[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  CLIMATE AND ENERGY SCIENCE RESEARCH
                      AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 4, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-12

                               __________

 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                    
44-717PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

                 HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             RANDY WEBER, Texas, 
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan                  Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          MIKE GARCIA, California
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         PETER MEIJER, Michigan
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              May 4, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................     8
    Written Statement............................................     9

Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    10
    Written Statement............................................    12

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    13

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    14
    Written Statement............................................    15

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Kristin Persson, Director, Molecular Foundry, Lawrence 
  Berkeley National Laboratory
    Oral Statement...............................................    17
    Written Statement............................................    20

Dr. Fikile Brushett, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, 
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Oral Statement...............................................    30
    Written Statement............................................    32

Dr. Esther Takeuchi, Chair, Interdisciplinary Science Department, 
  Brookhaven National Laboratory
    Oral Statement...............................................    43
    Written Statement............................................    45

Dr. Xubin Zeng, Professor, Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, 
  the University of Arizona
    Oral Statement...............................................    51
    Written Statement............................................    53

Dr. Narasimha Rao, Associate Professor of Energy Systems, Yale 
  School of the Environment
    Oral Statement...............................................    61
    Written Statement............................................    63

Discussion.......................................................    71

 
                  CLIMATE AND ENERGY SCIENCE RESEARCH
                      AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                          TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o'clock 
a.m., via Zoom, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the 
Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Bowman. This hearing will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess at any 
time.
     Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note 
that, today, the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to 
announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the conduct 
of this hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on 
as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are 
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your 
microphones muted unless you are speaking. 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.
     I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
     Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who 
are joining us virtually here today to discuss the importance 
of climate and energy science research at the Department of 
Energy (DOE). This hearing is one of a series on research and 
development (R&D) activities sponsored by the DOE's Office of 
Science. This office was funded at over $7 billion in fiscal 
year 2021, and accounts for over half of DOE's non-defense R&D 
budget. The energy sciences and climate research programs were 
each funded at over $2 billion and three quarters of a billion 
dollars in fiscal year 2021, respectively. Today, we will just 
be focusing on these two programs, though there are others that 
we will examine in the months ahead.
     While these investments are not insignificant by any 
means, they are simply not enough to tackle the climate crisis. 
This research is not just a nice-to-have; it is a must-have for 
the safety, security, and future of humanity.
     The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program is one of our 
Nation's biggest sponsors of research in the natural sciences. 
This research helps us understand matter and energy down to the 
atomic level to ultimately inform advances in a broad range of 
green energy technologies. A great example of this work is 
battery technology development, which we will hear much more 
about today. Understanding the materials properties of various 
building blocks of batteries and being able to observe how 
batteries perform in real time at the molecular level, this is 
the kind of cutting-edge scientific research we need as we 
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
     We should also keep in mind, however, that solving the 
climate crisis is not only a technological challenge. To meet 
our climate goals, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change has said, will take ``rapid, far-reaching, and 
unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.'' And as the 
Biden Administration has made clear, these changes can and must 
lift up workers, the poor, and redlined communities of color, 
who are already hardest hit by the fossil fuel economy and the 
impacts of a warming planet.
     Bold climate action can create millions of jobs, union 
jobs and make life better for all. And we already have the 
technologies we need to go all-in on the transition. Here too, 
research at the Department of Energy has a crucial role to 
play. I am pleased that we are joined today by experts who can 
speak to the interdisciplinary research and new kinds of 
collaborations we need. That includes more integration with the 
social sciences to help us deploy existing green technologies 
faster and better, in ways that promote justice and build 
community power. Let's learn by doing, and plug those lessons 
into science research and technology development as we go.
     We also have distinguished witnesses present today who 
will discuss the climate science activities carried out by 
DOE's Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program. This 
research helps us understand complex Earth systems, the 
accelerating impacts of climate change, and how we can better 
protect people and infrastructure. It also aims to improve our 
understanding of regional differences in climate and Earth 
systems at a more granular level to help inform policymakers. 
This kind of data would be incredibly useful for my district, 
as I have seen firsthand how communities are dealing with 
climate impacts like flooding and extreme heat, which are 
compounded by failing infrastructure and other forms of 
environmental justice.
     One of the most important features of these programs are 
the operation and maintenance of state-of-the-art scientific 
user facilities. These facilities attract some of the world's 
most talented researchers from academia and industry. They 
range from giant synchrotron light sources to nanoscale 
research facilities, all of which are used to imagine and 
understand the fundamental properties of materials and chemical 
processes for a wide range of clean energy, medical, and other 
important applications.
     The Office of Science is also--also supports field 
observatories around the world that measure atmospheric data 
that feed into climate models. But the research infrastructure 
is not--is only one piece of the puzzle. We need people, 
talented and trained professionals, to perform this research 
and help lead us into a green, just future. And we need to 
increase the participation of marginalized communities, 
including with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) education infrastructure and workforce pipelines 
that will unleash the talents of students of color who have 
been neglected. This is a topic that is near and dear to my 
heart, and I am proud that this Committee is working to make 
our research activities more inclusive at every level through 
various legislative proposals.
     I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses 
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your 
testimonies.
     [The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are 
joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of climate 
and energy science research at the Department of Energy.
    This hearing is one of a series on research and development 
activities sponsored by the DOE's Office of Science. This 
office was funded at over seven billion dollars in FY21, and 
accounts for over half of DOE's non-defense R&D budget. The 
energy sciences and climate research programs were each funded 
at over two billion dollars and three quarters of a billion 
dollars in FY21, respectively. Today we will just be focusing 
on these two programs, though there are others that we will 
examine in the months ahead.
    While these investments are not insignificant by any means, 
they are simply not enough to tackle the climate crisis. This 
research is not just a ``nice-to-have''; it is a must-have for 
the safety, security, and future of humanity.
    The Basic Energy Sciences program is one of our nation's 
biggest sponsors of research in the natural sciences. This 
research helps us understand matter and energy down to the 
atomic level to ultimately inform advances in a broad range of 
green energy technologies. A great example of this work is 
battery technology development, which we will hear much more 
about today. Understanding the materials properties of the 
various building blocks of batteries, and being able to observe 
how batteries perform in real time at the molecular level--this 
is the kind of cutting-edge scientific research we need as we 
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    We should also keep in mind, however, that solving the 
climate crisis is not only a technological challenge. To meet 
our climate goals, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change has said, will take ``rapid, far-reaching and 
unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.'' And as the 
Biden administration has made clear, these changes can and must 
lift up workers, the poor, and redlined communities of color, 
who are already hit hardest by the fossil fuel economy and the 
impacts of a warming planet. Bold climate action can create 
millions of good, union jobs and make life better for all. And 
we already have the technologies we need to go all-in on the 
transition.
    Here too, research at the Department of Energy has a 
crucial role to play. I am pleased that we are joined today by 
experts who can speak to the interdisciplinary research and new 
kinds of collaborations we need. That includes more integration 
with the social sciences, to help us deploy existing green 
technologies faster and better--in ways that promote justice 
and build community power. Let's learn by doing, and plug those 
lessons into science research and technology development as we 
go.
    We also have distinguished witnesses present today who will 
discuss the climate science activities carried out by DOE's 
Biological and Environmental Research program. This research 
helps us understand complex Earth systems, the accelerating 
impacts of climate change, and how we can better protect people 
and infrastructure. It also aims to improve our understanding 
of regional differences in climate and Earth systems at a more 
granular level to help inform policymakers. This kind of data 
would be incredibly useful for my district, as I have seen 
firsthand how communities are dealing with climate impacts like 
flooding and extreme heat, which are compounded by failing 
infrastructure and other forms of environmental injustice.
    One of the most important features of these programs are 
the operation and maintenance of state-of-the-art scientific 
user facilities. These facilities attract some of the world's 
most talented researchers from academia and industry. They 
range from giant synchrotron light sources to nanoscale 
research facilities, all of which are used to image and 
understand the fundamental properties of materials and chemical 
processes for a wide range of clean energy, medical, and other 
important applications. The Office of Science also supports 
field observatories around the world that measure atmospheric 
data that feed into climate models.
    But the research infrastructure is only one piece of the 
puzzle. We need people--talented and trained professionals--to 
perform this research and help lead us into a green, just 
future. And we need to increase the participation of 
marginalized communities, including with STEM education 
infrastructure and workforce pipelines that will unleash the 
talents of students of color who have been neglected. This is a 
topic that is near and dear to my heart, and I am proud that 
this Committee is working to make our research activities more 
inclusive at every level through various legislative proposals.
    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.

