation Business
and Operations Advisory Committee.
And I also want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher for holding
this hearing and all of our witnesses for their testimony
today. I commend my friends across the aisle for prioritizing
this issue and looking forward to a productive and valuable
discussion. I feel confident that by working together we can
continue to encourage innovation across the U.S. research
enterprise and give our Federal agencies the resources they
need to deliver on our national investment in science and
technology.
And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
I'm looking forward to today's hearing on Federal
technology transfer initiatives, which is incredibly important
to the success of U.S. research and development.
Technology transfer maximizes the return on investment of
Federal research dollars by putting groundbreaking technologies
and scientific discoveries in the hands of the private sector.
It is an essential component of any plan to maintain U.S.
leadership in science and technology, and it's why we have a
history of bipartisan support for it. And supporting our
federal research enterprise has never been more important.
Today, in addition to the task of recovering from the
COVID-19 pandemic and restarting both our economy and our
research enterprise, the United States is facing two
fundamental challenges to our competitiveness and success as a
nation:
First, foreign countries, especially China, are threatening
to outpace us in science and technology, jeopardizing the long-
term stability of our supply chains, research workforce, and
technological growth.
Second, we must respond to our changing climate and develop
next-generation technologies to understand it, address it, and
manage its effects.
Back in January, I introduced H.R. 5685, the Securing
American Leadership in Science and Technology Act, which
creates a long-term strategy for investment in basic research
and infrastructure to protect these economic, environmental,
and national security interests of the United States. A key
provision of this bill is to improve the effectiveness of
Federal R&D investments through comprehensive technology
transfer reform which promotes better collaboration between the
federal government and private industry using a whole of
government approach.We need this focus not just at the
Department of Energy, but also through the National Science
Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
We know that our technology transfer capabilities are
highly diverse and extend well beyond the reach of any one
agency. When we consider technology transfer policies, we must
ensure that all our Federal research agencies have the tools
they require to efficiently and effectively transfer R&D
outcomes to the private sector where they can be utilized by
American industry.
Today's hearing gives us the chance to consider legislation
to authorize tech transfer activities at the Department of
Energy. I believe that limiting our technology transfer
discussion to the scope of a single agency's activities, we may
be missing out on big picture issues, collaborative mechanisms,
and innovative new ways to facilitate technology transfer.
That said, I support many of the concepts outlined within
these bills--common sense provisions like the regional clean
energy innovation partnerships, the small business voucher
program, and the establishment of signature authority for
national laboratory directors--an issue we have long championed
on the Science Committee. I believe there are important
governmentwide lessons to be learned from the technology
transfer activities of the DOE national laboratories and I am
pleased that we have Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's
Dr. Lee Cheatham with us today. Not only does Dr. Cheatham
serve as Director of Technology Deployment and Outreach at
PNNL, and Chair of the National Laboratory Technology Transfer
Working Group, he also brings insight into broader Federal
activities through his service on the National Science
Foundation's Business and Operations Advisory Committee.
I want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher for holding this
hearing and all of our witnesses for their testimony today. I
commend my friends across the aisle for prioritizing this issue
and look forward to a productive and valuable discussion. I
feel confident that by working together we can continue to
encourage innovation across the U.S. research enterprise and
give our Federal agencies the resources they need to deliver on
our national investment in science and technology.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Lucas.
If there are other Members of the Committee who wish to
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this hearing
today, and I would also like to thank our witnesses for
participating.
The Department of Energy's technology transfer activities
are critical to getting the fruits of our public investments in
clean energy research, development, and demonstration into the
hands of the American people. Technology transfer takes on many
forms, ranging from additional funding to first-of-a-kind
technologies, to training scientists to think more about how to
commercialize their discoveries, to providing the private
sector with greater access to our national laboratories'
facilities and expertise.
Every technology's pathway to market adoption is different,
but the benefits of their transfer are clear. Technology
commercialization leads to licensing revenue for federal and
university laboratories, new products and services for the
American people, and a more competitive U.S. economy that
supports jobs and attracts talent.
We are in the midst of a global COVID-19 pandemic that
shows little signs of abating. We have had historic job losses
and our economy has suffered significant dislocations.
Recovering from this pandemic is going to take time, resources,
and leadership. Job creation is going to be a priority, and
DOE's technology transfer programs can play an important role
in promoting our economic recovery.
In addition to the contribution technology transfer makes
to our economic growth, it can also play an important role in
our transition to a clean energy future. For example, DOE's
Technology Commercialization Fund provides funding to national
labs-often in partnership with private sector partners-to
commercialize promising lab technologies. These funds and
public-private partnerships bring new clean energy technologies
one step closer to making a real difference in mitigating the
most significant potential impacts of the climate crisis.
But despite DOE's ongoing work, we can and must do more.
Providing additional funding to research and demonstrate those
technologies is critical, but we'll also need effective
technology transfer processes to push resulting inventions into
the marketplace as quickly as possible.
With all that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our
esteemed panel of witnesses and welcome them to this hearing.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. This Committee is no stranger
to the work being done at the Department of Energy's National
Laboratories. Whether it's synthesizing new materials or
pioneering advanced nuclear reactors, the National Labs have an
established history of being at the forefront of scientific
discovery. But that is just the first step.
The commercialization of technologies, including those that
begin at the National Labs, face unique obstacles before
widespread utilization or deployment. Those obstacles include
lengthy development times, high upfront costs, and lack of
desire to replace current technology. It is what we so often
hear referred to as the ``Valley of Death.''
That is why DOE established their Office of Technology
Transitions (OTT) in 2015. OTT's goal is to foster partnerships
that guide innovations from the lab into the marketplace by
streamlining access to information and to the National Lab's
user facilities. One example of this is their development of
the Lab Partnering Service (LPS), which connects investors to
experts, competitive technology, world-class facilities, and
partnering opportunities.
Today's hearing is a legislative one, as we review several
DOE tech transfer bills. The first, a draft version of the
Energizing Technology Transfer Act, authorizes a broad range of
DOE's tech transfer activities including many helpful
provisions for the DOE national laboratories. I agree that
there exists an opportunity to improve technology transfer
between DOE and private industry by enhancing coordination and
cutting red tape.
We can require DOE to maximize return on R&D investment by
better managing research efforts across the Department to save
money, reduce waste, and prevent duplication. But I hope we
don't waste this opportunity today, and on this legislation, by
focusing most of our attention on the narrow field of clean
energy technology. Don't get me wrong, I understand that clean
energy technologies face unique challenges when it comes to the
entering themarketplace, but on an issue as important as this
and on a portfolio as broad as DOE's, we cannot afford to have
tunnel vision on a singular issue.
Federal tech transfer authorities like OTT can accelerate
the adoption of advanced technologies over a wide range of
areas. For example, recently, we've seen OTT go live with a
COVID-19 portal can quickly connect experienced researchers
with information about facilities that may be useful in their
efforts to contribute to the fight against the pandemic.
As we evaluate how to respond to today's current public
health crisis, it is clear that clean energy technologies,
while important, are just one part of the bigger picture. There
are so many more opportunities for innovation in this time of
economic recovery. We cannot afford to limit ourselves to one
option and be caught flat footed when the next challenge
presents itself down the road.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Lee Cheatham, the
Director of Technology Deployment and Outreach at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory on this topic of broad DOE tech
transfer applications. Dr. Cheatham will provide a unique
perspective as he has hands-on experience with DOE tech
transfer related to digital recording, a more resilient power
grid, threat awareness and detection, and cancer treatment.
We'll also use today's hearing to review the IMPACT for
Energy Act, which establishes a DOE affiliated non-profit
foundation that would perform outreach to the private sector.
While I believe this could be a useful tool for the National
Labs to share ideas and engage with the public and increase
training of new researchers, I am concerned that this bill does
not include specified funds to be authorized. I hope today we
can hear suggestions on just how much this effort will cost and
what specific authorization levels are needed for its success.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to
be with us today. I look forward to a productive discussion
with recommendations on how to improve the legislation before
us.
This is the proper legislative process and I want to
applaud the Chairwoman for attempting to make this as open and
bipartisan as possible. Thank you Chairwoman and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Fletcher. And at this time I will go ahead and
introduce our witnesses. First, we have Ms. Jetta Wong. She's
President of JLW Advising and Senior Fellow in the Clean Energy
Innovation Program at the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. She's also former Director of the Department of
Energy's Office of Technology Transitions (OTT). Before her
time at DOE, Ms. Wong served as a staff member for the House
Science Committee and held positions with the Union for
Concerned Scientists and the Environment and Energy Study
Institute. Welcome back to the Committee, Ms. Wong.
Ms. Jennifer States is the Director for Blue Economy at
DNV GL and the Project Director at Washington Maritime Blue.
Her experience includes work at the Port of Los--of Port
Angeles, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managing a wind
energy development company, as well as serving as City
Counselor for the city of Sequim, Washington.
Ms. Farah Benahmed is a Climate and Energy Policy Advisor
at Third Way. Prior to joining Third Way, she worked in the
Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and at Avar
Consulting.
Dr. Emily Reichert is Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at
Greentown Labs. Dr. Reichert studied--started her career at
Arthur D. Little as a Ph.D. scientist and researcher and then
transitioned to become the Director of Business Operations at
the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry before going
on to found Greentown Labs.
Last but certainly not least, Dr. Lee Cheatham is the
Director of Technology Deployment and Outreach at Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory. Before joining PNNL, Dr.
Cheatham led Brookhaven National Lab's Office of Strategic
Partnerships and was Chief Operating Officer and General
Manager of Commercialization at the Biodesign Institute at
Arizona State University.
I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today. As our
witnesses should know, you will each have five minutes for your
spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in
the record for the hearing. When you have all completed your
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions from the
Members. Each Member will have five minutes to question the
panel.
We will start with Ms. Wong and go in the order of
introductions, so, Ms. Wong, please, you may begin.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JETTA WONG,
PRESIDENT, JLW ADVISING, AND FORMER DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Ms. Wong. All right. So, first of all, thank you, Ranking
Member Lucas of the Full Committee, and then of course
Chairwoman Fletcher and Ranking Member Weber and all the
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear here before the Committee today to testify on technology
transfer and commercialization at the U.S. Department of Energy
and to discuss how these activities will contribute to the
economic recovery.
