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


                  JUDICIOUS SPENDING TO ENABLE SUCCESS
                    AT THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

=======================================================================
 
                             JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                             AND OVERSIGHT
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 21, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-36

                               __________
                                   

 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                    
45-866 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

              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
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

                  HON. BILL FOSTER, Illinois, Chairman
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAY OBERNOLTE, California,
AMI BERA, California                   Ranking Member
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

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

                            October 21, 2021

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bill Foster, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 
  and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..................     8
    Written Statement............................................     9

Statement by Representative Jay Obernolte, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    11
    Written Statement............................................    11

Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    14

Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    15
    Written Statement............................................    16

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    17

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Katy Huff, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear 
  Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    19
    Written Statement............................................    21

Ms. Amy Roma, Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National 
  Security Coalition, Atlantic Council
    Oral Statement...............................................    27
    Written Statement............................................    29

Dr. Todd Allen, Director, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project and 
  Glenn F. and Gladys H. Knoll Department Chair of Nuclear 
  Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan
    Oral Statement...............................................    51
    Written Statement............................................    53

Mr. Scott Amey, General Counsel and Executive Editorial Director, 
  Project on Government Oversight
    Oral Statement...............................................    69
    Written Statement............................................    71

Discussion.......................................................    81

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Katy Huff, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear 
  Energy, U.S. Department of Energy..............................   110

Ms. Amy Roma, Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National 
  Security Coalition, Atlantic Council...........................   125

Dr. Todd Allen, Director, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project and 
  Glenn F. and Gladys H. Knoll Department Chair of Nuclear 
  Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan..   127

Mr. Scott Amey, General Counsel and Executive Editorial Director, 
  Project on Government Oversight................................   131

 
                  JUDICIOUS SPENDING TO ENABLE SUCCESS
                    AT THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
             joint with the Subcommittee on Energy,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Bill Foster [Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Foster. All right. Well, with that, this hearing 
will now come to order. And, without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare recess at any time.
    The Committee is meeting virtually today, so I remind 
Members they should keep their video feed on as long as they 
are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for their 
own microphones, which they should keep muted unless they're 
speaking. If Members have documents they wish to submit for the 
record, please email them to the Committee Clerk.
    Well, good morning to our witnesses, and thank you for 
joining us for our oversight hearing on the Office of Nuclear 
Energy, or NE. I'm also pleased to partner with Chairman Bowman 
and Ranking Member Weber for our first joint Subcommittee 
hearing.
    NE has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from Congress, and 
the House Science Committee in particular, for many years. We 
endowed NE with new authorizations and opportunities in the 
bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, and we are working now to 
provide even more tools and more funding for DOE (Department of 
Energy) nuclear activities in both the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Framework and the Build Back Better Act. I hope, 
though, that no one will mistake this support for NE for a free 
pass around the contract award procedures, project management 
protocols, and basic accountability measures for which the 
Department of Energy is widely held in high regard.
    In particular, we are concerned about NE's procedures in 
issuing three major awards to private companies over the last 
couple of years. All three were made on a non-competitive 
basis. One of them was $92 million, another one was $115 
million, and the third was for $1.35 billion. Now, $1.35 
billion represents almost a full fiscal year's budget for the 
entire Office of Nuclear Energy. Awards of this size should 
merit painstaking due diligence and scrutiny, even if they had 
been competitive. To spend this kind of money on a sole-source 
basis, DOE's justifications should have been rock solid. But so 
far we have not seen that. The justifications for 
noncompetitive spending for each award were inadequate, 
inconsistent, and opaque to Congress and the public.
    As a Member of Congress, I can go into the SCIF (Sensitive 
Compartmented Information Facility) in the basement of 
Forrestal and discuss the design details of our nuclear 
warheads. As a Member of the Financial Services Committee, 
during the financial crisis, we were getting near-real-time 
reports on the capital positions of giant banks as they 
teetered on insolvency. Elsewhere in DOE, if I want, I can ask 
for and view detailed procedures and criteria that were used 
for contract awards. And it is crucial that, going forward, NE 
is held to the same standard for transparency with Congress, 
and we appreciate their steps so far toward that end.
    Now, this Committee understands that Congress and DOE 
leadership are asking a lot of NE. DOE needs to help 
demonstrate advanced nuclear technologies by the end of the 
decade in order to make a meaningful contribution to climate 
change before 2050. If we don't--we do not have a lot of time 
to reduce emissions in order to avoid catastrophic warming. New 
and existing nuclear reactions are two of our most powerful 
tools here.
    We are also in a race against foreign competitors who would 
like to take up the mantle as global leaders in nuclear energy. 
China, Russia, and South Korea see an economic opportunity in 
technology exports, and they would like for their designs to 
dominate the market. To answer this challenge, we need to 
invest wisely in research, design, licensing, and deployment, 
and making full use of the world-class resources at our 
national labs.
    And in any event, NE's skipping competition and waiving the 
normal project management and contracting guardrails will not 
help nuclear in the long term. The last thing the nuclear 
industry needs are new suspicions about political cronyism, 
secrecy, haste, or waste. We need to build confidence in the 
industry so that climate tech investors and utility off-takers 
will come to the table. We need to cultivate trust with 
ratepayers and communities who will be served by the new 
advanced reactors. We need the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission) to act promptly and transparently, and if projects 
deserve it, to give these demonstration projects a gold star. 
In short, NE needs a sterling reputation, and the only way to 
get it is to earn it. NE must return to the basics for good 
governance in Federal spending: transparency, maximizing 
competition, establishing milestones and metrics for 
accountability, and avoiding risky contracting vehicles.
    Dr. Huff, it's a pleasure to have you before the Committee. 
We are all aware that you did not join the Department until May 
of this year. All three of the awards that we are examining 
were approved under previous leadership, and only one of them 
was finalized early on your watch. We won't ask you to 
speculate about every decision made by your predecessors, but 
we do expect congressional staff, as well as our partners at 
the GAO (Government Accountability Office) and IG (Inspector 
General) offices, to have full access to whatever records of 
decision exist. And we will ask you to commit to a new game 
plan for accountability, one that will span Administrations and 
will permeate the culture of NE. I know that the Department of 
Energy is capable of this because we see it in other offices.
    I appreciate the interactions you've had with the Committee 
staff in recent weeks about your intentions to correct course, 
and I'm looking forward to getting those sentiments on the 
record in today's hearing.
    I also want to make clear that our hearing today is not 
about attacking the winners of the noncompetitive awards or the 
projects themselves. We have reviewed the value propositions 
for each of these projects, and on a bipartisan basis we find 
them laudable. But execution is key. DOE already has made 
several spending commitments on these projects, and we do not 
want to see a dime of waste going forward. But, in particular, 
we will have continuing questions about the $1.4 billion award 
to the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP), which is only 1 year 
into a 10-year agreement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Foster follows:]

    Good morning to our witnesses and thank you for joining us 
for our oversight hearing on the Office of Nuclear Energy, or 
NE. I'm also pleased to partner with Chairman Bowman and 
Ranking Member Weber for our first joint Subcommittee hearing.
    NE has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from Congress, and 
the House Science Committee in particular, for many years. We 
endowed NE with new authorizations and opportunities in the 
bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, and we are working now to 
provide even more tools and funding for DOE nuclear activities 
in both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework and the Build 
Back Better Act. I hope, though, that no one will mistake this 
support for NE for a free pass around the contract award 
procedures, project management protocols, and basic 
accountability measures for which the Department of Energy is 
widely held in high regard.
    In particular, we are concerned about NE's procedures in 
issuing three major awards to private companies over the last 
couple of years. All three were made on a non-competitive 
basis. One of them was $92 million, another one was for $115 
million, and the third was for $1.35 billion. $1.35 billion 
represents almost a full fiscal year's budget for the entire 
Office of Nuclear Energy. Awards of this size should merit 
painstaking due diligence and scrutiny even if they had been 
competitive. To spend this kind of money on a sole-source 
basis, DOE's justifications should have been rock solid. But we 
haven't seen that. The justifications for non-competitive 
spending for each award were inadequate, inconsistent, and 
opaque to Congress and the public.
    As a member of Congress, I can go into the SCIF in the 
basement of Forrestal and discuss the design details of our 
nuclear warheads. As a member of the Financial Services 
Committee, during the financial crisis, we were getting near-
real-time reports on the capital positions of giant banks as 
they teetered on insolvency. Elsewhere in DOE, I can get 
details on the contracting procedures that were used. It is 
crucial that going forward, NE is held to the same standard for 
transparency with Congress, and we appreciate their steps 
toward that end.
    Now, this Committee understands that Congress and DOE 
leadership are asking a lot of NE. DOE needs to help 
demonstrate advanced nuclear technologies by the end of the 
decade in order to make a meaningful contribution to climate 
change before 2050. We don't have a lot of time to reduce 
emissions in order to avoid catastrophic warming. New and 
existing nuclear reactors are two of our most powerful weapons 
here.
    We are also in a race against foreign competitors who would 
like to take up the mantle as global leaders in nuclear energy. 
China, Russia, and South Korea see an economic opportunity in 
technology exports, and they would like for their designs to 
dominate the market. To answer this challenge, we need to be 
investing wisely in research, design, licensing and deployment, 
and making full use of the world-class resources at our 
National Labs.
    But in any event, NE's skipping competition and waiving the 
normal project management and contracting guardrails will not 
help nuclear in the long term. The last thing the nuclear 
industry needs are new suspicions about political cronyism, 
secrecy, haste, or waste. We need to build confidence in the 
industry so that climate tech investors and utility off-takers 
come to the table. We need to cultivate trust with ratepayers 
and communities who will be served by new advanced reactors. We 
need the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to act promptly and 
transparently, and if projects deserve it, to give these 
demonstration projects a gold star. In short, NE needs a 
sterling reputation, and the only way to get it is to earn it. 
NE must return to the basics for ``good governance'' in federal 
spending: transparency, maximizing competition, establishing 
milestones and metrics for accountability, and avoiding risky 
contracting vehicles.
    Dr. Huff, it's a pleasure to have you before the Committee. 
We are all aware that you did not join the Department until May 
of this year. All three of the awards we examined were approved 
under previous leadership, and only one of them was finalized 
early on your watch. We won't ask you to speculate about every 
decision made by your predecessors, but we do expect 
Congressional staff, as well as our partners at the GAO and IG 
offices, to have full access to whatever records of decision 
exist.
    And we will ask you to commit to a new game plan for 
accountability, one that spans Administrations and will 
permeate the culture of NE. I know that the Department of 
Energy is capable of this, because we see it in other offices. 
I appreciate the interactions you've had with Committee staff 
in recent weeks about your intentions to correct course, and 
I'm looking forward to getting those sentiments on the record.
    I also want to make clear that our hearing today is not 
about attacking the winners of the non-competitive awards or 
the projects themselves. We have reviewed the value 
propositions for each projects, and on a bipartisan basis we 
find them laudable. But execution is key. DOE has already made 
several spending commitments on these projects and we do not 
want to see a dime of waste going forward. In particular, we 
will have continuing questions about the $1.4 billion award to 
the Carbon Free Power Project, which is only one year into a 
ten-year agreement.
    Thank you.

    Chairman Foster. And the Chair will now recognize the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and 
Oversight, Mr. Obernolte, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Chairman Foster, and 
thank you to everyone for holding this very important hearing.
    I represent the State of California, and recent events in 
my State illustrate the necessity of investing in next-
generation clean and reliable power generation. No one is more 
equipped to lead that effort than the Department of Energy, and 
nuclear certainly plays a very important role in that. I mean, 
if you look at energy reliability, nuclear is the most reliable 
energy that we know how to make. U.S. generation of nuclear 
power, I think our uptime was 92 percent of full capacity for 
last year, which is just amazing. And also I think if you look 
at next-generation nuclear, it's clear that it has the 
potential to be, all things considered, the cleanest energy 
that mankind knows how to make, so that's a very important 
program that we oversee. And the Office of Nuclear Energy is 
really the tip of the spear in doing that.
    So we here on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
want to be a good partner to NE in fulfilling its mission, but 
we also have an obligation of oversight, an obligation to 
ensure that taxpayer resources are wisely and appropriately 
spent and that U.S. procurement law is complied with. And 
that's, of course, the purpose of this hearing. That's--no 
one's finger-pointing here. We want to be good partners, but we 
also have an obligation to conduct some oversight.
    U.S. procurement law certainly allows sole-source 
contracting under certain circumstances, so we want to make 
sure that we understand the rationale that was used in these 
cases, and also we want to understand the rationale that was 
used to waive or backload the cost-sharing in those agreements 
because although procurement law does allow for some 
flexibility there, there is an important reason why we have 
cost-sharing provisions in these contracts.
    So I'm looking forward, along with the Chairman, to 
learning more about those particular contracts, but, more 
broadly, also learning about how we here in Congress can help 
the Office of Nuclear Energy fulfill its very important goal.
    So thank you very much, Chairman Foster, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Obernolte follows:]

    Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Foster, for holding this 
hearing.Californians are acutely aware of the challenges our 
country faces in ensuring that reliable, affordable energy is 
available to all. Recent price surges for energy commodities 
have sparked serious concerns for consumers who already face 
rising costs for essential goods. Rolling blackouts and power 
outages across my home state reinforce the need to support a 
diverse mix of reliable energy sources and ensure supply can 
meet demand.
    The U.S. Department of Energy is uniquely equipped to lead 
the way in the development of next-generation clean energy 
technologies that will address these concerns--both back home 
in my district and around the world. Today, we have an 
opportunity to examine one of the Department's applied 
programs, the Office of Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy will 
play a critical role in our clean energy future. In 2020, 
nuclear power plants operated at full capacity more than 92 
percent of the time, making nuclear power the most reliable 
energy source in the United States. The Office of Nuclear 
Energy supports research and development to maintain American 
leadership in the nuclear technology sector, accelerate 
deployment of advanced reactor designs, solve fuel cycle 
challenges, and increase cost effectiveness of existing 
facilities.
    On the Science Committee, we share bipartisan support of 
this program and its essential activities. Last Congress, the 
Committee worked together to pass the Energy Act of 2020, which 
included significant nuclear energy R&D provisions. This 
Congress, the Science Committee has prioritized oversight of 
the Department's implementation of this legislation, and I am 
looking forward to receiving an update from the Department on 
its progress this morning.
    But while we support robust funding for the Office of 
Nuclear Energy, we must ensure that American taxpayers are 
getting the best return on our investment in this program, 
especially as the national debt has climbed over $28 trillion. 
My colleagues and I on the House Budget Committee are 
confronted regularly with the dire consequences of ballooning 
government spending and failure to use our federal resources 
wisely.
    Today, we hope to learn more about some of the Office of 
Nuclear Energy's recent ``sole-source'' awards and awards made 
outside of the competitive process to ensure the necessary 
safeguards are in place to limit costs and ensure a level 
playing field during the process. Over the past three years, 
the Office of Nuclear Energy has made at least three large sole 
source awards, for the demonstration of the production of high-
assay low-enriched uranium, demonstration and deployment of 
small modular reactors, and instrumentation and control 
upgrades under the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program, 
respectively. In other words, the Department awarded funds for 
these projects without offering other prospective participants 
the opportunity to submit their own competing proposals. We 
hope to learn more about Office of Nuclear Energy's practices 
for making sure the most promising proposals have the 
opportunity to receive consideration and doing its due 
diligence when such sole source awards are necessary.
    Federal agencies award contracts and financial assistance 
to partner with entities that can provide essential goods and 
services and to foster collaboration with stakeholders 
performing groundbreaking research, development, demonstration, 
and commercial application activities. As Members of Congress, 
it is our responsibility to ensure that agencies are being good 
stewards of taxpayer dollars when carrying out these 
transactions.
    Federal law, with a few limited exceptions, mandates that 
agencies conducting procurement activities ``obtain full and 
open competition'' and utilize the competitive procedures best 
suited to the circumstances. Section 988 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 establishes cost-share requirements for most 
research, development, demonstration and commercial application 
activities at the Department. However, these requirements may 
be waived under certain circumstances. This waiver authority 
can be extremely useful for investing in novel technologies in 
the nuclear field but must also be exercised appropriately and 
carefully.
    I look forward to hearing more about the incredible work at 
the Department's Office of Nuclear Energy, how Congress can be 
an effective partner in instilling best practices for contracts 
and financial awards, and recommendations for maximizing the 
value of this program's engagement with the stakeholder 
community moving forward.
    I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today 
to share your expertise with us. Thank you, Chairman Foster, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Foster. Thank you, and the Chair will now 
recognize Chair Bowman for an opening statement.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are 
joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of good 
governance and spending practices at the Department of Energy's 
Office of Nuclear Energy.
    This hearing could not be happening at a more important 
time. Congress is currently engaged in negotiations on several 
proposals that could transform this country's infrastructure 
and social safety net, allowing us to unleash the full, 
brilliant potential of all Americans and our economy. The Build 
Back Better agenda will make major, desperately needed 
investments in tackling climate change, including in the 
research space. On this Committee, we have spent a great deal 
of time discussing how our government should address the 
climate crisis, and it is time for us to move from talk to 
action. That applies to every aspect of our work here. Whenever 
the Federal Government is taking steps that could help 
decarbonize our society and improve people's lives, we need to 
make sure those activities are as transparent and effective as 
possible.
    The budget of the Office of Nuclear Energy has nearly 
doubled in five or so years, with the budget request for Fiscal 
Year 2022 clocking in at $1.85 billion. And spending proposals 
currently under consideration would inject additional funds. In 
recent years, the office's work has shifted from almost 
entirely conducting research in our national labs, to 
significant amounts of funding now going to academic and 
industrial partners. This kind of applied research, including 
demonstration projects and the commercial application of new 
technologies, is critical to meeting the challenges of the 21st 
century.
    This hearing is a step--is a next step for this Committee 
in a series of oversight activities we've engaged in regarding 
the Office of Nuclear Energy. We spend a lot of our time 
working on solutions and legislating as Members of Congress, 
but our oversight responsibility is inherent in all of the work 
that we do. The rapid expansion of the work and the budget of 
this office requires even more due diligence on our part. And 
in recent years, we have watched the office execute contracts 
and agreements for very large projects. I applaud the Office of 
Nuclear Energy for its ambitious approach. But our concerns 
primarily center around the fact that a few of these extremely 
large awards have been provided in a noncompetitive and 
nontransparent way. For example, it should never be quick and 
easy to make a government-funded award to one private company 
for over $1 billion, especially when Congress learns about it 
in the press. And that's part of what we're here to talk about 
today. Government-funded research, especially research that is 
important for addressing the climate crisis, needs to be done 
right the first time. We don't have many shots on goal here to 
experiment with. As a nation, we need to do our homework and 
turn in--turn it in on time. And if we fail, we need to fail 
fast, learn what we could do--could have done better, and 
regroup quickly.
    Competition is certainly good as a general practice, as it 
maintains the integrity of public spending by ensuring that 
awards are provided on a merit-reviewed and rigorous basis. But 
competition is also an important way to broaden and deepen the 
kind of research relationships that our government establishes, 
and to bring more people into the process. This can help ensure 
that government funds are distributed more equitably and in 
line with President Biden's Justice40 Initiative, which says 
that 40 percent of overall benefits of Federal dollars should 
flow to marginalized communities. We need to be applying this 
concept at the beginning of the award process by including it 
in the parameters of a competitive award instead of thinking 
about it later in the process when it's too late to be useful. 
This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart as I am proud 
that this Committee is working to make our research activities 
more inclusive at every level.
    To be clear, we perform oversight for all of the scientific 
agencies that the Science Committee oversees. In other words, 
this could just as easily be a hearing on any other energy 
technology if we had similar governance concerns regarding the 
offices that work on those technologies. And this hearing also 
is not about specific administrative officials or a political 
party. All of the oversight we have performed on this office 
has been done in a strongly bipartisan way.
    I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses 
assembled today, and I'm sorry that I will be missing the rest 
of this hearing. I'm attending an anniversary dedication 
ceremony at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. I look forward 
to reviewing the hearing record and submitting questions.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are 
joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of good 
governance and spending practices at the Department of Energy's 
Office of Nuclear Energy.
    This hearing could not be happening at a more important 
time. Congress is currently engaged in negotiations on several 
proposals that could transform this country's infrastructure 
and social safety net, allowing us to unleash the full, 
brilliant potential of all Americans and our economy. The Build 
Back Better agenda will make major, desperately needed 
investments in tackling climate change, including in the 
research space. On this Committee, we have spent a great deal 
of time discussing how our government should address the 
climate crisis, and it is time for us to move from talk to 
action. That applies to every aspect of our work here. Whenever 
the federal government is taking steps that could help 
decarbonize our society and improve people's lives, we need to 
make sure those activities are as transparent and effective as 
possible.
    The budget of the Office of Nuclear Energy has nearly 
doubled in five or so years, with the budget request for fiscal 
year 2022 clocking in at $1.85 billion. And spending proposals 
currently under consideration would inject additional funds. In 
recent years, the office's work has shifted from almost 
entirely conducting research in our national labs, to a 
significant amount of funding now going to academic and 
industrial partners. This kind of applied research, including 
demonstration projects and the commercial application of new 
technologies, is critical for meeting the challenges of the 
21st century.
    This hearing is a next step for this Committee in a series 
of oversight activities we've engaged in regarding the Office 
of Nuclear Energy. We spend a lot of our time working on 
solutions and legislating as Members of Congress, but our 
oversight responsibility is inherent in all of the work that we 
do. The rapid expansion of the work and budget of this office 
requires even more due diligence on our part. And in recent 
years, we have watched the office execute contracts and 
agreements for very large projects. I applaud the Office of 
Nuclear Energy for its ambitious approach. But our concerns 
primarily center around the fact that a few of these extremely 
large awards have been provided in a non-competitive and non-
transparent way. For example, it should never be quick and easy 
to make a government funded award to one private company for 
over a billion dollars, especially when Congress learns about 
it in the press. And that's part of what we're here to talk 
about today. Government funded research, especially research 
that is important for addressing the climate crisis, needs to 
be done right the first time. We don't have many shots on goal 
here to experiment with. As a nation, we need to do our 
homework and turn it in on time. And if we fail, we need to 
fail fast, learn what we could have done better, and regroup 
quickly.
    Competition is certainly good as a general practice, as it 
maintains the integrity of public spending by ensuring that 
awards are provided on a merit-reviewed and rigorous basis. But 
competition is also an important way to broaden and deepen the 
kinds of research relationships that our government 
establishes, and to bring more people into the process. This 
can help ensure that government funds are distributed more 
equitably and in line with President Biden's Justice 40 
initiative, which says that 40 percent of overall benefits of 
federal dollars should flow to marginalized communities. We 
need to be applying this concept at the beginning of the award 
process, by including it in the parameters of a competitive 
award, instead of thinking about it later in the process when 
it's too late to be useful. 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.
    To be clear, we perform oversight for all of the scientific 
agencies that the Science Committee oversees. In other words, 
this could just as easily be a hearing on any other energy 
technology if we had similar governance concerns regarding the 
offices that work on those technologies. And this hearing also 
is not about specific administrative officials or a political 
party. All of the oversight we have performed on this office 
has been done in a strongly bipartisan way.
    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 Foster. Thank you. And the Chair will now 
recognize Ranking Member Weber for an opening statement.
    Mr. Weber. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Chairman, for holding this hearing.
    I have been, and continue to be, a strong supporter of 
nuclear energy, and I'm pleased with the Committee's continued 
bipartisan support for DOE's nuclear energy research and 
development (R&D) activities. I hope today's conversations will 
inform and improve our shared efforts in supporting cutting-
edge nuclear energy technology for the next generation.
    As we all know, nuclear energy is a clean and reliable 
baseload energy source that is a central component of the U.S. 
energy portfolio. Last year, nuclear energy was our country's 
largest domestic source of carbon-free electricity. Robust 
Federal investment in advanced nuclear energy R&D is essential 
to our energy independence, our emissions reduction plans, our 
national security, and our international competitiveness.
    We cannot afford to cede leadership in the global nuclear 
energy market to our international rivals, like China and 
Russia. That's why, last Congress, we passed the Energy Act of 
2020, which provided a major update to U.S. nuclear energy 
policy. It was a tremendous bipartisan win that, among many 
things, modernized and reauthorized key nuclear energy 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application activities at the Department of Energy.
    This legislation was a landmark achievement for the Science 
Committee. I was proud to lead the effort in authorizing robust 
funding for the versatile neutron source, or versatile test 
reactor (VTR), codifying public-private partnerships in 
advanced nuclear research, and ensuring department-wide 
coordination for the nuclear energy high-performance 
computation research program.
    But, as we all know, passing legislation is just the first 
step in a long journey to seeing those results here at home. 
Therefore, this morning, I am eager to hear more about the 
Department's progress in implementing the Energy Act. To build 
on this success, we also have a responsibility to examine the 
Office of Nuclear Energy's practices in awarding R&D funds. 
Responsible management of taxpayer dollars has long been a 
priority of mine--I trust it is for my colleagues--and I have 
always tried to encourage my colleagues to adopt this view to 
be sure we're all on the same page.
    That's why, in 2019, I was part of a bipartisan Science 
Committee request to the Department for more information and 
further justification of a large sole-source award for the 
demonstration of nuclear fuel production. Today's hearing gives 
us a chance to explore some of our lingering questions on that 
award and several others. While issuing sole-source awards can 
sometimes be beneficial--I think our colleague Mr. Bowman 
pointed that out--we need to make sure that the appropriate 
safeguards are in place and being utilized to make fully 
informed spending decisions.
    Our nuclear research and development programs are too 
important for us to mismanage, and we want to make sure we get 
this right. The advanced nuclear landscape is rapidly--and let 
me emphasize that--rapidly changing, and the Department must 
appropriately capitalize on new opportunities, make sound 
investments, and harness the expertise of the nuclear 
stakeholder community.
    Let me be clear: I support substantial Federal investment 
in advanced nuclear energy technologies, in case you can't 
tell. There is no clean energy future without nuclear energy, 
and the only way we can fend off the push for global market 
dominance from our adversaries is to continue developing 
cutting-edge technology right here at home. That is why it's 
critical that we closely monitor our--those investments.
    I look forward to hearing more about the future direction 
of the Office of Nuclear Energy and to a productive discussion 
about how the Department and its partners can get the most 
value out of their collaborations on behalf of the American 
taxpayers. Thank you to our witnesses today for being here. 
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Foster for holding 
this hearing. I have been- and continue to be-a strong 
supporter of nuclear energy and I'm pleased with this 
Committee's continued bipartisan support for DOE's nuclear 
energy research and development activities. I hope today's 
conversations will inform and improve our shared efforts in 
supporting cutting edge nuclear energy technology for the next 
generation.
    Nuclear energy is a clean and reliable baseload energy 
source that is a central component of the U.S. energy 
portfolio: last year, nuclear energy was our country's largest 
domestic source of carbon-free electricity. Robust federal 
investment in advanced nuclear energy R&D is essential to our 
energy independence, our emissions reduction plans, our 
national security, and our international competitiveness.
    We cannot afford to cede leadership in the global nuclear 
energy market to our international rivals, like China and 
Russia. That's why, last Congress, we passed the Energy Act of 
2020, which provided a major update to U.S. nuclear energy 
policy. It was a tremendous bipartisan win that, among many 
things, modernized and reauthorized key nuclear energy 
research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
application activities at the Department of Energy.
    This legislation was a landmark achievement for the Science 
Committee. I was proud to lead the effort in authorizing robust 
funding for the Versatile Neutron Source--or Versatile Test 
Reactor, codifying public-private partnerships in advanced 
nuclear research, and ensuring Department-wide coordination for 
the nuclear energy High- Performance Computation Research 
Program.
    But, as we all know, passing legislation is just the first 
step in a long journey to seeing results at home. Therefore, 
this morning, I am eager to hear more about the Department's 
progress in implementing the Energy Act. To build on this 
success, we also have a responsibility to examine the Office of 
Nuclear Energy's practices in awarding R&D funds. Responsible 
management of taxpayer dollars has long been a priority of mine 
and I have always tried to encourage my colleagues to adopt 
this view.
    That's why, in 2019, I was part of a bipartisan Science 
Committee request to the Department for more information and 
further justification of a large sole source award for the 
demonstration of nuclear fuel production. Today's hearing gives 
us a chance to explore some of our lingering questions on this 
award and several others. While issuing sole source awards can 
sometimes be beneficial, we need to make sure the appropriate 
safeguards are in place-and being utilized-to make fully-
informed spending decisions.
    Our nuclear research and development programs are too 
important for us to mismanage, and we want to make sure we get 
this right. The advanced nuclear landscape is rapidly changing, 
and the Department must appropriately capitalize on new 
opportunities, make sound investments, and harness the 
expertise of the nuclear stakeholder community.
    I want to be clear, I support substantial Federal 
investment in advanced nuclear energy technologies. There is no 
clean energy future without nuclear energy, and the only way we 
can fend off the push for global market dominance from our 
adversaries is to continue developing cutting edge technology 
here at home. That is why it's critical that we closely monitor 
our investments.
    I look forward to hearing more about the future direction 
of the Office of Nuclear Energy and to a productive discussion 
about how the Department and its partners can get the most 
value out of their collaborations. Thank you to our witnesses 
for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And if there are Members who 
wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements 
will be added to the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning and thank you, Chairman Foster and Chairman 
Bowman, for holding this joint oversight hearing on activities 
carried out by DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. I am eager to 
discuss nuclear energy's importance to achieving a cleaner 
future, as well as how DOE can help further this goal.
    Nuclear energy is a major pillar in U.S. clean energy 
production today. Generating 20% of our nation's electricity, 
the civilian nuclear fleet produces about half of the grid's 
clean energy and is key for decarbonizing our power sector. We 
must ensure that the Office of Nuclear Energy is set up for 
success to give the nuclear industry the tools to continue 
innovating, and usher in the next generation of these 
technologies.
    That is why in my time today, I want to lay out some 
valuable lessons learned from a soon-to-be released report by 
the Government Accountability Office regarding DOE's record of 
project management in advancing new clean energy technologies. 
This assessment is pursuant to a requirement that our Committee 
included in the Energy Act of 2020.
    Now to be clear, the focus of this particular GAO report is 
not on the activities of DOE's Nuclear Energy Office, but 
rather on demonstration projects carried out by its Office of 
Fossil Energy and Carbon Management over the last 15 years. 
That said, both the Nuclear and Fossil Energy Offices have 
overseen some of the largest projects supported by the 
Department. And these preliminary findings tell us that a 
decade ago, the Fossil office fell into similar pitfalls that 
we are seeing with several projects supported by the Office of 
Nuclear Energy in recent years, particularly regarding its 
sole-source awards to Centrus, the Carbon Free Power Project, 
and Exelon.
    Out of nine carbon capture, utilization, and storage 
demonstration projects carried out by the Department over this 
period, only one was constructed and none remain in operation. 
There were many factors that led to these projects' failures, 
but in GAO's review, three themes that tie in with today's 
oversight hearing emerged.
    First, DOE either waived cost-share requirements from 
private sector partners entirely, or had the federal government 
covering far more of its overall costs early in the project 
schedule. We saw this with both of the recent nuclear energy 
awards to Centrus and the Carbon Free Power Project.
    Second, DOE kept increasing federal taxpayer exposure even 
though projects were not meeting their milestones. We have seen 
this with the Office of Nuclear Energy's Carbon Free Power 
Project and slipping timelines. The project's original 
commercial operation date was 2027, that has now shifted to the 
mid-2030s.
    And third, DOE awarded FutureGen, a billion-dollar carbon 
capture demonstration project that failed to come to fruition, 
on a sole-source basis. The Nuclear Energy office's Centrus and 
Carbon Free Power Project awards were provided on a sole-source 
basis, as was the recent Exelon award signed by DOE just a few 
weeks ago. As we will hear from our witnesses, competition is 
critical to ensuring that the best projects are selected, as 
well protecting against fraud and abuse.
    These risk-increasing factors can be mitigated by ensuring 
the awardee pays its fair share throughout the process; by 
setting--and sticking to--performance milestones; and by 
competitively awarding these projects.
    I would appreciate hearing from our witnesses today about 
how the Office of Nuclear Energy can avoid the problems 
encountered by DOE's Fossil Energy office in the future, so 
that Congress and the American people have complete confidence 
in these critical projects. We can all agree-we are here to 
support this office in its efforts to address the climate 
crisis and enhance our national competitiveness.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Chairman Foster. And at this time I'd like to introduce our 
witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Katy Huff. Dr. Huff serves 
as Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear 
Energy. Prior to her current role, she was an Assistant 
Professor in the Department of Nuclear Plasma and Radiological 
Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 
where she led the Advanced Reactors and Fuel Cycles Research 
Group. She's an active member of the American Nuclear Society 
and the past Chair of both the Nuclear Nonproliferation and 
Policy Divisions and the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 
Division and, I must point out, a proud graduate of the 
University of Wisconsin.
    After Dr. Huff is Ms. Amy Roma. Ms. Roma is a founding 
member of the Nuclear Energy and National Security Coalition at 
the Atlantic Council, as well as a partner at the Hogan Lovells 
law firm. She began her legal career at the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and currently practices nuclear and 
radioactive materials law involving the NRC and the Department 
of Energy. She frequently serves as a nuclear regulatory 
counsel to clients during mergers and acquisitions. She's also 
testified at Senate hearings on the economic, climate, and 
national security benefits of nuclear energy for the United 
States.
    Our third witness is Dr. Todd Allen. Dr. Allen is a 
Professor and the Department Chair of Nuclear Engineering and 
Radiological Services at the University of Michigan, as well as 
a Senior Fellow at the Third Way. He previously worked at the 
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as both Deputy Director for 
Science and Technology and the Scientific Director for the 
Advanced Test Reactor National Scientific User Facility. He has 
served as a Professor in the Engineering Physics Department at 
the University of Wisconsin--shout out there--and as an officer 
in the United States Nuclear Navy Program.
    As our final witness, we have Mr. Scott Amey. Mr. Amey is a 
General Counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, or 
POGO. He handles legal matters for the organization, directs 
its contract oversight and ethics investigations, and promotes 
policy reforms. POGO is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that 
investigates and exposes waste, corruption, and abuse of power 
and when the government fails to serve the public or silences 
those who report wrongdoing. The organization champions reforms 
to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable Federal 
Government that safeguards constitutional principles.
    Our witnesses will each have five minutes for your spoken 
testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the 
record of the hearing. When you have all completed your spoken 
testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have 
five minutes to question the panel.
    And we'll start with Dr. Huff.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. KATY HUFF,