     Chairman Bowman. With that, I now recognize Mr. Weber for 
an opening statement.
     Mr. Weber. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate that. And thank you for hosting this hearing. And we 
want to say thank you to our witnesses and our witness panel 
for taking the time to be with us today.
     Passage of the Energy Act of 2020, comprehensive 
bipartisan energy legislation which became law at the end of 
the last Congress, was a giant leap in the right direction when 
it comes to updating U.S. energy policy and deploying a diverse 
portfolio of clean next-generation power sources. But the 
applied energy activities authorized by the Energy Act only 
represent, quite frankly, about half of the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction at DOE. The other half is the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, a $7 billion, with a ``B'', program 
that oversees 10 of DOE's national labs and 28 user facilities.
     Armed with the most cutting-edge tools of modern science--
like advanced light sources, particle accelerators, and two of 
the top five fastest supercomputers in the world--the Office of 
Science has made invaluable contributions to the United States 
scientific progress. This office has repeatedly demonstrated 
that basic science research is the most effective way to 
encourage the development of those kinds of new technologies 
we're seeking. But as I speak here today, other countries like 
China are making significant investments in science and 
threatening our global leadership when it comes to innovation.
     That is why the Department's continued investment in basic 
and early stage research is vital, vital to maintaining our 
technological edge. And I'm proud to report that we're in the 
middle of a bipartisan process to reauthorize the Office of 
Science, which will invest in the facility upgrades and basic 
infrastructure that attracts and retains the absolutely best 
scientists in the world.
     As part of that reauthorization process, today, we'll 
focus on two specific programs within the Office of Science: 
Basic Energy Sciences (BES), Biological and Environmental 
Research (BER). At the simplest level, BES researchers discover 
new materials and designs new chemical processes. While this 
touches virtually every aspect of our energy resources, the 
ultimate goal of the program is to better understand the 
physical world and harness nature to benefit people and society 
as a whole. Pretty powerful stuff. BES's focus includes 
materials science research that leverages DOE advanced 
computing resources to aid in the development of novel 
materials used to make energy production, energy storage, and 
use cleaner and more efficient.
     Just last Friday, I introduced H.R. 2950, the Computing 
Advancements for Materials Science, or CAMS, Act, which in part 
establishes DOE computational materials and chemistry science 
centers and a materials research data base. I am excited to 
hear from our panel of witnesses, including Dr. Kristin Persson 
from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, on how applying advanced 
computing capabilities to materials science will accelerate our 
progress in developing those very exact new clean energy 
technologies.
     The BER program, the other subject of our hearing today, 
is more focused on the natural world and aims to uncover 
nature's mysteries involving genomics, plants, ecosystems, and 
complex Earth science systems--or complex Earth systems rather 
in an effort to reengineer microbes and plants for energy, as 
well as other applications. In this capacity, BER also plays a 
unique and essential role in researching the relationship 
between the atmosphere, ocean, land, and us humans to improve 
climate and Earth system models.
     I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on how 
they've utilized the many user facilities, the tools, and the 
collaborative resources that both BER and BES have to offer, 
and what groundbreaking discoveries are right around the corner 
as a result. We'll see if Ms. Kristin can pontificate on the 
future.
     I'd like to take a moment to thank my friends across the 
aisle, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and making 
bipartisanship a priority when it comes to this kind of 
legislation. It's a good thing. We appreciate that. It's been a 
long time coming, but I am beyond excited to think we are 
shaping the future of science and energy through the focus on 
the Office of Science.
     Thank you again for all the witnesses for being here. I 
look forward to their testimonies. And with that, Mr. Chairman, 
I yield you back 2 seconds.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this hearing and 
thank you to our witness panel for taking the time to be with 
us today.
    Passage of the Energy Act of 2020, comprehensive bipartisan 
energy legislation which became law at the end of last 
Congress, was a giant leap in the right direction when it comes 
to updating U.S. energy policy and deploying a diverse 
portfolio of clean next-generation power sources. But the 
applied energy activities authorized by the Energy Act only 
represent about half of the Science Committee's jurisdiction at 
DOE. The other half is the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science, a seven-billion-dollar program that oversees ten of 
DOE's national labs and twenty-eight user facilities.
    Armed with the most cutting-edge tools of modern science--
like advanced light sources, particle accelerators, and two of 
the top five fastest supercomputers in the world--the Office of 
Science has made invaluable contributions to U.S. scientific 
progress. This office has repeatedly demonstrated that basic 
science research is the most effective way to encourage the 
development of new technologies. But as I speak here today, 
other countries like China are making significant investments 
in science and threatening our global leadership when it comes 
to innovation.
    That is why the Department's continued investment in basic 
and early-stage research to vital to maintaining our technology 
edge. And I'm proud to report we're in the middle of a 
bipartisan process to reauthorize the Office of Science, which 
will invest in the facility upgrades and basic infrastructure 
that attracts and retains the best scientists in the world. As 
part of that reauthorization process, today we'll focus on two 
specific programs within the Office of Science: Basic Energy 
Sciences (BES) and Biological & Environmental Research (BER).
    At the simplest level, BES research discovers new materials 
and designs new chemical processes. While this touches 
virtually every aspect of energy resources, the ultimate goal 
of the program is to better understand the physical world and 
harness nature to benefit people and society as a whole. BES's 
focus includes materials science research that leverages DOE 
advanced computing resources to aid in the development of novel 
materials used to make energy production, storage, and use 
cleaner and more efficient.
    Just last Friday, I introduced H.R.2950, the Computing 
Advancements for Materials Science (CAMS) Act, which in part 
establishes DOE computational materials and chemistry science 
centers and a materials research database. I am excited to hear 
from our panel of witnesses, including Dr. Kristin Persson from 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, on how applying advanced 
computing capabilities to materials science will accelerate our 
progress in developing new clean energy technologies.
    The BER program, the other subject of our hearing today, is 
more focused on the natural world and aims to uncover nature's 
mysteries involving genomics, plants, ecosystems, and complex 
earth systems in an effort to reengineer microbes and plants 
for energy and other applications. In this capacity, BER also 
plays a unique and essential role in researching the 
relationship between the atmosphere, ocean, land, and humans to 
improve climate and Earth system models.
    I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses on how 
they've utilized the many user facilities, tools, and 
collaborative resources that both BER and BES have to offer, 
and what groundbreaking discoveries are right around the corner 
as a result.
    I'd like to take a moment to thank my friends across the 
aisle for holding this hearing and making bipartisanship a 
priority when it comes to legislation. It's been a long time 
coming, but I am beyond excited to think we are shaping the 
future of science and energy through our focus on the Office of 
Science.
    Thank you again to our witnesses for being here, and I look 
forward to hearing each of your testimonies. I yield back the 
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening 
statement.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowman. Good 
morning to all. I'm appreciative of your holding this important 
hearing today and want to thank all of our esteemed witnesses 
that are here.
     Today, we meet to discuss the pioneering research 
supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and 
how the national laboratories, major facilities, and cutting-
edge programs that it stewards are leading our Nation to a 
cleaner energy future.
     The Office's Basic Energy Sciences program, or BES as we 
call it, is one of the Nation's largest sponsors of research in 
the physical sciences, supporting research at nearly 170 
universities, laboratories, and other research institutions 
throughout the U.S. The program also currently oversees 12 
national user facilities, two Energy Innovation Hubs, and 41 
Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) tasked with finding 
solutions for our Nation's greatest energy challenges.
     Many significant innovations can be traced to decades of 
BES research and--such as the LED (light-emitting diode) 
lighting; efficient solar cells; better batteries; improved 
production processes for high-value chemicals; and stronger, 
lighter materials for transportation, nuclear power, and 
national defense applications. The program is also instrumental 
in fostering the next generation of scientists, which echoes 
the importance of our Nation's continuous support of STEM 
education from K-12 through the doctorate degree level.
     Not to be overshadowed, the Biological and Environmental 
Research program, or BER, seeks to equip our leading 
researchers and policymakers with the knowledge and tools 
necessary to better understand and predict the behavior of 
biological, climate, and other environmental systems. BER 
supports atmospheric and ecosystem research at all levels, from 
microscopic to field-scale. This work is carried out by 
scientists at universities and other research institutions 
across the Nation and is further enabled by the two state-of-
the-art user facilities, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 
facility and the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory.
     The research supported by BER is ultimately--provide us 
with a more holistic and predictive understanding of our 
climate and environment that accounts for regional and temporal 
variations and considers the complex impacts they have on human 
behavior. That, in turn, will enable us to better anticipate 
shifts in our climate and to design and develop more efficient 
and resilient energy generation systems and infrastructure.
     Today's witnesses should know that it is a priority for 
this Committee to strengthen and support the scientific 
capabilities of our national labs and universities, so I look 
forward to our distinguished panelists sharing their 
perspectives not only on future research pathways to solve 
grand challenges, but also how we can expand access to the 
unique capabilities of these critical facilities and programs. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Chairman Bowman, thank you for holding this important 
hearing today, and thank you to our esteemed panel of witnesses 
for being here.
    Today we meet to discuss the pioneering research supported 
by the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and how the 
national laboratories, major facilities, and cutting-edge 
programs that it stewards are leading our nation to a cleaner 
energy future.
    The Office's Basic Energy Sciences program, or BES, is one 
of the nation's largest sponsors of research in the physical 
sciences, supporting research at nearly 170 universities, 
laboratories, and other research institutions throughout the 
U.S. The program also currently oversees 12 national user 
facilities, two Energy Innovation Hubs, and 41 Energy Frontier 
Research Centers tasked with finding solutions for our nation's 
greatest energy challenges.
    Many significant innovations can be traced to decades of 
BES research, such as LED lighting; efficient solar cells; 
better batteries; improved production processes for high-value 
chemicals; and stronger, lighter materials for transportation, 
nuclear power, and national defense applications. The program 
is also instrumental in fostering the next generation of 
scientists, which echoes the importance of our nation's 
continuous support of STEM education from K-12 through the 
doctorate degree level.
    Not to be overshadowed, the Biological and Environmental 
Research program, or BER, seeks to equip our leading 
researchers and policymakers with the knowledge and tools 
necessary to better understand and predict the behavior of 
biological, climate, and other environmental systems. BER 
supports atmospheric and ecosystem research at all levels-from 
microscopic to field-scale. This work is carried out by 
scientists at universities and other research institutions 
across the nation, and is further enabled by two state-of-the-
art user facilities, the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 
facility and the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory.
    The research supported by BER will ultimately provide us 
with a more holistic and predictive understanding of our 
climate and environment that accounts for regional and temporal 
variations and considers the complex impacts they have on human 
behavior. That, in turn, will enable us to better anticipate 
shifts in our climate and to design and develop more efficient 
and resilient energy generation systems and infrastructure.
    Today's witnesses should know that it is a priority of this 
Committee to strengthen and support the scientific capabilities 
of our national labs and universities. So, I look forward to 
our distinguished panelists sharing their perspectives on not 
only future research pathways to solve grand challenges, but 
also on how we can expand access to the unique capabilities of 
these critical facilities and programs. Thank you. I yield 
back.

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
     The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this 
hearing, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being with 
us today.
     The Department of Energy is the largest Federal sponsor of 
basic research in physical sciences and is a world leader in 
science and technology innovation. Through its Office of 
Science and national laboratory system, the Department supports 
research across scientific disciplines and plays a lead role in 
U.S. research and development ecosystem.
     Today, we have an opportunity to examine the activities of 
two of the Office of Science programs, the Basic Energy 
Sciences and the Biological and Environmental Research. These 
two programs cover a wide variety of high-priority R&D 
initiatives from advanced materials science in biochemistry to 
geoscience and climate systems modeling.
     The science impact of BES and BER cannot be overstated. 
BES funds basic research at more than 150 U.S. academic, 
private-sector, and nonprofit institutions, and its user 
facilities support approximately 16,000 scientists and 
engineers each year. Over the past 40 years, BES research has 
led to major discoveries in solar cells, battery technology, 
advanced transportation materials, manufacturing processes, 
nuclear power, and LED lighting.
     The other program we're considering today, BER, has helped 
redefine modern biotechnology through the Human Genome Project 
and since the 1950's has driven innovation in U.S. cutting-edge 
U.S. environmental science--systems sciences. Today, BER is 
accelerating the capacities of complex Earth system models 
using large-scale data and high-performance computing. This is 
the kind of fundamental research that will not only enable the 
development of next-generation technologies but will also 
support U.S. competitiveness in science and establish our 
global leadership in the industries of the future.
     This is why my bill, the Securing American Leadership in 
Science and Technology, SALSTA, which creates a long-term 
strategy for investment in U.S. research and infrastructure, 
includes a comprehensive reauthorization of the DOE Office of 
Science, roughly doubling the funding for programs like BES and 
BER over 10 years. SALSTA also provides specific funding for 
key DOE national laboratory user facilities like the light 
sources and neutron sources that enable BES work. And it 
establishes a program for the development and construction for 
BER user facilities.
     I'm also proud to join my colleagues on two bills to 
strengthen the work done by BER and BES. Last week, Randy 
Weber, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, introduced the 
Computing Advances for Materials Science Act, which will create 
a program at DOE to apply advanced computing practices to 
materials research sciences challenges. And my colleague 
Representative Baird of Indiana introduced a bill today to 
reauthorize Bioenergy Research Centers (BRCs) and create user 
facilities to help us address complex challenges in 
environmental science. These bills are important steps forward 
in improving our Nation's clean energy research.
     This hearing comes at a critical time in our conversation 
on the state of our Federal R&D enterprise. Lately, we've heard 
a lot of talk about big investments in American innovation, but 
at this moment we face very real threats to our global 
scientific leadership. Only serious proposals can be 
considered. Maintaining U.S. leadership in science and 
technology will require a shared commitment to prioritize DOE 
and its Office of Science. And let me be clear, any American 
R&D investment plan that lacks this commitment is fundamentally 
flawed.
     The Science Committee may not agree on everything, but 
we've always been united in our support of the Office of 
Science. This Congress, I look forward to continuing to work 
with Chairwoman Johnson and my friends across the aisle on 
bipartisan Office of Science legislation that will make a 
strong commitment to the success of programs like BER and BES 
and ensure the long-term stability of our international 
leadership in science.
     I once again want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today, and I look forward to a productive discussion. Thank 
you, Chairman Bowman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Bowman for hosting this hearing, and 
thank you to all our witnesses for being with us this 
afternoon.
    The Department of Energy is the largest federal sponsor of 
basic research in the physical sciences and is a world leader 
in science and technology innovation. Through its Office of 
Science and National Laboratory system, the Department supports 
research across scientific disciplines and plays a lead role in 
the U.S. research and development ecosystem.
    Today, we have an opportunity to examine the activities of 
two Office of Science programs, in Basic Energy Sciences (BES) 
and in Biological and Environmental Research (BER). These two 
programs cover a wide range of high priority R&D initiatives: 
from advanced materials science and biochemistry, to geoscience 
and climate systems modeling. The scientific impact of B-E-S 
and B-E-R cannot be overstated.
    BES funds basic research at more than 150 U.S. academic, 
private sector, and nonprofit institutions, and its user 
facilities support approximately 16,000 scientists and 
engineers each year. Over the past 40 years, BES research has 
led to major discoveries in solar cells, battery technologies, 
advanced transportation materials, manufacturing processes, 
nuclear power, and LED lighting.
    The other program we're considering today, BER, has helped 
to redefine modern biotechnology through the Human Genome 
Project, and since the 1950s has driven innovation in cutting-
edge U.S. environmental systems science. Today, B-E-R is 
accelerating the capabilities of complex earth systems models 
using large scale data and high-performance computing.
    This is the kind of fundamental research that will not only 
enable the development of next-generation technologies, but 
will also support U.S. competitiveness in science and establish 
our global leadership in industries of the future. This is why 
my bill, the Securing American Leadership in Science and 
Technology Act (SALSTA), which creates a long-term strategy for 
investment in U.S. research and infrastructure, includes a 
comprehensive reauthorization of the DOE Office of Science, 
roughly doubling funding for programs like BES and BER over ten 
years.
    SALSTA also provides specific funding for key DOE national 
laboratory user facilities, like the light sources and neutron 
sources that enable B-E-S work. And it establishes a program 
for the development and construction of B-E-R user facilities.
    I'm also proud to join my colleagues on two bills to 
strengthen the work done by BER and BES.
    Last week, Randy Weber, the Ranking Member of this 
Subcommittee, introduced the Computing Advancements for 
Materials Science Act, which creates a program at DOE to apply 
advanced computing practices to materials science research 
challenges. And my colleague Representative Baird of Indiana 
introduced a bill today to reauthorize bioenergy research 
centers and to create user facilities to help us address 
complex challenges in environmental science. These bills are 
important steps forward in improving our nation's clean energy 
research.
    This hearing comes at a critical time in our conversation 
on the state of our Federal R&D enterprise. Lately, we've heard 
a lot of talk about big investments in American innovation. But 
at this moment, as we face very real threats to our global 
scientific leadership, only serious proposals can be 
considered. Maintaining U.S. leadership in science and 
technology will require a shared commitment to prioritize DOE 
and its Office of Science. Let me be clear--any American R&D 
investment plan that lacks this commitment is fundamentally 
flawed.
    The Science Committee may not agree on everything, but we 
have always been united in our support for the Office of 
Science. This Congress, I look forward to continuing to work 
with Chairwoman Johnson and my friends across the aisle on 
bipartisan Office of Science legislation that will make a 
strong commitment to the success of programs like BER and BES, 
and ensure the long-term stability of our international 
leadership in science.
    I once again want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today. I look forward to a productive discussion. Thank you 
Chairman Bowman and I yield back the balance of my time.

