U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–223 PDF 2016

THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–123 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

WITNESS

Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy .............................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 99 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report to Congress, ‘‘National Nuclear Security Administration Comments 

on the Final Report of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance 

of the Nuclear Security Enterprise,’’ May 2015, submitted by Mr. Whitfield 92 

Amicus Curiae, Case No. 15–1363, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, February 23, 2016, 2 submitted by Mr. Pompeo 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20160302/104593/HHRG-114- 

IF03-Wstate-MonizE-20160302-SD086.pdf. 2The information has been retained in committee files and also is available 

at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20160302/104593/HHRG-114- 

IF03-20160302-SD033.pdf. 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus, 

Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, 

Mullin, Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Capps, 

Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Yarmuth, Loebsack, and Pallone 

(ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton 

Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; Patrick Currier, Senior Counsel, 

Energy and Power; Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy and 

Power; A.T. Johnson, Senior Policy Advisor; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member, Energy and Power; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; 

Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member; Andy Zach, 

Counsel, Energy and the Environment; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Rick 

Kessler, Democratic Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and 

the Environment; Josh Lewis, Democratic EPA Detailee; John Marshall, Democratic Policy Coordinator; Matt Schumacher, Democratic Press Assistant; Andrew Souvall, Democratic Director of 

Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; and Tuley 

Wright, Democratic Energy and Environment Policy Advisor. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order. 

Of course, today we are having a hearing on the Department of 

Energy’s fiscal year 2017 budget. We are delighted that Secretary 

Moniz is here with us today to, I guess I will say, defend the budget because we do have some differences of opinion. 

But, at this time, I would like to recognize myself 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. And, Mr. Secretary, we are delighted you 

are here. And we enjoy working with you even though, as I said, 

we do have some significant differences on some of the policies. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

My concerns about prior years’ budgets are repeated in this 

year’s budget. I take serious issue with the nearly 10 percent increase in overall funding level requests. And I personally still question the direction DOE is taking on energy policy. I should note 

that there are issues that we certainly agree with DOE, at least 

in principle, and there is much in the agency’s Quadrennial Energy 

Review that I think we all support. We all agree on the need to 

modernize, and protect the Nation’s energy infrastructure and the 

need to have a well-trained and diversified energy workforce with 

the skills that energy markets will demand in years to come. 

We all recognize the importance of a more integrated North 

American energy system, and the benefits of engaging in energy diplomacy, and conducting ourselves like the energy superpower really that we have become. We agree on taking steps to improve energy efficiency and accountability, especially in regard to the Federal Government’s own use of energy, as well as the functioning of 

DOE itself. And most of us agree on the agency’s commitment to 

research and development. 

But on many areas, and the direction, in which this agency is 

taking with its energy policy, I personally, respectfully, disagree. 

Most significantly, this budget continues to reflect the President’s 

priority to treat climate change as the number one issue facing 

America and is DOE’s overriding concern. 

One of DOE’s stated priorities, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, is to support ongoing implementation of the President’s climate action plan. We see this in the programs that have received 

proposed budget increases, like the $2.9 billion, for the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 40 percent increase. A 

63 percent increase for wind energy, a 22 percent increase for corporate support, at the same time, a reduction of nuclear R&D by 

23 percent, a reduction in nuclear technology by 20 percent. 

And I might add that the administration has chosen to make climate an agency priority without any statutory authority from Congress directing DOE to focus on global warming. As part of the 

Paris Agreement, a nonbinding agreement, Obama and 19 other 

countries launched a program known as Mission Innovation in 

order to accelerate global energy innovation by doubling the 

amount of our taxpayer dollars in clean energy R&D over the next 

5 years. And so the things included in Mission Innovation we have 

used before, but there is a 21 percent increase in the budget request. 

The budget also evidences a misguided perspective on the proper 

role of Government in energy policy. A cleaner, more advanced and 

efficient energy system can be achieved through primarily private 

sector innovation and markets, supported by Government-backed 

research and development, not a top-down, Government-mandated 

approach. Yet, almost everywhere in this budget, we see DOE trying to expand its role and impose its own preferences on the private sector. And I might say that I personally take responsibility, 

I went back and looked at, certainly it is not all up to me, but since 

3 

2009, there has been a 35 percent increase in budget requests from 

DOE. 

During that same time, household median income has gone down 

by 2 percent since the President has been in office. So that reflects 

really what is happening in Government. We keep getting all these 

requests for increases. And, yet, the American people, they, their 

household income actually is decreasing. And I take responsibility 

for it because here I am, chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, we should be working closer with the appropriators. Because the appropriators seem to just keep following down, giving 

more money. And, yet, we should be, as a committee, pressing 

them on what we think. We have as much jurisdiction over energy 

as certainly the appropriators do. They appropriate the money. 

But I personally, this year, am going to try to have more interchange with them, exchange of ideas, dialogue with them to give 

them our very strong views on where we think the President is 

wrong on his priorities for DOE. With that, at this time, I would 

like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Rush, for a 5-minute opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

Today is our final Department of Energy budget hearing for the Obama administration. We are always delighted to have Secretary Moniz here and look forward to 

his remarks. 

My concerns about prior years’ budgets are repeated in this year’s budget. I take 

serious issue with the nearly 10 percent boost in overall funding levels and I still 

question the direction DOE is taking on energy policy. 

I should note that there are issues that we can agree with DOE, at least in principle, and there is much in the agency’s Quadrennial Energy Review that I think 

we all can support. We all agree on the need to modernize and protect the Nation’s 

energy infrastructure and the need to have a well-trained and diversified energy 

workforce with the skills that energy markets will demand in the years ahead. We 

all recognize the importance of a more integrated North American energy system 

and the benefits of engaging in energy diplomacy and conducting ourselves like the 

energy superpower we have become. We agree on taking steps to improve energy 

efficiency and accountability, especially as regards the Federal Government’s own 

use of energy as well as the functioning of DOE itself. And most of us agree on the 

agency’s commitment to research and development. 

But on many areas and the direction in which this agency is taking with its energy policy, I respectfully disagree. Most significantly, this budget continues to reflect the President’s priority and treat climate change as DOE’s overriding concern. 

One of DOE’s stated priorities in the FY 2017 budget request is to ‘‘support ongoing 

implementation of the President’s Climate Action Plan.’’ We see this in the programs that have received proposed budget increases, like the $2.1 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, as well as those facing cuts, such 

as the 43 percent cut in the Office of Fossil Energy. 

In fact, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is slated to get 

more funds than the Offices of Nuclear, Fossil, Electricity, and ARPA––E combined. 

Within the budget’s largest new program, the 21st Century Clean Transportation 

plan makes climate concerns the primary factor in transportation policy by inserting 

a new tax on oil that will raise gas prices by about 25 cents per gallon. This action 

alone speaks volumes about how badly off track this administration has gotten on 

energy policy. And I might add that the administration has chosen to make climate 

an agency priority without any statutory authority actually directing DOE to focus 

on global warming. As part of the Paris agreement, Obama and 19 other countries 

launched a program known as ‘‘Mission Innovation’’ in order to accelerate global 

green energy innovation by doubling the amount of our taxpayer dollars in clean 

energy R&D over the next 5 years. 

The problem with this climate myopia is that it comes at the expense of other 

priorities that DOE should be more focused upon, like ensuring plentiful and affordable supplies of domestic energy, including fossil fuels. To me this runs counter to 

4 

the very purpose for which the agency was created. Indeed, the Obama DOE’s antipathy towards fossil fuels represents the first time the agency has so actively opposed 

an affordable domestic energy source. 

Access to affordable and reliable energy is key to stimulating economic growth 

and strengthening our global competitiveness and it should be a priority for this 

agency. In contrast, putting climate first increases energy costs, restrains growth, 

destroys jobs, and reduces household spending power, especially low-income households. 