                  ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

                   OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY,

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Huff. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, Chairman 
Foster, Ranking Member Obernolte, and Members of the 
Subcommittees, it's an honor to appear before you today to 
discuss DOE's nuclear energy research, development, and 
demonstration or RD&D programs.
    The Administration's climate policy is informed by science, 
and the science tells us that the time for climate action is 
now. Nuclear energy is a key element of President Biden's plan 
to put the United States on a path to net zero carbon future by 
2050. To meet these ambitious carbon reduction goals and 
rebuild the U.S. leadership globally, the Biden-Harris 
Administration is prioritizing activities that preserve the 
existing fleet of nuclear power plants, deploy advanced reactor 
technologies, and expand nuclear energy to markets beyond 
electricity.
    Nuclear energy will play a major role in the transition to 
a clean energy economy by fundamentally underpinning our 
Nation's targets for clean, carbon-free electricity, as well as 
nonelectric energy markets.
    The current U.S. fleet of more than 90 reactors is 
imperative to solving our climate challenges. We must ensure 
that these reactors remain online and find new ways of using 
them to solve energy transition challenges. The Light Water 
Reactor Sustainability program conducts RD&D in support of the 
existing fleet to continue to provide safe, clean, and reliable 
energy. Additionally, NE supports RD&D to reduce the emissions 
of energy-intensive nonelectric applications such as clean 
hydrogen production for the transportation and industrial 
sectors, while improving the economics of nuclear energy.
    The Energy Act of 2020 is an important piece of legislation 
to ensure nuclear energy is a key element in meeting our 
aggressive climate goals, now and in the future. The Department 
is advancing these goals with the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program (ARDP) and designing the versatile test 
reactor, or VTR. At the Department we're particularly 
optimistic about ARDP, which has set an aggressive timeline to 
develop, license, and build two operational advanced reactors. 
These two reactors--X-energy's Xe-100 and TerraPower's Natrium 
reactor will be sited in Washington and Wyoming respectively. 
The Natrium reactor will be built at a retiring coal power 
plant to utilize the existing infrastructure and workforce in 
the area. This is the type of coal-to-nuclear transition 
demonstration that will help us achieve our climate goals, 
while ensuring a just energy transition for the local 
workforce.
    An economic and reliable supply of fuel will also be 
required to operate many of the innovative reactor technologies 
under development within the United States. DOE is actively 
working to establish the HALEU (high-assay low-enriched 
uranium) Availability Program, as envisioned in the Energy Act 
of 2020, and we look forward to working with Congress as we 
advance HALEU availability.
    As we move from demonstrations to widespread 
commercialization, we need a fast neutron and test reactor that 
can support research for all stages of technology development, 
including the existing fleet. And with bipartisan support of 
Congress and key Members of this Committee, DOE is designing 
VTR to produce an advanced fission environment, specifically a 
high-flux fast neutron environment, to support accelerated 
fuels and materials development and qualification over the next 
60 years.
    The Office of Nuclear Energy understands one of the 
purposes of this hearing is to address concerns regarding NE's 
past use of sole-source contracting during previous years. The 
Centrus/UAMPS (Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems), 
NuScale, and Exelon sole-source awards were prepared in 
accordance with the applicable regulations governing Federal 
acquisitions and cooperative agreements. They were thoroughly 
reviewed and approved by the Department's Office of Management 
and the Office of General Counsel and were documented and 
executed legally.
    However, we agree with the premise that fair and open 
competition is the best practice for Federal procurement and 
financial assistance. Early and open expressions of interest by 
the Department ensure the greatest number of market 
participants for any competition. We take seriously the 
concerns expressed about the sole-source awards, and we're 
committed to communicating clearly with Congress about the need 
to use such awards.
    But it's an exciting time to be involved in nuclear energy. 
As illustrated by broad support for new authorities granted in 
the Energy Act of 2020, Congress has placed their trust in DOE 
NE to advance nuclear energy as a key solution to tackle the 
climate crisis both at home and abroad. NE is ready to take on 
that role and pledges that these programs will be developed and 
managed with the utmost integrity, openness, and transparency, 
which are key tenets of the Biden-Harris administration.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I'm happy 
to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Huff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And next, Ms. Roma is 
recognized for five minutes.

          TESTIMONY OF MS. AMY ROMA, FOUNDING MEMBER,

        NUCLEAR ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COALITION,

                        ATLANTIC COUNCIL

    Ms. Roma. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Amy Roma, and 
I'm a member of the Atlantic Council's Nuclear Energy and 
National Security Coalition and a lawyer at Hogan Lovells. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As I noted in 
my written testimony, while I wear many hats, today, I'm here 
in my individual capacity.
    Commercial nuclear power serves as an important tool to 
achieve U.S. economic interests, including creating hundreds of 
thousands of jobs and enabling the United States to participate 
in a robust market of nuclear trade, climate change goals by 
providing over half of the U.S. carbon-free power and 
supporting a just transition to clean energy and U.S. 
nonproliferation--U.S. national security objectives by 
promoting U.S. safety, security, and nonproliferation standards 
globally and strengthening U.S. influence abroad.
    While the United States has the largest nuclear feet and 
best-run plants in the world, we have seen our international 
role as a global leader as a reactor supplier sharply decline 
in recent years, replaced largely by Russia, with China close 
behind. Russia and China have identified nuclear energy 
innovation, domestic deployment of nuclear power, and nuclear 
trade as national priorities, promoted by the highest levels of 
government and backed by State financing and State-owned 
enterprises, and their focus has paid off. Nuclear power plants 
are being built all around the world, but Russia is building 
them. Russia uses nuclear exports as a tool to exert foreign 
influence and reap significant economic gains with a claimed 
$130 billion in orders for foreign reactors. Nuclear energy is 
also a component of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), 
with China estimating it could have $145 billion in orders for 
foreign reactors and create 5 million Chinese jobs.
    The U.S. nuclear power industry competing against foreign 
governments for new projects has quickly been sidelined on the 
foreign stage and has no new concrete orders for U.S. nuclear 
reactors abroad. But we have the opportunity to strengthen the 
United States' foothold in nuclear trade with advanced 
reactors, and we should want to take advantage of our position 
at the forefront of this technology. The market opportunity is 
immense, and the stakes of climate change are too high.
    Nuclear energy supports the U.S. economy. The nuclear 
industry supports nearly half a million jobs in the United 
States and contributes about $60 billion to the U.S. GDP (gross 
domestic product) annually. It's a non-greenhouse-gas-emitting 
power generation source and a crucial tool in the battle 
against climate change. As the recent IPCC (Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change) report makes clear, the world needs to 
take on a full court press in decarbonization. The electricity 
and industrial sectors account for about half of GHG 
(greenhouse gas) emissions. Nuclear power could be used to 
decarbonize both. It has the ability to provide clean, 
affordable, and reliable power around the world, helping raise 
the global standard of living, including for the nearly billion 
people in the world without access to electricity, and it 
promotes energy independence and grid stability.
    The world electricity demand is expected to double globally 
by 2050, presenting a huge market opportunity for the United 
States in the trillions of dollars. And advanced reactors have 
a wide range of sizes and applications beyond power generation. 
In addition to helping decarbonize the electricity and 
industrial sectors, it can be used to desalinate water, produce 
hydrogen, and support deep-sea exploration and space colonies. 
But we cannot harness this opportunity without the government 
and industry working together.
    Currently, there are dozens of companies in the United 
States developing a diverse range of advanced nuclear 
technologies, but they need to be proven before they can be 
widely deployed. DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy support in 
advancing the commercialization of advanced reactors is 
critical. While it has undertaken a number of important 
programs, in particular, the recent Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program has been instrumental in turning 
discussions into actions. Under the program, NE supports the 
demonstration of two advanced reactors by 2027. That is fully 
operational plants that are providing power to the grid. ARDP 
also includes another eight awards to other advanced reactor 
developers to support commercial deployment of each of these 
technologies into the 2030's. ARDP means a number of advanced 
reactor companies have the opportunity to show the world that--
what their technologies can do, opening the door to further 
domestic deployment and the global market, which is immense.
    U.S. innovation, when properly supported, can stand up to 
State-backed competitors like Russia and China, and the world 
is eager for U.S. reactor options. We can reemerge as a global 
leader in nuclear power using U.S. innovation and U.S. 
Government support. The opportunity is there, we have the 
technology, and the stakes are worth it.
    Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you 
may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Roma follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And next, Dr. Allen is 
recognized for five minutes.