Over the coming decades, the world economy must make the
transition to low-carbon and no-carbon energy. This transition
will require accelerated innovation. The United States' strong
support for energy research and development should position it
well to lead the global energy transition, but the United
States has difficulty moving new technologies from early
discovery to scale. No one entity in the U.S. energy innovation
system is responsible for bringing new technologies across the
fabled valley of death between proof of concept and early
adoption into the market. This gap in the Nation's energy
innovation system could open the way for China and other
countries to capitalize on U.S. investment and thereby reap the
economic benefits so badly needed in our country, especially
right now.
The two bills up for discussion today will help close this
gap. My testimony will cover three important areas to
strengthen these bills and DOE's ability to help the country
recover from our current economic crisis. First, if Congress
wants to increase technology transfer and commercialization at
the Department of Energy, it needs to resource and prioritize
it with new programs and authorities.
Second, Congress needs to create programs which
incorporate demand or user pull through the full innovation
process. These programs need to include a diverse network of
institutions both public and private, which allow for feedback
loops from later stages of the innovation process to earlier
ones.
Third, and finally, Congress needs to provide DOE more
flexibility to pilot, evaluate, and scale existing and new
programs which enable the private sector engagement that I
recommended in No. 2.
With these three high-level elements in mind, I commend
the Committee for the balanced and thoughtful programs and
policies identified in the Energizing Technology Transfer Act
discussion draft. It authorizes several programs that DOE has
piloted and provides important direction and funding for those
programs to be successful.
However, the new language for the Technology
Commercialization Fund appears to remove the requirement for
private-sector engagement and should be reconsidered.
Additionally, the draft bill does not fix one of the most
vexing issues with the Technology Commercialization Fund, which
most people call the ``color-of-money'' issue. DOE implements a
complicated, slow, and restrictive process over several budget
lines. This process inadvertently pushes these kinds of
projects to the bottom of the priority list for DOE's
technology offices. I recognize that this is both an
authorizing and an appropriations issue, but I urge the
Committee to reexamine the convoluted process and to amend the
language to provide more flexibility through one fund with no
restrictions to the kind of energy technologies funded.
The reforms in the energizing bill are important, yet more
must be done to drive R&D from early stage discovery projects
to commercial products. The bipartisan and bicameral bill and
the IMPACT bill cosponsored by Mr. McNerney, who I see here,
Mr. Casten, and Mr. Tonko--I don't know if he's here today--
directs the Secretary of Energy to create a not-for-profit
energy foundation, which is one way to drive this kind of
activity.
In May, I co-authored with David Hart of the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation a report called ``Mind the
Gap: A Design for a New Energy Technology Commercialization
Foundation,'' which lays out a vision for such a foundation.
The ETCF Act would be authorized by Congress to work closely
with DOE and would help fill the valley of death by allowing
energy innovators access to DOE's tremendous technical
expertise and world-class facilities. It would encourage DOE-
funded researchers to more aggressively seek commercial
applications for their discoveries and connect them with
partners, funding, and tools to do so. It draws on the
precedent set by other congressionally authorized foundations,
and, like those foundations, it would complement and supplement
DOE's own activities.
If the United States is to lead the world toward a cleaner
energy future and gain the economic, security, and
environmental benefits of that leadership, it must fill the
gaps in its energy innovation system. Both of the bills
discussed today will help fill that gap.
Thank you so much for this opportunity, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Wong. Ms. States.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JENNIFER STATES,
DIRECTOR FOR BLUE ECONOMY, DNV GL,
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON MARITIME BLUE
Ms. States. Thank you to Chairman Lucas, Chairwoman
Fletcher, Ranking Member Weber, and Members of this
Subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
As the Director for Blue Economy at DNV GL, I serve as a
conduit within our globally diverse company for crosscutting
activities in the energy and maritime sectors in North America.
I also serve as Project Director for Washington Maritime Blue,
the newly formed cluster organization that is a partnership
between public, private, community organizations, and research
institutions working in collaboration to implement maritime
clean energy and join innovation projects as part of Washington
State's strategy for the blue economy. Together, we find
solutions that create economic growth, healthy ecosystems, and
thriving communities.
In my 20 years of renewable energy and cleantech
experience, I have had the opportunity to cross over into
industry, nonprofit, government, and research environments.
This includes work at PNNL within Department of Energy's
technology offices and economic development at a port
authority. This has crystallized my understanding of how
crosscutting collaboration is key to accelerating clean energy
innovation, but we need new funding models that can build the
foundations to enable collaboration and increase the pace of
innovation and commercialization faster than we are able to
achieve within our own individual silos.
Our world has changed in the blink of an eye. The COVID-19
crisis has demonstrated the need for rapid response and
collaboration across diverse entities. Critical new research
innovations and developments are being fast-tracked to hasten
the medical and economic response, but no one government entity
has been able to act fast enough or on its own to address the
rapidly evolving situations. Partnerships are critical for
deploying the necessary support.
We are facing a critical need and opportunity to
accelerate the commercialization of clean energy technologies.
We need to embrace this opportunity both for economic and
environmental reasons to reduce emissions, as well as create
well-paying clean-energy jobs to propel the United States from
our current economic crisis.
From global to local regulations, DNV GL's clients are
dealing with an unprecedented need to innovate and meet
requirements to stay competitive. For example, the
International Maritime Organization has set ambitious CO2
emission reductions that the shipping industry is currently not
on target to meet. We must accelerate the availability of clean
energy infrastructure at our ports and promote vessel uptake of
new technologies such as batteries and alternative fuels.
In Norway, I've seen the industry and government alike
calling for stricter regulations because they know their deep
investments in new technologies are giving them a competitive
edge in global markets. If the United States is to compete, we
need to leverage our collective assets more effectively and
target investments into meeting our crosscutting clean energy
challenges.
The bills before you today offer several potential
solutions, but I want to highlight the creation of the
Department of Energy foundation as proposed in the IMPACT for
Energy Act and the regional clean innovation partnerships, as
proposed in the Energizing Technology Transfer Act. The
regional partnerships create key public support for activities,
which is critical for enabling public--excuse me, private
participation and leveraging of private resources.
The IMPACT for Energy foundation's purpose aligns with
that of Washington Maritime Blue, by fostering collaborations
and partnerships with different entities, leveraging
technologies for new product development, and supporting
regional economic development. Maritime Blue has demonstrated
this model can work, but a state-based effort can only do so
much. We need to tap into a broader pool of expertise,
facilities, and funding to be able to implement and advance
these innovations. The formation of the foundation is essential
for creating this enabling environment for crosscutting
collaboration.
We have an example within Maritime Blue that is a
crosscutting collaboration for a 1-megawatt mobile shore power
hydrogen system for Tacoma Power that would demonstrate the
potential of formic acid as a liquid hydrogen carrier, but we
have--and, fortunately, the Department of Energy had a funding
opportunity for hydrogen at ports, but we have run into many
difficulties in trying to implement this project that is so
crosscutting, bringing all the entities together, and dealing
with several of the bureaucratic barriers faced by private
companies, especially small private companies that are just
starting to scale, including OCO, Inc., our partner on this
project.
A new model is needed to bring industry to the table in a
way that allows us to work together to accelerate the necessary
innovations and create new green jobs. The proposed bills
provide opportunities to achieve collaboration and the timing
and need to come together and solve our economic and
environmental challenges could not be more critical. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. States follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. States. Ms. Benahmed,
you're next.
TESTIMONY OF MS. FARAH BENAHMED,
CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY ADVISOR, THIRD WAY
Ms. Benahmed. Ranking Member Lucas, Chairwoman Fletcher,
Ranking Member Weber, and Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I'm honored to speak
before you at a time when our Nation faces enormous challenges
and needs equally great solutions.
I would like to thank the Committee and others in Congress
who have supported major policies like the CARES Act and the
HEROES Act in flattening the curve of COVID-19 cases, saving
American lives and protecting America's workers and businesses
from the economic downturn this pandemic has caused.
While we work to resolve the public health and economic
crises, the growing threat of climate change has not gone away.
How we choose to rebuild will determine not only the speed and
scale of our economic recovery but also our ability to reach
net zero emissions by midcentury. With the enormous economic
opportunity in the clean energy transition, other countries are
racing to establish themselves as market leaders for our
emerging clean energy technologies. As a long-standing world
leader in innovation, the United States has the institutions,
resources, and capabilities to reap a major share of the
benefits as an inventor and exporter of clean energy
technologies. Simultaneously, these investments will create
jobs, buildup small businesses, and make the U.S. economy more
resilient.
There are number of ways the Federal Government could
advance clean energy innovation. My testimony will focus on the
following policy goals: emergency relief for clean energy
startups, increasing investment in clean energy innovation,
committing to clean energy demonstrations, and establishing and
scaling technology transfer programs.
First and foremost, COVID-19 has created immense market
uncertainty as the pandemic runs rampant across the United
States. The pandemic could take many small businesses down,
including clean energy startups, without concerted Federal
action. As part of its broader emergency measures to stabilize
the economy and prevent further job loss, Congress must ensure
that an entire generation of early stage innovative companies
does not die on the vine. Congress should consider temporarily
waiving cost-share requirements, eliminating government payment
delays, optimizing the payment protection program, providing
no-cost extensions in emergency cash grants, and expanding the
small business innovation research program (SBIR).
Second, the United States has been falling short in terms
of public energy research and development spending relative to
national GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at a time when other
countries are competing to capture their share of what is a $40
trillion opportunity. Effectively tackling the economic and
climate crises must include at least a doubling of Federal
investment in clean energy innovation over the next decade.
Funding for the Department of Energy must be increased to match
the scale of the climate crisis, and the structure should be
updated to maximize efficient utilization of these resources.
Third, we need to give the innovations we're investing in
a greater chance of commercial success. Today, clean energy
researchers and entrepreneurs face an innovation gap struggling
to secure either private-sector investment or Federal funding
for their technology projects, especially in later stages. This
valley of death where a lack of Federal funding kills off--or a
lack of funding kills off many promising technologies before
they can reach their full potential can leave economically
viable solutions behind. Accelerating clean energy innovation
must include the Federal Government's commitment to clean
energy demonstrations. Congress should start by investing in
the demonstrations that could quickly receive funding and start
making an economic impact in the near future.