The budget also evidences a misguided perspective on the proper role of Government in energy policy. A cleaner, more advanced and efficient energy system can 

be achieved through private sector innovation and markets, supported by Government-backed research and development—not a top-down, Government-mandated approach. Yet almost everywhere in this budget we see DOE trying to expand its role 

and impose its own preferences on the private sector. 

DOE’s high budget request is bad enough, but the energy policy it would pay for 

is even worse. We can do much better in this budget, but we must prioritize affordable energy, economic growth, and jobs. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding today’s hearing on DOE’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

And, as always, Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to welcome to this 

subcommittee Secretary Moniz, who I like to refer to as our superstar Secretary. Mr. Secretary, your legacy at the Department of 

Energy is unsurpassed, in my opinion, as you have left your mark 

on a wide range of critically important issues, from your outstanding contribution in negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal, to reopening the agency so that it can more effectively address the challenges of the present and the future. 

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Secretary, that you have set 

the gold standard as Energy Secretary in terms of your effectiveness and forward-looking policies. And I, for one, will evaluate future heads of the agency by the great legacy that you have established. Mr. Chairman, before Secretary Moniz took over the reins 

of the Department, there were millions of Americas who had no 

idea of what the Department of Energy even did, and many more 

who mistakenly believed the agency’s policies had little to no impact on their lives. And I am proud to have been able to partner 

with the Secretary and his agency on a number of important initiatives that will affect the lives of many American families for years, 

if not decades, to come. 

Mr. Chairman, following a private meeting in my office some 

years ago, rather than giving the customary lip service, and go on 

conducting his business as usual, Secretary Moniz went back to the 

agency and created the Minorities in Energy Initiative. Mr. Chairman, this single most important initiative, which was designed to 

increase DOE’s outreach, engagement, and access for minority communities, recently celebrated its second-year anniversary, with Minorities in Energy ambassadors from all across the country, representing all sectors of the energy industry and beyond. 

I am proud to inform the Secretary that on this past Monday, 

with the help and support of Chairman Whitfield, Chairman 

Upton, Ranking Member Pallone, and many others of my colleagues on this subcommittee, the House just passed the 21st Century Workforce legislation which, among other important priorities, 

5 

Mr. Secretary, would also codify the Minorities in Energy Initiative. 

Mr. Chairman, I must also commend Secretary Moniz for significantly expanding the Minority Internship Program at the Department, from only 50 candidates a few years ago, to over 100 interns 

who participated this past summer. This important program provides young men and young women with invaluable exposure, networking opportunities, and critical work experience that can be 

parlayed into important career opportunities down the line. 

Mr. Chairman, I also look forward to engaging the Secretary on 

the important work that we both have been intimately involved in 

regarding opening up the National Research Laboratories and all 

of their resources to all segments of the American population. Secretary Moniz and I have both expressed our desire to see these labs 

become more diverse in terms of their leadership, their hiring practices, their contracting, and vending opportunities, as well as, providing internships and outreach programs to 10 to 12 schools and 

minority-serving higher education institutions. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing about the progress 

that has been made in these areas. And with that, I yield back the 

balance of my time. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

Chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, welcome back. Let me first say how much I truly have appreciated 

your efforts as Secretary to come before this committee and work 

with us on both sides of the aisle. Never been one to shy away from 

coming up to the Hill, engaging us, even when we might disagree. 

I credit you and your staff with the great work that you have done, 

particularly with the Quadrennial Energy Review, which helped 

shape our bipartisan approach to energy legislation in this Congress. 

While some of the provisions we worked on together were enacted as part of and energy security title in the highway bill, I still 

am hopeful that similar legislation can and will get through the 

Senate, perhaps as early as tomorrow, so that we can get a conference negotiation underway. 

We look forward, Chairman Murkowski and myself, to working 

with you on an incredible new era of abundance, as it is important 

that our policies reflect these 21st century realities. We should be 

promoting and embracing our resources to keep energy affordable 

for folks in Michigan and across the country. I will take note that 

the President’s budget takes a slightly different approach, particularly as it relates to the gas tax as it impacts the most vulnerable. 

However, our abundance on coal, oil, and natural gas, along with 

nuclear, hydro, and renewables does put us in charge of our energy 

destiny and makes the future of affordable and reliable energy an 

achievable one for the country. 

The biggest threat to this bright future is no longer OPEC or any 

other outside menace. It is, instead, the misguided policies that 

6 

sometimes pick winners and losers. And, unfortunately, we see 

much of that in this budget. One area in which I am interested in 

learning more about is the administration’s recent commitments to 

double Government-wide research and development over the next 

5 years as part of the Mission Innovation. 

Continued breakthroughs in the way that we produce, transmit, 

and consume energy are needed in order to meet 21st century 

threats, be it from cyber, severe weather, physical attacks on our 

infrastructure. Many in the private sector are leaping at the challenge, including Bill Gates, and some of our leading innovators and 

entrepreneurs as part of the breakthrough coalition. And the recent 

announcements and financial commitments appear to be very 

promising. And I look forward to hearing from you on that. 

Congress, however, will need more information before responding 

to the budget requests as to how limited DOE research dollars will 

work to augment the commitments made by the private sector. In 

a challenging budget environment, we will need to ensure there is 

no duplication. And the transparency, competitiveness, and impacts 

of consumer costs and reliability are front and center and that the 

technologies and pathways considered are truly resource neutral. 

As always, I know you and your staff will continue to be ready 

to assist us, to work with us. And I look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Secretary Moniz, welcome back. Let me first say how much I have appreciated 

your efforts as Secretary to come before this committee and work with us on both 

sides of the aisle. You have never been one to shy away from coming up to the Hill 

and engaging us, even when we may disagree. I credit you and your staff and the 

work you have done, in particular with the Quadrennial Energy Review, which 

helped shape our bipartisan approach to energy legislation this Congress. 

While some of the provisions we worked on together were enacted as part of an 

energy security title in the highway bill, I am still hopeful that similar legislation 

can, and will, get through the Senate so we can get conference negotiations underway. We are in the midst of an incredible new era of abundance, and it is important 

our policies reflect these 21st century realities. 

As I mentioned, there are inevitably areas where we won’t quite see eye to eye, 

and the president’s budget is one of them. We should be promoting and embracing 

our resources to keep energy affordable for folks in Michigan and across the country. 

But the president’s budget takes a different approach, working to sideline and assail 

various sources of energy no matter their abundance or importance on family budgets. 

In particular, the proposed new 21st Century Clean Transportation System is a 

prime example. This program, to be funded by a new tax that would raise gasoline 

prices, would subject our transportation system to a host of costly new climate hoops 

that put climate concerns first and affordability last. 

This and other Washington-based programs in the budget miss a critical point— 

America’s energy success is not due to the decisions of bureaucrats in Washington 

but to energy entrepreneurs across the country. DOE is at its best when it facilitates free markets, opens up competition, and allows innovators to innovate, not 

when it tries to micromanage them. Yet the budget has the potential to ratchet up 

the level of centralized control. 

Our domestic abundance of coal, oil, and natural gas, along with nuclear, hydro, 

and renewables, puts us in charge of our energy destiny and makes a future of affordable and reliable energy an achievable one for this Nation. The biggest threat 

to this bright future is no longer OPEC or any other outside menace. It is misguided 

policies that seek to to pick winners and losers, and unfortunately we see much of 

that continue in this proposed budget. 

7 

One area in which I am interested in learning more about is the administration’s 

recent commitments to double Government-wide research and development over the 

next 5 years, as part of Mission Innovation. Continued breakthroughs in the way 

we produce, transmit, and consume energy are needed in order to meet 21st century 

threats, be it from cyber, severe weather, or physical attacks on infrastructure. 