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
     If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 
point.
     At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. 
Kristin Persson is a Professor in Materials Science and 
Engineering at UC Berkeley with a joint appointment as Faculty 
Senior Scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory where she also serves as Director 
of the Molecular Foundry. She has published more than 200 
papers in peer-reviewed journals, holds several patents in 
energy applications, and is among the world's 1 percent most-
cited researchers.
     Dr. Fikile Brushett is an Associate Professor of Chemical 
Engineering and Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Chair at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). His research 
group focuses on advancing the science and engineering of 
electrochemical technologies needed for a sustainable energy 
economy. Dr. Brushett received his bachelor's in chemical 
engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, a master's and 
Ph.D. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and was 
a postdoc at DOE's Argonne National Laboratory.
     Dr. Esther Takeuchi is a SUNY (State University of New 
York) Distinguished Professor and a William and Jane Knapp 
Chair in Energy and Environment at Stony Brook University. She 
holds a joint appointment at DOE's Brookhaven National 
Laboratory as Chief Scientist and Chair of the 
Interdisciplinary Science Department. She is also a Director of 
an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the Department. 
Dr. Takeuchi is a member of National Academy of Engineering, 
was awarded the National Medal of Technology and Innovation by 
President Obama, and was inducted into the National Inventors 
Hall of Fame.
     Dr. Xubin Zeng is an Agnes N. Haury Chair in Environment, 
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, and Director of the Climate 
Dynamics and Hydrometeorology Center at the University of 
Arizona. Through over 200 peer-reviewed papers, Dr. Zeng's 
research has focused on land-atmosphere-ocean interface 
processes, weather and climate modeling, hydrometeorology, 
remote-sensing, and big data analytics. He also serves on the 
Science Advisory Board of the DOE Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratories Earth and Biological Sciences Directorate and the 
Science Advisory Board Environmental Information Services 
Working Group of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA).
     Last but certainly not least, Dr. Narasimha Rao is an 
Associate Professor of Energy Systems at the Yale School of the 
Environment. Dr. Rao has two decades of global experience in 
energy, first as an energy consultant and, for the last decade, 
as an academic. Dr. Rao's research examines energy systems, 
climate change, and human development. He is particularly 
interested in equity and energy transitions and the impacts of 
climate change and its mitigation on poverty around the world.
     Thank you all for joining us today. As our witnesses 
should know, you will have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony. 
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the 
hearing. When you all have completed your spoken testimony, we 
will begin with questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to 
question the panel. We will start with Dr. Persson. Dr. 
Persson, please begin.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. KRISTIN PERSSON,

                  DIRECTOR, MOLECULAR FOUNDRY,

             LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

     Dr. Persson. Thank you. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 
Lucas, Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and distinguished 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
today. My testimony is my own and does not necessarily reflect 
the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the University of 
California.
     I'm an immigrant and a naturalized citizen and Basic 
Energy Science has touched virtually every aspect of my 
scientific career in the United States. My testimony is based 
on my leadership roles in three BES programs, the Joint Center 
for Energy Storage Research (JCESR), the Materials Project, and 
the Molecular Foundry. I also have a strong connection to 
industry and the applied sciences, which allows me to observe 
how Basic Energy Science insights translate into technological 
solutions.
     As you know, BES provides world-leading expertise and 
instrumentation to advance fundamental knowledge. It also 
provides training of our next-generation scientists. And from 
my experience, BES funding provides a foundational path forward 
for future-looking innovation leadership, democratizing the 
access to knowledge and workforce development.
     For example, on innovation leadership, the materials used 
today in lithium-ion batteries were first studied in the 1970's 
and 1980's at places like Bell Lab's national laboratories and 
universities. Today, the main question that I get from 
investors and EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy) is how do we deal with the mineral resource 
limitations? Our current lithium-ion batteries can't operate 
well without some of these metals, for example, cobalt. 
However, our most promising next-gen materials are quite 
different than our current ones, and these materials are 
directly related to strong long-term investment in the 
understanding of how ions arrange and how they move in battery 
materials.
     To support future innovation, the energy storage hub at 
Argonne, JCESR, focuses on beyond lithium chemistries, and as 
one major breakthrough I can mention, JCESR has uncovered the 
fundamental reason why we don't have high energy density 
magnesium and calcium batteries like lithium. JCESR has now 
turned that knowledge into a discovery vehicle for the 
development of new materials to increase stability, and we 
currently hold the world record in new liquid formulations.
     The Materials Project is a BES-funded Materials Genome 
Initiative software center, and today, it's the world-leading 
materials data platform. It provides a stellar example of the 
impact of Basic Energy Science and democratizing knowledge and 
accelerated learning. The Materials Project uses high-
performance computing to calculate the foundational properties 
of materials rather than measuring them, which is so much 
faster and cheaper. For example, measuring even one property by 
traditional means across tens of thousands of materials, that 
would take decades and millions of dollars, and we can 
calculate it in a matter of weeks to months.
     This high-value and precompetitive materials data is then 
made available free of charge to the world. Every day, tens of 
thousands of users, diverse minds and innovators, access this 
data to train machine-learning algorithms to develop novel 
materials that support our future energy solutions. Our 
audience has been growing exponentially since we started. The 
Materials Project is now approaching 200,000 registered users.
     And finally, the Nanoscale Science Research Centers, the 
NSRCs, are BES-funded user facilities, one of them being the 
Molecular Foundry. They are knowledge-based centers for 
interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale where access to 
leading expertise is as important as access to state-of-the-art 
instrumentation and resources. Electron microscopy is one of 
those resources, and now, hopefully, thanks to the wonderful 
virtual format of this hearing, I'd like to take you to 
California.
     This is the Molecular Foundry. This is the user facility 
where we house, for example, the TEAM (Transmission Electron 
Aberration-corrected Microscope) microscopes. The TEAM 
microscopes are a product of multi-institution industrial 
collaborations funded by the BES. They were the best in the 
world in 2009, and they're still a critical resource today. The 
picture you're seeing here is an iron-platinum nanoparticle 
where we can image exactly where each atom sets and correlate 
that to the knowledge of its magnetism. And this is 
fundamentally important for new applications in next-generation 
hard drives.
     This is just one of the hundreds of free-of-charge 
capabilities that the Foundry provides, and each year, the 
Foundry supports roughly 1,000 users, including academics, 
students and training, small businesses, and 2/3 of these are 
early career scientists. It's a shining example of how BES-
funded science democratizes both the expert knowledge, as well 
as high-value instrumentation, which enables a broad spectrum 
of today's breakthroughs and contributed to the next generation 
of workforce development.
     These are some of the many vital roles that BES science 
plays in the U.S. energy ecosystem, and without sustained 
investment, we shortchange or stall technological advances so 
necessary for our future generations. Thank you for listening, 
and I look forward to taking any questions.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Persson follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Persson. Dr. Brushett, you 
are now recognized.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. FIKILE BRUSHETT,

          ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING,

             MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

     Dr. Brushett. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Chairwoman 
Johnson, Ranking Member Weber, Ranking Member Lucas, 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I'm honored to 
testify before you here today at this hearing. My name is 
Fikile Brushett, and I'm an Associate Professor of Chemical 
Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I'm 
also a contributor to the Joint Center for Energy Storage 
Research, JCESR, an Energy Innovation Hub sponsored by the 
Department of Energy's Basic Energy Sciences program.
     My research program at MIT focuses on advancing the 
science and engineering of electrochemical technologies needed 
for a sustainable energy economy. My principal research 
interest has been the development of redox flow batteries, 
which have the potential to enable such a transition by 
facilitating the integration of intermittent resources like 
wind and solar into the electric grid, as well as by optimizing 
existing grid infrastructure. While state-of-the-art redox flow 
batteries have achieved niche successes, present embodiments 
are too expensive for ubiquitous adoption. We are vigorously 
pursuing opportunities for transformative advancements that 
will change these economics. My group, along with others, are 
searching for inexpensive electrolyte formulations, developing 
high-performance electrochemical reactors, and working to 
establish manufacturing capabilities for battery systems and 
the materials and components they are made of.
     We work on these important problems with other academics, 
with national laboratories, and with industry. JCESR has truly 
served as a hub for these collaborations, without which I would 
have sought other, safer directions, and my group's progress in 
flow batteries would have been slower and ultimately our work 
less impactful.
     So let me tell you how BES has supported the career 
development path I've taken. When I finished my graduate thesis 
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, I knew I 
wanted to apply my training to problems in energy storage. An 
appointment at the--as a Director's Postdoctoral Fellow at 
Argonne National Laboratory provided a rapid entrance into my 
newly chosen field. There, dozens of research professionals 
with diverse scientific backgrounds were working in the battery 
group addressing an interconnected set of problems for modeling 
the chemistry inside an electrochemical cell at the atomistic 
level to building and breaking large battery packs. I was 
immersed in battery science and engineering and learned much 
from this vibrant research community surrounding me.
     I also had easy access to experts at Argonne's cutting-
edge facilities. I could grab coffee with a beamline scientist 
at the Advanced Photon Source (APS) or have lunch with a 
synthetic chemist from the Center for Nanoscale Materials. I 
learned new science, expanded my research skills, and was 
inspired to explore new research directions.
     Beyond research, I was also able to develop other 
important skills essential for running a successful group, 
things like project management, scientific leadership, and best 
practices in environment, health, and safety. My postdoc at 
Argonne also provided an opportunity to participate in writing 
what would become the winning proposal for an Energy Innovation 
Hub focused on energy storage, JCESR. Thus, when JCESR ramped 
up at the same time I started at MIT, I was able to secure 
research funding for my group, pursue ideas that I had helped 
to develop, and gain immediate visibility both at MIT and 
within the energy research community.
     My own experience at Argonne, first as a postdoc and now 
as a JCESR researcher and team leader, opened my eyes to 
educational and scientific opportunities that DOE offers young 
scientists and engineers through the national laboratories, 
opportunities I now often suggest to undergraduate students, 
graduate students, and postdoctoral associates I mentor at MIT.
     In conclusion, while I have undoubtedly benefited from the 
rich research environment at MIT in terms of student education, 
faculty mentoring, fundraising, and fruitful collaborations, my 
engagement with JCESR has added another dimension, accelerating 
my career growth as a scientist, as a teacher and mentor, and 
as a leader.
     Thank you for the invitation to testify before this 
Senate--this Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. Thank 
you.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Brushett follows:]
 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Brushett. Dr. Takeuchi, 
you are now recognized.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. ESTHER TAKEUCHI,