Last, DOE and other Federal agencies have a wide range of
programs with a proven track record of supporting talented
entrepreneurs to create high-quality jobs. As Congress crafts
economic stimulus measures, it must ensure that technology
transfer programs have the necessary authorizations and
appropriations to rebuild a larger, more dynamic startup
ecosystem across the United States.
The Energy Technology Transfer Act enhances and expands
many DOE technology transfer programs, conveying the serious
leadership and thoroughness of this Committee to address
climate change. I also commend the bill for prioritizing the
Office of Technology Transitions and its mission around climate
change. Congress should take additional actions to strengthen
OTT, most notably by giving the Office its own budget line to
enable greater certainty and direction in regards to Federal
spending.
Furthermore, scaling the technologies we need to fight
climate change will require large-scale efforts beyond the
programs at DOE. The bipartisan, bicameral IMPACT for Energy
Acts aims to establish a nonprofit foundation aligned with
DOE's mission with the kind of creative thinking needed to meet
the scale of the crisis. Like other successfully Federal--
federally authorized foundations, a DOE foundation would
increase private investment, public-private collaboration, and
access to DOE's resources and facilities.
The challenges of the crisis before us are a massive
undertaking. Carrying out energy innovation policies can
support struggling businesses and workers now and drive long-
term economic growth while also putting the United States on a
faster, fairer path to net zero emissions by 2050 at the
latest.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and
for the Committee's efforts on key legislation like the ones
we're discussing today. I look forward to the continued work in
progress on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benahmed follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Benahmed. Dr.
Reichert, you're next.
TESTIMONY OF DR. EMILY REICHERT,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GREENTOWN LABS
Dr. Reichert. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking
Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee for giving me the
opportunity to testify on the role the Department of Energy's
technology transfer activities can play in our economic
recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
My name is Emily Reichert, and I'm the CEO of Greentown
Labs, the largest climate tech incubator in North America
located just outside of Boston in Somerville, Massachusetts.
Founded in 2011, our mission is to provide startups with the
community, resources, and connections their companies need to
thrive. What began as four startups really just looking to
share the cost of rent has grown into a community of more than
100 early stage companies tackling challenges within the
largest greenhouse gas emitting sectors: electricity,
buildings, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing.
Since our founding, we've supported more than 280 startups that
have created more than 6,500 jobs, raised more than $850
million in capital, and generated at least $1.5 billion in
regional economic impact.
Since its inception, Greentown's business model has relied
mostly on private-sector funding. The membership fees paid by
our startups and direct support from more than 50 corporate
partners. These partners help us meet our operating expenses,
keep cost for startups low, and include world-leading energy
companies such as Shell, Chevron, BHP, NG, EDF, Veolia, and
NRG.
With the support of many of these partners, last month, we
announced our plans for our first-ever out-of-state expansion
to Houston, Texas. Opening in spring 2021, Greentown Houston
will be the first climate-tech-focused incubator in the city.
Our aim is to build a bridge between Boston and Houston and
have the best and brightest engineering and business minds
working together to address climate change.
In fact, Massachusetts can provide an important case study
for clean energy as a driver for economic recovery and growth.
Since the end of the recession, the clean energy industry here
has grown by 86 percent with 111,800 clean energy workers in
the State as of 2019. Already strong in Texas, the clean energy
sector there has massive potential to drive recovery from
COVID-19, and the strong engineering talent base there can be
redeployed to address climate change through cleantech
innovation.
With this in mind, Greentown is thrilled to provide its
support for the proposed Energizing Technology Transfer Act and
the IMPACT for Energy Act. The provisions of these acts will be
crucial for the recovery and growth driven by the cleantech
industry.
COVID-19 has posed unprecedented challenges for both
cleantech startups and cleantech incubators. For cleantech
startups, investments and hiring of new employees has been
delayed as startups think to conserve cash for longer runways
before new funding can be secured. COVID-19 has also made it
more challenging for them to achieve technical and business
milestones due to loss of lab access, stalled pilot projects,
and disrupted supply chains.
From the incubator perspective, Greentown's operations had
to cease for nearly 3 months, resulting in a significant loss
of revenue detrimental to our financial health and our long-
term ability to provide critical services to entrepreneurs. We
and our cleantech startups face a challenging path forward
without additional support. Thus, we strongly support the
creation of the National Clean Energy Incubator program, as
described in the proposed Energizing Technology Transfer Act
legislation before this Committee. We are pleased to see
language specifically providing support for operational costs,
which fills a much-needed gap even in normal times.
Furthermore, we applaud the expansion of the support for
the I-Corps program and the Clean Energy Technology University
Prize competition. These competitions help curate the best
talent and innovations from universities and transfer them
successfully into the marketplace. In the wake of COVID-19,
many enterprising students across the Nation will likely choose
to build new companies that seek to address major energy and
environmental challenges. University prize competitions will
provide educational experience, mentoring, visibility, and a
path to funding for these budding entrepreneurs.
Finally, we strongly support the IMPACT for Energy Act,
which would address critical gaps in the commercialization path
of innovative clean technologies. The importance of engaging
the private sector and the investment community in addressing
climate change through innovation cannot be understated. In
particular, the establishment of an impact investment fund will
help fill critical gaps in the path to market for early stage
clean technologies.
Finally, we are excited to see the vision for a specific
purpose-built entity to engage the private sector in climate-
focused innovation become a reality through the creation of a
DOE foundation. Based on the experiences of Greentown Labs, it
is clear that this legislation could play a crucial role in
catalyzing cleantech innovation and driving the COVID-19
recovery in Massachusetts, Texas, and across the Nation.
As this Committee continues to review the potential
contributions of DOE technology transfer activities to economic
recovery from the pandemic and to the energy transition, I hope
you keep our experience in mind. Thank you again for inviting
me here today and for the opportunity to speak on such an
important issue.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Reichert follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Reichert. Dr.
Cheatham.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LEE CHEATHAM,
DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT AND OUTREACH,
PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Cheatham. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairwoman
Fletcher, Ranking Member Weber, and Full Committee Ranking
Member Lucas, as well as the Members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss
the role of the Department of Energy's national laboratories in
making forward progress on an economic recovery and long-term
clean energy future.
My name is Lee Cheatham. I lead the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory's Technology Transfer Office, and I serve
as Chair of the National Laboratory Working Group on Tech
Transfer. My testimony today is on behalf of my work at PNNL
and my role serving as Chair of the NLTT. It does not represent
the views of the Department of Energy.
Today, I want to offer three proposed perspectives on how
the national laboratories contribute to that prosperous clean
energy future. First, direct interaction between national
laboratories and private sector companies enhances the
transition of research to market. The national laboratories
have unique capabilities that can help companies remain
innovative and competitive. We make those capabilities
available to companies in the form of research partnerships,
access to scientific facilities, and licensing of intellectual
property. These increasingly sophisticated partnerships are
enabled by unique facilities built for collaboration in
research, testing, and product development. For example, PNNL's
planned Grid Storage Launchpad will bring together researchers
from national labs, universities, and industry to validate
innovative storage materials and realistic grid-operating
conditions, thus advancing the next generation of technology
for grid storage.
Second, research across all national laboratory mission
areas generates opportunities for technology transfer. The
national labs' research in areas for lightweight materials,
recycled carbon to computing to next-generation electric grid
represent just a few of those opportunities. In every case,
successful technology transfer relies in part upon the national
laboratories' partnerships with companies, universities, and
consortia. Again, for example, the Joint Center for Energy
Storage Research and the Battery500 Consortium are creating
transformative materials and batteries with significantly
higher power densities than the electric grid storage and for
new electric vehicles.
Basic and fundamental research is a key part of the
laboratory system's portfolio, and it's an important driver of
our technology transfer activities. I have personally found
that some of the most creative and interesting commercial
applications of technology have come from early stage research.
For example, measuring the ion collisions at Brookhaven
National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider requires
special high-performance detectors and data collection systems.
The software managing these data also turns out to be useful
for managing internet traffic congestion. A local startup
company has now been formed to commercialize this technology in
partnership with Brookhaven.
Seemingly far away from fundamental science, let's not
forget that small businesses regularly require support in
addressing technical and market challenges. When they seek a
technical expert, search for a lab-generated piece of
intellectual property, or request engineering skills to
overcome a challenge in their product line, the programs
included in this legislation that we're discussing today, the
Lab Partnering Service, Technology Commercialization Fund,
Technology Assistance Program, and Small Business Vouchers will
prove valuable.
Third, national laboratory researchers direct experience
with industry enhances their research and accelerates
technology transfer. These direct interactions with companies
help our scientists understand business challenges.
Entrepreneur training at the laboratories accelerates this
learning and gives them the necessary skills to identify the
commercial potential of their research. The Energy I-Corps
program mentioned in the legislation is an important resource
for educating researchers, and many of the national
laboratories offer entrepreneurial LEAP (Lean Entrepreneurship
Advancement Program) programs. Together, these two accelerate
tech transfer and are key incentives to recruiting scientists
and engineers into Federal service.
Before concluding, let me acknowledge that the situation
that we face with the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn
requires our highest level of attention. National labs have
developed technologies that are being deployed in the fight
against the virus. For example, Paerosol is a micro-aerosol
disinfecting technology developed by PNNL and licensed to
NanoPure, a South Carolina company. Now, the Florida State
Firefighters Association is currently using Paerosol to
disinfect key facilities, including hospitals, schools, and
first response vehicles.
Also recently, the national laboratories have further
opened access to our portfolio of research and technology to
any interested companies. At many laboratories now, a company
can access and evaluate a technology based simply on a two-page
agreement and at no cost.
So, in conclusion, let me say the national labs share the
goals of this Committee, this hearing today, to improve the
technology transfer at our national laboratories to leverage
Federal investment in research for the benefit of our Nation's
economy, health, and security. On behalf of the NLTT, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
answering any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cheatham follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Cheatham. Thanks to
all of you for your opening statements and for your written
testimony.