             TESTIMONY OF DR. TODD ALLEN, DIRECTOR,

               MICHIGAN MEMORIAL PHOENIX PROJECT

       AND GLENN F. AND GLADYS H. KNOLL DEPARTMENT CHAIR

       OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND RADIOLOGICAL SCIENCES,

                     UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

    Dr. Allen. Good morning, Chairman Foster, Chairman Bowman, 
Ranking Member Weber, Ranking Member Obernolte, and other 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for the 
imitation to provide testimony on the importance of judicious 
spending to enable success at the Office of Nuclear Energy. My 
testimony today represents my own views and not those of my 
employer or any other organization with which I'm affiliated. I 
will focus on the pressing need for the creation of strategic 
and coordinated private-public pathways for the development of 
nuclear energy technologies.
    Currently, approximately 50 American entrepreneurial 
companies are working to rapidly bring the next generation of 
advanced reactor technologies to the market with an emphasis on 
new energy applications and business models beyond large 
electricity production. The most advanced of these companies 
are in discussions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
aiming to build their first plants in the next 5 to 10 years. 
Others are actively working with the National Reactor 
Innovation Center to demonstrate their novel technologies on a 
similar timescale. This is an exciting time for nuclear energy.
    Congress has noted this emerging new commercial activity 
and responded in a timely and positive bipartisan manner with 
many legislative actions that have provided access to testing 
capabilities, streamlined the regulatory environment, 
established a demonstration program, and established a strong 
private-public partnership program. During this period, 
Congress has also increased overall budgets to provide more 
opportunities at universities and laboratories to not only 
support this first generation of advanced reactor deployments 
but also to innovate toward future generations of advanced 
nuclear energy systems.
    While Congress' support for nuclear energy has been strong 
and many new important program elements have been established, 
these program elements still often appear to operate 
independently rather than as an integrated whole. The 
sophistication of the research, development, demonstration, and 
deployment program elements have increased thanks to 
congressional support. But the sophistication of the integrated 
program execution and project management have not yet caught 
up.
    The Department of Energy programs need to simultaneously 
coordinate and support many things: a national research 
infrastructure program, early innovation, concept development, 
demonstrations, and ultimately, commercial deployment. 
Historically, the federally funded U.S. nuclear research 
programs have not consistently balanced all five of these 
elements. Continued and future success requires finding this 
balance.
    One of the consequences of past insufficient program 
integration and lack of programmatic consistency is the limited 
results from previous nuclear technology development and 
deployment efforts. Though these programs have received 
significant investments, they've struggled to transition from 
programmatic success to commercial development and use. 
Therefore, a framework of principles and policies needs to be 
established that guides the programs and drives technologies 
for new ideas to deployment.
    What might some of these principles include? A larger set 
is submitted with my written testimony, but I will highlight 
two examples. We should encourage early stage research that 
pushes the envelope but which might not yet yield near-term 
results. Such research drives innovation for decades. Early 
stage research should be daring. We should decide which early 
stage research should be continued based on the success of the 
research and not predetermined timeframes, as has become the 
inclination at the Department of Energy.
    Second, we should support well-structured private-public 
cost-sharing as an important element in accelerating innovative 
technology deployment. Commercial deployment of new 
technologies is more likely to succeed if led by industry 
rather than by research institutions. The continued funding of 
these partnerships should depend on the success of meeting 
specific, measurable technical and financial milestones. The 
private-public partnerships should evolve based on performance 
rather than follow a fixed multiyear plan. Programs from 
infrastructure to early innovation to deployment need to 
connect to ensure the best new ideas are developed and deployed 
in a timely manner. Operationalizing these principles may 
require rethinking program structures and interfaces.
    Additionally, it's important to provide the Office of 
Nuclear Energy sufficient staffing to evolve and support their 
management programs and to support collaborative work across 
the DOE. The funds provided to the staff of the Office of 
Nuclear Energy have not increased sufficiently even as R&D 
budgets have grown approximately 60 percent over the past 5 
years.
    So we're currently in an exciting and ambitious time for 
nuclear energy. Over the past three Administrations, Congress 
has provided increased funding and legislative support, 
recognizing the importance of nuclear technology for providing 
clean, reliable energy and supporting good jobs. A number of 
new critical program elements have been initiated, and a few 
more are needed. The principles and structures upon which these 
programs are executed need to be established to ensure funding 
is best used as we build 21st-century energy systems. I look 
forward to this dialog, as well as the support of the Committee 
as it considers how to enable success at the Office of Nuclear 
Energy. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And finally, Mr. Amey is 
recognized for five minutes.

                  TESTIMONY OF MR. SCOTT AMEY,

       GENERAL COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE EDITORIAL DIRECTOR,

                PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT

    Mr. Amey. Yes, thank you. Good morning. And I want to thank 
Chairman Foster, Bowman, and Ranking Members Obernolte and 
Weber and the Members of the Subcommittee for asking the 
Project on Government Oversight to testify about Federal 
spending best practices. I am Scott Amy, POGO's General Counsel 
and Executive Editorial Director. POGO is a nonpartisan 
independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, 
corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to 
serve the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. We 
made our mark in the 1980's spotlighting oversight on toilet 
seats, coffee makers, and hammers at the Department of Defense 
(DOD).
    Throughout our 40-year history, POGO has created a niche in 
investigating, exposing, and helping to remedy waste, fraud, 
abuse, and government spending. We called attention to systems 
that placed taxpayer funds at risk and supported reforms that 
enhanced competition, accountability, oversight, and 
transparency. POGO also has a long history of investigating 
wasteful spending and performance issues at DOE and even a 
revolving-door instance that may be relevant to today's 
hearing.
    Let's start this morning by putting Federal contracting 
grant spending in perspective. Those dollars have more than 
tripled since 2000 when contracts and grants totaled $500 
billion. In Fiscal Year 2020 that total exploded to $1.6 
trillion with contracts and grants totaling $667 billion and 
$971 billion respectfully. While energy is not spending money 
at that pace, DOE's spending on contracts and grants nearly 
doubled to just under $40 billion in 2020. Those numbers show 
that the government is handing out money at unprecedented 
levels, and we need to follow best practices, and we need 
financial stewards who spend money wisely.
    Many events over the past 20 years have called into 
question the effectiveness of our spending systems. Spending 
has grown tremendously. The acquisition and grant workforces 
are stretched thin. Oversight has decreased, and spending on 
services now outpaces spending on goods. These--this changing 
landscape sometimes places public funds at risk. I present two 
questions to the Members of this Subcommittee that they should 
ask. What are we buying? What goods and services are required 
to meet the Department ]of Energy's needs? Second, how are we 
buying them? That is a little more in the weeds, but this 
question is vital to buying smarter and for general good 
government practices. We need to look at the types of contracts 
and agreements that we're awarding, the levels of competition, 
the award process, statements of work and the requirements that 
are defined, fees, the length or term of the award, 
accountability, oversight, transparency, performance, and the 
results that we're getting.
    As much as possible, the government must engage in the same 
practices as we do in our general lives. We need to seek 
competition that will ensure best quality and the best price, 
provide sufficient administration and accountability, and 
fortunately with the workforce stagnation and in some cases 
cuts, that has led to a stretched workforce, especially 
considering the huge jump in spending. That workforce also 
lacks tools to make well-informed spending decisions and the 
ability to provide oversight of funds going forward. Agencies 
must be transparent because sunlight is the best disinfectant. 
Oftentimes, however, the public and even Congress don't have 
details or data to oversee spending.
    Additionally, we lack information [inaudible] Federal 
dollars and are trusted with our national security information, 
which then could be stolen or provided to adversaries. We also 
need [inaudible] low-risk spending. While risk is inevitable, 
it can be calculated and deemed accessible. Low risk means 
avoiding sole-source contracts, risky spending types and 
vendors, and terms and conditions that place financing and 
other burdens on agencies and government officials.
    We need to tune out claims from awardees that the Federal 
system is just littered with red tape. Currently, the system is 
more ``catch me if you can'' than smart buying. When it comes 
to the Department of Energy, there are numerous Inspector 
General and GAO reports about adequate--inadequate planning, 
poor requirements and statement of work, projects that are over 
budget and behind schedule, cozy dealing, sole-source awards, 
performance deficiencies, and longer-term agreements, which 
often lock out genuine competition.
    Energy's large management and operation contracts have been 
criticized for years. Currently, GAO has contract and program 
management for two DOE offices on its high-risk list. I think 
today's hearing about recent awards is essential to ensuring 
that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and to prevent DOE's 
Office of Nuclear Energy from making GAO's high-risk list. 
Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to 
working with the Subcommittees, and I welcome any questions 
that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Amey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Foster. Thank you.
    And at this point we will begin our first round of 
questions. If time and Member interest permit, we may have a 
second round of questions. The Chair now recognizes himself for 
five minutes.
    Dr. Huff, my first questions involve the Carbon Free Power 
Plan, a project that has the laudable goal of demonstrating the 
economics of mass-producing and operating a significant number 
of small modular reactors (SMRs) for power generation. Now, in 
November of last year, about three weeks after the DOE 
announced that it would provide $1.4 billion to help deploy 12 
of 60 megawatt reactors, their private partner in this project, 
NuScale, announced that it planned to uprate the SMR design 
from 60 megawatts to 77 megawatts. This is a significant design 
change, and it was made almost immediately after the contract 
award, which I find concerning.
    Now, I know you weren't there when this award was made, 
but, to your knowledge, did NuScale and the Carbon Free Power 
Project disclose to DOE prior to the contract award that it had 
plans to change the reactor design?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for your question. I, too, understand 
the concerns that this would raise. This award was indeed 
granted in the previous Administration, and I can't comment on 
what was known when or what was incorporated, but I understand 
that decisionmaking at the time did incorporate the existing 
knowledge. And something important and relevant to note here is 
that we have communicated to the CFPP awardees at this time an 
award modification that would enable them to leverage the 
uprated sixpack version of the NuScale technology would be 
allowable. But we are currently analyzing how that change in 
project scope might impact the cost components of the award 
with some recognition, of course, in the development of and 
assurance that that will serve the taxpayer, recognize the 
important accountability that our office needs to implement in 
that context. The potential impacts of that uprate on the 
schedule of CFPP have been analyzed by NuScale, UAMPS, and the 
DOE at this time.
    Chairman Foster. Yes, well, thank you. You know, obviously 
when you uprate a reactor design, you have to re-examine all 
the design margins, make sure they're still adequate, then go 
back to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get the new design 
certified at the higher power level, which will take time, 
potential design changes, and money. And so how far are you 
from having mapped out together the impact on the overall cost 
and schedule of this design change, including the relicensing, 
licensing of the new design?
    Dr. Huff. Absolutely. So the award that NuScale is 
operating in on its own outside of the UAMPS experience is 
nearing completion. And while a slight extension of their 
milestone will enable their uprate over the course of the next 
few months, we expect that there's no question that it will 
reach completion with the NRC expeditiously because it will 
rely on that first application and their design certification, 
which was successful through NRC with our original award to 
NuScale. And so we're very hopeful that it should have very 
minimal impact on the schedule and in fact, in the context of 
UAMPS, it should have limited or no impact on the schedule.
    Chairman Foster. OK. Well, when you get all that worked 
out, I'm sure our Committee staff will be interested in having 
a look at the updated design.
    I also understand the CFPP made a modification request so 
that the project would only deploy six of these larger units 
rather than 12. So part of that reduction simply reflects the 
power uprate, but still, the six slightly larger units would 
only produce 460 megawatts down from the 720 megawatts that--in 
the original contract. And so we'd also obviously learn less 
about the economies of scale from building multiple identical 
SMRs. So is it--first off, is it correct that CFPP and DOE are 
now negotiating a modification to produce less power right now?
    Dr. Huff. Yes. We have received a request to modify the 
award and are analyzing what modifications can improve the 
likelihood of that project's success without increasing the 
risk exposure to the Federal Government and the taxpayer. We 
have clarified with the awardee that communication regarding 
such issues need to take place early, frequently, and 
transparently moving forward. But indeed in the context of 
leveraging that improvement in the uprate, we have communicated 
to the CFPP awardees that an award modification that would 
enable them to leverage that uprated sixpack version of the 
NuScale technology will be allowable but are currently 
analyzing the project scope and impact on components of the 
cost of the award.
    Chairman Foster. Are you currently contemplating that the 
DOE will still contribute the same amount of money, $1.4 
billion, even though the overall power produced by the project 
is going to be smaller?
    Dr. Huff. That analysis is ongoing, and of course, you 
know, the--exactly those concern is within our scope of 
exploration as we conduct our analysis in terms of what will be 
allowable and appropriate to ensure that the award does not 
overexpose the government for--to risk.
    Chairman Foster. All right. Thank you. And it looks like my 
time is expired, so I'll now recognize Representative Obernolte 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Chairman Foster. I will continue 
the line of questioning with Dr. Huff.
    In your oral testimony, you acknowledge the concerns that 
the Committee has with the sole-source awards. And in your 
written testimony you detailed the four sole-source awards that 
the Committee has asked about, but nowhere has there been a 
discussion of the rationale that was followed in determining 
that sole-source was the appropriate method of awarding these. 
And so I'm hoping that--I realize that you were not with the 
agency when these contracts were awarded, but, I mean, 
certainly, a majority of the staff of the Office of Nuclear 
Energy was, and so I'm hoping that there's some institutional 
memory there that they can tell us in those four instances why 
sole-source was the better option.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much for your question. I am 
indeed--I do indeed understand the concern, and yes, while I 
was not there, there are of course staff that were there when 
these decisions were made, and I will assure you that it is my 
understanding that these awards were prepared in accordance 
with the applicable regulations and governing Federal 
acquisitions and cooperative agreements were thoroughly 
reviewed and approved by the DOE's Office of Management, as 
well as our Office of General Counsel and that they were 
documented and executed legally. But indeed, the sort of 
rationale and justification that are documented are the--that's 
the information that I also have.
    And I will say that I certainly agree that, moving forward, 
fair and open competition is recognized within this office 
culturally both by me and by the staff as the best practice for 
Federal procurement and financial assistance, so we are 
committed to early and open expressions of interest by the 
Department moving forward to ensure the greatest number of 
market competitors and participants in any competition.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. Well, thank you. I saw that in your 
testimony. The--to be clear, what I'm asking is not whether or 
not the law was followed. I mean, I think it's clear that 
you're asserting the law was followed and, you know, we're not 
questioning that. What I'm interested in knowing about is the 
specific rationale in those four circumstances that led the 
office to conclude that sole-source was in the best interest of 
taxpayers.
    Dr. Huff. Yes, for the really detailed response that you 
need for each of those awards, I will refer to the DNFA 
(Determination of Noncompetitive Financial Assistance) 
justification documents, and I would--if you would be willing, 
I'd be happy to take that question for the record and give you 
a more detailed and accurate response.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. I would appreciate that.
    Dr. Huff. All right? Thanks.
    Mr. Obernolte. And following up on what you had just said a 
moment ago about the Office of Nuclear Energy's belief that 
fair and open competition is the best practice for Federal 
procurement, can you talk about moving forward what the 
office's stance will be on sole-source awards and the 
circumstances under which you think a sole-source award would 
be more appropriate than a competitive award?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, thank you. I really appreciate that 
question. Recognizing upon my arrival that this was a concern 
in the context of our relationship with Congress, I have 
directed the Office of Nuclear Energy to temporarily pause any 
new sole-source awards and execute all of its contracts and 
financial assistance awards competitively, including any 
related to the pending legislation should it be enacted into 
law. And we have already, during the last few months, halted 
multiple sole-source award processes in order to initiate 
competitive processes instead. Some are very small and would be 
really straightforward cases for a sole-source contract, for 
example, where we have relationships with entities that are 
capable of liaising between us and our tribal working groups. 
Those kinds of contracts, there are very few entities that are 
capable of conducting those activities. In fact, in most 
regions, only one, right, so that is a very clear case for 
sole-source, but we are competing similar awards of this nature 
as a cultural exercise and a full stop to that activity so that 
we can evaluate our ability to compete any and all types of 
awards, regardless of their sole-source status in the near-
term.
    Mr. Amey. Ranking Member Obernolte, may I jump in for a 
quick second and just add one point? And that is this has to be 
more than just a check-the-box exercise. I haven't seen a lot 
of information on these contracts, and I haven't--but what I 
have seen, especially on the Centrus contract and on the CFPP 
contract is this almost looked like an earmark. Proprietary 
information--I think NuScale was mentioned in the documents I 
saw and so was Centrus--what is it, the AC-100M product. When 
you name products like that and only one person has the 
proprietary rights to those, you're limiting competition 
automatically. And so it's--that's why I say this can't just be 
a check-the-box exercise. They need to make sure--NE needs to 
make sure it goes back and it's looking at the requirements for 
all these contracts and making sure that they're as open as 
possible to lure in as much competition that they can. And so 
we want as many people at the table, but if you limit it with--
and name proprietary products, you're going to limit it--you're 
going to limit who you get to the table.
    Mr. Obernolte. Yes. Well, I see my time is----
    Chairman Foster. Yes----
    Mr. Obernolte. But, Dr. Huff, I'm looking forward to 
getting the justifications. Just to make the point, I mean, I 
don't want you to take--have the takeaway of being--from this 
Committee hearing being that sole-source is never--should never 
be pursued and, you know, that the Committee will always 
question any sole-source contract. But, as Mr. Amey has said, 
sunshine and transparency is, you know, the best application of 
this. And so moving forward, I think, you know, as long as 
we're transparent with each other and your department is very 
transparent with the rationale for awarding those contracts, I 
think we can avoid this kind of difficulty in the future.
    But I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Bonamici for five minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you so much to the Chairs and the 
Ranking Members and especially to our witnesses.
    I want to start by saying that because of long-standing, 
unresolved issues with the management of spent waste, 
sustainability, and overall safety issues, I remain concerned 
about expanding our current nuclear fleet with existing 
commercial technologies. But small modular reactors, SMRs, have 
the potential to complement the use of renewable energy sources 
and support decarbonization if safety, security, and disposal 
concerns are addressed.
    And I also want to note that this oversight is critical, 
and it's very important that we're getting these questions 
answered because I do look forward to our continued efforts and 
the efforts by the Office of Nuclear Energy to carefully 
develop this technology. And I want to note again the 
importance of getting these questions answered because I do 
hope that NuScale, which is headquartered in Oregon in the 
district I represent, and has partnered and worked closely over 
the years with Oregon State University, I hope they can lead 
the way.
    So I want to start with questions for Mr. Amey. I'm 
concerned about how the Department of Energy treated cost share 
in its recent noncompetitive grant to Exelon to upgrade to 
digital controls at its Limerick Generating Station in 
Pennsylvania. So DOE and demonstration projects must secure no 
less than 50 percent of funds from non-Federal resources, and 
research and development projects on the other hand must meet a 
20 percent cost share threshold. So DOE argued that it did not 
have to meet the statutory 50/50 cost share for demonstration 
because the Limerick project is both research and 
demonstration.
    So, Mr. Amey, a couple of questions here. The DOD has 
regulations that clearly distinguish cost share requirements 
for research and development projects versus demonstration 
projects. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of course 
has similar guidance. So should DOE consider updating their 
departmentwide guidelines and regulations related to cost share 
requirements? And would this help avoid cost share confusion 
and guarantee greater funding transparency going forward?
    Mr. Amey. Yes, thank you for the question. I think the easy 
answer is certainly. I think DOE should go back and take a look 
at the blueprint that DOD and OMB have laid out and possibly 
create a hybrid. I mean, there may be research and development 
projects that also become demonstration projects, and so they 
may need a different formula for those types of projects, but 
cost-sharing is a problem and waivers to the cost-sharing 
principles are also problematic because it's, you know, 
obviously putting a lot of risk on the taxpayers to come up 
with a lot of frontloaded money.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. And I want to take this 
opportunity, even though not directly related to oversight but 
a really critical issue to ask Dr. Huff a question.
    We happen to have in Oregon at Reed College in Portland a 
research reactor. It's been there since 1968. It's the only 
reactor operated primarily by undergraduate students. They only 
license up to 40 at a time. And it's a pretty unique 
opportunity for students. But in your testimony, Dr. Huff, you 
mentioned the importance of supporting a strong nuclear 
workforce, so could you please speak to any challenges that the 
office is facing in attracting and retaining talent? I'm on the 
Education and Labor Committee. I care a lot about workforce 
issues, especially as we transition to a clean energy economy. 
So what are the current overall challenges in workforce facing 
the industry, understanding that the 40 undergraduate students 
at Reed College aren't going to be able to meet the needs 
across the country?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you so much for this question. As a former 
professor, currently on unpaid leave of absence from the 
University of Illinois, nothing is more important to me than 
university education just like that that you're describing at 
Reed College at their very unique research and test reactor. 
There used to be quite a lot more of those research and test 
reactors actually across the United States, and over time, as 
R&D funding and particularly enrollment in the university 
system declined in the sort of 1980's that we had a decline in 
those facilities.
    Interest in nuclear energy has increased dramatically over 
the last few decades as the promise for its use in climate 
technology has increased, and that new workforce is--has not 
been met and--with the same kinds of hands-on technologies to 
support the research and training that these research reactors 
represented. And so there's a growing and widening gap in that 
hands-on training, which I think my office has the opportunity 
to fill with the kinds of authorities to support university-
directed R&D that the Energy Act of 2020 has enabled my office 
with, as well as another--a number of other opportunities. You 
know, we'll have some exciting announcements soon hopefully in 
this direction, and I really look forward to communicating with 
Congress on their best implications.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Dr. Huff. And as I yield 
back, I want to reiterate to the Chairs and Ranking Members and 
Committee Members, I look forward to working with you on 
answering these important oversight questions going forward, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And now Ranking Member Weber 
will be recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start with my 
questions, I appreciated your point about maybe a second round 
of questions because I do have a list of questions I'd like to 
submit for the record. I'd like to also echo the sentiments of 
your previous speakers. We are ultimately the stewards of the 
American taxpayer dollar. So with unanimous consent, I'd like 
to submit those questions just in case we don't get to that 
second round.
    Chairman Foster. Yes, without objection, all Members are 
authorized to submit additional questions for the record.
    Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you, sir.
    Dr. Huff, throughout my years on the Science Committee, I 
have supported robust funding for the versatile test reactor to 