          CHAIR, INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

                 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

     Dr. Takeuchi. Good morning. Chairman Bowman, Ranking 
Member Weber, Chairwoman Johnson, Chairman Lucas, Committee 
Members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with 
you today. I draw on my experience of several decades in 
industry leading a research and development group in battery 
manufacturing, as well as my current position where I'm a joint 
appointee at Stony Brook University as a faculty member and a 
member of the Brookhaven National Lab.
     Let me start with a few words about the energy landscape. 
It really is imperative to rapidly change the energy landscape 
in order to address not only resiliency but environmental 
sustainability. The two opportunities that I want to describe 
for you today are electrification of transportation and 
broadening adoption of renewable energy into the electric grid, 
and both of those opportunities depend on energy storage.
     Specifically, I'm going to talk about batteries. What 
batteries do is take chemical energy and reversibly allow 
electricity to be delivered. When I was in industry, I 
developed the battery for the implantable cardiac 
defibrillator. While that battery works very well for its 
application, it's entirely different than the batteries in our 
laptop computers, the batteries in electric vehicles that are 
much larger, and now we're talking about even larger batteries 
for the grid that must last 10 or 20 years, so lifetimes and 
size keep both increasing.
     In terms of research and development structure, complex 
problems such as energy storage are best addressed in teams. 
I'm the Director of an Energy Frontier Research Center funded 
by BES. This is a vehicle that has allowed me to pull together 
a team of highly talented researchers on their own and focus 
them collectively to address items that they could not address 
singly. From 2014 to 2018, we probed the question of the 
balance of batteries delivering electricity and heat. If we can 
minimize heat, they become more efficient, and now we're 
looking into the fundamental science of making batteries big 
and scalable.
     Researchers, talented researchers need tools. When I 
started my career, the best way to figure out what was 
happening in a battery was to test it, cut it open, and look at 
the pieces. Today, I can go to facilities such as the National 
Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National Lab. I can 
probe a working battery using high-energy x-rays strong enough 
to visualize what's taking place inside a sealed battery in 
real time. This information really accelerates ability to 
develop and visualize next-generation batteries because we have 
unprecedented information.
     Our findings in the EFRC have also led us to be able to 
work with more applied programs in the Department of Energy. 
Some of the materials findings we're working with the Office of 
Electricity to probe whether these ideas are relevant to large-
scale batteries with water-based electrolyte or working with 
the Vehicle Technologies Office, part of EERE, to investigate 
fast charge, a 10-minute charge of vehicle batteries. That 
technology approach we patented, and now we have follow-on 
funding from the Technology Commercialization Fund to 
demonstrate that approach at scale.
     Workforce development and interacting directly with next-
generation scientists is one of the major drivers for me to 
leave industry and move to academics to be able to shape and 
inspire the next generation of scientists and leaders. The 
EFRCs provide a venue where young investigators can be 
supported, gain insight into national lab, academic, and 
collaborative research, and frame their careers for the future.
     So, in closing, I want to highlight that availability of 
clean, reliable energy directly correlates with standard of 
living and the quality of human life. We must ensure that this 
is the case. Transformation of our energy landscape is an 
imperative. That's why the investments by DOE and BES are so 
critical. Let me be clear. This is a race. There are 
significant global investments, and these investments over the 
next several years will determine not only the energy landscape 
but whether the United States maintains an opportunity to lead.
     Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to 
questions.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Takeuchi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Takeuchi. Dr. Zeng, you 
are now recognized.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. XUBIN ZENG,

         PROFESSOR, HYDROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,

                   THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

     Dr. Zeng. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, 
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and the Members of 
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here 
today to discuss climate and the environmental science research 
at the Department of Energy or DOE.
     Starting this week, I begin to co-chair the Scientific 
Steering Group of the Global Energy and Water Exchange Project, 
which is one of the major international programs on climate and 
water sciences. My testimony today draws on my extensive 
leadership experiences and a publication record of over 200 
peer-reviewed papers.
     I will briefly cover four topics: current status of the 
DOE research, unique aspects, major challenges, and future 
directions.
     For the current status, DOE programs support three primary 
research activities on the atmospheric system, environmental 
system, and the Earth and the environmental systems modeling. 
This portfolio also supports true scientific user facilities, 
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement facility and is an 
Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. In particular, the 
modeling program supports the development of the DOE energy 
exascale Earth system model.
     To illustrate the success of these activities, here, I 
share just one example. DOE's [inaudible] model version I was 
released in 2018, including a unique capability to zoom in for 
a closer look of the particular regions such as the United 
States. More recently, a new global cloud-permitted modeling 
capability of a 2-mile grid spacing has been developed, making 
this model the world's highest resolution climate prediction 
capability.
     Regarding the uniqueness, four unique aspects of DOE's 
research efforts can be identified. First, DOE climate model 
stands out for being the first Earth system model of its kind 
to be drawn on the ultrafast supercomputers, that is exascale 
computers developed by DOE.
     Second, DOE emphasized the extreme weather under global 
warming and a geographic domains that exist--exhibit sharp 
gradients such as coastlines and complex terrain over Western 
United States.
     Third, DOE is integrating its human system model with its 
climate model. This represents the world's first attempt to 
develop a fully coupled human-Earth system model to make more 
consistent and realistic predictions.
     Finally, DOE's user facilities are world-leading in 
relevant fields. For instance, the comprehensive observatory 
approach using ground and airborne measurements is now widely 
adopted by other national and international programs.
     But at the same time DOE's research faces several major 
challenges in integrating Earth system modeling with exascale 
computing, the understanding of predictability of the fully 
coupled human-Earth system and in keeping up with new observing 
technologies for the user facilities.
     Based on these discussions, the future directions include 
several areas. First, global cloud-permitting model with a grid 
spacing of 2 miles should continue to be developed for exascale 
computers. Also needed is the use of innovative artificial 
intelligence (AI) for coupled human and natural system modeling 
and uncertainty quantification, computational efficiency, and 
the model process representation.
     Second, closer collaborations with DOE applied programs 
are needed to assist in the planning of our Nation's energy and 
related infrastructure. In particular, this planning can be 
assisted by tradeoff and scenario analyses using full coupled 
human-Earth system modeling.
     Third, DOE user facilities need to keep up with new 
capabilities, and enhanced better service is needed to expand 
the user base and to help convert data into knowledge. DOE also 
needs to proactively reach out to minority-serving institutions 
and historically Black colleges and universities.
     Besides interagency collaborations, the coupled human-
Earth system modeling capabilities can also assist the private 
sector on topics like extreme events under climate change.
     Finally, DOE can benefit from and contribute to the new 
initiative of the World Climate Research Programme on Digital 
Earth, which is a dynamic representation of the Earth system 
based on optimal blending of models and observations.
     Thank you.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Zeng follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Dr. Zeng. Dr. Rao, 
you are now recognized.