And we will now move on to our first round of questions. I
will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
And of course I have many questions but will direct the
first to Dr. Reichert. In your testimony, your written
testimony, you noted that the participation of underrepresented
groups, including minorities and women, have long--have been
long-standing issues in the cleantech industry and that
incubators have often lacked the necessary resources to engage
in meaningful outreach and develop programming to support these
groups. I was pleased to read in your testimony that you were
seeking out opportunities to partner with organizations that
support traditionally underrepresented entrepreneurs in the
Houston area as you formalize your plans to expand there. How
can the provisions of the Energizing Technology Transfer Act be
strengthened to support racial diversity among clean energy
entrepreneurs? And maybe if you want to answer that, if anyone
else wants to weigh in after that, I would appreciate that.
Dr. Reichert, can you hear me?
Dr. Reichert. Yes.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Terrific. Do you have thoughts
specifically on the Energizing Technology Transfer Act and how
it can strengthen to support racial diversity among clean
energy entrepreneurs?
Dr. Reichert. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, the
National Clean Energy Incubator program described in the
proposed legislation will be crucial for filling a much-needed
gap in cleantech incubator operations support. In normal times,
one of the biggest challenges faced by incubators is funding
operational costs. And incubators spend a lot of time in
survival mode. It's not easy to fundraise to support startups
in a challenging area and a challenging funding environment for
them. It's hard to imagine adding another set of programming on
top of this one. And incubators have often lacked the necessary
resources to engage in meaningful outreach and development
programming to support DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion)
efforts.
But what I think the government could offer to support
programs in this area that I think would more fully integrate
diversity, equity, and inclusion into the operations of an
incubator are as follows: The government could provide
technical support and assistance to help incubators be more
knowledgeable about available training and other resources to
foster inclusivity.
As well, the government could support workforce
development programs such as internships, co-ops, or
fellowships that specifically target underrepresented groups
for cleantech startups and for cleantech incubators.
The government could incentivize groups already working
successfully in this area to partner with incubators that need
to get better at this. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel
and to take funding away from groups already doing good work.
Such programming would help enable an equitable clean energy
recovery, ensuring that all of the human capital and talent in
the United States that we have to offer is applied to the
challenge of climate change.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Terrific. Thank you so much. Would
any of the other panelists like to weigh in on that question?
Ms. States. I would if I could. Thank you. And for
Washington Maritime Blue, diversity, equity, and inclusion has
been a key focus area, including a part of our strategy where
we work with the University of Washington students to do a lot
of outreach and engagement and really understand how we can
improve in this for the maritime and cleantech sector. So we
have a youth maritime collaborative where we do have internship
programs, and we also provide equity training for those
industry partners that are doing the internships. But the key
is it's really hard to find the resources to do this. So while
we can put the programming together and find the partners, it's
the need for the funding to enable these things to happen.
We do have an incubator program and try to encourage as
much diversity, equity, and inclusion in those incubators. But,
as Emily mentioned, the key is funding and enabling those
programs, which I think this legislation really sets up the
foundation to do that. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. States. I do have one
other question for Ms. Wong, and I'm limited on time, so I'll
try to ask it very quickly. But, Ms. Wong, in your recent
report that you mentioned in your testimony earlier on ``Mind
the Gap,'' you mentioned that existing nonprofit foundations
that work with the CDC, NIH (National Institutes of Health),
Department of Agriculture (USDA) have mobilized to support
public-private partnerships to respond to COVID-19. And I'm
wondering how an energy foundation might help respond and
recover to events and--recover from events like the ongoing
pandemic or other national emergencies through enabling
partnerships at the DOE. So I have about 30 seconds left if you
would share your thoughts with us on that.
Ms. Wong. Sure. And I thank you so much for the question.
In fact, some of you may know that there is a Center for
Disease Control foundation. They have been very active since
the beginning of the pandemic and have raised over $110
million. And if it pleases the Committee I did send earlier an
article that's all about public-private partnerships that the
CDC has been able to create through its foundation. That's
exactly how the Department of Energy could do more work with
the private sector is through public-private--or public-private
partnerships. And since it's the end of your time, I'll stop
there.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you so much. Thanks to all of
you for your insight. I will now yield back my time and
recognize Mr. Lucas for five minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to first
turn my question to Dr. Cheatham, and when he has completed his
thought, open it up to the panel in general. As I mentioned in
my opening statement, I believe that collaboration and
coordination between Federal research agencies on pivotal
issues like technology transfer is essential to the overall
success of the U.S. enterprise. However, I understand that each
Federal agency and each area of research may have different
tech transfer needs and specific challenges. In your opinion,
how can we in Congress best work to support a long-term,
comprehensive science and technology transfer strategy, Doc?
Dr. Cheatham. Thank you. Thank you very much for the
question. And I appreciate the intention of it to look at
broader solutions than we might see in just one agency.
One of the things that I have learned being both in the
Department of Energy's system and in my small participation
with the National Science Foundation is that there are a number
of commonalities between them. And I'll just reference one as
an example. Both the Department of Energy and the National
Science Foundation certainly have responsibilities for large
scientific facilities. These are facilities in the Department
of Energy, and NSF does the same sort of thing. There are
many--that's just one area where there are many commonalities
between the kinds of activities that the Department of Energy's
national laboratories take and universities on behalf of the
National Science Foundation take. So I think finding ways to
share those experiences back and forth could certainly be very
helpful.
At the same time, I recognize that there are differences
between the national laboratory system and DOE and the other
agencies. And I'll specifically reference the universities and
the National Science Foundation, one of their primary
supportive organizations certainly. We have grown up under
different conditions in those, the labs and the universities.
With respect to tech transfer, we actually operate under
different authority and policy for the commercialization of
technology.
And so one of the challenges I'll just, again, point out
one perhaps small thing, although for many of what we're seeing
it's a big deal. We're facing a very significant shift toward
digital technologies as being important for many companies. At
our laboratory, we were in the past very much looking at
patenting new phenomenon, patenting new devices. We have now
seen over the last 15 years quite a shift toward digital
technologies. That means software and data.
The ways in which we handle software, for example, in the
copyright process is fundamentally different than it is held in
the university system. And so those are the kinds of changes
that would be looked into, could we understand whether it makes
sense to move those, but I just now, in reporting this, we see
that many more of our companies are saying we want the
combination of a patented technology that I can build into a
device and the operating software to go with it, so making sure
that those two things can come together for that company
without having to deal with multiple different processes could
be very helpful. I hope that's helpful.
Mr. Lucas. That makes sense, Doctor. Anyone else on the
panel care to touch on that? Absolutely.
Ms. Wong. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member. I think that
one of the things that I have found to be fascinating about the
potential for a Department of Energy foundation is that it can
actually work not just with the Department of Energy but it
could also work with other agencies. In my research on the
other agency-related foundations I found that there are a
number of things that the Foundation for Food and Agriculture
Research is working on that DOE could also work on.
And so I think a lot of people here know that sometimes
agencies can be protective of their turf. Let's just say that.
And that includes their budget. And so sometimes it's hard for
them to want to engage together on their own. But through a
foundation or through two foundations, you could have it be
more of a level playing field where the foundations can
encourage the agencies to come together around certain
challenges or opportunities that they both could work on. So I
think that there's an opportunity through the foundation to do
exactly what you are talking about, doing more across the
science and technology portfolio of all the agencies.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Anyone else wish to touch on that?
Ms. States. Yes, if I could expand just a little. Jetta
is absolutely right, and as are you when you talk about the
need for the crosscutting partnerships and collaboration. I
think one of the keys in developing that long-term strategy is
for the enabling environment to make that happen. The DOE
foundation can provide that. But getting the different types of
players together to work on developing a strategy is critical.
We found that in Maritime Blue that's where we started was
developing crosscutting collaboration to--on the strategy
focusing on projects, what could we work on together to
demonstrate win-win solutions for different entities across
different sectors, energy, maritime, transportation. And a good
example right now is Department of Energy has partnered with
the Economic Development Administration on a blue economy
cluster funding opportunity, so just one small example of where
that has been able to happen but a foundation can really create
that enabling environment for the strategy to do it in a much
more organized fashion.
Mr. Lucas. With that, Madam Chair, my time is expired.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. I'll
now recognize Mr. Lipinski for five minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher. Before I
begin, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter cosigned by 31 scientific societies,
universities, and energy advocates in support of the creation
of an energy foundation. If I could do that, Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Fletcher. Without objection.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And thank you for holding this
hearing today. This is an issue that I have always been
particularly interested in on this Committee, how do we find
innovative ways to help transition research findings into new
products and services.
And one of the programs that I have championed over the
years is National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps,
commonly known as I-Corps. This entrepreneurial training
program gives researchers experience in customer discovery and
fosters skills needed to transition research into the
commercial sector.
I know that Dr. Cheatham in his written testimony talks
about the value of entrepreneur training. And additionally, Ms.
Wong mentions in her written testimony a need for the DOE to
pilot, evaluate, and scale innovative ideas and highlighted the
Department of Energy's version of I-Corps as a success. The
independent evaluation Ms. Wong referred to states findings
suggest Energy I-Corps has very high potential to increase the
commercialization of trained PI's (principal investigators')
lab technologies.
So I believe that this program, Energy I-Corps, is right
for an explicit congressional authorization and expansion, and
next week, I'm going to be introducing the Energy Innovation
Corps Act to do just that. I look forward to continuing to work
with this Committee on this and hope to see this bill move
forward, along with other important energy tech transfer
legislation.
So I wanted to start my questions by asking Dr. Cheatham.
You described Energy I-Corps as a centerpiece of national
laboratory efforts to expose researchers to entrepreneurial
training. Can you share a national lab perspective on how this
program has been helpful to your employees' professional
development and their success in transitioning research into
products and services? Dr. Cheatham?
Dr. Cheatham. Thank you very much for the question. And
this is an important topic. As you well know, the Energy I-
Corps version at DOE is slightly different because of the
difference in the requirements, but fundamentally the same as
the I-Corps version that came out of NSF. We use it at the
laboratories to train, as you mentioned, our researchers.
Let me just give one example that explains this a little
bit better. Around Energy I-Corps we at Pacific Northwest
National Lab have built a pre--what we call a pre-I-Corps
session where we bring in a larger number of pairs of
researchers to get them interested. It's really a recruiting
technique to see who can go through the whole of the program.