ensure that the United States has the ability to validate and 
test the next generation of nuclear fuels, materials, and 
reactor designs. We've spoken about some of those here this 
morning. I would opine if you will that if we were serious 
about our clean energy future and want to decrease our 
dependence on competitors like China and Russia for advanced 
nuclear R&D, we must commit to our investment in this essential 
research infrastructure.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, I was proud to lead 
the push to authorize substantial funding for the versatile 
test reactor, VTR, in the Energy Act of 2020. Monitoring the 
progress of this project is a huge priority for me in Congress. 
So I know you're new, but, Dr. Huff, can you share an update on 
the status of VTR, and how will you push for that project to 
receive the necessary support to ensure it's completed and 
operational in time for our researchers to avoid missing the 
proverbial boat?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for this question. I, too, believe that 
the versatile test reactor is an essential tool for the United 
States to regain its global nuclear energy leadership role in 
the development of advanced reactors. It's really imperative 
and urgent that we make progress in revitalizing a strong 
commercial nuclear energy sector, and VTR will provide U.S. 
industries and scientists a critical tool.
    In terms of an update, you know, the work is ongoing with 
the VTR. The environmental impact statement work has been 
completed, and that statement will soon be released. The--in an 
exciting sort of forward movement, of course, we are--we have 
requested full funding for the VTR project to move forward, and 
we certainly do appreciate HSST's (House Committee on Science, 
Space and Technology's) proposal to potentially fund that going 
forward, but we will pursue appropriate funding insofar as it 
is possible to move that project forward because it is a really 
urgent need to make progress in revitalizing commercial nuclear 
energy sector leadership here.
    Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that response. And on any 
given night that you have insomnia and you need some nighttime 
reading, let me refer you to Amy Roma's testimony about how 
important this is because she lays out a very strong case of 
why it is so important.
    This question will be for multiple witnesses. As part of my 
efforts to support advanced nuclear energy development, I have 
repeatedly emphasized the risk of our international competitors 
who are outpacing us. And it's all--obviously the reason for 
the VTR. So I'd like to ask each of our witnesses to answer 
this question. What happens--what does it mean to the United 
States if we cede leadership in the field of advanced nuclear 
technology to our competitors? I'll go back to you to start, 
Dr. Huff, but what does that mean if we lose that position?
    Dr. Huff. Our leadership enables us to assist in 
international nonproliferation goals, in commercializing our 
technology designed here to be built abroad. It also underpins 
our ability to stand strong in long-term conversations and 
relationships around the development of nuclear technology 
worldwide. And without that leadership, we have decreasing 
influence over those conversations.
    Mr. Weber. Glad to hear that you recognize that. Ms. Roma, 
I'm going to come to you next.
    Ms. Roma. Thank you. I cannot understate how important 
increasing U.S. competitiveness overseas is because, you know, 
it's easy to villainize Russia and China and just always say 
it's Russia and China's fault. Here, it is actually Russia and 
China. Russia has 60 percent of the global market for nuclear 
power--new nuclear power plants outside of its own country, 60 
percent. Behind that is China. China's Belt and Road Initiative 
is the largest infrastructure plan that the world has ever 
seen, and they plan on building nuclear power plants if they 
can, if they can get these bids, all around the world.
    One of the objectives of the BRI is not just economic, 
right? Both China and Russia stand to make hundreds of billions 
of dollars by getting these contracts for advanced reactors 
abroad. But one of the stated objectives of both of these 
projects is--under the BRI it's so that countries continue--
instead of looking to the West, will look to the East for 
friendship, for business plans, for influence. Same with 
Russia. You know, they are developing these programs because of 
the huge economic benefits that they can reap but also the 
significant geopolitical influence.
    And I think everybody right now is probably attuned to the 
energy crisis that we see emerging in Europe, right? And so 
right now when we look at, you know, the clean energy 
transition and how we're going to decarbonize the electricity 
sector, we also have to look at how do we ensure we have grid 
stability that we can turn the lights on and we get power and 
we have to look at how do we have energy independence and 
security? Every country has to take that into consideration. In 
Europe, which relies a huge amount of its electricity on 
natural gas that's coming in from Russia, they really do have 
an energy independence problem.
    And so underscoring how important this issue is I cannot 
put enough stress on. From an economic perspective, from an 
innovation perspective, from a national security perspective, 
it is absolutely critical that we maintain and promote our 
leadership on the global market.
    Mr. Weber. Well, I'm going to take it that you're in favor 
of that.
    Ms. Roma. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative McNerney for five minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this 
hearing.
    I'm in favor nuclear energy because we're going to need it, 
but it's got to be done right, and that includes nuclear waste. 
But that's a topic for another discussion.
    The Energy Act of 2020 established a program on advanced 
nuclear fuel availability within the Office of Nuclear Energy. 
This is based on legislation that I led. The program directs 
the Department of Energy to create a strategy on advanced 
nuclear fuel like HALEU, including a survey of the needs of 
domestic commercial use. However, the first HALEU production 
contract went to Centrus before this survey was completed. So, 
Dr. Huff, what is the Office of Nuclear Energy's status on this 
survey of needs? And will it be completed in time for 
subsequent advanced nuclear fuel production contracts?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you. Yes, we plan to release a request for 
information (RFI) soon to solicit really broad stakeholder 
input on the various activities associated with HALEU 
availability, authorized under the Energy Act of 2020, so thank 
you, including the formation of a consortium for HALEU 
availability. Response to that RFI, as well as other 
stakeholder outreach, will inform the approach for consortium 
membership organization in governments, and our current plans, 
subject to appropriations, is to take actions to proceed beyond 
the completion of the AC-100M demonstrations in a competitive 
manner consistent with our commitment to competing work.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. The first HALEU production 
contract was awarded through a sole-source contract. However, 
the Energy Act of 2020 also contain guidance for the DOE on 
milestone-based competitive award processes which would require 
certain technical and financial milestones be met before 
awarding a grant or contract. Dr. Allen, what are the benefits 
to using a milestone-based approach to award service selection 
rather than a sole-service--sole-source contract arrangement?
    Dr. Allen. Yes, thanks for the question. I think the 
advantage is it allows you over time, right, to recalibrate the 
relationship and see if you're making progress. I mean, my 
colleagues at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance did a nice paper 
that looked at how this was used in the space program, right, 
and when you think about the awards that we have with 
commercial companies, we approach them at different levels, 
right? Companies that we think are closer to deployment, we 
invest more in. But all that can change, so you want to be 
seeing are you meeting your milestones? Is your financial 
support consistent with the original agreement? And I think 
you're just going to end up with better outcomes over time that 
follows what you would see in normal commercial competition if 
you have the milestone approach. And so I think it's very 
important.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. Ms. Roma, do you have 
anything to add to that?
    Ms. Roma. Yes. So in the--you know, in the private sector 
space, this is--the milestone approach or tranche funding is 
actually very common. It allows you to invest kind of lower 
amounts of capital and that when somebody proves they can meet 
a stated clear objective, that kind of gives them access to the 
next tranche of money. And so you significantly de-risk your 
investment, but at the same time, you allow the money to 
continue to progress as those milestones are achieved.
    It's actually also pretty flexible. I've kind of had to 
write up milestones for a number of VC (venture capital) 
investments kind of in the private sector space, and you can 
tailor it around regulatory accomplishments, technical 
accomplishments, business accomplishments such as having like 
land transferred over to the new entity, lining up a customer. 
And so you can really tailor it to each specific project, but 
it significantly de-risks the investment for taxpayers.
    Mr. McNerney. OK, good. Mr. Amey, how does the milestone-
based approach make better use of government resources? And 
what would be the best practices for DOE to follow up on to 
ensure success at this point in the game?
    Mr. Amey. Well, as I think Ms. Roma just said, I mean, it 
allows you to move forward incrementally and pass off risk as 
you're moving forward, so I think that is a good step. We've 
all heard of the company SpaceX, and when the Air Force was 
trying to do launch vehicle contracts, SpaceX wasn't in--even 
in the market and--but the Air Force wanted to do a long-term 
lock buy and kind of lock in, and that was, you know--at that 
time Senator McCain pushed back on that approach and said, 
well, wait a second, these companies may not be viable, but 
they may be viable in the course of this contract. Why don't we 
just let them at the table? And eventually now look what SpaceX 
is doing. We're sending people into space, low orbit. They're 
getting now, you know, very large Air Force contracts. And I 
think that kind of getting people to the table and that kind of 
incremental milestone approach is the best way for the 
Department of Energy to go.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I spent many years in 
industry, and although we didn't get government contracts, 
there's no way we would have sole-sourced our supply chain to--
it just wouldn't work in the long run. So thank you for that 
output--input, and I yield back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Bice for five minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 
Ranking Members and Committee Chairs putting this together 
today.
    My question is for Dr. Huff. My State produces a lot of 
natural gas, which has served as an energy source working to 
reduce carbon emissions. Do you see a role for advanced nuclear 
reactors to provide the high temperature heat needed in the 
steam methane reforming process that converts natural gas into 
clean hydrogen?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, absolutely. There is a strong role for the 
uniquely clean thermal energy produced by nuclear reactors to 
support previously fossil-fueled thermal energy applications 
like you have described.
    Mrs. Bice. I like hearing that. OK. As a follow up 
question, does the Office of Nuclear Energy collaborate with 
the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) as a 
part of this effort? And if so, how?
    Dr. Huff. We are beginning a lot of conversations around 
how to collaborate with FECM. I'll tell you, breaking down 
those stovepipes internal to the Department of Energy and in 
fact across the interagency is one of the things I've been most 
excited about taking on this job. And I'll tell you the 
conversations that we're already having with FECM cover all 
kinds of aspects around coal-to-nuclear transitions for those 
unabated coal plants, as well as topics around hydrogen, for 
example, in the context of, you know, methane reforming, as we 
discussed.
    Mrs. Bice. Great. Mr. Amey, do you have any recommendations 
on how the Department could better insulate itself against the 
risk of financial loss in the unique case of these sort of 
cutting-edge one-off projects?
    Mr. Amey. Well, wonderful question, thank you. It is--I 
mean, workforce issues came up earlier, and it sounded as if 
that was, you know, taking a look at what experience we can get 
from the outside market, but this is also about the Department 
of Energy ramping up its workforce and retention to make sure 
that it has the capabilities to analyze the technologies that 
are coming forward and enter the best agreements. I mean this 
is not just the contracting grant workforce or the oversight 
workforce or the IGs but this is also the program workforce to 
make sure that we have the right people in place. And, you 
know, hiring the workforce has been difficult for certain 
agencies. There's been some caps, and so that may be something 
you have to take a look at.
    But overall, I think it is making sure that, again, we 
spend money wisely, we have competition, we have the 
administrative support that we need, the oversight, the 
accountability, you have the transparency that's there. I mean, 
it's pretty difficult to find any information about these 
contracts other than some summary data that's on the SAM 
system, the System for Award Management, or for the USAspending 
site.
    And so, you know, I would also recommend that NE goes back 
and makes all these agreements and contracts available so we 
can see what's actually in them. What are the statements of 
work? What are the terms and conditions to make sure that we're 
getting the best bang for the buck?
    Mrs. Bice. Do you think that's--that jeopardizes the maybe 
classified or maybe information that they're providing that's 
specific to the project that's maybe not public record?
    Mr. Amey. Well, there are certainly concerns that you have 
with privacy and with----
    Mrs. Bice. Proprietary.
    Mr. Amey [continuing]. Proprietary trade secrets and 
classified information, and that can be redacted and should be, 
you know, redacted to the most limited extent, the least common 
denominator that it can be. So, you know, that's always 
possible, not asking for everybody to put everything out there 
that should not be publicly available, but it can be done, and 
it should be done so that we can learn a lot more about this, 
which will also bring in competition. It will also bring in 
innovation. I mean, the more people that see what's happening, 
the more people will think, and that's where you want the 
competitive, you know, private sector to kind of take over and 
say, well, they're taking it here, can we take it somewhere 
else?
    Mrs. Bice. Well, I think that I hope to work with 
Representative Bonamici on some of the workforce challenges 
because that is of interest to me as well.
    So finally, Dr. Huff, in your written testimony you state 
that any invest in RD&D that the private sector or other 
nongovernment stakeholders are unable or unwilling to perform 
due to uncertainty, cost, scale, or timeframes, how does the 
Office of Nuclear Energy minimize the risk to taxpayers when 
supporting projects involving substantial uncertainty?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, thank you for this question. I, too, feel 
strongly about ensuring that we do our homework and turn our 
homework in on time, as was said earlier, in terms of this sort 
of specific analysis. So the way that this typically works is 
we do real analysis of the exposure of the government during 
the process of awards, as well as during the approach to their 
completion. And programmatic oversight does pay attention to 
contract award procedures, accountability, and standards for 
risk on taking by the government through our PICS:NE system 
and, as was mentioned earlier, some of these other 
accountability systems within reporting requirements within the 
office. And we generally strive to ensure successful completion 
of these projects while simultaneously minimizing government 
exposure to risk by leveraging these kind of best practices for 
financial agreements when we do the contracting. Yes, we commit 
to making--moving forward decisionmaking based on really 
rigorous analysis underpinned by scientific fact, mitigation of 
government risk, and a focus on the benefit to the taxpayer.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Thank you so much to the panelists 
today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. We will now recognize 
Representative Lamb for five minutes.
    Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the 
witnesses.
    Dr. Huff, are you familiar with the provision of the 
bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate, 
hopefully soon to pass the House, that includes some money for 
DOE to use to preserve existing nuclear reactors that are 
threatened to shut down for economic or other reasons?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, I am. The Civil Nuclear Credit Program, 
which we're internally calling Grants for Plants, and we are 
preparing a plan to ensure that the oversight and distribution 
of those grants, if the bipartisan infrastructure bill passes, 
will be executed in a timely manner with a great deal of 
oversight on the calculation of needs and risks of those 
companies and applicants that are interested in benefiting from 
those grants. And so we're working with a number of offices 
within DOE, contractors with relevant experience in industry, 
as well as in the interagency to ensure that we have a solid 
plan moving forward for how to implement that activity.
    Mr. Lamb. Great. You know, given the number of reactors we 
have in the United States and how old they are, could you say 
anything about what you think a reasonable time period is that 
we should be trying to preserve these plants and whether--I 
think it was $6 billion in the Senate bill--sort of how that 
measures up to what you perceive the need to be? I know you 
probably can't be exact but just in general terms whatever you 
can share with us.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you. I appreciate the question, and I will 
resist the urge to attempt to be exact. It is a complicated 
challenge. The existing plants have--many of them have 
successfully applied for and received lifetime extensions from 
their original somewhat arbitrary 40-year lifetime extension--
lifetimes to 60 and now some 80 years. And recognizing that the 
Department of Energy plays a role in ensuring that the research 
and development is done to ensure that those lifetime 
extensions are based on scientific fact, I believe that I see 
no real strong reason that those lifetime extensions can't 
continue quite a while into the foreseeable future for many or 
most of those plants. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
will continue to review those lifetime extension applications 
to the extent that they are applied for.
    Now, in terms of whether $6 billion is sufficient, you 
know, we've identified quite a number of at-risk plants that 
have faced competition in the markets in which they operate, 
and the number of plants is large enough where $6 billion will 
not be enough to ensure for certain that all existing reactors 
will continue to operate to the extension of their lifetime, 
but we will continue to evaluate that and implement all of the 
funding that is available and directed by Congress as it 
becomes available.
    Mr. Lamb. Great, thank you. But, I mean, I think it's 
reasonable to assume that we're going to be having a life 
extension discussion for a decade or more from now, right? 
Because, I mean, these advanced reactors, as great as they are, 
may take us a while to build and test and prove and ultimately 
expand.
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    Mr. Lamb. Yes, OK. On the--just one question about the 
advanced modular reactor design and what you know about it. Our 
State, Pennsylvania, is a pretty large manufacturing hub for 
the current model of existing nuclear plants. I think we may 
actually have the highest number of companies and employees in 
the supply chain in the country. We're certainly up there. Do 
you know of any efforts at DOE that are designed to prepare 
companies and workers like the ones we have in our State to be 
ready to compete to be in the supply chain for the next design 
of reactor?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, as we in the Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
Program support the companies that have reactor concepts, part 
of that program does fund some of the supply chain efforts. And 
the Federal Government, of course, is undergoing a sort of 
broader effort to identify key supply chain risks, and our 
office is deeply engaged, especially within the current DOE 
evaluation of those supply chain risks. And as we look toward 
the supply chain risks, they are an opportunity for jobs just 
like the rest of the energy transition. And I know our Office 
of Clean Energy Jobs is deeply engaged in that activity.
    Mr. Lamb. Great. Well, I would encourage you in any way 
that you possibly can to try to make use of the experience and 
resources that exist within the firms that are doing this work 
already even with the new designs, and it's something we can 
stay in touch about. So thank you very much for your service 
and your presence with us here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we will now recognize 
Representative Garcia for five minutes. Or we will at least 
attempt to recognize Representative Garcia. And failing that, 
Representative Meijer, if you're willing to take over, you're--
you'll be recognized for five minutes.
    OK, I guess we'll have to find a way to warn them online.
    And at this point I will, I think, proceed with 
Representative Stansbury if she is available.
    Ms. Stansbury. Good morning.
    Chairman Foster. At this point I'd really like Members to 
please, you know, make themselves visible in the--if they think 
they're about to be up. It makes it much easier for staff and 
frankly for me. Thank you. Proceed, Representative Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening today's panel.
    This hearing is all about good government and ensuring 
appropriate oversight over Federal agencies, their procurement 
practices, and ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars are being 
spent appropriately. The DOE contract in question today raises 
serious concerns. The Treaty of Washington prohibits foreign-
owned businesses from producing unencumbered uranium that is 
fungible between civilian purposes and defense purposes. DOE's 