                TESTIMONY OF DR. NARASIMHA RAO,

             ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENERGY SYSTEMS,

                 YALE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT

     Dr. Rao. Chairman Bowman, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking 
Member Weber, Ranking Member Lucas, distinguished Members, I'm 
honored to have the opportunity to address you today.
     I was asked to speak about the social sciences and climate 
research and specifically about the benefits of integrating 
socioeconomic aspects into climate models. First, as a matter 
of clarification, the models that I address are those that 
project greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and 
simulate policies and actions to reduce these emissions. I 
would like to make the case today that we need more social 
science research to understand how different communities around 
the country may be impacted by and respond to climate policies. 
These energy and climate models can support the design and 
implementation of climate policies by incorporating insights 
from such research into realistic projections of emissions 
reductions so that we can more accurately assess progress and 
the best path forward to achieve our targets.
     Our energy systems are embedded in social institutions 
with changes implied by our targets are potentially far-
reaching across society involving not only how we produce and 
deliver energy but also how we use energy. These changes may 
affect our homes, how we get around, as well as how we organize 
our lives Achieving the scale of transformation in society 
requires turning knowledge into action, action by government, 
organizations, and individuals, and understanding the social 
processes by which these actions can lead to transformative 
change is the domain of social sciences.
     My focus today is specifically on households, how energy 
climate models represent household consumption behavior and 
their response to policies. The motivation for my focus is 
twofold. First, there is wide recognition that climate change 
is a matter of social justice and equity. We know that low-
income communities globally are likely to face a 
disproportionate burden of climate change and of efforts to 
mitigate its effects. Racial and income inequalities and energy 
burdens in the United States are already stark. Low-income 
Black communities spend more than double the share of their 
income on transport as the average American, while 1/3 of them 
have no vehicular and poor transit options. Mortality during 
heat waves is higher in low-income communities very likely due 
to lower use of air-conditioning.
     The social sciences offer a rich understanding of poverty 
and structural inequality. We can draw from these insights and 
research approaches to better understand energy burdens on 
which we will impose new policies and technologies.
     My second motivation for focusing on households is that 
climate researchers have identified many changes in our 
lifestyles that would improve our well-being such as health and 
reduce emissions. For instance, walking or cycling to work, 
riding transit in cities, reducing waste, using products longer 
with more care can reduce overall material use and free up 
societal resources to improve our lives in different ways. 
However, we need more research in the social sciences to 
examine the scope and feasibility of these changes and realize 
the potential benefits.
     Let me speak specifically of the models. Energy climate 
models have been instrumental in getting us to this point. They 
have helped us understand how human systems drive emissions 
growth, the portfolio of technologies we need to mitigate 
climate change and the pace of decarbonization required to 
avoid the worst effects of climate change. These models are 
widely used by different communities, including policymakers, 
the finance community, development agencies, and researchers 
who want to understand what to expect from future climate 
policies.
     However, these models have simplistic representation of 
households. For instance, they typically model single 
representative households per region. As we move to 
implementing policies, it is critical that we disaggregate 
households based on structural differences such as income, 
contextual factors such as the people live in cities or suburbs 
or rural areas, and assess noneconomic considerations such as 
health, all of which influence decisions.
     Household decisions in these models also neglect social 
norms, peer effects, and various constraints that shaped 
decisions. For instance, homes located near those that have 
rooftop solar panels are more likely to invest in them 
themselves. Financial constraints, the digital divide, poor 
electric charging infrastructure may all be barriers to 
widespread adoption of new electric mobility options. And 
making these effects more explicit in models can enable more 
realistic assessment of technology adoption.
     Energy services are instrumental to meet other needs. Poor 
transit limits job opportunities, access to nutritious food, 
and the scope for other activities. Our energy use impacts 
others' well-being such as through air pollution. New electric 
mobility options could reduce local air pollution, but they may 
increase pollution from power plants, which can affect other 
communities.
     So, in conclusion, with more social science research, we 
can develop a more systematic understanding at a local level of 
the impacts of future policies on our climate goals, on equity, 
and on our overall well-being. And by integrating this research 
into climate models, we can link local policies and responses 
to national and global emissions targets, we can assess the 
broader social impact of an energy transition, and more 
realistically track progress in achieving our long-term climate 
goals. Thank you for listening. I look forward to your 
questions.
     [The prepare statement of Dr. Rao follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Rao.
     At this point we will begin our first round of questions. 
The Chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
     Dr. Rao, thank you for your fascinating testimony. I 
wanted to follow up on your comments about climate policy 
focused on well-being. I believe we need to break out of the 
simplistic economic assumptions that too often shape the 
parameters of policy, and your remarks underscored that for me. 
In a country where the rich have massively higher carbon 
footprints, achieving a fairer distribution of wealth is a 
matter of climate policy. Giving people more time to care for 
and enjoy their loved ones is a matter of climate policy, too, 
because we need to shift away from harmful kinds of consumption 
and toward an abundance of the things that genuinely improve 
quality of life.
     If we went big on investing in the modeling improvements 
you described and integrated cutting-edge social science, can 
you say more about the different kinds of possibilities that 
might be opened up? Would that kind of modeling allow us to 
demonstrate how climate action and building a better society 
can go hand-in-hand?
     Dr. Rao. Yes, sir. I do believe there are many 
opportunities that are opened up to seek a more equitable 
society from pursuing climate policies that we assess in models 
that assess a wide range of impacts besides economic impacts.
     So I'd like to classify them into two types of 
opportunities. One of them is to be able to alleviate some of 
the existing burdens that people already face from their energy 
situations. So, for instance, if we think about people who live 
in inner cities who don't have access to transit today, they 
may not have vehicles, and the existing options may be too 
cumbersome for them to really travel outside their 
neighborhoods in order to seek employment opportunities or seek 
places where they can buy nutritious food. New mobility options 
such as car-sharing options or introducing new routes, electric 
buses, for example, these could potentially fill a gap in the 
existing services that they receive today.
     And so if we can understand with social science research 
these vulnerabilities that people have in different parts of 
the country, understanding the actual energy burdens they face, 
not only economic but actual deprivations of energy services, 
we may find ways that these new abilities, these new options 
could actually meet some of these needs that aren't being met 
today.
     Another example might be heat stress. We--if we understand 
better the extent to which people are not using equipment today 
in order to keep their homes cool in summer or warm in winters, 
we can potentially think about upgrades to buildings that can 
offer new technologies that could alleviate problems such as 
respiratory illnesses due to mold, it can make sure that they 
have the ability to afford to heat their homes as well or cool 
them in summer. So these are some of the options that we can 
exploit with these new technologies, and social science can 
help us understand the potential for that.
     There also are other range of opportunities that we open 
up in thinking about well-being when you consider our broader 
consumption. So, for example, we may think about the fact that 
we waste a quarter of our food supply, and that has an impact 
on greenhouse gas emissions. We have a lot of congestion and 
air pollution from our use of private vehicles in cities. If we 
introduce policies that can encourage people to use transit, to 
share vehicles, we can reduce air pollution, which may affect 
particular communities, and we may raise the overall level of 
resources that are freed up by reducing waste and channel them 
to improving our well-being overall. So those are some 
examples.
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Rao. I wanted to try to 
squeeze in one more question.
     Dr. Takeuchi, thank you for your testimony as well. I want 
to zoom in on what you said about training the next generation 
of scientists and leaders and ask if you have further 
reflections on that subject. I may be biased, but as a former 
teacher and principal, I tend to think that education is the 
answer to everything and particularly more equitable education 
so that we are tapping into the potential of communities that 
have seen decades of disinvestment. We've had several 
discussions on this Committee about the role of education in 
preparing our young people for the green energy transition. 
Given what you've told us about the importance of 
interdisciplinary research and collaboration across different 
aspects of a scientific problem, do you see ways that we can 
infuse those principles into STEM education more broadly, 
particularly at the K to 12 level?
     Dr. Takeuchi. Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to have to 
speak quickly here. I think part of the key is to making sure 
that everyone is included. I'm extremely proud of our own 
research group that is highly diverse not only in ethnic and 
cultural background but gender as well. The FRC team that I 
assembled is also highly diverse, and I think demonstrating to 
people that everybody counts is a key aspect of showing people 
that there's an opportunity for them so they don't feel left 
behind or excluded.
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Weber for 
5 minutes. Oh, excuse me.
     Mr. Weber. I'm here. I'm here.
     Chairman Bowman. Disregard. Who's next in line to ask 
questions? My apologies.
     Staff. Mr. Weber is next.
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you.
     Mr. Weber. If I can figure out how this machine works, I 
can do this. Can you all hear me? Mr. Chairman? OK, thank you.
     Dr. Persson, in your opening--like I mentioned in my 
opening statement, I recently introduced the CAMS Act, which I 
think you will--I hope you will agree really touches in a good 
way on a critical area of research in addition to establishing 
computational materials in chemistry science and in materials 
research data base. My bill aims to improve materials science 
research by applying advanced computing practices to emerging 
chemistry and materials science challenges. It did not escape 
me that one of the other witnesses--I think it was--is it Dr. 
Takeuchi--said that we are in a race, and boy, she's right 
about that.
     Anyway, Dr. Persson, you said in your testimony that 45 
million data records are requested and delivered daily, and 
tens of thousands of community researchers log into the 
materials data base every single day. If you could quantify it, 
how much or what percentage of that data is being fed into 
advanced computers or artificial intelligence algorithms, No. 
1, first question? No. 2, how unique are DOE's computing 
resources and knowledge and how would they help improve your 
particular materials research? And I'll stop for your answers.
     Dr. Persson. Thank you for that question. I--indeed, I am 
passionate about this subject. This is the foundational work 
that the Materials Project relies on and hopes to bring to the 
future.
     Your question goes first about how much or the percentage 
of the data that gets fed into AI and machine learning, the 
best answer I can give to that is that every day a paper is 
published using Materials Project data that uses also the word 
machine learning. It's hard for us to track exactly how people 
use data, but that is one way. We can use natural language 
processing to look into papers rapidly, even though so many are 
published every day, and literally say, OK, they've mentioned 
the materials part and they've mentioned machine learning. 
Every day a paper is published doing that.
     We have seen a tremendous increase of the number of data 
points the Materials Project delivers--is requested and 
delivers every day. From the last couple of years with the 
acceleration of machine learning as being such a popular and 
powerful way to address materials innovation and design, the--
being the only data base that gives this many properties for 
materials available, this is why we're seeing such a tremendous 
increase.
     Your question--the second question was on the DOE 
computers. The--they're amazing. We would never be able to do 
what we do today without them. I have had tremendous support 
from--for example, from NERSC (National Energy Research 
Scientific Computing Center) and Berkeley Lab but also from 
places like NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and 
Argonne in terms of using their computers.
     There are different kinds of computers useful for 
different things. If you're doing climate modeling or social 
sciences modeling or materials research modeling, and the one 
thing I would say is that we need the diversity of computing 
architectures to address all of those different kinds of 
computing needs. And I'm really happy to see that those are 
being met at different kinds of computing centers in the United 
States.
     Mr. Weber. So do you go onsite to use those computers? How 
often do you interface with those computers?
     Dr. Persson. We run 24/7. I don't--thankfully, I don't 
have to go there in person. We are scripts and our algorithms 
run every day 24/7 as long as they have up time. Sometimes they 
go down for maintenance, but that is the only time we don't 
run.
     Mr. Weber. And you say there's many, many papers every day 
published. You're right, this is absolutely fascinating. Who 
keeps up with those papers? How do you talk to your colleagues? 
Who decides what papers, what's the best article? I know you're 
limited by time.
     Dr. Persson. No, that's a great question, too, and we are 
struggling with out. There's no researcher today that can 
physically read every paper that's produced, so we're actually 
starting to use automated ways to analyze which papers to read 
and how to read them. So, like I mentioned, natural language 
processing is a way for machines to read papers and to extract 
the knowledge from them.
     Actually, we have to--in my opinion, papers are wonderful, 
they're storytelling vehicles, but we also need to actually get 
the data out of them more quickly. That's one way of doing it. 
But if we were better at putting the data in places like data 
bases like the Materials Project, we would have to go back and 
actually extract different papers. So in my opinion we should 
do better.
     Mr. Weber. Well, hence the need for advanced 
supercomputing in a major way. And I have a lot more questions, 
but I'll yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
     Staff. Ms. Johnson is next.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
     Oftentimes when people think of climate science research 
they think of NOAA, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 
NSF (National Science Foundation), and understandably so 
because they may forget about the vital work of DOE and what 
they do in this space such as contributions to the national 
climate science and modeling efforts to the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program and the international level through 
contributions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
     I'd like to ask Dr. Zeng, can you discuss what makes--I'm 
sorry. Can you discuss what makes the Department of Energy 
uniquely qualified among the Federal Government science 
agencies to conduct climate science research? And then to what 
extent do these agencies currently collaborate on climate 
science research?