And so the first time we did that last year I said to them
at the beginning it was kind of tentative. At the end of it,
which is only about a week and a half or 2 weeks later, the
amazing changes that had come in those researchers because they
had made their calls to companies to find out where their
technology could work and where it couldn't. Every one of those
had a story to tell about how they were going to change the
research in their labs when they got back to that after this
because they had learned things that just didn't occur to them
from their scientific principles, that the market voice in that
has really helped them.
And so, as I said in the testimony, we see an increase in
the quality of research because of those kinds of experiences,
so we're doing everything we can to promote them.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Dr. Reichert, you also indicate
in your written testimony that you would applaud the expansion
of support for I-Corps. Can you describe the value of this
program to your members? Dr. Reichert?
Voice. Dr. Reichert, you are muted.
Dr. Reichert. There we go. So the I-Corps program is a
wonderful opportunity for laboratory-based potential
entrepreneurs to get exposure to both the concept of
entrepreneurship, as well as potential customers. And one of
the best things about the I-Corps program that I truly support
is the customer discovery focus. In I-Corps, there are many,
many customer discovery calls, and this is really critical to
potential entrepreneurs understanding that in order to develop
a product, a technology that's coming out of a laboratory, you
need to have a market. And that market needs to be well-
qualified. And this tends to get early stage companies and
early stage potential entrepreneurs off to a strong start when
they have that customer discovery resource--research at their
backs.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I see I'm out of time. I'm
going to enter some other questions asked for--enter those into
the record and for responses from the other witnesses, but I'd
appreciate my colleagues' support. I'd like them to take a look
at the Energy Innovation Corps Act when I introduce that next
week and would appreciate your support.
With that, I thank the Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I'll now
recognize Dr. Baird. Dr. Baird, I see you're on a mobile
device. You may be muted.
Mr. Baird. How about that?
Chairwoman Fletcher. Yes, we can hear you now. You are
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm not
actually on this Committee, but I am a Ranking Member of the
Research and Technology Subcommittee, so I would like to hear
some more about DOE's potential to collaborate with NSF and the
N-I-S-T or NIST in support of governmentwide technology
transfer initiatives. Dr. Cheatham, I'll start with you. Then,
we can move to the other witnesses. And I heard, Ms. Wong, you
mentioned agriculture, so I'm particularly interested in that
when we get to that point. So, Dr. Cheatham, would you mind
discussing DOE's potential to collaborate with NSF and NIST?
Dr. Cheatham. Yes, I'd be happy to do that. Thank you
very much for your question. One of the things that we realize
is that the research community is well-connected and is not
overly large, so there's a lot of back-and-forth between them.
What we see as we're looking at both of those agencies--let me
just start, first, with NIST. One of the things that has
happened recently that is affecting technology transfer is the
work that the Under Secretary Copan has been doing at NIST on
looking toward updates in technology transfer policy and
regulations. It's beginning to open some of the channels in
that--that allows us to do things I've been talking about and
engaging companies, engaging entrepreneurs, and that sort of
thing. So we certainly have been in close conversation with
NIST on that sort of activity because we believe in the long
run it will be better for everyone.
I mentioned a little bit about the NSF activities. Let me
instead focus on the key partnerships that DOE labs must have
and do have with the universities. Sometimes those are
supported by DOE on our side, by NSF on the university side.
Again, almost all of the key challenges that we're facing,
whether that's batteries or whether it's the electric grid, or
whether it's any kind of renewable energy, we really need to
have that partnership between the universities and the
laboratories. And I mentioned a few in my testimony around the
batteries, those are key if we're going to get to the next
generation of batteries that are three times more--energy
densities three times higher than what we're seeing right now.
So I hope that's been helpful with a few examples. I'm
happy to follow up if there are more, so I'll let some of the
others speak now.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate that answer. And I certainly
would agree with you in terms of the need for collaboration
between the universities, and the things that are done at the
national labs at a basic level are very impressive to me. So I
will give the other witnesses the opportunity to make a
comment.
Ms. Wong, I think you had something you might mention
about agriculture. That's of particular interest to me.
Ms. Wong. Of course. Absolutely. Thank you. So I think
that there are a number of things that the Department of Energy
can do with other agencies, and I'd like to point out first
that, as Lee was saying earlier, the national laboratories
already do quite a bit of work across the board in a variety of
different technologies. And in fact they do a lot with other
Federal agencies, including USDA and NIH.
When I was talking earlier, I had mentioned that there's a
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, and they have put
out a number of very interesting solicitations, some related
to, for example, the amount of carbon that could be sequestered
in plants and in the soil. And that's something that DOE--the
DOE national laboratories actually has quite a bit of
experience in, and in fact I think including PNNL, and so there
are lots of opportunities for collaboration. So we need to give
the laboratories and the universities a platform to work within
to bring those kinds of partnerships together. And that's
something that I think a foundation can do.
But I think that that's not the only thing. I want to
mention also that you had asked about NIST. And NIST has a
great program--I'm sure you know about it--the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) program, and that has strong
connections to the private sector. I see that as one of the
important programs that the DOE foundation could help support
and bring people to, bring entrepreneurs to connect the
different dots that are required to move the technology through
to commercialization. So that would be another area that NIST
and DOE, through the foundation, potentially could work
together.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And I see I'm out of time, but,
Madam Chair, if the Committee would like to hear from the other
two witnesses, that's OK with me. It's up to you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Why don't we go ahead--we have
several more Members to be recognized, but perhaps we could ask
those witnesses to----
Mr. Baird. I yield----
Chairwoman Fletcher [continuing]. Submit their responses
in writing.
Mr. Baird. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Baird. Next, I'll
recognize Ms. Stevens. Ms. Stevens, I believe you're muted.
Ms. Stevens. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Fletcher. Yes, we can.
Ms. Stevens. You can hear me?
Chairwoman Fletcher. You're recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Stevens. Great. So, yesterday, the Department of
Energy's Vehicle Technologies Office and Advanced Manufacturing
Office announced Federal funding for projects across the
country that will support new and innovative advanced vehicle
technologies. Companies with an incredible presence in my
district received over $21 million to lead these innovative
projects in advanced vehicle batteries, electrification, and
manufacturing that can be leveraged into millions of dollars
more to follow on in private sector investment. Certainly, when
we look at some of our moonshot innovations of the 21st
century, I believe electric vehicles is right there.
But, Ms. Wong, you spoke in your testimony about the
Office of Technology Transitions' role with national labs and
facilitating technology transfer and mentioned that laws such
as the--authorizes--quote--``authorizes multiple collaboration
pathways for the transfer and use of DOE-funded R&D through
minimal tweaks to mostly existing policies and programs.'' Just
wondering if you could speak to some of the changes that could
be made to better increase the Office of Technology
Transitions' engagement with other DOE research labs as we look
to be collaborative and crosscutting here.
Ms. Wong. Thank you for that question. That's a fantastic
question. You know, one of the things that we could tweak--and
actually the Energizing Technology Transfer Act allows the
Office of Technology Transitions to do, is it provides them a
budget, a Technology Transitions program, and I think that's an
important thing because, right now, the office doesn't have a
lot of flexible funding to try to do outreach to other programs
like the Vehicle Technology Office within the Department of
Energy to develop potentially, you know, new opportunities to
be more innovative in what they could do, so I think that
that's something that's very important that is already included
in the bill that could be very valuable to building that
relationship with other offices.
Ms. Stevens. Right. And just as Dr. Baird had left off,
we play a role with that Research and Technology Subcommittee.
I'm the Chair of that Committee. And, as he mentioned, it has
jurisdiction over the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology. I appreciate your comments there, Dr. Baird, about
how NIST could be better leveraged for some of those tech
transfer efforts. I personally have worked with NIST on a
multitude of manufacturing and supply chain engagement efforts
throughout my career and you get firsthand that unique role
that they play with the private sector.
Last year, NIST released a report on barriers to and
recommendations for improving American innovation and economic
competitiveness. The recommendations included expanding Federal
partnership mechanisms through nonprofit foundations.
As a sponsor of the IMPACT for Energy Act, which has come
from Congressman Lujan, which would establish a foundation
model at DOE to facilitate partnerships with the private sector
and tech transfer capabilities, Ms. Wong, how might an energy
foundation help respond to and recover from events like the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic or other national emergencies through
enabling partnerships with DOE?
Ms. Wong. Well, thank you so much for that question. I
think that we in this country and around the world are seeing
all sorts of different kinds of activities related to
hurricanes and fires. I used to live in Oakland, California,
and many people probably saw the rolling brownouts that took
place because of the fires that were going on there. It was a
crisis, right? Everyone was like we need new technology, we
need to jump on this, and we need to better understand what's
going on with our grid. And it occurred to me that there are
technologies at a variety of different labs.
One that I know of at PNNL is a kind of analytical program
that helps us understand the grid, but it mostly looks at what
happens with cybersecurity or hurricanes. It could be adapted
for fires. And a foundation, because it's not part of the
Federal Government, would be able to act quickly, find funding,
and then really support the development of that technology in a
crisis like what we're seeing here with COVID-19. So that would
be another example where you could use a foundation.
Ms. Stevens. Great. And with that, I'm out of time, and
I'll yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. I will now
recognize Mr. McNerney for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairwoman for this great
hearing and I really applaud the witnesses. It's really good
information.
I noted that at least two witnesses identified that no one
Federal agency is responsible to bring technology from the labs
to the market. I developed wind energy technology for 20 years
so I know personally about the valley of death.
Ms. Wong, it's great to welcome you back to the Committee,
and thanks for calling out my bill earlier in your testimony.
Would you reiterate what specific changes the proposed
legislation, that we see, would be helpful to empower a single
agency for that purpose? In other words, I know you spoke about
foundations, but what could we change in the current proposed
legislation to empower a single agency to carry out the
function?
Ms. Wong. Thank you for the question and it is wonderful
to see you. So I think that the Energizing bill does quite a
bit already to really help the Department of Energy to really
change the culture and change the thinking around getting out
of the valley of death, getting through the valley of death.