Office of Nuclear Energy has a strictly civilian mission, and, 
as such, unless they are directed to work with the DOD or NNSA 
(National Nuclear Security Administration), I believe that they 
should work solely within and on nuclear energy for nondefense 
purposes and that all companies that have facilities with those 
capabilities in DOE deciding that their HALEU production 
contracts could be used for defense-related applications raises 
a number of questions that must be addressed. And I'm glad to 
hear that the Department is taking this seriously.
    So, Dr. Huff, my first question is actually for you. Did 
DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration or the 
Department of Defense contribute anything to the $115 million 
award DOE gave to Centrus?
    Dr. Huff. No, ma'am. To my knowledge, they did not.
    Ms. Stansbury. And, Dr. Huff, did NNSA or DOD ever formally 
ask the DOE to help make more unencumbered uranium available to 
support their future needs?
    Dr. Huff. I will have to get back to you to whether any 
such conversation may have happened, but my understanding is 
that we are in constant communication with NNSA and DOE about 
uranium, as it's a shared resource, and attempt to have a 
unified uranium strategy, but I will--if you would permit me, 
I'd like to respond to that question for the record with the 
help of my staff.
    Ms. Stansbury. That would be wonderful, thank you. We will 
submit that as a question for the record.
    And, Ms. Roma, you're familiar with the statutory mission 
of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. Does this office have a 
defense mission?
    Ms. Roma. No, I don't believe it does.
    Ms. Stansbury. And do you think it is appropriate for the 
Office of Nuclear Energy to be cornering the attribute of 
unencumbered uranium without DOE or NNSA helping to pay for it?
    Ms. Roma. Well, I think that probably is a better question 
for Dr. Huff, but I can say that to my knowledge that there 
should be no reason while--why the Office of Nuclear Energy, 
for its purpose, is worried about the encumbrances on uranium. 
The encumbrances on uranium restrict what it can be used for 
for largely defense purposes, but from a commercial sector if 
you're looking at fuel, it doesn't really matter.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
    Dr. Huff, I appreciate your commitment for future HALEU 
production to be competitive, and I look forward to maintaining 
clear and open communication with the Office of Nuclear Energy 
and this Committee going forward to ensure that our taxpayers' 
money is being wisely spent and appropriately spent, and we'll 
submit some questions for the record.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you.
    And, Representative Meijer, if you are prepared, you'll be 
recognized for five minutes. But absent that, I will then 
recognize Representative Casten.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank----
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all 
being here.
    My question is for Dr. Huff, and I apologize for being a 
little bit wonky. I'm an energy project finance guy by 
background, and I'd like to understand a little bit of the 
financing structure, the Carbon Free Power Project. First off, 
do I understand that that project is a 50-50 DOE private-sector 
joint venture? Is that right? And I think--go ahead.
    Dr. Huff. So it's important to note that there is an R&D 
component and a demonstration component to this award and so 
the cost share utilizes a formula that captures the R&D 
component with its appropriate level of government cost share 
and the demonstration component with its appropriate level of 
cost share.
    Mr. Casten. Well, let me then just reframe my question. Of 
the $1.4 billion that we've approved so far, can I assume that 
that's matched with roughly $1.4 billion of money provided by 
the CFPP LLC (limited liability company) entity?
    Dr. Huff. Roughly, yes.
    Mr. Casten. OK. All right. Do you know anything about the 
debt equity structure of CFPP LLC? And if you don't, that's OK. 
I'm just curious.
    Dr. Huff. I know a little bit, but in great detail I would 
refer to my staff.
    Mr. Casten. OK. But they do have some level of equity 
participation?
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Does the Department of Energy or the U.S. 
taxpayer have any equity exposure in the project, or is it just 
a grant?
    Dr. Huff. I think we should--I should be very clear about 
this because there's a distinction between various kinds of 
grants that I would like to make sure are captured cleverly.
    Mr. Casten. I guess what I'm wondering is if the future 
cash-flows of the project were to change, does the taxpayer 
have any downside exposure or upside gain from those change in 
future cash-flows?
    Dr. Huff. Yes. So it should be the case that while over 
time in each budget period there's a differing amount of cost 
share between the government and CFPP. The total project area, 
which ends in 2029, is less than 50 percent cost share by the 
government. In fact----
    Mr. Casten. But I'm----
    Dr. Huff [continuing]. I think it's closer to 20----
    Mr. Casten. But I'm talking about once--but I'm talking 
about once the project is fully operational. I realize that 
we're on the hook for the money going in, but to the extent 
that we make decisions right now that affect the long-term 
revenue of this project, I'm assuming that that all flows to 
CFPP LLC and not to the taxpayers. Is that a safe assumption?
    Dr. Huff. Right.
    Mr. Casten. OK. So I ask that because now we've made this 
decision. As you know, we had $10 million that was appropriated 
for the jump reactor, that this 12th reactor was going to be a 
research and development. That, as you know, in the summer of 
2020 was changed, and now that 12th reactor is a power-
producing reactor. I'm assuming, all else equal, that that 
either increases the equity returns or in some fashion at least 
reduces the equity risk to CFPP LLC. And if I'm understanding 
what you've said so far, there's no incremental economic gain 
just from that decision to the government. Do I--I see you 
nodding. Is that--for the record, would you agree with that?
    Dr. Huff. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. OK. So what did we lose when we took out--
because the expectation was that that 12th reactor was going to 
be there for research purposes. I think it would be the first 
place in the world we would have been--you know, the INL 
researchers would have had the ability to tinker and learn in 
real time and in operating a next-generation nuclear facility. 
What did we lose in exchange for essentially de-risking the 
equity from CFPP LLC?
    Dr. Huff. Well, we did lose that opportunity to utilize the 
jump module for that research, which, you know, could have 
contributed to some research of interest to Idaho National 
Laboratory. But in general I think my understanding is that 
this was an acceptable pathway moving forward and was 
communicated fairly clearly to Hewden Suit at the time during 
the decisionmaking process.
    Mr. Casten. OK. So we lost some long-term benefit for the 
taxpayer but we provided some short-term benefit for the 
private participants.
    Was the decision on that tradeoff made in consultation with 
Congress, in consultation with any Federal oversight authority 
since the initial appropriation did contemplate that, or was 
that made unilaterally with DOE and private partners?
    Dr. Huff. As I was not there, I will need to go back to my 
staff and understand the timelines somewhat bit better in terms 
of their communications with Hewden Suit and the appropriators 
and whatnot, as well as the rest of Congress.
    Mr. Casten. OK.
    Dr. Huff. But my understanding is that they did do a number 
of briefings with Hewden Suit on this topic, but I'm not sure 
exactly the order of operations----
    Mr. Casten. OK.
    Dr. Huff [continuing]. So if you will permit me, I'd like 
to answer that question----
    Mr. Casten. That would----
    Dr. Huff [continuing]. For the record.
    Mr. Casten. That would be great. And last quick question 
before I run out of time, do you know if the decision to move 
that 12th reactor into commercial service was in any way 
required by the financing of CFPP LLC, you know, to meet some 
loan covenant or otherwise? In other words, did the DOE have a 
choice to keep the project going but for that change, and do 
you have any visibility into that decision?
    Dr. Huff. I do not know if that was the reason for that 
decision. I will--we can answer that question for the record.
    Mr. Casten. That would be helpful. Thank you very much, and 
I yield back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you.
    And now in order to return to proper bipartisan balance on 
the order here, we will be recognizing Representative Garcia 
for five minutes, followed by Representative Meijer. So, 
Representative Garcia, you are recognized.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity here. I appreciate all the witnesses' testimony. I 
think we're all in concurrence that nuclear energy is a 
critical piece of the puzzle here moving forward. As someone 
who has lived a couple years of my life on a nuclear-propelled 
boat, I understand the benefits of it, as well as the low risk 
associated with it when it's done correctly.
    Dr. Huff, if we can, I'd like to just put a bow on the 
sole-source award conversation if we can. Obviously, DOE and NE 
are subject to Federal acquisition regulations just like any 
other government. You mentioned there was a J&A (justification 
and approval) done. I'm assuming the J&A went through FAR 
(Federal Acquisition Regulation) 6.302, which are the reasons 
for a sole-source justification (SSJ), as well as FAR 6.303, 
which is the requirements for that J&A to go out the door 
before it goes out the door and substantiates the sole-source 
justification. I just want to follow up on my colleague 
Obernolte's questions and make sure that we're asking for the 
right artifacts. You will be providing to us the J&A with the 
reasons and the rationale behind the SSJ documents that 
ultimately led to the awards to us, is that correct?
    Dr. Huff. The DNFA documents that were requested by the 
Committee I think we already provided, but we will go back and 
make sure that all requested DNFA documentation requested by 
the Committee is provided.
    Mr. Garcia. OK, thank you. I had a question on your opening 
statement and then a question--my actual question I wanted to 
get to, so I'll be brief. You mentioned that Biden's plan has a 
significant percentage of nuclear capability within it. Can you 
give us in a real quick sentence or two what is our current 
percentage of energy production as a result of nuclear relative 
to what the end state goals of this Administration are?
    Dr. Huff. Fifty percent of our--over 50 percent of our 
clean energy, clean electricity, is generated by nuclear. 
That's about 20 percent of our electric grid. The Biden 
Administration has not identified specific percentages of 
nuclear in terms of its long-term plan but recognizes nuclear 
as a key component in the strategy to reach our climate goals.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. All right. We don't need to do a deep dive 
on that, but I just want to recommend if you could shape that 
to have a meaningful metric or goal to attain. Otherwise, it's 
just a talking point. That's not attributed to you. I just--I 
think in our own interest we all need to have a goal to try to 
strive for.
    So on the baseline conversations here, the recycling side 
of the house seems to be an opportunity where we can realize 
some gains. We've got about 85,000 metric tons, I believe, of 
nuclear waste out there. I've seen technologies being pitched 
that would take a lot of this waste, recycle it. Some of it 
gets reused and the distillates become less toxic for shorter--
much shorter half-lives. Is this something that you guys have 
been looking at? And then I guess what is DOE looking to do in 
this field, and what sort of opportunities can we realize there 
in the short term with, say, studies? How can we help on the 
funding side? I--you know, I sit on Appropriations as well, and 
money is always a long pole in these types of things. But where 
can we help you, and what are the--what is the art of the 
possible moving forward on the recycling of waste side?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you very much for your question. You know, 
actually I have an--kind of interest is--my research is in 
nuclear fuel cycles, especially advanced nuclear fuel cycles 
and advanced reactors, so it's certainly a topic of 
extraordinary relevance and interest to me. As we look forward 
into the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program reactors, we 
are very interested in ensuring that the fuel cycle is 
underpinning those reactor demonstrations, will be fully 
supported by the research ongoing within our fuel cycle R&D 
program within DOE NE, and sufficient support to ensure that 
the labs, you know, expert bench is deep over time alongside 
the progress of those advanced reactor demonstration awards is 
really critical to ensuring that, you know, as needed, fuel 
cycle research and development can be supported and experts are 
available at the national laboratories to----
    Mr. Garcia. Can I ask a clarifying question? When--you're 
saying fuel cycle research and development. Is that--that 
includes the recycling element on the backside, correct? OK. 
Sorry----
    Dr. Huff. That's right. Cycles include both the ones 
through fuel cycle, as well as closed fuel cycles that 
incorporate recycling like what you're discussing.
    Mr. Garcia. Got you. Got you, got you. OK. Very good. And I 
certainly would be interested off-line if we can get whatever 
information, if my office can coordinate with you to see sort 
of what the state-of-the-art and the art of the possible in 
this regard.
    Dr. Huff. We'd be thrilled to give you a briefing.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you all for your service, and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Meijer for five minutes.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our 
panelists who are gathered here today and for holding this 
hearing. I guess I also want to specifically welcome Dr. Allen 
from Michigan State University. Glad to have another 
Michigander here in the room.
    I have a couple of more specific questions that I want to 
get to in a second, but briefly, Dr. Allen, could you just 
briefly comment on the role that the nuclear academic community 
can play on ensuring the success of public-private 
partnerships?
    Dr. Allen. Yes, I think it's very important. You'll notice 
if you dig into the history of some of these companies that 
are--you're now talking about new products. Those came from 
academic institutions, right? So I think we play a role in 
workforce development, which we've already talked about. I 
think innovating so that maybe the generation after this one is 
even better, like we view that this is just the first step in a 
long number of advanced nuclear technologies. And so I think 
anywhere from innovation, workforce, getting people to use our 
facilities to support these companies are all important. So we 
do more at the front--at the innovation side, but we support 
end-to-end.
    Mr. Meijer. And then obviously NuScale came out of that 
kind of academic environment and a lot of which----
    Dr. Allen. Right.
    Mr. Meijer [continuing]. Good, close collaboration with the 
Department of Energy as well.
    And I guess, you know, getting back to NuScale, are there 
any domestic nuclear reactor manufacturers--I mean, NuScale is 
coming online with their small modular reactor, but is it--is 
there anyone but, you know, Westinghouse, who's obviously in a 
bit of a tenuous position?
    Dr. Allen. So at the moment you have a number of U.S. 
companies that support parts, so Westinghouse clearly, but GE, 
BWXT does work, and then you've got an entire set of innovators 
that we--you'll see partnerships between them and some of these 
companies so there's more than just Westinghouse.
    Mr. Meijer. OK. But is it fair to say it's a quite 
concentrated industry at the moment?
    Dr. Allen. It is. And I think the vision of the future is 
that you're expanding into new products, new business models, 
then that becomes a much more broad and important part of a 
clean energy economy.
    Mr. Meijer. No, I think--and that's where I'm excited to 
see, you know, where we are right now and that, you know, 
expanded approval and, you know, supporting an entrepreneurial 
process so that we can diversify, what I think--getting back to 
what Mr. Garcia was saying is a widespread agreement on the 
need to incorporate nuclear energy into our future, kind of 
carbon-free electrical generation.
    I guess shifting briefly to Dr. Huff, you know, I--you 
know, along with our Chairman and Mr. Casten, you know, I 
cosponsored--and Mr. Gonzalez as well cosponsored H.R. 4606, 
the Energizing Technology Transfer Act. Can you touch briefly 
upon how the Office of Nuclear Energy coordinates with the 
Department's Office of Technology Transitions (OTT), you know, 
to help those reach the market? And referenced, you know, 
NuScale earlier, so if that's a helpful analogy. You know, I 
mean, how can we best smooth that adoption so we get it from 
decades to years?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for the question. I really appreciate 
that. And the Office of Technology--OTT and NE work really 
closely together, especially recently. The energy in that 
office is really exciting right now as we look toward a clean 
energy transition.
    We are working to ensure that our TCF, the Technology 
Commercialization Fund, activities are incorporated in a sort 
of bigger vision for the future, and we also have been working 
to ensure that their best practices and ideas for technology 
transition can help us in projects like NuScale to ensure that 
an order book of future reactors follows our investment in the 
first of a kind in these devices, not just with NuScale but 
also with the ARDPs and the risk reduction awardees and ARC-20 
awards. It's important for our strategy to coordinate with OTT, 
and we're doing so as much as possible.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you. And then I neglected--I apologize, 
Dr. Allen, I did not realize you were also a University of 
Michigan grad, so I apologize for throwing a Spartan reference 
your way.
    Dr. Allen. Thank you. Twitter probably is going to be a lot 
nicer to me now you corrected that, so I appreciate it.
    Mr. Meijer. But I, you know, just appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss on this, and I think, again, warm 
receptivity of--among the Subcommittee on how we can best 
support all of these components. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Perlmutter for five minutes of trash-talking.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is our 
second day in a row talking about nuclear physics and nuclear 
everything, so yesterday was about nuclear electricity 
propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion, which is going to be 
a key component for us getting our astronauts to Mars by 2033.
    I guess I go with you, Mr. Amey. I mean, obviously, we 
always want to default to competition because that brings more 
robust thought and innovation, but from time to time sole 
source is appropriate. So I'm not--I don't have a knee-jerk 
reaction against the sole source, but I do if the rules of 
engagement were not followed. So if in fact people were not 
following the rules--and, Dr. Huff, you think that based on 
your review of the record--you weren't there at the time--you 
think the sole-source approach was followed appropriately in 
this instance?
    Dr. Huff. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Has there been much of an investigation 
into it?
    Dr. Huff. I have asked my staff to ensure that this was the 
case, as well as our procurement office and contracting office, 
and they of course follow all procedures and feel that it was 
executed neatly.
    Mr. Perlmutter. OK. All right. But I think from sort of the 
perspective of others, they're--they rely on budgets that are 
set by the Department. They rely on the budgets that are set by 
Congress. So this is for you, Dr. Allen. The Nuclear Energy 
University Program (NEUP) is an important funding mechanism for 
nuclear engineering programs at universities like the Colorado 
School of Mines in my district. And for Ms. Bonamici, I don't 
know if she's still on the line, but the School of Mines has 
access to a nuclear reactor, which is owned by the Department 
of the Interior and the USGS (United States Geological Survey), 
so I want you to know there are other students who have access 
to a nuclear reactor, not just your people at Reed College, OK?
    So the research being performed at the School of Mines and 
other universities represent the lifeblood of American 
innovation. However, to cover the cost of the 2019 Centrus 
award, DOE withdrew nearly 1/3 of the Nuclear Energy University 
Program's budget in the middle of its funding cycle. So, Dr. 
Allen, as the Chair of the Nuclear Energy Department Heads 
Organization, how did this episode unfold for your university 
or other university nuclear programs?
    Dr. Allen. Yes, great question. I think it actually caused 
quite a bit of turmoil. It happened at the very last second 
after people had done a lot of work. It appeared to be out of 
nowhere, right? I mean, the universities would understand the 
importance of the high-assay, low-enriched uranium program. 
There wouldn't be an argument about that need. But the fact 
that suddenly the money was pulled out to do that contract just 
seemed like an issue that could have been--that it was coming, 
right, the need for HALEU was known.
    And so in a lot of ways I think this caused a bit of a lack 
of trust between the university community and the DOE. I think 
to her credit Dr. Huff is trying very hard, right, to bring 
that relationship back to working well together, but it--yes, 
it was a very bad, and it's caused a lot of negative 
repercussions.
    I will say though that I think that it's forcing a lot of 
people to understand how we do the university programs, so 
we'll make some good out of that bad. But at the time it was 
horrible. It cutoff opportunities for faculty who had spent a 
year preparing proposals.
    Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Well, and I think that--I want to give 
department heads, folks at DOE, Dr. Huff as much discretion as 
possible, but they also have to understand with that discretion 
they have a responsibility to make sure they fulfill prior 
commitments. So I just appreciate the panel's testimony, and 
any help you can get our astronauts to Mars by 2033 would be 
appreciated because it's clear that nuclear propulsion is going 
to play a role. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Amey. Congressman Perlmutter, if I may jump in on your 
previous question, and it was something [inaudible] when 
Congresswoman Stansbury also asked a question about--on the 
competition front. And I said it earlier. Holding a competition 