     Dr. Zeng. Thank you for the question. Among the different 
Federal agencies, when I think of DOE, I can think of a few 
unique aspects. The first one is DOE's climate model is 
optimized for the fastest computers in the world. This is super 
fast exascale computing. It is a big deal because the hardware 
speeds of the supercomputers can be ranked and benchmarked, but 
what's equally important is what's the percentage of those 
capabilities actually used? This is related to architectural 
and the software engineering of the climate model. And the DOE 
is moving very rapidly in that direction. The lessons learned 
and the best practices of DOE can be followed and will be used 
by other agencies and worldwide.
     The second unique aspect is about the coupled human-Earth 
system model. There are around 50 Earth system models, and 
there are around 10 human system models in the world. And only 
DOE is in the process to bring them together. So with limited 
time I just give you those two examples.
     And in terms of the multiagency collaborations, there are 
already some interactions of different levels. Scientists 
supported by different agencies are talking with each other all 
the time, and the program managers from different agencies are 
talking with each other. Even today, we are having our 
scientific steering group meeting, so I escape from that 
meeting, come here to testify. And it's there we have managers 
from different agencies in the United States and worldwide. 
There is cross-agency collaboration mechanism such as the U.S. 
Global Change Program. But I still--more can be done, 
particularly on big projects.
     I'll give you an example. If you cannot balance your 
checkbook, you don't feel good. But if we ask we cannot balance 
our water for major basins for Mississippi, for Colorado, as 
scientists, we do not feel good either. In other words, we 
don't know exactly how much water go to the Colorado River 
Basin, how much water come out and where are the sources and 
the sinks. And the community wants to have big projects working 
together with different agencies to solve this kind of grand 
challenge.
     I will stop here. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. One other 
question. In developing legislation to reauthorize activities 
of the Biological and Environmental Research, the BER program 
within the Office of Science, we've heard from stakeholders 
that there is a gap in research funding mechanisms. I 
understand that this program funds large-scale experiments and 
the user facilities we've heard a lot about in this hearing and 
also small individual research grants, but there is no in-
between. So do you think that the BER program could benefit 
from having a midscale funding mechanism to fund research that 
would be carried out by multiple institution research centers, 
similar to the Office of Science's Basic Energy Sciences 
program that supports the Energy Frontier Research Centers?
     Dr. Zeng. Making it simple, it's a great idea. I just hope 
at one more point these university partners should also include 
the involvement of underrepresented groups such as students 
from minority-serving institutions and historically Black 
institutions and universities. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
     Staff. Ranking Member Lucas is next.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would address my 
questions, my inquiries to all the witnesses.
     As I mentioned, SALSTA doubles our investment in basic 
research in the Department of Energy over the next decade. What 
role do you think of DOE's Office of Science and its national 
laboratories play or perhaps I should say should play in 
enhancing our competitiveness with other nations in science and 
technology? And while you're thinking about that, what if 
anything should we be doing to enhance DOE's role in our 
Federal research enterprise as we seek an edge over 
international competition? And I throw that open to the entire 
panel.
     Dr. Takeuchi. Let me just make a few opening comments. I 
think----
     Mr. Lucas. Please.
     Dr. Takeuchi. [continuing]. BES investment is really 
critical because it does lay all of the foundational science, 
and I think that the continued DOE investments in the more 
applied offices are also critical because we need that 
translational infrastructure to ultimately end up in the 
private sector as well. So the way I see it that there's really 
four circles. Academics, national labs, industry, and let me 
add policy all need to work together to advance the field to 
accomplish what you're talking about in having international 
competitiveness.
     Mr. Lucas. Anyone else care to touch on that?
     Dr. Zeng. Yes. From the----
     Mr. Lucas. Please.
     Dr. Zeng [continuing]. Our sides, there is substantial 
competition from our partners in Europe. They are very 
aggressive in terms of supporting big science. And our hope is 
that we want to maintain our leadership. In terms of the 
coupled human-Earth system modeling, the integration of 
modeling with exascale computing and our observing user 
facilities in each area, OK, even today, we are having the 
international steering committee meeting. You can see there are 
very ambitious projects supported by E.U. And on the American 
side, the DOE is always about the big projects. Besides the 
small and now we talk about midsize, we need those ambitious 
big size projects to maintain our leadership.
     Mr. Lucas. Anyone else care to touch on that subject 
matter, the question?
     Dr. Persson. I'd be happy to. I completely agree with the 
latest comments. I have collaborators and colleagues in Europe 
and also in Asia, and what I can see, for example, the 
Materials Project funding, they are getting funding that are 
four times that. They're still behind us because, quite 
honestly, American innovativeship--innovativeness is hard to 
beat, and we're also the first ones to do what we did. But in 
the end funding will matter, so that is the one big vehicle.
     I also--I see the tremendous passion that the scientists 
at the Molecular Foundry and the NSRCs and the labs have for 
working with our community. Doing that better, being vehicles--
bringing in vehicles that allows, for example, professors and 
graduate students and postdocs to travel from the rest of the 
country to be part of the knowledge sharing and the ideas that 
we leverage to solve our future problems, that would be a big 
deal for the user facilities and for our communities in 
general.
     Mr. Lucas. Anyone else?
     Dr. Rao. Sure. I'd just add one small point here.
     Mr. Lucas. Please.
     Dr. Rao. I wanted to mention that the European Research 
Council, I've recently seen their strategic plan over the next 
5 years for research and they've allocated $15 billion toward 
climate. And one of the main elements of that strategic plan is 
to have social science and humanities research be a core part 
of every single cluster that they have announced. And so I 
think, you know, interdisciplinary collaborations within the 
sciences and social science to really understand how we can 
have widespread adoption of these technologies I think would be 
also valuable.
     Mr. Lucas. In my few remaining seconds, and I have to ask 
from both perspectives, what if anything we should not be 
doing, we should not be doing? And you don't have to answer, 
but your insights are appreciated.
     Dr. Zeng. Yes, I do have one comment here. I don't have a 
direct answer, but I feel accountability and a metrics for 
success is crucial.
     Mr. Lucas. Fair enough, Doc. With that I see the balance 
of my time is expiring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
all the witnesses for their insights today.
     Staff. Ms. Bonamici is next.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Bowman, 
Ranking Member Weber. Thank you especially to our witnesses for 
your expertise. This is an excellent discussion this morning.
     I represent northwest Oregon, and here, the climate crisis 
is not a distant threat; it's really a reality. We see it in 
many ways. And the need for robust climate science will only 
grow as our communities and our economy experience the 
increasing effects of the climate crisis.
     I'm honored to serve on the Select Committee on the 
Climate Crisis. Last year, we released our bold, comprehensive, 
science-based climate action plan to reach net zero emissions 
no later than midcentury and net negative thereafter. And we 
acknowledge that we need high-quality, peer-reviewed climate 
science to serve as the foundation for our efforts to solve 
this crisis. Our plan calls for robust climate science 
research, observations, monitoring, and modeling activities, 
including support for Earth observations, climate model 
development, international collaboration, and improvements in 
data and computing infrastructure.
     And I know certainly on this Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee we have a lot of support for quantum 
computing and we've shown that over the years.
     Dr. Zeng, I'm the Co-Chair of the bipartisan House Oceans 
Caucus, so I'm particularly interested in your research on the 
land-atmosphere-ocean interface processes in the Earth system. 
How can efforts through the Biological and Environmental 
Research program within the Office of Science better inform our 
understanding of sea level rise and other effects of the 
climate crisis on coastal communities?
     And following that, Dr. Rao, how can we make sure that 
this research better integrates the socioeconomic modeling to 
support frontline communities in those coastal regions?
     Dr. Zeng?
     Dr. Zeng. Yes. You know, you pick up all those crucial 
topics. Actually, DOE's climate modeling at this time has three 
focus areas. One of them is cryosphere in terms of the 
Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melts, how does that affect 
sea level rise? For Oregon, of course, as a coastal state, and 
DOE just initiated a new program on the coastal study for the 
interaction between ocean, lands, and atmosphere.
     So, obviously, DOE research and the results will directly 
benefit States like Oregon. Even from my own research is 
directly relevant to say our Nation's weather forecasting, my 
group has contributed the software developments for the weather 
forecasting every single day over ocean and over land, of 
course, including Oregon.
     Now, in terms of the social sciences sides, DOE does have 
a multisector dynamics program that's about human system 
modeling. There, human activities are included, things like 
urbanization, irrigation, agriculture, deforestation, for 
example. And the socioeconomical projects are also included. 
What has not been treated well is about the human behavior. We 
are human beings. We have a lot of complicated decisionmaking 
process. Those are the processes----
     Ms. Bonamici. And, Doctor, I don't want--mean to cut you 
off, but I want to ask a Dr. Rao that question as well and then 
I have one more question I wanted to try to get in. Dr. Rao, 
can you add anything to the social services--or, excuse me, 
social sciences aspect of the ocean and economic model?
     Dr. Rao. Yes, thank you very much. Just to build on what 
Dr. Zeng was saying, which I agree with, we need a deeper 
representation of households, which includes looking at the 
spatial regularity, so understanding what populations are 
located on the coast, what are their characteristics in terms 
of income and other attributes. We need to understand the 
physical infrastructure around them in order to assess the 
vulnerability to sea level rise and other impacts. We need to 
think about migration, migration into coastal areas and away 
from coastal areas and what--under what conditions people are 
amenable to that. And there are models that are trying to look 
at that in terms of climate resilience and adaptation, but we 
need a lot more granularity to really understand and make them 
responsive to future conditions.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'm going to get one more 
question in. Dr. Takeuchi, in your testimony you talk about the 
importance of teamwork, working in partnership to develop new 
generations of battery and energy storage. As a longtime 
advocate for integrating the arts into STEM education, I truly 
appreciate your arts analogy of a symphony orchestra bringing 
together--you know, with a conductor bringing together 
everyone. You talk about that in your collaboration potential 
of the Energy Frontier Research Centers.
     So recognizing that the existing lithium-ion batteries 
will not meet the growing need for more complex energy storage 
challenges like electric vehicles or a clean energy grid, how 
can the Basic Energy Sciences program better support that type 
of collaboration to accelerate the development of clean energy 
technologies and energy storage?
     Dr. Takeuchi. I do think that the program such as the 
Energy Frontier Research Center and the hubs are really 
outstanding vehicles to bring together teams of scientists and 
technologists and engineers to focus on kind of mission-driven 
science questions. So I think that those vehicles should be 
maintained, expanded where possible because they are 
outstanding concepts that allow addressing exactly the point 
that you're making.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. I yield back. Mr. 
Chairman, I wish we had 5 hours per Member instead of 5 
minutes. Thank you. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Baird is next.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Weber. I appreciate this opportunity, and I really appreciate 
the insight from the witnesses that we have here today.
     As Ranking Member Lucas mentioned, I introduced the 
Department of Energy's Biological Innovation Opportunities, the 
BIO Act today, and it is to support DOE's biological research 
infrastructure initiative, which would include reauthorization 
of DOE's Bioenergy Research Centers and establish a program for 
the construction of Biological and Environmental Research user 
facilities.
     And one example we've talked about across various 
disciplines in our discussion here this morning, there are 
multiple benefits for society that are derived from the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science basic research. And we 
are constantly looking for sustainable domestic biofuels and 
bioproducts that are derived from nonfood lignocellulose plant 
biomass. And for those of you that might be interested, 
lignocellulose is the most abundant biological material on 
Earth, and it's most often contained in plant cell walls. It's 
made up of long, tightly bound chains of sugars, 
polysaccharides, that can be either converted to biofuels and 
bioproducts by microbes. And so I am making the connection here 
because of agriculture and the role they might play or it might 
play in this energy solution.
     But my question really deals with knowing the importance 
of this interdisciplinary Office of Science research and how 
important that can be, my question to the witnesses is how your 
perspective, what opportunities there are for additional BER 
user facilities? So I really want to focus on those user 
facilities, what we might derive from expanding and increasing 
the number of those. So, Dr. Zeng, would you care to express an 
opinion on that?
     Dr. Zeng. Regarding biofuel or crops, the good news is 
that DOE climate model actually includes the treatment of 
biofuel crops in the model, so that means we can look at the 
potential impacts in the modeling system. For the biofuel 
itself, that's not really my research area. Probably I should 
not say anything I don't understand.
     Mr. Baird. How about any of the other witnesses? Do you 
care to address that question about biofuels and the importance 
of research and the interdisciplinary connectivity?
     Dr. Takeuchi. Representative Baird, I wanted to comment on 
your question regarding research facilities and infrastructure, 
and I wanted to point out that, for example, the synchrotrons 
are used very often in biological and pharmaceutical and 
clinical-type investigations. So I think that the fundamental 
infrastructure in terms of both the nano centers and the large-
scale synchrotron facilities are also highly relevant to the 
questions that you're asking regarding biofuels and 
understanding the fundamental physiology and mechanism of 
plants.
     Mr. Baird. Anyone else care----
     Dr. Persson. I----
     Mr. Baird. Go ahead.
     Dr. Persson. I'll just add that even though this is not my 
core expertise either, the beauty of the NSRCs is that we have 
many different floors and many different expertise, and one of 
our floors in the Molecular Foundry is the bio floor. They work 
very closely in partnership with the JGI, the Joint Genome 
Institute, that actually works on biofuels.
     So the number of user facilities that work together from 
the characterization of the light sources to the nano centers 
to the BER user facilities, they're all actually--that's part 
of the teamwork, too, that we have discussed previously and I 
would like to highlight it. It's a vital part of that 
innovation.
     Mr. Baird. Very good. Anyone else have a comment? If not, 
I yield back the balance of my time, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. McNerney is next.
     Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman, and I thank the 
witnesses. This is a great subject. I majored in chemical 
engineering, and then switched to mathematics at some point in 