Many in the private sector are leaping at the challenge, including Bill Gates and 

some of our leading innovators and entrepreneurs as part of the Breakthrough Coalition, and the recent announcements and financial commitments appear to be very 

promising. 

Congress, however, will need more information before responding to the budget 

requests on how limited DOE research dollars will work to augment the commitments made by the private sector. In this challenging budget environment, we will 

need to ensure there is no duplication, and that transparency, competiveness, and 

impacts on consumer cost and reliability are front and center, and that the technologies and pathways considered are truly resource neutral. 

As always, I know you and your staff will be ready to assist and work with us, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chairman recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 

for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to also 

welcome Secretary Moniz back to the committee this morning. Our 

Nation faces many challenges as we work to lead the global coalition of countries committed to addressing the threat of climate 

change. The Department of Energy is at the forefront of these efforts here in the United States. And I commend your achievements 

as Secretary that are helping to make our country a global leader 

in combatting climate change. 

In December, over 190 countries came together to address the 

common goal of limiting carbon emissions, a threat to all nations. 

Accelerating clean energy innovation is essential to achieving the 

goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to below 2 degrees 

Celsius. Thanks in part to your continued leadership, we are now 

on a pathway to a safer, healthier planet for future generations, 

while creating an enormous opportunity for economic growth. 

The fiscal year 2017 Department of Energy budget proposal re- quests $32.5 billion for the agency, which represents a $2.9 billion 

increase from the 2016 enacted level. And this is a 10 percent increase over 2016 levels and represents a significant investment in 

your agency. 

The bulk of this increase will support Mission Innovation, an initiative launched by the administration in conjunction with the 

Paris Climate Agreement. Mission Innovation would double research and development in clean energy technology for 5 years. 

And the bulk of this significant initiative will be led by the Department of Energy. In order to meet the aggressive goals outlined in 

the Paris Climate Agreement, our country must be seriously dedicated to investment in clean energy technologies. And to that end, 

Mission Innovation will mark a significant investment in our economy, our environment, and public health. 

I support this budget request because it provides the Department 

of Energy with the tools necessary to catapult our country to the 

8 

forefront of 20th century clean energy innovation. These robust increases in funding for the agency are critical to achieving our longterm climate objectives. Mission Innovation also holds the promise 

of creating an economic opportunity for our country on the scale of 

the Apollo Program. 

There are some requests in this budget that are of specific interest to my State and district. In particular, I strongly support the 

$110 billion in the request to support a new competition to establish 10 regional clean energy innovation partnerships around the 

country. Our country has many hubs of energy research and industry knowledge that can greatly contribute to furthering our clean 

energy future. 

In New Jersey, we have leading academic research institutions, 

like the Rutgers Energy Institute and Princeton University. A 

number of renewable, or major renewable energy companies, are 

headquartered in our State. And we are home to the Princeton 

Plasma Physics Laboratory, a DOE facility, doing cutting-edge research on fusion energy. I know that New Jersey would be uniquely qualified to host one of these 10 regional partnerships. 

I continue to support funding for the Northeast Gasoline Supply 

Reserve and, again, commend the Secretary for taking action to 

create this important stockpile of gasoline in the Northeast. As 

many know, when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, access to gasoline was severally limited in the aftermath of the storm, causing 

major problems in the region, impacting homeowners, businesses, 

and emergency personnel. And I am pleased that we learned this 

hard lesson and put in place a plan to make the region more resilient when another storm strikes. 

All in all, the critical investments in clean energy included in the 

budget proposal will put our country on the right track to meet our 

carbon reduction goals and protect our environment and public 

health. It sets the stage for renewable energy innovations that will 

bolster America’s clean energy economy. Mr. Secretary, I commend 

you for your leadership in this area, particularly during the negotiations that led to the landmark climate accord in December. 

And I look forward to working with you on these exciting new 

initiatives, to take action on climate change, and expand our clean 

energy economy. Thank you again. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to welcome Secretary Moniz back to the committee this morning. Our Nation faces many challenges as we work to lead the global coalition of countries committed to addressing the threat of climate change. The Department of Energy is at 

the forefront of these efforts here in the United States, and I commend your 

achievements as Secretary that are helping to make our country a global leader in 

combating climate change. 

In December, over 190 countries came together to address the common goal of 

limiting carbon emissions—a threat to all nations. Accelerating clean energy innovation is essential to achieving the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 

below 2 degrees Celsius. Thanks, in part, to your continued leadership, we are now 

on a pathway to a safer, healthier planet for future generations while creating an 

enormous opportunity for economic growth. 

The fiscal year 2017 Department of Energy budget proposal requests $32.5 billion 

for the agency, which represents a $2.9 billion increase from the 2016 enacted level. 

9 

This is a 10 percent increase over 2016 levels and represents a significant investment in your agency. 

The bulk of this increase will support ‘‘Mission Innovation,’’ an initiative launched 

by the administration in conjunction with the Paris Climate Agreement. Mission Innovation would double research and development in clean energy technologies over 

5 years—and the bulk of this significant initiative will be led by the Department 

of Energy. In order to meet the aggressive goals outlined in the Paris Climate 

Agreement, our country must be seriously dedicated to investment in clean energy 

technologies. To that end, Mission Innovation will mark a significant investment in 

our economy, our environment and public health. 

I support this budget request because it provides the Department of Energy with 

the tools necessary to catapult our country to the forefront of 21st century clean energy innovation. These robust increases in funding for the agency are critical to 

achieving our long-term climate objectives. Mission Innovation also holds the promise of creating an economic opportunity for our country on the scale of the Apollo 

program. 

There are some requests in this budget that are of specific interest to my State 

and district. In particular, I strongly support the $110 million in the request to support a new competition to establish ten Regional Clean Energy Innovation Partnerships around the country. Our country has many hubs of energy research and industry knowledge that can greatly contribute to furthering our clean energy future. In 

New Jersey, we have leading academic research institutions like the Rutgers Energy 

Institute and Princeton University. A number of major renewable energy companies 

are headquartered in our State, and we are home to the Princeton Plasma Physics 

Laboratory, a DOE facility doing cutting edge research on fusion energy. I know 

that New Jersey would be uniquely qualified to host one of these ten regional partnerships. 

I continue to support funding for the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve and 

again commend the Secretary for taking action to create this important stockpile of 

gasoline in the Northeast. As many know, when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, 

access to gasoline was severely limited in the aftermath of the storm, causing major 

problems in the region impacting homeowners, businesses and emergency personnel. 

I’m pleased that we have learned this hard lesson and put in place a plan to make 

the region more resilient when another storm strikes. 

All in all, the critical investments in clean energy included in this budget proposal 

will put our country on the right track to meet our carbon reduction goals and protect our environment and public health. It sets the stage for renewable energy innovations that will bolster America’s clean energy economy. Mr. Secretary, I commend 

you for your leadership in this area, particularly during the negotiations that led 

to the landmark climate accord in December. I look forward to working with you 

on these exciting new initiatives to take action on climate change and expand our 

clean energy economy. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. And that concludes 

the opening statements. 

And so, Mr. Secretary, once again, we are delighted you are here. 

We look forward to your testimony and appreciate your providing 

answers to questions that we will be asking. 

Sir, you are recognized for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you, Chairmen Upton and Whitfield, Ranking 

Members Pallone and Rush, and members of the subcommittee. I 

really appreciate the opportunity to be back with you again to discuss the budget. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. MONIZ. It says it is on. Closer? Then I can’t read. OK. The 

fiscal year 2017 budget request, as you said, totals $32.5 billion, up 

from the $29.6 billion in the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. However, I want to break it up into 2 pieces. 