I think one thing that I would--and I mentioned it in my
opening statement--I would really encourage the Committee to
look at is the Technology Commercialization Fund, which was
authorized in 2005 through this Committee. The current language
takes out--as far as I can tell, takes out the requirement for
the laboratories to work with the private sector, so the
original language said a match from the private sector. And it
was important to take out the match requirement because I think
that that was too much money to require an outside partner to
put into an early stage technology. But by taking out that
private-sector piece, it doesn't push the labs enough to engage
with the private sector, to understand what those
commercialization needs are. So that would be one tweak I would
suggest for the current legislation.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. Dr. Cheatham, throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic, Lawrence Livermore National Lab has been
working to leverage their expertise to develop related
equipment. Can you discuss some of the ways that the national
labs have been utilizing technology transfer in the fight
against COVID-19?
Dr. Cheatham. Thank you. Yes. I can--excuse me. I can
mention a few of those. And my colleagues at Livermore have
done a great job in working through those things. But let me
start first at a little bit higher level. One of the first
things that the Department of Energy did was stand up a
National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory, which in code I
think means representatives from each of the laboratories have
been meeting regularly, even daily to scour the whole of the
laboratory system for which technologies might be appropriate
for the challenges that are being faced right now. And so while
I don't want to go into that a lot, just to note that there are
mechanisms like that that are being used to ensure that we dig
into all of the corners in the laboratories to figure out what
might be there and what might be available.
One of the other technology areas that we have gotten a
lot of requests from companies about is protective coatings. As
you can guess, protective equipment is a big deal, and several
of the laboratories have developed different versions of
protective coatings that are--they're essentially hydrophobic,
meaning they shed water very easily and other things. And so
we're beginning to see companies pick those technologies up out
of our laboratory. We have some--there--I know there are some
at Brookhaven, and I know there are some at Livermore. I
believe that Sandia has one of those technologies, too. So
those are the kinds of technologies, even though they're
slightly different, are certainly being picked up and moved
forward. So at least that's a couple of answers. Is that--if
that offers what you were looking for.
Mr. McNerney. Sure. You know, I just wanted to give out a
shout out to the labs. You mentioned the co-benefits, Dr.
Cheatham, of the lab's researchers, as well as businesses when
they partner together. What are some of the challenges that the
labs face in partnering with private companies?
Dr. Cheatham. Well, I have to say, as anxious as the
researchers are and the companies are to engage with each
other, we do have to do some education, if nothing else, in
just language because, as you--I think people well know, the
context of being in the private sector--I spent a number of
years at a software company and a startup company of my own,
and I've been in the lab for 20 years. The perspectives that
are taken on both of those are different and so a lot of the
times folks in my group, for example, who are commercialization
managers are spending time helping each of the companies and
the researchers understand what the other means. What are they
really looking for and that sort of thing. And so just the
simple things I'll say right up front about can we communicate,
once that barrier is through, they can run and do what they
need to do.
Mr. McNerney. I believe it. Well, thank you. I have some
more questions for the record and I will yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. I'll now
recognize Mr. Foster for five minutes.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And I guess I'll start with
Dr. Cheatham. First off, I greatly appreciate your expertise
here today but given your role as the Chair of the National
Laboratory Working Group on Tech Transfer. You know, as someone
who started a company that actually escaped the valley of death
and is doing quite well, as well as having spent 25 years at a
national laboratory, you know, this is a tough nut to crack.
So from your experience serving in that role, what are the
major challenges that national laboratories face in engaging in
tech transfer activities? And also, you know, would the
programs that are authorized in the bills that are under
consideration today help address any of these challenges?
Dr. Cheatham. I think--well, to answer your second
question, I think some of them certainly will. The four that I
called out address the--I think--I tend to think of this
process as a chain of events that we have to go from creating a
new idea through several steps to a company that is actually
selling something in a marketplace and making a difference. And
there are places along each one of those that you clearly have
experienced on your own. I used to like to say, by the way,
that buried in the valley of death, if you look down in that
chasm, they're the bones of companies that just couldn't get
across, so I'm happy to hear----
Mr. Foster. Sure. Yes.
Mr. Cheatham [continuing]. That you did get across. But at
each of those stages there are different things. The programs
like Energy I-Corps we've discussed really help our researchers
move through, but one of the questions is how do we identify
the number of companies that understand the laboratory system
and the number of companies that our laboratory
commercialization managers have personal access to is smaller
than it should be, and so one of the things that we're looking
at trying to do as a network of laboratories is to figure out
what we can do to make those connections for the companies that
might need our technologies much easier.
One of the things that we've done I'll briefly mention in
this is to engage, I'll say, third-party almost intermediaries.
Some of these times they're investment funds. Sometimes they
are accelerator activities. But these are organizations that
are either private sector or--and sometimes they're nonprofits,
but they have the connections that they know where the
companies are and they know where the entrepreneurs are, and
they know how to get into the laboratories. And we found that
very beneficial.
We're working with--I'll just mention one we're working
with in Seattle right now. It was spun out of an investment
fund there. And that's becoming very useful because they know
which companies want--they can look at our technologies and
help us make the match. I think that's one of the key
challenges that each of us in the national laboratory system
faces.
Mr. Foster. One of the interesting models if you look
internationally is the government actually retains an equity
stake in some of the startups. Israel is sort of famous for
doing this. And, you know, I often daydream that if we had
retained--if the Federal Government had retained a five percent
stake in Google as we basically paid for all of the R&D that
led to Google, and then were able to retain that in the Federal
research and development budget, that we would be in a very
different fiscal situation for research in this country. And so
has there been ever serious discussion along those lines of an
equity model in this country?
Dr. Cheatham. There is. In fact, we do have the ability
to take equity. And we at Pacific Northwest Laboratory have
done that. We've got a startup company that's in Philadelphia
right now building medical equipment that we have a small
equity stake in.
The challenge that we have is making--not making that too
big. And the reason is because, as a public entity, we cannot
seem to be--seen to be in competition with the private sector.
And that means if we get too much of a controlling stake in any
company, we essentially then have a say over what they're doing
to an extent that is outside for what's intended for a public
entity.
So yes, we have those tools, yes, we use them judiciously.
There are some limitations. And I think in some cases those are
probably reasonable. But it's an interesting conversation we go
through each time that we try and do that.
Mr. Foster. All right. And you're right about the
potential for conflict of interest in that model. And do you
get to--does the laboratory get to keep the money if the
company becomes a homerun, or does it go back to the Federal
taxpayer?
Dr. Cheatham. Well, it goes back to the--I'll say it goes
back to the Federal taxpayer in that we keep it and reinvest it
in building the capabilities of the laboratory. So in some ways
the royalties stream into all of the laboratories is intended
to make reinvestment. We do that through the development of new
technologies, creating new capabilities, creating new
equipment, and all of that sort of thing. And so, yes, all of
that is reinvested through the laboratories based on the
outcomes from each of those licenses.
Mr. Foster. And so the first time you create a unicorn
there will be an interesting discussion of the split of the
profits from that.
Dr. Cheatham. There will be.
Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you very much and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Foster. I'll now
recognize Mr. Casten for five minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all our
speakers. I have to start by confessing that I've been sitting
here doing internet searches on Dr. Reichert because of your
background at A.D. Little. I'm trying to figure out if we
overlapped. I worked at Arthur D. Little from '97 to '99, and
then a lot of my colleagues went off to Tiax. And I suspect we
could probably play the name game and spend a little time
together.
I mention that because to some degree everything that's
old is new again. The--when I was a young consultant in the
1990's, we did a lot of--the dot-com bubble had just popped.
There was all this money flooding into fuel cells and batteries
and microturbines and we would go and help these companies
develop their business plans, sometimes they're equity
investors, and did a lot of work for DOE as well trying to
recommend policies on exactly this topic.
And as you know, Dr. Reichert, the beauty of being a
former consultant is you only remember the predictions you made
about the future that came true and you ignore all the rest
because that way you bat a thousand in hindsight.
But one of the--one of the charts we regularly used to
pull out was that the S-curve for technology adoption in the
energy generation space at a point from proof of concept to 50
percent market penetration is always about 15 years. It's true
for wind, it's true for combined cycle, it's true for every new
energy technology. And yet we get all these companies that said
that they were going to be, you know, fully operational in six
months to meet their equity projections.
And the reason is just that if you have a capital-
intensive low-margin industry, the investors tend to be
conservative. They don't want to write big checks when they
know they can't get their money back in seven years unless
somebody else has already operated that technology for 7 years
continuously. It's super easy to develop--get the money to
raise money for an app. It's really hard to get the risk around
for energy technologies.
And so I want to start just by asking Ms. Wong, although
other--the rest of you may have thoughts on this. What do we
still need to do to improve on the technology transfer program
for capital-intensive industries in commodity spaces? Because
it just seems to me like we still think that this is going to
be like developing the next Google, and we lose sight of the
fact that these are big dollars, and it takes a long time to
get done. How can we--what can we do better in those capital-
intensive commodity industries?
Ms. Wong. That is a terrific question, and you've
outlined the problem that I think all of us on the panel see
every day. And I would echo what a lot of the other panelists
have said, which is that we need to better connect our
researchers to the people that are actually commercializing the
technologies, the manufacturers, the customers that are
deploying those technologies because, as you said, they are
very risk-averse, and they do not trust a startup that's coming
with them with this new widget and they say, oh yes, we can
create this, we can manufacture it, no problem. We need to make
sure that those entrepreneurs and those private-sector
companies are coming together and sharing their understanding
of what is going on in the R&D world and what is needed in the
private-sector world to commercialize the technology.
This is one of the reasons why we think that the DOE
foundation idea is so important is because it provides a
platform, a neutral platform for those different entities in
the innovation cycle to come together. And particularly----
Mr. Casten. If I could just interrupt and I don't mean to
be rude but I'm watching the time here, and let me reframe the
question a little bit. If you've got a technology like a
cutting-edge new fuel cell, like a cutting-edge new wind
turbine where a commercial-scale product is a--pick a number,
$50 million investment, the issue isn't connecting people to
research. It's where can the private market go out and say is
there anything at commercial scale that has been operating for
a long enough period of time.
And it seems to me that every time the Federal Government
has tried to do that, we get beat up for the mistakes, witness
Solyndra, because they are such high-profile, they're such
high-dollar projects, and as a result, it just feels to me like
we get skittish. So how can we better bring those projects
forward because these assets, they cost a lot of money. They're
big bets and if they're seen as big bets for the taxpayers,
they're even bigger bets for the private sector
proportionately.