my career, but I really appreciate the testimony.
     Dr. Zeng, cloud aerosol research and computing seem to 
help us understand some of the key climate challenges, but 
uncertainty on how aerosols impact on the clouds seem to hinder 
our ability to determine climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas 
levels. Reducing this uncertainty will improve our ability to 
forecast weather and climate. How critical is increasing 
investment in the modernization and acceleration of the Energy 
Exascale and Earth Systems Model program? Dr. Zeng?
     Dr. Zeng. Yes. I'm thinking of two things. One is the 
research, and one is the application. On the research side, for 
example, I mean, a couple of weeks ago, news media asked me 
about hurricane activities because there are above average 
hurricane activities 5 years in a row. This year, we predict an 
above average hurricane activity. How can we predict hurricane 
activities in the future if we use today's climate model, the 
grid size is 50 miles. We cannot even see the eyes. What we 
need would be at least the 5 miles grid spacing and a DOE 
computer. And the climate model can do that to help the 
fundamental understanding.
     And for the application sides and thinking about the DOE 
climate model can be used for the planning to assist in the 
planning of our Nation's energy and its related infrastructure, 
scenario analysis and risk analysis and about working with 
applied programs of the DOE.
     Mr. McNerney. Well, you mentioned a 2-mile resolution, so 
we have a little ways to go on that then. A 2-mile resolution 
is the--is what you'd prefer. How essential is artificial 
intelligence to climate models?
     Dr. Zeng. It's crucial because the data volume becomes 
huge. Frankly, we human beings don't even know how to handle 
them anymore, so we need artificial intelligence from different 
perspectives, first help us to save computer time. Second, help 
reformulate the model processes and third, help us to do that 
uncertainty quantification and wherever possible, uncertainty 
reduction.
     Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Brushett, in November of 2020 
the Wall Street Journal published an article in which Dr. 
George Crabtree, Director of the Office of Science's Joint 
Center for Energy Storage Research, discussed the crucial role 
that AI plays in the battery materials discovery process. What 
roles do emerging technologies such as AI and robotics play in 
battery storage in AI development and battery storage 
technology development?
     Dr. Brushett. Thank you for this question, and I think 
also Dr. Persson can also answer this, but I'll give you a 
first pass. I think AI and machine learning dramatically 
accelerate critical activities like materials discovery and 
material synthesis, which are two vexing bottlenecks in the 
development of new technologies. They do so by finding sort of 
hidden correlations between desired performance metrics, which 
we could calculate, and actually then finding the structure and 
composition of materials that would be able to meet those 
desired performance metrics. These correlations can then define 
new classes of materials that will likely exhibit those desired 
properties and performance. It's tens to hundreds of times 
faster than searching for new materials by laboratory sort of 
brute force computation. Long used in drug discovery, I think 
that this is the next way for discovery for energy storage 
materials and materials science in general.
     Mr. McNerney. Thank you. And I was going to follow up with 
Dr. Persson on the same question. I'm interested in AI. I am 
Chairman--Co-Chairman of the AI Caucus in Congress and the use 
of AI in battery development and the researcher's ability to 
interact with the AI-driven insights. Could you discuss that a 
little, please?
     Dr. Persson. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your 
support of science in Berkeley lab in particular.
     So materials science is not like the social sciences or 
like they can leverage Google. We're actually data-poor in many 
cases, which is so important to also have a vehicle for 
harnessing our data or where it comes from, from experiments, 
from computations so that you can actually train machine-
learning algorithms on top of that data.
     So the first part--and I always liken this to like you--
machine algorithms are a Ferrari but you need fuel, the data, 
to actually run it. The automation--and I know I'm over time--
is a really critical aspect to it, too. If we have more time 
later on, I'll be happy to elaborate on what that's needed to 
close the loop between the modeling, the synthesis, and the 
characterization faster.
     Mr. McNerney. Thank you. And I'll be visiting the 
Molecular Foundry sometime as soon as I can.
     Dr. Persson. Fantastic.
     Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
     Staff. Mr. Feenstra is next.
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Bowman and Ranking 
Member Weber. Thank you to each of the witnesses for their 
testimony and sharing their extensive research and opinions 
with us.
     The research and collaboration lead by the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science is crucial for the future of 
American energy. I represent Iowa's 4th District, a leader in 
wind energy, so I am thankful for the ongoing research into new 
energy storage technology and critical materials that are 
important for renewable energy. And with our State being a 
leader in clean-burning biofuels and other forms of bioenergy, 
I appreciate the work being done at the Office of Science and 
Biological and Environmental Research programs.
     I have a question for Dr. Takeuchi. I was pleased to read 
about your research about leadership at one of the Energy 
Frontier Research Centers. It truly is a unique model that you 
pointed out that is similar to a conductor who understands an 
orchestra's music results from just one person and all the 
orchestra pieces playing together. Your specific EFRC focuses 
on scalable electrochemical energy storage systems, which are 
crucial as we grow wind energy in my district and across the 
country.
     Elsewhere in the Office of Science and Biological and 
Environmental Research programs are the Bioenergy Research 
Centers. And in my district, Iowa State University is a partner 
in one of these BRCs called the Centers for Advanced Bioenergy 
and Bioproducts Innovations, which focuses on increasing the 
value of energy and crops and converting biomass into valuable 
chemicals.
     So this is my question. My question to you is at what 
level of interaction do EFRCs have with any of the Bioenergy 
Research Centers, and what role do Bioenergy Research Centers 
play in being part of this group of people aiming for this 
common goal? Is increasing collaboration something that I could 
or we in general could assist on moving forward? Could you 
comment on that?
     Dr. Takeuchi. Thank you very much for your question. I 
just have to say really quickly I understand your interest in 
wind energy. I live on Long Island, and soon, we will have some 
of the greatest offshore wind energy in the entire country, so 
we will face similar challenges for integration.
     One of the things that DOE does very effectively is bring 
together the different Energy Frontier Research Centers in 
things called principal investigator meetings where the 
different centers focused on different areas come together and 
share their research and findings to facilitate interaction 
among the different groups. And I think that could be readily 
expanded to not only include BES but BER as well where cross-
population and cross-fertilization of ideas and findings could 
really be facilitated, and by sharing the findings, the 
different groups can then internalize how those findings would 
be relevant to their specific areas of research even though the 
specific thing that they are researching is different. And that 
can be a really effective way to kind of fertilize that 
interaction and make sure those communications take place.
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Doctor, for that answer and those 
comments. I have one other question for everyone. One of the 
newer technologies that I have heard promised about is in 
regard to fuel cells. As you know, fuel cells can use a variety 
of fuels, including bio-based fuels, which is of particular 
interest in Iowa. In fact, Dr. Persson of Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory has been awarded funding to conduct 
research into metal-supported solid oxide fuel cells for 
vehicles that could be used as part of the rapid start fuel 
cell system that uses the liquid bioethanol as a fuel. This is 
just one example of how biofuels could fit into future fuel 
technologies that dramatically lower our transportation sector 
carbon footprint.
     An open question to all witnesses, do you think we should 
drive more research into renewable fuel technology as an 
alternative to petroleum?
     Dr. Persson. Maybe I'll start. I think that it's--one of 
the beauties of biofuel is that we already have an 
infrastructure for liquids, and it nicely also ties into our 
climate mitigation. If we could harness CO2 and turn 
that into viable products, which is something that we work on 
from LiSA (Liquid Sunlight Alliance), which is the continuation 
of JCAP (Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis), of one of 
the innovation hubs, of how actually to turn CO2, 
and that is also a materials problem, right? You have to 
actually come up with the catalyst that helps you to turn 
CO2, which is an extremely stable molecule, into a 
liquid fuel that you can burn and become carbon neutral.
     At the Foundry, we also have several users that come to 
the Foundry with exactly that dream. They come from places like 
Houston in Texas or out in California with--and having seen 
their environment where they grew up and the climate impact on 
that environment, then they bring that passion and they bring 
their ideas to places like the NSRCs. And we work together with 
them to find solutions. We have startup companies that work 
with CO2 capture and turning that into actually a 
viable fuel.
     So that is a similar problem, but I'm going to turn it 
over to others.
     Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you so much, and I yield back. I 
ran out of time, but thank you so much.
     Staff. Mr. Casten is next.
     Mr. Casten. Thank you so much. The--this panel is--I don't 
mean to get all scientific, but you guys are awesome. I'm 
learning so much here. I really appreciate it.
     I got concerned several years ago that the--as we are 
deploying increasing volumes of intermittent renewables on our 
grid, we have the potential to start seeing increased CO2 
emissions, not because the renewables are generating CO2 
but because the only tool grid managers have is really 
inefficient partially loaded but quickly ramping gas cycles 
that ramp up and down to balance. And we started seeing some 
evidence of that in the Midwest where I'm from in Illinois a 
couple years ago. And it was really--and that was really what 
drove me to introduce the Grid Energy Storage Act last term, 
which worked with Congressman Foster, became the BEST Act, 
which was signed into law by the prior Administration to put 
about $1 billion into research, development, and deployment of 
grid energy storage because, of course, we're going to do grid 
energy storage or transmission to solve that problem. There's--
there are not a lot of other solutions to it. Hopefully, we 
will get that appropriated shortly and it will help support 
some of the research that all you people are doing here.
     But I want to start with you, Dr. Takeuchi, given your 
expertise on grid energy storage systems. Can you give us some 
sense of where are we at best-in-class right now especially 
around, you know, energy density and cost per kilowatt hour, 
and where do we need to get to before we're really going to 
have viable--commercially viable grid energy storage systems to 
start to balance out some of those imbalances in our system?
     Dr. Takeuchi. Thank you very much for the question. You 
know, in terms of energy density, my own personal belief is 
that for installed systems, the energy density itself is a 
little bit less critical than in applications like vehicles or 
portable power because most of the time it doesn't have to 
move. You know, we put it in place and it sits there.
     I think that the two critical things really are longevity 
and cost and they're related. Longevity is extremely important 
because then you can amortize the cost over a longer time. If 
the thing can last longer, you don't have to replace it as 
often. So I think we're still a distance away in terms of the 
cost targets that the utilities would like to see. I interact 
with many utilities in the Northeast to understand their needs 
and concerns.
     And I think another area that's really critical is the 
understanding and the education and the interaction with the 
ultimate customer, meaning the utility and the ultimate user, 
to make sure that the energy storage technologies that are 
deployed are deployed in an effective way such that their 
longevity, their lifetime, and their efficiency is maximized 
through the use profiles.
     So we're developing modeling systems on that integration 
question to make sure that when the energy storage is 
integrated, that it's integrated in the best place, best 
location, and with the best usage profile to, let's say, 
optimize the cost deployment profile.
     But the amount of research dollars that has been invested 
in grid scale storage is still far, far, far less than things 
like vehicle technology, et cetera, so there's still work 
definitely that needs to be done.
     Mr. Casten. Well, thank you. And I could ask Dr. Brushett 
or Dr. Persson the next question, but I'm going to go with 
Brushett only because I started my career at Arthur D. Little 
in Fresh Pond, and we cross-pollinated with a lot of your folks 
at--over at MIT. And of course now Argonne National Lab is just 
south of my district.
     The Advanced Photon Source, which of course is part of the 
BES program, has done all sorts of just fascinating things to 
develop some of these advanced battery chemistries. In the 
minute or so we have left, can you maybe just share with us 
some of the tools that we can use through that APS program to 
help develop these larger scale--particularly in the energy 
grid storage batteries?
     Dr. Brushett. Thank you. I'll do my best in the time that 
remains, and if you would like some more information, we can 
certainly follow up.
     So I think one of the things that Professor Takeuchi 
mentioned was lifetime associated with grid scale batteries and 
understanding how those batteries might decay over the lifetime 
and establishing mitigation strategies early on to allow them 
to last for longer and to allow us to use cheaper materials. A 
lot of the phenomena that we need to see our atomistic changes 
in catalysts or in electrode-type materials within that 
battery, and being able to see those often requires resources 
that you need to penetrate into an operating battery and see 
how the dynamic processes are occurring on that interface. It's 
not possible to do that at top-tier research facilities like 
MIT. You really need synchrotron resources and those powerful 
x-rays to peer inside the battery and understand where decay 
mechanisms are coming from. And so that's how we've been using 
it to understand how we can extend lifetime of these new 
materials.
     Mr. Casten. Thank you so much. I'm out of time and yield 
back. Dr. Persson, I'm sorry I didn't get to you, but if you do 
have more comments, please feel free to follow up with our 
office. Thank you.
     Staff. Mr. Gimenez is next.
     Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's been really 
fascinating listening to all the experts on the questions. I 
share my colleague's fascination with fuel cells and think that 
that is a viable alternative to large-scale batteries on 
transportation simply because of the refueling time and the 
impact that actually if we moved everything into electric 
vehicles, the impact that's going to have on the grid. And also 
how do we dispose of these batteries at the end of their useful 
life? I don't think we have a great answer for that.
     So--but regardless of that, my first question I guess is 
to Dr. Persson. And where do you think the United States lies 
right now in terms of computing power? Are we No. 1, are we No. 
2, and is the world catching up with us?
     Dr. Persson. That's a good question. I think the way I 
would see it--so I--there's competitiveness out there. I 
don't--I'm not entirely sure we're No. 1. But the No. 1 
question is a multifaceted question. Is it really just the 
exascale, like how fast? Is it really just how many CPU 
(central processing unit) hours you're getting? It's--or how 
many of those processes do you have? The important part is that 
we invest in the computing that will drive our innovation 
forward.
     So I'll give you an example. Some of our computing centers 
are particularly well-suited for certain algorithms. Some 
algorithms that I run can only run on other computing systems, 
so it's important to ask the question maybe what computing do 
we need to solve today's and maybe the next decade's problems? 
So, for example, machine-learning algorithms run on certain 