10 

The request for annual appropriations is $30.2 billion, an in- crease of $.6 billion or 2 percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

appropriation. In fact, both the National Security and the domestic 

appropriations requests are for 2 percent increases. And certainly 

this is part of the President’s budget that satisfies the budget caps. 

Now, this is supplemented by a request totaling $2.3 billion in new 

mandatory spending authority. It includes $750 million for R&D 

within that, and $674 million for uranium enrichment D&D to 

which I will return. 

Just briefly turning to the major mission areas, the first, Build- ing the Future Through Science and Energy, this total is $11.3 billion in discretionary funding and $1.6 in new mandatory. The principal driver for our science and energy budget increase is Mission 

Innovation. And I will return to this in more detail. 

The second general mission area, ensuring nuclear security, the 

fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration is for a 3 percent increase, supporting our broad 

programmatic objectives of maintaining the stockpile without testing now and well into the future, reducing the threat of nuclear 

proliferation, including support for implementation of the Joint 

Comprehensive Plan of Action, and proposing a major shift in our 

plutonium disposition strategy. And, finally, supporting the safe 

and reliable operation of our nuclear Navy. 

Our third major mission area is organizing, managing, and modernizing the Department to better achieve its enduring missions. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request provides $6.8 billion for these 

activities, including $6.1 for the Office of Environmental Management. That includes $5.45 in appropriations and $674 million in 

mandatory spending from the USEC Fund. The $1.6 billion USEC Fund is an existing, not new, mandatory 

spending account. And our proposal is in keeping with the spirit of 

the current authorization that revenues from the beneficiaries of 

past uranium enrichment services, rather than taxpayers at large, 

be used to pay the cost of D&D of the now shuttered facilities. And, 

indeed, Congress recognized in 2000 the applicability of the USEC 

Fund to Portsmouth and Paducah D&D. 

The USEC Fund is, in fact, one of three funds that total nearly 

$5 billion that can be used in this manner. Finally, in this introduction, I want to acknowledge that underpinning all of these priorities is stewardship of the Department as a science and technology powerhouse for the American people, the American economy, with an unparalleled network of 17 national laboratories harnessing innovation to successfully address national security, boost 

manufacturing competitiveness, mitigate and adapt to climate 

change, and enhance energy security. And we are working very 

hard to strengthen the strategic relationship between the Department and our national laboratory network. 

I will also mention that starting last year, we highlighted crosscutting R&D initiatives in the budget. Among these, in this year’s 

request, our largest increases are for grid modernization and for 

the energy-water nexus initiative. The supporting budget details 

are provided in the 40-page statement for the record that I asked 

be inserted into the record. And I will use the rest of my time to 

describe Mission Innovation in a bit more detail. 

11 

The fiscal year 2017 budget includes an increase of 21 percent 

for clean energy R&D, in the discretionary accounts, supporting the 

U.S. Mission Innovation pledge. Mission Innovation is an unprecedented global initiative by 20 countries that have pledged to seek 

to double, public clean energy, research and development over 5 

years. The countries represent over 80 percent of global Government investment in clean energy R&D. So this initiative entails a 

highly leveraged situation for increasing R&D. 

Mission Innovation is long overdue. In 2010, the American Energy Innovation Council, a group comprised of CEOs of major 

American companies from multiple sectors, recommended that the 

Government triple its investment in clean energy R&D. The council 

made three key points: Innovation is the essence of America’s 

strength, public investment is critical to generating the discoveries 

and inventions that form the basis of disruptive energy technologies, and, third, the cost of RD&D are tiny compared with the 

benefits. 

The pledge to seek to double the level of Government investment 

over 5 years is ambitious but needed. As was mentioned, Bill 

Gates, who was a leader of the AEIC, has recently met with a 

number of Members of Congress and has reiterated the need for 

greatly increased Government-sponsored energy R&D. The objective is to greatly expand the suite of investable opportunities, so 

opportunities for the investment sector, in clean energy to support 

economic growth and competitiveness, energy security, clean and 

affordable energy access, and enabling us and others to meet our 

environmental goals. 

I want to emphasize the scope of Mission Innovation. It spans 

the entire innovation cycle, from the earliest stage of invention, 

through initial demonstration, with a weighting towards the earlier 

stages. It includes all clean energy technologies, renewables, efficiency, nuclear, coal with carbon capture, and enablers, such as the 

21st century grid. 

It is complemented by another leveraging opportunity, the 

Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a parallel initiative, launched simultaneously, spearheaded by Bill Gates, including 28 investors 

from 10 countries, putting billions of dollars on the table, to invest 

in the new technologies originating from the expanded innovation 

pipeline in the Mission Innovation countries. 

These investors are prepared to be unusually risk tolerant, patient in getting their returns—they talk as long as 20 years in the 

energy business—and are prepared to take the most promising 

technologies end to end, of past values of debt, all the way to the 

marketplace. 

I would just single out what was already mentioned, the $110 

million to establish regional clean energy innovation partnerships 

as not-for-profit consortia, competitively selected, to manage regional clean energy R&D programs focused on the energy needs, 

policies, resources, and markets of different regions of our country. 

The program design and portfolio composition for each partnership 

will be based on our regional priorities and set regionally. As research portfolio managers, not performers, the partnerships will 

link the resources and capabilities across universities, industry, 

innovators, investors, and other regional leaders to accelerate the 

12 

innovation process and, frankly, to help develop the innovation ecosystems in different regions. 

This approach tracks recommendations from the National Research Council’s ‘‘Rising to the Challenge,’’ which noted that until 

very recently U.S. Federal agencies have done little to support 

State and regional innovation cluster initiatives and recommended 

that, quote, regional innovation cluster initiatives by State and 

local organizations should be assessed and, where appropriate, be 

provided with greater funding and expanded geographically. 

I will just conclude in saying the Mission Innovation budget proposal also supports increased investments in successful, ongoing innovation programs, such as ARPA–E, Energy Frontier Research 

Centers, Advanced Manufacturing Centers, Bioenergy Centers, Advanced Transportation Technologies, Advanced Nuclear Reactor 

Technologies, Next Generation Carbon Capture Technologies, and 

more. 

With that, I will conclude my summary. I thank the subcommittee for its interest and support of our programs and look 

forward to our discussion. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:] 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that statement. 

And at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. A special welcome, Mr. Secretary, 

on the anniversary of Texas Independence Day. 

Mr. MONIZ. And post primary day. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. As you all know, I work for over 800,000 

people, Texans, in the still-exploding suburbs of Houston. When 

they heard about President Obama’s proposal to put a tax of $10 

on a barrel of American crude oil, they all said what the heck, what 

is he thinking? This is insane. 

Now, a good friend and neighbor in the business said if we impose a tax on somebody, let’s impose a tax on Saudi Arabia, OPEC, 

Iran, Russia. I have to know your role in this decision. Were you 

personally consulted before that proposal was announced? 

Mr. MONIZ. I am not free to discuss, you know, internal administration discussions. 

Mr. OLSON. Were you involved, I am asking you, were you involved in this decision? Not what the discussions were, were you 

involved as our Secretary? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, but, I mean, the processes that go on involving 

presidential decisions are confined in the administration. 

Mr. OLSON. Was anyone at DOE involved in that decision, anyone at all? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, the same response applies, I am afraid. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. I see reports that this will increase pipes that 

pump, the Obama working poor, of 1 quarter per gallon of gasoline, 

1 quarter. How do you think this so-called hit will affect these people? Do you think it will be good, bad? Any idea what is going to 

happen to the American people if this tax increase if it happens? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would just put this in the context, if I may, of the 

transportation bill discussions that took part at the end of last 

year. And, of course, it is very good that we got at least a transportation bill for some years. But just to note that I think we all recognize, and had many discussions with Chairman Upton that funding 

our transportation infrastructure is something that is always there. 