isn't just a check-the-box exercise, and so they could have 
done everything according to [inaudible]. They could have--you 
know, they put out their notice of intent to sole source the 
contract. You know, they held it open for a few weeks, and then 
they--you know, they did J&A. All those things checked the box 
and it appears it's fine. But when you analyze these 
justifications and approval for sole-source contracting, there 
are some red flags that pop up.
    And again, I mentioned [inaudible] proprietary products 
that only one producer can then work with, and so are they 
limiting competition in that way? On the defense-related issue, 
I mean, I saw that that was mentioned in the justification and 
approval for the Centrus contract, and that that meant it had 
to be U.S.-owned and U.S.-controlled company that can only bid 
on it. What was----
    Mr. Perlmutter. So, Mr. Amey, my time is expired, but 
you're right. Any good lawyer who wants to try to refine it 
down to just one potential applicant can do that, so----
    Mr. Amey. Right.
    Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. That's why we want to default 
toward competition. And I agree with you on that. But I guess 
what I was saying sometimes sole source is OK in my opinion.
    Mr. Amey. Right.
    Mr. Perlmutter. But with that, I'll yield back to the 
Chair.
    Mr. Amey. Thank you.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Feenstra for five minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Foster and Chairman 
Bowman and Ranking Members. I want to echo my colleagues' 
support for nuclear energy as it is an important piece of 
energy future. It is important that we make sure that we do our 
due diligence when directing funding and selecting nuclear R&D 
projects to make the most productive investments. And thank you 
to each one of the witnesses for their testimony and sharing 
their extensive research and experience with us.
    Dr. Huff, over the past few decades the Office of Nuclear 
Energy typically spends a large percentage of its budget on 
program direction and facility operations. Why is this portion 
so large compared to the DOE's other energy offices such as 
fossil and renewable energy? Can such expenses be reduced in 
your estimation?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for the question. We have the privilege 
and honor to oversee the operations of the Idaho National 
Laboratory, which is quite large comparatively to a lot of the 
other national laboratories overseen by similar offices. And I 
think you'll find that the vast majority of our infrastructure 
work is in a security and a class level of technological safety 
that require an expensive facilities management approach.
    In terms of program direction, I'm actually--my 
understanding is that our program direction is comparable, but 
I will look into it and try to understand better the source of 
this question that you have.
    Mr. Feenstra. Dr. Huff, I appreciate that. And do you think 
the Office of Nuclear Energy spends an appropriate amount of 
funds on nuclear energy development in contrast to our 
geopolitical allies and, more importantly, adversaries?
    Dr. Huff. It's a wonderful question from this perspective 
of, you know, where we need to go. And I'll tell you I don't 
have full transparency into how much our competitors are 
spending, but I would say that the implication that I've seen 
on the international stage is that, you know, we will need to 
work hard not to fall behind in comparison to these 
competitors, so I hope that answers your question.
    Mr. Feenstra. I appreciate those comments.
    Dr. Allen, you may know that China brought online the 
world's first gen-IV reactor, a small pebble bed reactor that 
utilizes TRISO fuel and is a helium-cooled. The United States 
and U.K. developed this fuel in the 1960's and 1970's and had 
been pursuing these reactors. Despite over hundreds of millions 
of spending on TRISO fuels and half a billion in spending on 
the next generation nuclear plant in the 2000's for pebble bed 
gas reactors, how has China beaten us to the punch when it 
comes to this front?
    Dr. Allen. I think they did some things that we're now 
catching up on, right? For years if you look at the U.S. 
approach, it's been very much a research-and-development 
approach. So we did a lot of work to improve TRISO fuels and 
things. We didn't have as sophisticated an approach toward 
getting commercial deployment, right? So the Chinese made this 
commitment, right? It's more of a State-run program, but 
they're going to build a demo, right? Whereas here, we're 
relying on our domestic commercial sort of entrepreneurial 
firms to help drive that for us. I think that's smarter. I 
think our industry is better at developing commercial products 
than researchers like myself. But I think they took this step 
of starting to see the importance of having a program that 
looks at all the elements, infrastructure, early innovation all 
the way up to deployment. I think we're catching up a little 
bit there. We set the structures now. We just have to execute 
them smartly.
    And I do think, to finish your question, if you look at the 
things they do, we have a lot more types of products and 
things, right? Where we fail is we get ahead of them and then 
we let them catch up.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. And I tend to agree with you. And I 
sometimes think our regulatory environment sort of hold us 
back. And I think that can be a significant concern. I mean, do 
you sort of see that also?
    Dr. Allen. Well, I think that our regulatory system is good 
in the sense that it forces public consultation in a very open 
system and making sure we regulate. I do think that our 
regulatory system gets very focused and knowledgeable in light 
water reactors, right? And we're sort of starting to see that 
transition to being able to do advanced reactors but it's 
another area where we're needing to catch up.
    Mr. Feenstra. I appreciate, Dr. Allen, your comments. And 
thank you to each one of you, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Stevens for five minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Dr. Huff, when did you get to the Department 
of Energy?
    Dr. Huff. May 10th of this year.
    Ms. Stevens. So where were you when this sole source was 
going on with HALEU?
    Dr. Huff. I was an assistant professor at the University of 
Illinois applying for, in fact, NEUP awards in my research area 
of advanced reactors and fuel cycles, which included a large 
number of prepared proposals in the areas that were cut for 
that Centrus activity. And I----
    Ms. Stevens. And where are you--you're acting right now. 
Where are you in terms of a confirmation? Have you had hearings 
or do you have any insight into when you're going to get 
officially confirmed, or are we waiting for an official 
announcement that you're going to be the Assistant Secretary? 
Apologies for not knowing this.
    Dr. Huff. No nomination has been made for the Assistant 
Secretary in DOE.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you so much for your service to 
our country and for leaving a very prominent post. You know, I 
say this as a Michigander, but we certainly have a lot of 
respect and admiration for the University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign. I've worked with many scientific researchers at that 
university over the years.
    And certainly I think Dr. Allen, you know, mentioned your 
understanding and appreciation for the role of the universities 
in this effort, and certainly your background speaks to it. And 
I think my questions were intended to codify for the record 
because I understand you are answering a lot for things that 
happened before you arrived at the Department of Energy.
    And certainly, you know, reflecting today, you know, in 
2016 we observed the 50-year mark from, you know, where I call 
home, the metro Detroit, Detroit area since the Detroit Edison 
Fermi's nuclear plant suffered a partial meltdown caused by a 
piece of floating shrapnel inside the container vessel.
    And so, Dr. Huff--and also maybe Ms. Roma wants to get 
involved in this, too, and thank you all for your amazing 
testimonies. But how do you think the Office of Nuclear Energy 
will successfully utilize this--the large increase in funds to 
ensure safe engineering in the industry--in the nuclear 
industry, and how do you plan to measure that success?
    Dr. Huff. Safety is absolutely paramount in the context of 
nuclear energy, and our consistent relationship with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as our very serious and 
safety-conscious oversight of our DOE authorizations around 
nuclear safety are both absolutely paramount to our forward 
movement, our strategy, and our core metrics. Safety incidents 
are consistently measured, watched, and responded to within my 
office at the national laboratories we're involved with and 
through our collaborations with industry and the universities.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes.
    Ms. Roma. I would just briefly add to that that none of the 
benefits of nuclear power, the carbon-free benefits, the 
economic, the national security, none of those happen if we 
can't operate plants safely. And, you know, one of the benefits 
that we have in the United States is we have the best-run 
nuclear fleet. We have one of the strongest nuclear regulators 
in the world that is one of the most respected nuclear 
regulators in the world. And for both the existing fleet and 
for the emerging advanced reactor fleet, that needs to continue 
to be the case in order for this to be a success.
    Ms. Stevens. Great. And, Dr. Allen, you talked about in 
your testimony that the Office of Nuclear Energy should include 
community input and engagement from the earliest stages of 
technology design to ensure that technologies being developed 
will ultimately be adopted by communities. Could you share a 
little bit about what that looks like and why this is so 
important and any example of how work in places like Michigan, 
which not only are you a professor at U of M, Dr. Allen, but 
you are also a Michigan native, we're very proud of you, so, 
you know, just places where, you know, similar to Michigan 
are--obviously where we call home where this has been an 
example. And I guess I'm at 30 seconds, so give it your best 
go.
    Dr. Allen. Yes, well, I think in short, right, 
traditionally, the nuclear engineering field has concentrated 
on technology, right? But a lot of getting any product placed 
is how do people accept it, how much do they want it, what's 
the value versus risk to them? And so I think we need to be 
much more sophisticated from how we do design, how we talk to 
communities about new technologies in a way that we just 
haven't done in the past, right? And I think at every level, 
early research up through deployment. And if we wait to the 
last minute, we wait till the product is done, and we pick a 
site, and then we start a conversation, we're less likely to be 
successful.
    And to give Dr. Huff credit, for the first time since I've 
been around, there are research grants in these areas available 
this year. So we're taking it seriously. And I think it's 
important to the long-term success of our technology.
    Ms. Stevens. Now, we are certainly really lucky to have Dr. 
Huff doing what she's doing right now. And while I'm out of 
time, count me in, Dr. Allen, on that community engagement in 
any way I can be helpful to you on the ground in Michigan.
    Dr. Allen. Yes, glad to engage on that. Appreciate it.
    Ms. Stevens. Thanks. Thanks. And, Mr. Chair, I'll yield 
back.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Gimenez for five minutes.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, I believe you have extensively studied thorium 
fuel cycle and molten salt reactor technology in your career. 
Your predecessor in the Obama Administration, Dr. Peter Lyons, 
testified to this Committee in 2014 that thorium reactors are 
not an option that the United States should be pursuing. He was 
also instrumental in implementing an MOU (memorandum of 
understanding) between the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the 
U.S. Department of Energy.
    The report from the first executive committee meeting under 
that MOU mentions sodium-cooled fast reactors once, gas-cooled 
reactors are mentioned three times, but thorium molten salt 
reactors are mentioned some 30 times. China is spending about 
$3 billion on these reactors. The first of them is--should be 
coming online sometime later this month. I think it's in Wuwei. 
Reports suggest that China intends to export these reactors as 
part of their Belt and Road Initiative. What should the DOE be 
doing to respond to these developments in China?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for the question. You know, in--DOE NE 
funds molten salt reactors in multiple ways. Some thorium 
molten salt reactor companies are interested in that work 
because the current sort of funding that we've implemented in 
the context of the risk reduction awardees includes at least 
one device that can be fueled by either uranium or thorium. We 
do research in the fuel cycle area in molten salt reactor fuel 
cycles that can leverage either uranium or thorium.
    When we think about the sort of Chinese example that you 
described, something I often think about--comes back to an 
earlier question--but we demonstrated this kind of reactor in 
the earliest days of our research reactor program in the 1950's 
and 1960's and have since determined that the thorium fuel 
cycle is not economic in the United States at this time. So 
additional research to ensure that such a fuel cycle becomes 
economic might enable those companies to move forward, but, 
generally speaking, our view is that such an approach would not 
be economic at this time, given the amount of supply chain 
surety that we have in uranium instead.
    Mr. Gimenez. But that--we shut that demonstration project 
in the 1960's or 1970's, right? It was shut down, is that 
correct?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, sir. You'll be excited to know that one of 
the risk reduction awardees is a collaboration between Southern 
Company and TerraPower on a molten fluoride reactor experiment 
that we're really excited about seeing revive that activity in 
a new and more modern technological direction.
    Mr. Gimenez. Are the Chinese doing--are they utilizing 
advances in technology in the last 40 years in order to make 
this more economical?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, as will our risk reduction awardee project.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. And in light of the fact that they're 
moving forward, if it proves to be successful, would the United 
States be following suit or are we going to go some other 
direction?
    Dr. Huff. That's a great question that we'll have to 
determine at a later time. I'll say that it's certainly the 
case that there are other motivations for molten salt thorium 
reactor fuel cycles that are closer to proliferation concern 
that China or--you know, may be interested in and we may need 
to factor that into the sort of possible motivations.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. Let me--OK. Last question, when was the 
last nuclear, you know, facility in the United States put into 
operation?
    Dr. Huff. The completion--I'd have to get the year dates. 
Maybe Todd remembers the most recent when----
    Dr. Allen. Yes, I think it was about--within the last 
decade, right? The plant in Tennessee----
    Dr. Huff. Right.
    Dr. Allen [continuing]. And it had been started and then 
stopped, and then they refinished it. So we had a long stretch 
where we had completed all the light water reactors and we had 
none and roughly--I don't have the date in front of me, but 
roughly 10-ish years ago we completed one. And now we've got 
two in Georgia that are getting close to completion.
    Mr. Gimenez. Well, the reason I ask the question is that I, 
you know, had extensive conversations with people in the power 
industry, and they said--and the one in Georgia was way over 
budget, way out, you know, beyond its time, and that power 
companies are just not looking at a nuclear power as a viable 
option in--because of whatever reason. I mean, maybe regulatory 
reasons, et cetera. But we need to do a better job of 
incentivizing this because this is the way that we can get that 
to a zero carbon--or, you know, electricity production and 
energy production in the future.
    Renewables are great, but they're not predictable, and so 
we need something predictable. And the only thing that I know 
of that produces electricity with zero emissions that is 
completely predictable is nuclear power, and so we really need 
to do a better job as a country of trying to move this along. 
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And we'll now recognize 
Representative Gonzalez for five minutes.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And I want to thank the Chairs and 
Ranking Members for holding this important hearing. I also want 
to thank our witnesses for taking time out of their busy 
schedules to join us.
    As many of my friends on this Committee know, I have been 
adamant that if the United States wants to claim to be a global 
climate leader, nuclear energy has to be a major priority. 
Here's what we know: First, nuclear generates energy with no 
carbon output. In fact, the only carbon it does emit is from 
the ancillary use of fossil fuels used during construction, 
mining, and maintenance. When we close nuclear plants, we 
aren't shifting to other sources of clean energy. In nearly 
every case we shift back to fossil fuels such as natural gas, 
oil, and coal. We've seen this happen in Germany, in 
California, and most recently in New York.
    Second, nuclear operates at a significantly higher capacity 
than renewable energy sources or fossil fuels and takes up 
significantly less land. We don't talk nearly enough about 
that. It takes 150 times more land to produce the same amount 
of energy from solar as it does nuclear. It takes 750 times 
more land to produce the same amount of electricity from wind 
as nuclear. All of that, the materials required, the steel, the 
concrete, all the things that you worry about as an 
environmentalist, five to seven times more of them are required 
for wind and solar than nuclear.
    And lastly, we've made substantial progress over the last 
few decades in nuclear waste disposal programs. Thanks to the 
opening and operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New 
Mexico, we've learned deep geological disposal is a safe 
solution for nuclear waste for defense activities, but we do 
need greater international and stakeholder engagement in the 
future. These programs make clear that we can effectively 
resolve the commercial nuclear waste challenge.
    The question with nuclear is ultimately how we solve the 
economics, which has been a problem. From my perspective, the 
answer is rooted in establishing an incentive structure that 
not only drives innovation but also ensures the new 
technologies developed make it to market and are deployed, and 
that's where the DOE and our universities step in.
    So, Dr. Allen, I want to start with you, and I want to 
thank you for your support of my legislation, H.R. 4819, the 
National Nuclear University Research Infrastructure 
Reinvestment Act. And I'd be remiss if I didn't also express my 
gratitude for your efforts at NEDHO (Nuclear Engineering 
Department Heads Organization) to develop our Nation's nuclear 
workforce in advanced critical R&D.
    In your testimony you mention a sort of disconnect between 
industry, laboratories, and research institutions. As you know, 
my bill would set up a partnership framework between these 
communities to help advance the research needs of advanced 
reactors. Can you speak more to the importance of these 
partnerships in determining the success of DOE nuclear 
programs?
    Dr. Allen. Yes, thanks. Thanks a lot. And thanks for your 
support on your resolution. We in the university community 
appreciate that.
    Yes, I think the point I was trying to make is, as we move 
toward being more supportive of nuclear energy and we've been 
thoughtful about how do we give access of these commercial 
companies to the laboratories, how do we connect to university 
research into the flow of everything else that to a certain 
extent the programs we've developed, while useful elements, 
don't talk to each other well, right? And that's where I think 
we're lacking. And I think we could make this more efficient in 
the way that we spend your funds.
    And that's the point I was trying to get at. I mean, if I 
look at things like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 
structure, it looks like it makes sense, right? You invest more 
in companies that seem closer to deployment, less than others. 
The questions just are then how do you flow research to them? 
How do you make it easy for them to get access to our national 
lab capabilities, right? And I think those are the try--the 
points I was trying to make. I think the elements all make 
sense. And if you compare where we are now to where we were 5 
years ago, we are moving ahead so much faster, right? It's 
really just a question of do we get sophisticated in the way we 
execute programs that equals the programs that we're 
developing?
    Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. And I appreciate that. I think the goal 
is not only we are doing better but we need to do three times, 
four times, five times as well. I almost have an endless 
appetite for this.
    Dr. Huff, I only have a minute left, so rather than ask a 
question, I'm just going to kindly request that your staff 
and--that you and I get a chance to sit down, and I'd love to 
just hear your perspective more on how we as Congress can 
support your work at the DOE. I think it's enormously 
important. Last--or yesterday we were in a hearing--and I see 
Mr. Casten is still on. He mentioned Ontario as having 90 
percent renewable energy, which is great. Sixty percent of that 
baseload is nuclear. And, you know, I think if we're going to 
hit our climate targets, if we're going to hit our targets and 
do it in a way that's responsible, nuclear has to be at the 
forefront. It just does. I don't see any other way around it. 
So I kindly request a meeting. Our staff will follow up with 
yours, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Foster. Thank you. And so before we bring this 
hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for 
testifying before the Committee. You know, this--you know, the 
message that I think--I hope came clearly through is how much 
there is real bipartisan enthusiasm for making sure that we 
have a healthy and well-executed program of nuclear research 
and deployment. And I, too, will look forward to a briefing on 
the specific items of interest for--coming from my office.
    And so the record will remain open for two weeks for any 
additional statements from the Members or any additional 
questions that anyone on the Committee may ask of the 
witnesses.
    So the witnesses are hereby excused, and the hearing is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]