computers. The kind of algorithms that materials scientists 
run, run on other kinds of computers. And I do think in terms 
of those, we're leading.
     Mr. Gimenez. How fast is the world catching up to us, and 
who is our leading competitor? I already know the answer, so go 
ahead and answer.
     Dr. Persson. I would venture to guess that China is our 
competitor when it comes to the computing.
     Mr. Gimenez. OK. In terms of artificial intelligence 
because I think that's the great leap that we have--we have to 
win the race to artificial intelligence. Once we do that, then 
I think that, you know, the knowledge that we have and the 
ability to take unlike concepts and put them together and come 
up with something revolutionary is just going to take off. And 
so where are we in terms of the development of true artificial 
intelligence? And again, how close is our nearest competitor or 
are we lagging behind right now in achieving that?
     Dr. Persson. So there are two aspects to artificial 
intelligence. It's the data part, and it's the machine-learning 
part, the algorithm part. The machine-learning algorithm part 
is very tightly integrated with our ability to compute fast and 
efficiently in certain ways, so, for example, quantum computing 
is one of those avenues toward actually making artificial 
intelligence a reality.
     If I were to bring that back to my field because I would 
have to refer to experts in computing architectures to really 
truly talk about that aspect, if I bring it back to my field, 
quantum computing is inherently tied to materials. We don't 
have the materials today that can realize quantum computing in 
a cost-efficient way that operate with higher coherence that 
can actually like have those electrons talk to each other 
without losing signal across information flow. That is a 
materials problem, and that's one of the problems that we work 
on as materials scientists to try to enable the materials that 
can do that kind of talking lightning fast.
     Mr. Gimenez. Is that a material----
     Dr. Persson. Yes.
     Mr. Gimenez. Is that a material problem just for the 
United States or is it a material problem that the world has?
     Dr. Persson. Everywhere. Everywhere. That is a fundamental 
global and I would say precompetitive problem in the sense that 
the mechanisms for decoherence, for losing that signal strength 
is a precompetitive problem that BES funding is coming into. 
The actual material that eventually will go into a quantum 
computer, a truly successful one, that is more of the sort of 
more proprietary pathway.
     Mr. Gimenez. What can we do as a government in order to 
help you? I know it's going to be money, but what else can we 
do to help you to achieve--for the United States to be the 
leader in artificial intelligence and computing and maintain 
its leadership?
     Dr. Persson. So I would say that, again, going back to 
those two pillars, right, the computing, the materials aspect, 
and the data, we need data to actually train the machine-
learning algorithms. They don't work--they don't--they cannot 
operate without huge amounts of data to train them. We are not 
leveraging the data that's already being produced today in our 
user facilities, in our basic research programs because it's 
such huge amounts, right? And that's great, that's awesome. 
That means our scientists are immensely productive. But imagine 
now that you harnessed all that data and you learned from it 
more than just reading an article, which is hard enough to keep 
up with. If we harnessed our data in a more efficient way 
today, we cannot only turn machine-learning algorithms, we 
would be much more efficient in using the knowledge for 
[inaudible].
     Mr. Gimenez. Thank you so much, and I guess I'm out of 
time and I yield back. Thank you.
     Staff. Mr. Lamb is next.
     Mr. Lamb. Thank you all for hanging in there with us and 
for appearing today and sharing all the information that you 
have.
     I wanted to ask--I think maybe this is a question for Mr. 
Brushett, but I'll leave it open to anybody. With respect to 
the state of things today for grid scale battery storage, is it 
correct to say that in the United States the length of time 
that any grid scale battery installation lasts is somewhere 
around 4 to 6 hours at most? Is that like an upper limit of 
where we are today?
     Dr. Brushett. In terms of how you might want to use that 
application, yes. Most of the applications would require 4 to 6 
hours of storage or less. Is that what you intended to say, Mr. 
Lamb?
     Mr. Lamb. I think what I mean is just in practical terms 
if we lose power generation at 10 o'clock at night, is there 
anywhere that lasts beyond 4 a.m. the next morning? That--my 
understanding was that that was the roughly the limit of where 
we are now in terms of intermittency and the ability to cover 
that period.
     Dr. Brushett. Yes, I understand, and that is a correct 
understanding. Most of the backup battery installations that 
exist in the United States are designed for 4 to 6 hours 
largely for at time of energy management, so shifting energy 
from one part of the day to the other.
     Mr. Lamb. OK. And do either you or Ms. Takeuchi or 
anybody, do you guys have a sense of the time it will take us 
from today to transcend that in a meaningful way, you know, to 
get to not just 10 hours but to 100 hours with specifically 
batteries? I know there's other storage technologies and 
everything but just kind of the outlook for battery R&D?
     Dr. Brushett. So that's happening right now. There is 
ongoing research in long-duration energy storage that extends 
to, we'll say, multiple--a daylong worth of storage all the way 
out to a couple of days to, say, cover an outage that lasts for 
a week or a few days. Some of that work is sponsored within 
JCESR. One example is Form Energy, which is focused on, as you 
mentioned, a 100-hour battery, but some of that research 
nucleated in JCESR looking at long-duration energy storage with 
ultracheap materials and then ultimately spun off as a startup 
that became Form Energy.
     There's also increasing research within JCESR and other 
parts of the DOE as well on redox flow batteries. I mentioned a 
little bit earlier in my oral testimony, and these systems are 
designed for that 6 hours plus, right? The reason you want to 
go to a system like that is because, as it scales out in terms 
of time, the cost of the installation reduces per-unit energy 
based upon the system architecture. And so there is--but people 
are also looking into that as well.
     As was mentioned I think a little bit earlier, the amount 
of investment as compared to the investment in energy storage 
for transportation applications is decidedly less, and that's 
an area that I think is going to become increasingly important 
as more and more locally available renewable resources come 
onto the grid and we wish to utilize those. We're going to have 
to think about ways to store that energy and deliver it in a 
dispatchable way.
     Mr. Lamb. Yes, that's an important point, and thank you 
for emphasizing it.
     I know this is always a hard question to answer, but from 
what you know of the state of the research now, is it at all 
possible to forecast whether you think there would be a 
demonstration project of longer duration storage within the 
next 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? Do you have any idea what 
kind of timescale we're talking about there?
     Dr. Takeuchi. I personally am pretty optimistic. I'm not 
going to point to a specific example, but I think within the 
next 5 to 10 years--I'll put it this way--I think not only will 
it happen, I think it has to happen. So I think that's where 
the--you know, let me just echo what [inaudible] that, you 
know, the investment in long-duration or large-scale energy 
storage I think has been, you know, too low to be blunt, and I 
think that there is huge opportunity that--and a lot of insight 
that can be tapped to get us where we need to be.
     Mr. Lamb. Great. Thank you all. I'm out of time, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
     Staff. Ms. Ross is next.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been a 
wonderful Subcommittee meeting. And I really thank all of the 
folks who have come to testify.
     My question initially is for Dr. Rao, but if other people 
want to pipe in after he's answered it, please feel free.
     So I'm from North Carolina. I'm from the Research Triangle 
area, and I've done some work with renewable energy and with 
integrated resource plans. And North Carolina was the first 
State in the Southeast to adopt a renewable energy portfolio 
standard. And in addition to adopting that standard, it created 
incentives for the regulated utilities to encourage 
conservation because, as we know, if we conserve energy, then 
we don't have to produce as much, right?
     And so because you are working in multidisciplinary areas 
and trying to reach communities that might not be like the 
techie community I live in that looks at their smart meter and 
tries to figure out how to peek shave and do all of this, how 
can we use research and in particular behavioral research to 
encourage conservation? And what else should be added to enable 
communities that don't traditionally think about conservation 
to see it both as cost-saving and a way to improve our planet?
     Dr. Rao. Thank you so much for that question. That's a 
really important dimension. One aspect of this is involving 
customers more directly in reducing load, and that involves 
potentially using new technologies, smart appliances, smart 
devices, potentially having to be much more involved in your 
energy conditions or thinking about energy costs if you have a 
smart meter that tells you more information about your real-
time prices and how you respond to them. We need to understand 
if people are able and willing to engage that much more in the 
effort to try and save energy. So I think we can do a lot of 
research on the customer side to understand behaviorally what 
will incent customers to really engage, and we need more 
research that's qualitative fieldwork to talk to people, engage 
stakeholders. That's one aspect.
     I think we also need institutional research and 
understanding how we provide the incentives to utilities and to 
other agencies and to State governments to provide the kind of 
support that we need both to prepare the grid in order to 
deliver those--that information to people, to understand the 
physical conditions of buildings to know where we can maximize 
or get the most bang for the buck in terms of a shell, building 
shell improvements, for example, and also making sure that you 
have the right set of incentives for coordination amongst 
different players to make sure that all these end up leading to 
significant long-term investments in efficiency because, as you 
already rightly said, the more we invest in conservation, the 
less we have to invest to a greater extent in supply of energy.
     Ms. Ross. And just one part of my question was for less-
educated and low-income communities who traditionally do not 
live places where it's easy to conserve energy and don't come 
from a culture where that's something that's valued or it's 
complicated to figure--you know, my mother couldn't figure out 
how to use an AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) meter. So 
what can we do to bridge that gap? Because not only will that 
help our environment, but it will lower their energy costs.
     Dr. Rao. Yes, I absolutely agree. There is a digital 
divide in some sense. There's an information gap. We know some 
things about it. What can we do about it? We can ask people. I 
think we need strong stakeholder engagement to understand what 
it will take for people to engage, and that's really what I 
think is the first step.
     I'd also mention we have a lot of publicly created data 
from national surveys that starts to hint a little bit at some 
of these conditions, people's education level, people's 
engagement with other technologies, that we can use as a 
starting point. But we definitely need to ask people. That's my 
main message.
     Ms. Ross. I only have a couple seconds left, so if anybody 
else wants to pipe in, please do so. Otherwise, I'll yield 
back.
     Dr. Takeuchi. I just wanted to comment that, you know, at 
Brookhaven we created a department that I chaired that brings 
together energy efficiency, integration, and grid modeling, as 
well as energy storage because, as you so correctly said, all 
of those questions are interrelated. Thank you.
     Staff. Ms. Stevens is next.
     Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair Bowman, Dr. Bowman. This 
is just a real honor to be with my Chair of the Energy 
Subcommittee on House Science and all of our fantastic 
witnesses and also my colleague, the previous questioner, also 
from the freshman class of the 117th Congress, along with Chair 
Bowman, Congresswoman Deb Ross. This is just, you know, one of 
the examples of how fantastic this Science Committee is and the 
type of Members that come onto it and help lead the charge. And 
of course we're doing this work alongside the researchers and 
the experts and the doctorates, all of you who provide 
[inaudible].
     I think Mr. Casten reflected on just the level of detail 
and expertise that you all have brought to today's hearing, 
which, again, is a part of Chair Bowman's effort to reauthorize 
some of the basic research funding in the Department of Energy, 
you know, part of the reauthorization that we're doing with 
DOE.
     And one of the things I wanted to ask about with Dr. Zeng. 
And, again, I'm holding your testimony, clutching it because I 
loved it. I loved all of your testimonies but I'm really like--
can't take notes fast enough and all this great stuff that you 
covered. But I wanted to ask a higher level question just to 
level set what we're up to here today, which is about the role 
of climate science research and the role of the Department of 
Energy. And if you could articulate how that operates, you 
know, what that looks like here. We're doing climate research. 
This is a major topic. There's a lot to delve into. You know, 
we've got--obviously, you've got NOAA, which is in the 
Department of Commerce. I guess some people are wondering about 
why, but NOAA is in the Department of Commerce, and they do a 
lot of this atmospheric work. But how are you using the 
Department of Energy and their basic research for climate 
science?
     Dr. Zeng. Yes, I'll give you two examples. First one, 
earlier, we discussed about the supercomputers. OK. For the 
speed of supercomputers you can rank who is No. 1, No. 2. But 
that is not the most important factor. What's most important is 
what the actual capability used by the end user for this case 
by the climate models. Why the DOE has done a great job is to 
recognize what you need, the hardware. You also need the 
scientific computing office and to work with many scientists 
for this case climate modelers to bring them together to get at 
the best computing capability out of the hardware. That's what 
DOE does very well. That's something we'll have, help other 
agencies and help that the science overall worldwide. That's 
what I think.
     The second is about extreme events under climate change. 
DOE does not work on tomorrow's extreme weather over any parts 
of the Nation. That's a job for NOAA. But the DOE's focus is 
about extreme events for the future with climate change. How do 
we prepare our national energy infrastructure for the future 
extreme events? What I want to see is closer interactions 
between the climate research and the applied energy research 
within DOE so that they can talk more with each other and that 
use those knowledge for the actual planning of our Nation's 
energy infrastructure for the future.
     Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Well--and I know we've also 
touched on the grid. Obviously, the supercomputer consideration 
is major because of the cost. And, you know, it's expensive to 
access these supercomputers. And I know the Chair has been 
touching on this, too, which is the human capital 
considerations and the research opportunities. But do you feel, 
Dr. Zeng, that we are able to cover enough of the research with 
a--either the flow of applications coming in or the dollars 
coming in? And is there any confusion by--of what the DOE does 
as compared to other agencies that are also covering basic 
research? Do we have to deal with any confusion? And, as usual, 
10 seconds left so maybe I can take that to a written one, but 
if you have anything before we have to close.
     Dr. Zeng. You know, there is no confusion. Part of the 
competition for DOE research dollars is too fierce to the 
degree sometimes it's discouraging to the university 
investigators.
     Ms. Stevens. Great. Well, thank you all. Thank you for the 
whole panel. And again, to my Chair, Dr. Bowman, I yield back.
     Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much. Before we bring the 
hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for 
testifying before the Committee today. The record will remain 
open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members and 
for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the 
witnesses.
     The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now 
adjourned. Thank you all so much. Have a great day.
     [Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           [all]