It is a structural issue we need to address. And given that there 

has not even been an inflation correction to the traditional support 

for that fund for a quarter century, all I am saying is we need some 

kind of structural solution which the Congress will have to re-address now in a few years. 

Mr. OLSON. How does this tax impact our global competitive? Are 

we stronger or weaker with this tax on American crude oil? Any 

idea? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, the extent to which the result is a greatly strengthened infrastructure means that our whole economy will 

be able to function more efficiently. That was the whole motivation 

in the end for both security and economy for the highway fund in 

the first place. 

Mr. OLSON. One further question: I have a slide comparing the 

budget to the applied energy programs, in this 2007 budget, compared to the 2006 enacted budget. There are 17 programs here. 

Fourteen have increased funds for 2017. Three have decreased 

funds. 

53 

One with the decrease, is the fund for cybersecurity for our grid. It goes down from, let’s see, it goes down from $62 million to $46 

million, a 26 percent decrease, this upcoming year. A few weeks 

ago, Israel, their administrator confirmed that a cyber attack had 

threatened their grid. This week, the first of this month, New York 

Times wrote an article confirming for the first time ever, in the 

world’s history, a successful attack had been carried out, by cyber 

warfare, to shut down the power grid in Ukraine. It has happened. 

We know the Atlantic, Pacific can’t protect us from these attacks. 

And, yet, you want to decrease funding for this necessary thing to 

keep the grid open, going, going, going. How can you justify cutting 

funds in this world environment of cyber attacks on grids? 

Mr. MONIZ. In fact, our overall cyber program, I will have to get 

the numbers assembled, is going up. Cybersecurity is a huge focus 

area for us. It appears in multiple places both in our national security side and our grid side. Frankly, one of the first things I did 

when I came to the Department was establish a cross-cutting cyber 

council. 

Our Deputy Secretary chairs a group with the utilities that 

meets I think 3 times a year. Cybersecurity is a major focus. We 

have given security clearances to select members of that utility 

community to share information. We are doing multiple exercises 

with the community. So cyber is actually a major focus area. I 

think maybe we will have to organize a few pieces together. And 

we would be happy to come and talk with you. 

Mr. OLSON. I hear your words through actions, on Page 38 of 

your budget document, the third line, you decrease cybersecurity by 

26.6 percent. It is right there in your document. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time, 

I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Rush, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have 

many questions and few moments. So I would appreciate it if your 

staff would follow up with my office with specific details on some 

of the programs and initiatives that you and I have been engaged 

on. 

I would like for them to provide an update on the progress being 

made with the research labs in terms of their outreach and diversification initiatives. And I would like to see them focus on contracting and vending opportunities at the Argonne National Laboratory and at the Fermi National Laboratory, as well as any other 

labs you might, that you think might be significant. 

I also would like for you to forward information regarding diversity plans in terms of laboratory leadership, hiring practices, as 

well as providing internships and outreach programs to 10 and 12 

schools and minority-serving higher education institutions. 

And, finally, I would like to get more information on the minority 

internship program so that I and others on this committee can ensure that this program is being continually strengthened well within the next administration, regardless of who might or might not 

be in the White House. 

Mr. Secretary, can you speak to the subcommittee on the importance of continuing the work of the MIE initiative, regardless of 

what administration is in office? And also what type of impact 

54 

might the 21st Century Workforce Bill have on the many institutions with its focus on minorities, women, veterans, and displaced 

coal workers on the energy industry and on those targeted communities as well as on the U.S. economy as a whole? 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Rush. Actually, if I may, first, Mr. 

Olson, just note that I believe our cyber cross-cut total budget is 

$333 million proposed, which is an increase over fiscal year 2016. 

But we can provide that t. 

So if I may go back to the question, first of all, thank you, of 

course, for your constant support in all of our efforts. If I may mention a few things: Well, first of all, continuing the Minorities in Energy Program, I certainly hope that is something that the next administration does. I think we are gaining traction. I think it is absolutely critical. In fact, as you said, it is minorities in energy, 

women in energy. It is addressing the jobs opportunities and challenges we have. Veterans, displaced workers, like in coal country, 

these are all part of our focus area. 

Minorities in Energy, I think, is making great progress. In fact, 

today, as part of that, actually right now, this week, is My Brother’s Keeper week at the laboratories. We have 11 laboratories 

working on that. I might say the lab directors in terms of diversity 

have really stepped up. It took a little bit of a nudge, but they have 

really stepped up. 

Sixteen out of the seventeen physically attended a full workshop 

in terms of diversity, with professionals coming in to help, how to 

go there. And also we think very important is transparency. Some 

of the labs are posting their employee composition, women and minorities. Sometimes they don’t look so good yet. Argonne, for example, is about 15 percent women and 10 percent minorities. Berkeley 

is about double that in both categories. But I think this idea, this 

transparency means there is a real commitment to understand 

where we are and to improve it. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, I only have a few minutes—a few seconds left. Would you address the relationship between the coal 

workers in Appalachia and the urban displaced and out-of-work 

workers in districts like mine? Because there seems to be a 

straight line between displaced coal workers in Appalachia and the 

south side of Chicago and other urban districts. How do you view 

that relationship? 

Mr. MONIZ. I have to say, I don’t know the numbers. I don’t know 

quantitatively, although that is a very interesting question. But I 

can imagine, frankly, there has been a historical pattern of that 

type in terms of outflow, for example, to major urban centers like 

Chicago when there have been job losses, job challenges elsewhere. 

We are trying to address I would say on both sides, for example, 

in Chicago specifically, the work of Argonne Laboratory in opening 

up to minority contractors, et cetera, I think is important. 

In coal, the POWER Plus Plan has many, many components 

where we are trying to help. It is not only DOE, of course, this is 

administration-wide, Department of Labor, et cetera, providing 

training opportunities, looking at new economic opportunities. In 

fact, I would mention, and this is of direct relevance to Kentucky, 

for example, we formed 2 years ago a jobs strategy council because 

of the whole dynamic issue of jobs in the energy sector. We are proVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:52 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X123DOEBUDGET\114X123DOEBUDGETPENDING WAYNE
55 

posing in the fiscal year 2017 budget, that that become, very modestly funded, but become an office, a budget line to establish a 

function in the Department that is specifically looking at jobs and 

pulling it together. 

Mr. RUSH. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, in 2012 

Congress passed the American Medical Isotope Production Act of 

2012. And in testimony before this committee in 2009, as that legislation moved through the committee, the Department of Energy’s 

representative projected domestic production facilities that DOE 

was funding could come online as early as 2013. To date, we know 

that none of the projects DOE was funding have come online. And 

a number have been canceled. 

I am interested to know what is the status of domestic production facilities? And can you help us really move this forward? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, particularly for the moly-99 issue, which is the 

important one, there are three programs that we are supporting 

with three different technologies. One of them, SHINE, is an accelerator that will use low enriched uranium. General Atomics is developing a technology. And a company called NorthStar Medical 

Radioisotopes is developing pathways through neutron capture, et 

cetera. The NorthStar schedule is to go to first production in October of this year. I think General Atomics is looking to 2018. And 

SHINE is looking to the beginning of 2019. So, over the next 3 

years, we should have three different companies coming on with 

moly-99. 

Mr. UPTON. Good. Good. Last week, our Subcommittee on Oversight took testimony that highlighted how critical Cabinet-level 

leadership, particularly through you, is for the success of DOE and 

particularly its nuclear security mission. So I know that our committee is going to continue to look carefully at what is necessary 

to ensure that the Department is managed to meet its nuclear 

weapons responsibility and structured to ensure that they are executed to their full potential. I just want an assurance from you that 

if it does require legislative change, if you come to that conclusion, 

will you be able to provide us the technical assistance to enable for 

you to get the job done? 