Ms. Wong. Sure. I think that the demonstration program
that is in the bill where they're trying to have better
oversight and implementation of those larger projects that are
more than $50 million could be one of the ways to do that. I
know my colleague Farah has done some research on that so maybe
she'd like to comment on that.
Mr. Casten. Well, I think I am about out of time so
unless the Chairwoman will allow Farah to comment, I would
welcome any of your comments in writing afterwards because I
loved all your expertise, but we're out of the five minutes
here, so thank you and I yield.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Casten. And yes, we
would appreciate receiving those comments for the record.
And I will now recognize Mr. Lamb for five minutes.
Voice. Ms. Fletcher, Mr. Lamb had to step away for a
moment.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Yes.
Voice. He will be back shortly.
Chairwoman Fletcher. I see that. Why don't we skip over
Mr. Lamb and go to Mr. Beyer and then we'll come back to Mr.
Lamb.
Voice. And it looks like Mr. Beyer has left the hearing.
We'll see if he's coming back in.
Chairwoman Fletcher. OK. Well, I think Mr. Beyer was our
last Member so why don't I do this. I'll open it up for quick--
oh, I believe Mr. Lujan has just arrived.
Voice. Yes, he is connecting in at the moment.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Yes, as soon as he's connected I'll
recognize Mr. Lujan and then we'll go back to Mr. Lamb.
Voice. Mr. Lamb has returned.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Okay. Well then, we'll go back to
the regular order and I recognize Mr. Lamb for five minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry for my
delinquence there. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
their patience.
I can't see you on my screen right now, but I had a
question for Ms. States if she is still with us.
Ms. States. I am, yes. Thank you.
Mr. Lamb. Yes, thank you for your contributions. And I
think you're--so I come at the maritime issue from a slightly
different angle just because in my area in western Pennsylvania
we're in an inland waterway port, one of the largest and
busiest in the country, so our maritime issues are little bit
different but similar in the technologies that we need to
adopt.
And I think your emphasis on hydrogen is really important
not only for maritime but for a number of other industrial
applications as well, whether it's trucking, which you also
kind of mentioned. But I think there's going to be applications
in steel and many other things that are relevant out here.
So I was wondering if you could just say a little bit more
about the challenge of really building something large, you
know, not just researching it but building, you know, the type
of plant that would be needed to create hydrogen and pipe it to
where it needs to be. And I know your process you were talking
about was a little bit different, but can you give us some more
detail on how we can improve that not just with this bill but
over time, how we actually get things like that built? Because
a lot of the emphasis today has been about getting technology
out of the lab, which is good, but I think we need to work a
lot harder on getting these really large scale, hard-to-build
infrastructural elements out of the lab as well. Go ahead.
Ms. States. Yes, thank you very much for the question.
And actually I'll--in my answer I will touch on that and the
question from Representative Casten as well in how you can do
these large investment projects better. The--using this example
of this hydrogen-at-scale project that we have proposed, it is
really a systematic approach that involves all the different
connected players on the waterfront in order to enable a
project that crosses both transportation, energy, maritime,
utility, and chemical industry to bring them all together to
make it happen.
The technologies are at different readiness levels, so the
Federal Government investment is needed to de-risk those--where
the technology readiness level is too early to really get
private-sector investment, but there are aspects where we are
getting private-sector support for some of the cost share
because there are, for example, some good savings for the
utility in the model we put together.
So the way we're doing that is by not just using hydrogen
in a traditional way in a fuel cell but having a systematic
approach where clean electricity, hydropower from a local
utility is being used to generate hydrogen when it's off-peak,
when they have excess generation. The hydrogen is converted to
formic acid. Formic acid is a liquid hydrogen carrier. It
already exists in the fuel chain. It's easier to store, to
move, has easier permitting pathways because it already exists
in this form.
Then PNNL has a technology--and, excuse me, OCO Inc. is
the technology for that, a newer commercialization company.
PNNL has the technology for re-formation of the formic acid
into hydrogen, and then it's used on a fuel cell. When we go
further, the fuel cell is mounted on a truck bed so that it can
be a mobile fuel cell that goes directly to where a ship is
berthing and can plug in that ship, instead of using its diesel
engines, and could use the fuel cell. So it saves the utility
the infrastructure cost of having to build a substation at
every single berth.
So by having this integrated systematic approach, you
bring different players together for different win-win
scenarios at different technology readiness levels and make
good things happen for all the different players. But it's
really difficult to do that in traditional funding
opportunities, so that's the key, is having a flexible model
like a Department of Energy foundation that can enable that and
having those connected systems between all these different
players through regional partnerships like Maritime Blue to
make it happen.
Mr. Lamb. And it sounds like also, though, making sure
that if there is an Energy Department foundation, that it has
dedicated resources and funding streams not only to sort out
some of the basic science ideas themselves but to the financing
of these larger-scale projects.
Ms. States. Absolutely, yes. That public funding is
essential for de-risking the early stages of this, getting
through that valley of death, and bringing together the
partners to be able to work in that systematic approach. So
having the funding stream from the public side to be able to
leverage the private side is key.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. And I will now
recognize Mr. Lujan, who has joined us and is joining the
Committee this afternoon for this hearing. Mr. Lujan, if you
have questions, I would like to recognize you for five minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Chairwoman Fletcher, thank you so very much
for this important hearing and for the recognition. And before
I begin, I have a unanimous consent request. I have a letter
from Greentown Labs and a letter from 31 organizations,
including academic and professional society companies and
experts that speak to the importance of H.R. 3575. And I ask
unanimous consent that they be entered into the record.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, thank you
to everyone for being part of this important hearing today--
important hearing on legislation that would promote clean
energy and help enable an economic recovery. While all of us
represent constituents who are struggling to make ends meet, to
pay rent, and provide for their families, I'm encouraged by the
increased attention of putting people back to work by building
a more sustainable and resilient economy.
The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the role that our
scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and innovators play in
addressing our Nation's most pressing challenges, and I am
proud of New Mexico's contribution to our research mission led
by two world-class national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia
National Labs. Acting on these bills today means that more
ideas and innovations from our best and brightest scientists
will make it into markets, provide jobs, and improve our
quality of life.
The Energizing Technology Transfer Act would drive clean
energy technology commercialization in our national
laboratories and across the DOE, including two bills that I
authored that are being considered. First, the Leveraging our
National Labs to Develop Tomorrow's Technology Leaders Act,
which strengthens the Department of Energy's Lab-Embedded
Entrepreneurship Program, which utilizes national laboratories
to train and develop the next generation of tech entrepreneurs
to meet the broader challenges and the needs facing our
communities.
Now, the legislation also includes my bipartisan Promoting
Small Business Innovation through Partnerships with National
Labs Act of 2019, which allows small businesses to gain access
to premier facilities at the labs, spurring innovation and
stimulating the culture of private-public collaboration.
Lastly, H.R. 3575, otherwise known as the IMPACT for
Energy Act, would establish a DOE-affiliated nonprofit
foundation to engage with the private sector to raise funds and
leverage expertise that supports the research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application.
So I just want to thank the Chair for all of her work
today and for everything that she has been doing.
Now, Ms. Wong, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
National Institutes of Health activated their foundation to
bring together experts, develop a coordinated research
response, and speed up development of a vaccine and treatment
options. Could a foundation at the Department of Energy help
DOE better respond to the crisis of emerging issues?
Ms. Wong. Yes, sir, and thank you so much for your
leadership on these issues. It is wonderful to see you here
again on the Committee.
Yes, absolutely. We had talked earlier about how important
the Centers for Disease Control Foundation has been in
developing a more than--or fundraising more than $110 million
for the pandemic since the beginning of the year, and so a DOE
foundation could do the same thing, reacting to emergencies
that happen across our country when it is necessary to bring
new technology to market to identify public-private
partnerships that could encourage quick action.
The example I gave earlier actually I was personally
impacted by was when I was living in California during the
brownouts last year where hundreds of thousands of people lost
power, everyone was talking about how we need new technologies
to monitor the grid. And the fact is is that we have a lot of
technologies that monitor the grid, but we don't use them to
understand how they would be impacted by fires.
And so the example I was giving is that PNNL has a
particular technology that, if the foundation existed, it would
be able to act quickly to help develop that technology in a way
where we could use it to better understand what happens in a
brownout when there's a fire and could we prevent it. So there
are lots of examples like this, and so I think, yes, a
foundation could act quickly to address these major issues.
Mr. Lujan. And, Dr. Reichert, in a letter of support for
a DOE foundation, you wrote you believe in a nonprofit
foundation at the U.S. Department of Energy. Can you elaborate
on why private-sector engagement from the Department is
important for commercialization and how a foundation would
uniquely support incubators such as Greentown Labs? You're
muted, Emily.
Dr. Reichert. Thank you so much for the question. As Ms.
Wong has made clear as well, the importance of engaging the
private sector and investment community in cleantech innovation
can't be understated. We work with about 50 corporate partners,
and we have direct experience in engaging them, and this has
resulted in investments, commercial pilots, joint development
agreements, licensing agreements for our incubated startups.
And we're really glad to see the vision for the DOE foundation,
and I think DOE's engagement with the private sector will much
better inform research conducted by the labs and academic
institutions.
It's important for DOE to understand what barriers exist
in the market to the deployment of new technology, and one way
to get this information into their hands is with engagement
with the private sector. Also understand that the foundation
will be able to help incubators and startups work with national
labs, and this could be beneficial for our companies because,
often, they don't have access to the top-of-the-line equipment
that they might access at a national lab.
Finally, I understand the foundation will be re-granting
organizations, and this means organizations like Greentown Labs
will be able to receive funds from the foundation to implement
our programs to continue to connect the private sector with
startups and with researchers so that we can all look forward
to a clean energy future.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you so much. And, Madam Chair, thank you
again for the time and the Members of the Committee for
allowing me to ask some questions today on some important
legislation. And, again, these are all bipartisan ideas. I hope
we can move them together and get these signed into law. Thank
you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Lujan. We're
so glad to have you join us today and glad for your work on
this important topic.
Given that we've had several Members who had hoped to get
additional questions answered or additional insight, I'm going
to go ahead and do a short second round of questions for folks.