Mr. MONIZ. I certainly will, absolutely. If I may just say—— 

Mr. UPTON. It should be an easy yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Excuse me? 

Mr. UPTON. It should be an easy yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. The answer is yes. Could I add to the yes? 

Mr. UPTON. Yes, you can. 

Mr. MONIZ. I just want to note that I would recommend that you 

might take a look at the letter I wrote to the Congress at the beginning of the Mies-Augustine report, where I spell out very, very 

clearly our posture with regard to the overarching recommendation 

of the Mies-Augustine report. And I think that gives you the flavor 

of the assistance that I would be happy to provide. 

Mr. UPTON. Great. I think we put it into the record as well, so 

all members can see it. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

56 

Mr. UPTON. Thanks, again, for being up here. And, again, as I 

talked to Chair Murkowski earlier in the week, we are encouraged 

that they may be able to finish that bill as early as tomorrow. And 

I look forward to working with you as we work on the conference 

to get it done. 

Mr. MONIZ. And, again, I am happy to provide as much technical 

assistance as possible to both Chambers. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, last week, this committee’s Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on two valuable reports by distinguished panels that examined DOE’s labs and the 

Nuclear Security Enterprise. And, in particular, I found the findings of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the 

National Security Enterprise, also known as the Augustine-Mies 

panel, to be quite sobering. Both the panel and the panel witnesses 

who testified before our committee reported that the National Nuclear Security Act, which created a separately organized National 

Nuclear Security Administration within DOE, had not worked as 

intended. And the panel also reported that this has led to a number of serious structural and cultural problems within the nuclear 

complex. The panel further concluded that if not addressed, the 

dysfunctional governance practices could put the entire Nuclear Security Enterprise at risk over the long term. 

Obviously, you are familiar with this. So, Mr. Secretary, the 

panel studied various approaches to fix the problems they found. 

After evaluating several governance models, the panel concluded 

that Congress should reintegrate NNSA into DOE, clarify confused 

authorities, and place the responsibility and accountability for the 

nuclear mission back on the shoulders of a qualified Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you are familiar with this recommendation. So let me just ask, do you support that recommendation? And 

why do you think the panel thought it was so important? 

Mr. MONIZ. That is a very sophisticated question and challenging. I think the issue is that their primary recommendation, as 

you said, after evaluating different governance models, to look at 

the reintegration pathway, was, to be perfectly honest, the opposite 

of what many thought was going to be the recommendation. Upon 

looking at it, they found that there were two problems, which I 

think we are working to overcome, but, you know, in terms of the 

long term, it might need a congressional look. One is management 

inefficiencies. But probably most important is the role of a Cabinet 

member in representing that mission at the highest levels. And I 

do serve on the nuclear national security subgroup of the National 

Security Council, for example. 

So what they found was that I think an unintended consequence 

of the legislation is that, to be perfectly honest, the Armed Services 

Committees do not spend as much time, shall we say, with the Secretary anymore. So I think that is really the point. By the way, I 

should say the President has appointed four people, frankly—me; 

57 

Deputy Secretary Sherwood-Randall; General Klotz, NNSA Administrator; and Madelyn Creedon, the Deputy, the four leadership positions—with substantial national security experience. But the 

question is, What is going to happen over time? And that is where 

I would certainly invite the discussion. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Well, I just want you to know that the 

committee intends to continue its bipartisan oversight into how we 

can make the Nuclear Enterprise function more effective and efficient. And we certainly intend to further examine the panel recommendations and hope to work closely with you to strengthen this 

critical national security endeavor. 

And I did want to thank you, you know, for all you have done 

as Secretary. I think your work on the nuclear negotiations with 

Iran, among other efforts, demonstrate how you are precisely the 

type of qualified Secretary that the Augustine-Mies panel discussed. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We are both getting old. We both have 

reading glasses now. It is good to have you. 

On Monday, Chairman Upton and I requested that the Government Accountability Office assess DOE’s plan to resume consideration of the Yucca Mountain license application, including assuring 

DOE maintains the necessary infrastructure, contractors, personnel 

to assure that the Yucca Mountain project can resume. Do I have 

your commitment that the Department will cooperate in good faith 

with the GAO as they conduct this review? 

Mr. MONIZ. We will always cooperate with Congress and the 

GAO. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you commit that the Department will not take 

any unilateral actions that will set back the Yucca program further, including anything to alter the physical structure or by allowing contracts that support the Yucca Mountain project to lapse? 

Mr. MONIZ. I don’t know exactly the situation of that contract 

that you are referring to. I would have to get back to you for the 

record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Please do. Because, as you know, I monitor this as 

closely as I can. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now I want to move to boreholes for a second. You 

have strongly advocated for the development of boreholes to dispose 

of a small amount of DOE’s inventory of defense nuclear waste. 

This initiative is concurrent to your initiative to develop a, quoteunquote, ‘‘consent-based’’ siting process, which, as you know, contradicts the Nuclear Waste Policy Act—contradicts, or it is not in 

compliance with. There is no provision for this in the current law. 

In January, you, DOE announced it was awarding a contract to 

drill a test borehole in North Dakota. I am sure you are aware that 

there has been substantial public pushback on that project. I would 

like to ask a couple of questions about boreholes and your proposal 

for consent-based siting. In the interest of time, if you can, you 

58 

know, I would like a yes or no so I can get—there are only about 

four or five of them here. 

Are you aware of the Office of Nuclear Waste Negotiator that 

was established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. I am aware of it. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are you aware that the negotiator made available 

funding to study the potential of interim storage nuclear waste 

storage facilities? They did—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Historically. Historically, to start with. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are you aware that in 1991—1991—county commissioners in Grant County, North Dakota, applied for these 

grants? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, I was not aware of that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. But they did. Are you aware that after applying for the DOE grants, all the county commissioners were recalled 

by their constituents? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. They were. Based on historical experience in North 

Dakota, why did you choose to even try to award a grant to a 

North Dakota-based team? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, obviously, I wasn’t involved in the selection. 

But there was a competition. There were a number of proposals. 

And the scientific review team felt that this was scientifically a 

very good place. And, of course, we are now working in terms of 

another location that is appropriate. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, it is important because, as you probably 

know, yesterday the Pierce County commission in North Dakota 

unanimously rejected your borehole project. How does this now impact your deep borehole proposal? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, as I said, it is actually in the contract that if 

for any reason the site is unavailable, that we will have another 

site. And that work has been going on now since the initial problems—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Here is my problem. When I taught high 

school, the executive branch, per the Constitution, is designed to 

enforce the laws of the land. We do that telling kids that they have 

agencies and Secretaries that help enforce the law. It is unfortunate that you have been part of an administration that is not enforcing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And it is subverting the intent of the law. And it is particularly troubling in that this, quoteunquote, ‘‘consent-based’’ process, which you use to discourage, attack, obfuscate the long-term location of Yucca Mountain and use 

a State-based discussion where you now talk about boreholes, you 

try to ram it through county-based organizations without even a 

State-based discussion. So the Department of Energy continues to 

hypocritically move to obfuscate, delay, break the law. And I wish, 

for the sake of the republic, that the administration would abide 

by the law. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. Chairman, may I respond? It is a very important 

point. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, as we have said before, we are following 

the law. But I want to specifically address—— 

59 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman—you are not following the law. The 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act is pretty clear: There is no authority for 

interim storage or interim sites. 

Mr. MONIZ. And that is why we don’t have the interim storage 

site. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The Nuclear Policy Act is a conjunction of both 

spent fuel and defense waste. There is no bifurcation of where nuclear waste goes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, may I just focus on the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If you are going to spend additional time, then I 

will spend additional time. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. You granted the Secretary’s request to respond. So I 

think we should allow him to respond. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Would my colleague yield? 

Mr. RUSH. No. I want to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Your questions were about wouldn’t—the administration following the law on minority hiring. And we have an administration that is not following the law from a different administration. It is hypocritical. And it is wrong. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, will we allow Mr. Secretary to answer 

the question and to respond to the question? That is the reason 

why you granted him the time. So please allow him to respond 

without any interference from any member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, let me just say that I think Mr. Shimkus 

raised an important point. I know there is legal action on this as 

well. 

Mr. Secretary has asked for an opportunity to respond, so I will 

grant him that opportunity. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just respond narrowly to the North Dakota borehole. That’s 

all I was responding to. I want to emphasize that the statement 

that this somehow is not consistent with a consent-based approach 

does not apply. This is not a nuclear facility. This is a scientific experiment which clearly may have, depending upon results and 

where analysis goes, may have implications as a useful high-level 

waste disposal approach. It also may be useful for engineered geothermal systems. This is a science experiment. It did not have any 

consent-based process. And we never do that for grants for science 

experiments. So it is apples and oranges. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for coming to see us, Mr. Secretary. 

I share my colleague from Illinois’ concern about the nuclear 

waste lack of progress and the urgency to move forward on that. 

Are you still required to recuse yourself from questions on fusion? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Well, the superconductor technology advancements have presumably increased the progress of fusion. 

Could you talk about where we are with that fusion research? Is 

60 

there any sort of timeframe where we can expect to see good results and maybe commercialization? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we are still, certainly in terms of the large 

tokamak approaches, we are still quite some ways away. The ITER 

project, which is at a critical point—we need to have a report to 

Congress on May 2—it has new leadership, by the way, which has 

really, I think, improved dramatically the project. But even with 

their new plan, they are talking about first plasma at the earliest 

in 2025, but deuterium-tritium only into the 2030s. So that is just 

even to begin on the big ITER experiment. Domestically, we are 

continuing the work at Princeton and in San Diego. The MIT program shuts down this fiscal year, which accounts for some of the 

decrease in the budget. 

Now, what is interesting is how in nuclear, both fission and fusion, there is a lot of innovation going on in the private sector, including in California. I cannot guess when this might become commercially feasible. But there is a lot of both building major demonstrations, like ITER, like what is going on in Germany, Princeton, California, but also with novel concepts. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am eternally optimistic—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I am sorry, and another thing is our ARPA–E program, which takes risky technologies, also issued grants last year 

to novel fusion ideas that would operate in some intermediate density range, which we can come and discuss with you if you would 

like. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I would like to ask you about the DOE’s effort 

to expand work on the water-to-energy nexus. What are the Department’s priorities in that regard? And I am developing legislation sort of parallel to that, so I am kind of interested in this subject. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Well, this is one of—our two biggest increases, 

I said earlier, for our crosscutting activities are grid modernization 

and energy-water. The energy-water, we are proposing roughly a 

tripling of the budget. We think the more you look at it, the more 

important it becomes. And it would be very wide-ranging, everything from competing for a new desalination hub to research and 

system analysis for things like wastewater treatment and the like. 

So it would be a pretty comprehensive program. The last thing I 

will just say on that is I don’t know if this will materialize, but just 

2 weeks ago, when Minister Steinitz was here from Israel, where 

they are very advanced in managing water, we are talking about 

the possibility of strong collaboration there. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, we should collaborate as well in our offices. 

Mr. MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to talk about carbon capture and sequestration. The technology has had some setbacks. I think one of the 

projects canceled. But, in my opinion, the coal industry, mining, 

coal burning in the future is going to depend on some sort of carbon 

capture and sequestration. Do you share that view that the future 

of the coal industry depends upon a good carbon capture and sequestration? 

Mr. MONIZ. Absolutely. And I would note some good news, actually. There are three major projects, a megaton of CO2 per year 

61 

scale, one that we have helped support in the United States. One 

is in Texas. It is Air Products. So these are industrial facilities. 

That has been operating for 3 years. The second one in Illinois, 

ADM, that probably will start within a month. And third is a coal 

project, coal power plant in Texas, again, Petra Nova, which will 

start probably in a year or so, maybe a bit less. So those are all 

going forward. 

Also, I want to emphasize: In the budget, we also propose new 

smallish scale pilot plants to look at novel technologies like oxy 

combustion and chemical looping. And we also are reproposing to 

the Congress what would ultimately be about a $5 billion set of tax 

incentives for carbon capture and sequestration. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, good to have you back before us in the committee. Mr. Secretary, in order to develop the next generation of 

advanced nuclear technologies, private industry, the Department of 

Energy nuclear research activities, and the NRC have all aligned 

efforts to research, demonstrate, and license advanced nuclear 

technologies. I am drafting legislation to examine the nexus between DOE’s nuclear research programs and the NRC’s licensing 

capabilities, and earlier this week, my office sent over the discussion draft. And I look forward to your department reviewing it with 

technical comments. I would like to ask, how is DOE communicating with NRC to provide a pathway for your research activities to be carried through the NRC’s licensing process? 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, of course, we would be delighted to help 

with assistance on your draft. With the NRC, there are several 

things. One is, I should say, this is not advanced—and this is not 

for novel reactors, but we have from the beginning had NRC directly engaged in our nuclear simulation hub at Oak Ridge, because in the end, the products of that will be very important for 

licensing of at least evolutionary new technologies. In terms of alternatives, we have a workshop coming up—I believe coming up, or 

maybe it already happened—with NRC in terms of more advanced 

non-light water reactor technologies. We are funding two companies, company-led consortia: one to develop pebble bed reactors and 

one to develop molten salt reactors. We are in very strong communication with NRC, because I think you put your finger on something that is critically important. If they are not involved early on 

in the work, then the regulatory process could go on much, much 

longer. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

And if I could kind of switch over to cybersecurity, because as 

you know, here on the committee we have had multiple hearings, 

especially when we are talking about how the infrastructure could 

be affected by cyber attacks. I served on a couple different 

cybersecurity task forces. And what is the Department’s strategy 

for addressing potential cybersecurity challenges presented by existing and future grid and energy infrastructure technologies? And 

62 

one of the things also I would like to ask is, because I am looking 

at it on your budget, it shows a decrease from about $62 million 

to $46 million this year for cybersecurity for energy delivery systems. So you had a decrease. And so our concern is we want to 

make sure that we are beefing up. And I know, across not only my 

district or the State of Ohio but across the country, there is always 

that great concern as to what is happening on the cyber side because of how vulnerable we could be to an attack. 

Mr. MONIZ. That is one budget line. As I said earlier, if you actually look at our cyber cross-cut, I have to say, it is not a major increase, but we do have an increase proposed for our cyber crosscut. We are working in the technology space, but we are also carrying out a number of other activities with the energy infrastructure people, with the heads of utilities. 

Mr. LATTA. Could you just kind of go into detail what that might 

be, what some of those might be that you are working on? 

Mr. MONIZ. Perhaps we could come by and have some people 

come to your office and describe that in detail. But, for example, 

the Deputy Secretary, again, convenes regularly a group specifically on energy infrastructure protection. Cyber is a big part of 

that. I can say it involves people like Tom Kuhn, the head of EEI. 

On the private utility side, the chair of that now is Tom Fanning, 

the head of Southern Company. And there are quite a few others. 