So if you have an additional question, maybe send me a note in
the chat. I'll try to go through, but I want to make sure I get
to everyone for the second round.
My--I'm going to go ahead and recognize myself first for
five minutes in this round two of questions, and my question is
for Ms. Benahmed. As we've discussed in various ways today, the
COVID-19 pandemic has really exposed people and our abilities
and our Nation's economy. Individuals and companies have been
experiencing the pandemic and the effects of the pandemic in
different ways, in many ways. Can you share with us what your
research shows about the biggest challenges facing clean energy
startups specifically from this health crisis and share your
insights about how the United States can better compete with
international competitors on clean energy in the wake of the
pandemic. I would really like to get your thoughts on that.
Ms. Benahmed. Sure. Thank you for the question. So small
businesses like clean energy startups are most vulnerable to
economic downturns. They don't have cash reserves built up,
shareholders they can lean on, access to low-cost borrowing
like corporations, and in many cases they haven't matured into
profitability yet. Also, many in the venture capital (VC)
community are holding onto their cash and refraining from
making new investment decisions. In fact, VC investment
activity has plummeted 25 percent since the pandemic hit. As
Dr. Reichert mentioned, clean energy entrepreneurs face
challenges in raising capital as they struggle through project
delays, supply chain disruption, and determine how to keep
staff on payroll.
Clean energy startups are more at risk during the global
pandemic than ever before. We don't want to roll back the good
progress we've made, and we cannot let our past net zero
emissions be halted by the economic impacts of the pandemic. We
need emergency relief measures for clean energy startups now,
and we need policies that can help them grow in the long-term.
How we can better compete, so, currently, nine other
countries invest more in energy R&D than the United States as a
share of GDP. For example, China invests .1 percent of its GDP
to the United States' .04 percent. The way that we can better
compete with other nations is to advance clean energy
innovation. As I mentioned during my testimony, this can be
done through substantially increasing Federal clean energy R&D,
committing to clean energy demonstrations, and expanding tech
transfer programs like the ones included in the Energizing
Technology Transfer Act. Commercializing the clean energy
technologies we need for climate change and making them cost-
competitive will give us an advantage on the global stage.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Ms. Benahmed,
for your insights. I appreciate it. I'm going to yield the
remainder of my time and give the opportunity to some of my
colleagues. So going back in order of who I believe is still
participating, if you have additional questions or if you would
like to ask any panelists for answers to a previous question, I
believe the next person is--that's present is Dr. Baird. Dr.
Baird, you're recognized for additional questions----
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like
to yield the other two witnesses the opportunity to address my
question about the DOE's potential to collaborate with NSF and
NIST as it relates to the things that they do. And I'll start
with Ms. States and then Ms. Benahmed. Does that work?
Ms. States. Yes, thank you very much for the additional
time to address that. I think one example I'll point out with
NIST is, again, the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, but
that local presence and how important that is. When Maritime
Blue was just getting started, we actually worked with our
local NIST MEP Impact Washington, as the fiscal agent for the
new Maritime Blue nonprofit startup, so they were critical in
helping us in dealing with the different colors of money for
the funding that we had to put together to make Maritime Blue
work and for connecting us with some of the needs of the
industry in the manufacturing sector, the shipbuilding
community, and others. So that's just one example for NIST MEP.
And I'd like to also go beyond and say that really it cuts
across so many different government agencies, especially when
you start talking about the transportation, electrification of
transportation, use of hydrogen, so it crosses into the
maritime, energy, and many others, which means Department of
Transportation. We've looked at funding opportunities from both
MARAD, the Maritime Research Administration, and the Federal
Transit Authority and how do we electrify vessels, ferries, and
have new modes of transportation.
We have worked with Department of Commerce Economic
Development Administration, which I mentioned had a partnership
with DOE to have a specific funding opportunity for the blue
economy clusters to provide funding for just the type of thing
that Maritime Blue is working to enable, including spreading
our incubator and acceleration programs for commercialization.
And so it--and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) --and I can keep going. There are so many
connection points when it comes to the blue economy across our
Federal Government sector that really there's many
opportunities for collaboration if we can just have the right
enabling environment through something like the DOE foundation
to allow those different colors--those different Federal
agencies to come together and allow different colors of money
to come together for the investments that we need.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. The Chairlady has my clock
running, so I wanted to hear from the others, too, so, Farah,
do you want to make a comment, and then, Dr. Reichert, you
later?
Ms. Benahmed. Sure. I'll just say that there are
opportunities for agencies to work together to share best
practices. When it comes to small business innovation research
program, DOE could work with the National Science Foundation in
implementing their model. Currently, at DOE SBIR program
managers are scattered across the department, and more often
than not the SBIR program isn't their highest priority. And NSF
runs a really great SBIR program, so I would say--I would
encourage the collaboration between the two to ensure that
they're optimizing their program.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Reichert?
Dr. Reichert. Yes. So I think I would add to Ms. Wong's
comments about the Manufacturing Extension Partnership through
NIST. I think that is a very unique resource. It exists in
every State. We have worked quite closely with the
Massachusetts Extension--Massachusetts MEP, and that
organization has provided an amazing network of connections to
manufacturers that enable clean energy startups to get their
technology to scale. Often, they are needing everything from
machine shops all the way to low-volume production. And without
that critical resource, these clean energy startups would have
a difficult time to find those manufacturers that are in every
State but are often hard to find if you're a startup and your
main tool to do searching is Google.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Madam Chair, I was looking up
refreshing my memory on formic acid a minute ago and it--
hydrogen, carbon [inaudible] and hydrogen, but, you know, I
know this is a high-level discussion, but ants and stinging
nettles, that's the toxic material in those issues. So it's
interesting to watch science make advancements from those
stages to where we are in the discussions we're having here.
So, with that, I've got about 22 seconds. I thank you, Madam
Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Well, thank you very much, Dr.
Baird. I will now recognize Mr. Casten for five minutes
additional questions.
Mr. Casten. Thanks so much, Madam Chair. I want to pivot
a little bit away from the stuff I asked last time and a
question for Ms. Wong and Ms. States. Over the last decade, you
know, really at the leadership of Congress, the Department of
Energy has made an effort to support a whole bunch of
initiatives to accelerate commercialization of various clean
energy technologies from ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy), Office of Technology Transitions, various
Hubs, consortia, the Manufacturing Institute. Can either or
both of you help us understand what value would a nonprofit
energy foundation contribute that can't be accomplished through
those existing programs?
Ms. Wong. Jennifer, I know that you from the private
sector have a lot to say about this so I'll let you.
Ms. States. OK. I didn't want to take your time, but
thank you. I think the enabling environment through a nonprofit
foundation is really what is key. By having an entity that is
outside the individual silo of the Department of Energy and
some of the different administrative burdens that private and
especially small private companies have a really hard time in
complying with for both DOE and other Federal funding
opportunities, it can create that flexibility that's needed to
really deploy the funding opportunities faster and in a
collaborative fashion that might come from multiple agencies.
It can deploy those funding opportunities in a way where you
have come together to understand better what the need is from
the commercial side so that you can have a systematic approach
that might cut across several different entities even within
DOE.
One technology office like the Vehicle Office, which could
be a place for vessel electrification, it doesn't necessarily
fit because they don't deal with vessels. But it comes from the
Battery Office or MARAD, as I said. So having a foundation
where you can bring those different players together to
structure these opportunities in the right way to have the
flexibility and the systematic approach I think can really
enable this to happen.
We have amazing staff at our Federal Government agencies
that do their best with the bureaucracies that they have to be
under, but having that foundation structure to enable faster
deployment, more connected deployments I think is really going
to help make DOE's investments work even better.
Mr. Casten. Ms. Wong, anything to add there--disagree,
have a different perspective?
Ms. Wong. You know, I think I would just add that--and I
only heard a little bit of it, Jennifer, so sorry if I, you
know, repeat. But I think the idea is that you're bringing all
these different parts of the innovation ecosystem together in a
neutral platform where they can really understand what's going
on across the innovation cycle and to pull those technologies
to the market where there's real demand. And that's something
that DOE doesn't--can't do as quickly as an outside
organization can do because of some of the constraints related
to accounting and budgeting and budget lines. And so I think
that those are really important things.
And Congress has acted over and over again when there are
these kinds of constraints to create these quasi-governmental
organizations. There are nine different foundations that exist
that are similar to what DOE would have with the IMPACT
legislation. So, this is not a new issue for many of the
government agencies.
Mr. Casten. Well, I guess--and all that makes--all that
both makes a ton of sense and makes me a little bit sad. The--
you know, if essentially what you're saying is that the nature
of the bureaucracy in the organization means we need something
nimble on the outside, is there--can either of you
contemplate--and I'm not recommending this. It's just an open-
ended--is--are there ways that we could change DOE processes so
that we wouldn't have to depend on these outside groups, or is
it--is this just the nature of large-scale bureaucracies? Are
we just stuck with this and this is the right way to go
forward?
And I don't mean that as a leading question. I'm just
genuinely curious. If I was still CEO of a company as I was
before and I had this problem with my own organization, I'd be
thinking about how to make the organization more nimble, not
how to find an outside partner.
Ms. Wong. I think it's a really good question and I think
that there are things that the Department of Energy can do and
that's why I'm very supportive of the energize bill because it
does make a lot of really important improvements on what's
going on within DOE. But DOE is not the private sector and they
don't commercialize technology. It is the private sector that
commercializes technology. And you want them to be a part of
that conversation. That's an important part of how technologies
make it to the market, so I think that even with the broad
bureaucracy, you still need to engage the private sector in
that conversation and that's what a lot of these programs are
focused on doing.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. And I see my time is up. I really
appreciate your thoughts, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Casten. Thank you to
all the Members for your great questions and really, thank you
to all of our witnesses for your insights and your answers and
your participation in this virtual event today.
I just want to make sure that I let you know how helpful
it is for us in reviewing this legislation, as well as thinking
ahead about the other things that we can do in our
Subcommittee, in our Full Committee, and of course throughout
the Congress to advance these initiatives. So thank you so much
for your testimony here today.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements from Members, for any additional questions that the
Committee may ask of the witnesses, and for anyone, if you need
to supplement your answers, we'll be happy to take that for the
next two weeks.
But at this point the witnesses are excused and the
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]