And they are engaged in table top exercises that we run. Because 

they have been given some clearances, they are briefed on some 

cyber attacks and what are best practices to try to avoid that. The 

fact is, I mean, you know, cross your fingers, obviously, the intensity of cyber attacks on U.S. energy infrastructure is certainly increasing year by year. So far, we have not had a major hit. But we 

have seen in other parts of the world, there have been some pretty 

serious cyber hits. And so we are always looking into those. Frankly, we had a team in Ukraine after their incident, analyzing that 

and sharing that with our utility leaders, for example. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MONIZ. We could say more in a different context. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Good to see you, Mr. Secretary, as always. Thanks for taking the 

time to come and testify today. I do want to add my thanks for 

your work on the Iran deal. I thought that was really wonderful 

on your part, all the effort you put in. I want to focus a little bit 

on renewable energy today. As you might imagine, I am from Iowa, 

got some thoughts about that. As you know, recent data from the 

U.S. Information Administration showed that Iowa now is the first 

and the only State in the Nation to generate more than 30 percent 

of its energy from wind power. Last year, we hit 31 percent. I am 

very proud of that. Something I bring up quite often in these fora. 

It is great news, not only for my home State but, of course, for the 

Nation’s renewable energy sector. When we invest, I think we can 

all agree, when we invest in renewable energy, like solar and wind, 

we do lower our dependence on foreign oil, and we rein in CO2

63 

emission. In fact, last week, your agency released a report stating 

that the wind production tax credit, which I am thankful we got 

extended for 5 years—— 

Mr. MONIZ. We are, too. 

Mr. LOEBSACK [continuing]. And solar investment credit, the investment tax credit, will drive a net increase of 48 to 53 gigawatts 

of energy from renewable sources by 2020. And these investments 

not only do help to produce clean energy, more clean energy, but 

they also help to produce thousands of jobs. And I was happy to 

push as hard as I could for both of those tax credits. We got 5 years 

for each, as you know. 

You also know that my State is a leader on biofuels. You are very 

aware of that. And along with your agency’s bioenergy technology 

program, which develops and advances America’s energy future, it 

has positively affected I think our domestic energy sources. And I 

thank you for all the great work you have done there. I also note 

that U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the leadership of Tom 

Vilsack, our former Governor, has already made investments in 

terms of infrastructure through the biofuels infrastructure program. 

But I am going to introduce a bill later today to help Americans 

have a greater choice at the pump. And that has already been done 

to some extent through the BIP program, and I am very appreciative of what USDA has done on that front. But I think we have 

got to go further. My bill is the REFUEL Act, Renewable Fuel Utilization, Expansion and Leadership Act. And it will create new and 

retrofit existing infrastructure, including pumps for biofuels and 

hydrogen, tanks, piping, and electric vehicle chargers. Too often, I 

think we have got infrastructure constraints out there. I know a lot 

of this has to do with USDA, not necessarily with DOE, but it is 

something that I still want to bring up, make sure that folks know 

that this act I think is going to help bridge the divide by making 

important investments in the infrastructure needed to provide consumers with choices at the pump. I am going to come back to that. 

But I first want to ask you—because that will be my second 

question, if you see any more opportunities on the part of the administration to advance the infrastructure aspect of this. But the 

first question has to do with the budget of DOE in terms of energy 

efficiency and renewable energy programs that the President has 

requested $156 million for the wind energy program. And I support 

that fully, as you might imagine. But, last year, roughly $4 million 

was set aside for distributed wind energy, something that we really 

don’t talk that much about. We talk about the big projects, projects 

that MidAmerican Energy is doing, for example, in Iowa. But this 

type of wind energy I think is particularly important to my constituents and throughout the country. And I am curious to know 

if you plan to invest more in distributed wind, and if so, what are 

you hoping to achieve with the greater investment? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, thank you, and by the way, I will be in Iowa 

in the beginning of May. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Fantastic. 

Mr. MONIZ. That will be great. 

There are many directions in wind that remain very, very interesting for development. I will come to the distributed, but I would 

64 

also note that a report last year noted how really pushing to higher 

hub heights could be a major—open up major resources. Of course, 

there is the offshore wind that we are still working to try to get 

costs down. There are really more unusual options, like ARPA–E 

funded something called a flying wind turbine, which would go to 

a thousand feet. But distributed wind, I completely agree with you, 

has been kind of sometimes lost in the shuffle. And I think part 

of it is also one is not never quite clear what one is talking about 

with distributed wind. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I understand. 

Mr. MONIZ. Should it be defined in terms of scale of the wind, 

or is it just where it happens? It could be a large wind turbine that 

happens to be close to the load. So I think it is pretty complicated. 

I believe this year, in fiscal year 2017, we do continue distributed 

wind. It is at a modest scale; it is $4.5 million or something like 

that, but something we would be happy to discuss more with you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. I do appreciate that. I have run out 

of time, but I will submit another question for the record having 

to do with infrastructure. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Secretary, just to get started on a series of questions, but 

the first one—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I am having a hard time hearing you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. First question, just a yes or no, if you could, before I get into a little bit more meat. With the NETL facility, now 

that the CRENEL Commission has made a recommendation that 

we go from a GOGO to a GOCO, do you support their final decision, or are you going to maintain it as Government-owned, Government-operated? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. I have answered that in the past, and the answer 

is the same, that we will continue with the GOGO arrangement. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. That gives some assurance to everyone. The earlier statement from Chairman Whitfield that he was 

concerned about the direction of the Department, DOE—and I 

share that, because I think that the focus has been trying to force 

the existing coal-fired powerplants to add carbon capture and storage as an after-market retrofit, even though virtually every nation 

on the globe has turned their backs on CCS. Yes, they will do it 

in research, but they are not going to force it like we are. So it 

seems that DOE is really hell-bent on pushing CCS. Even China 

and India, for example, they are not forcing CCS on their facilities, 

but rather, they are, as you know—I assume you know—they are 

building new high-efficiency coal-fired powerplants instead of CCS. 

We recognize that energy efficiency is the best short-term solution to our emission controls, and CCS is a long-term solution to 

this. And the President has said, as recently as back in February, 

the carbon capture is just really expensive right now. So I don’t understand why DOE continues to chase this rabbit, I think the 

wrong rabbit, of pushing CCS on our utilities when they should be 

encouraging high-efficiency facilities. 

65 

Now, just some quick examples. Our two most efficient powerplants in America—Turk in Arkansas and Longview in West Virginia; one an ultra-supercritical and the other one being just an advanced supercritical—they are built at half—at half—the cost of 

Kemper. So it just kind of makes me think about—it feels like DOE 

is trying to retrofit pushing in a $50,000 engine into an old car instead of just buying a new car. It is just simply we keep trying to 

make people retrofit, because you put up so many roadblocks, other 

people in the administration, in building new coal-fired powerplants. 

So shouldn’t the DOE switch its priorities? Or what would be the 

problem with switching its priorities so that we would be more focused on the high-efficiency, low-carbon-emitting, advanced supercritical and advanced supercritical plants across this country? Are 

we missing something? Why aren’t we doing the one that is more 

immediate that we can get some success with? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, of course, I completely agree with 

your focus on energy efficiency as critical. That is a given. And by 

the way, I would say that, with India, you are certainly correct; 

India is not pursuing CCS. But China actually is. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I just came back from China in October, and the 

NEA in China said they are not going to promote CCS. We had 

that very clear in our meetings with him. They said it is too expensive; they are not going to do it. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I will be there in a couple weeks, and I will 

check in. The last time we met with them, which was recently, they 

said the opposite. OK. 

Whatever the case, in terms of our program, obviously, look, our 

main focus at DOE is in the kind of the technology development 

and RDD&D with the long-term view, preparing options for the future. We don’t make, in the end, the marketplace choices. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Could we not be developing with fluidized bed 

combustion using calcium oxide as an additive in the formula? That 

is a very economical solution that other people are looking at. It 

is one with fluidized bed; you can use some pretty low-grade coal. 

That is one of the things that China said they were considering 

using it because they don’t have the same quality coal that we have 

here in America. Now, I am running out of time on this. 

Could I just make sure that I ask at the very end, could we get 

you to come to Longview and see the tremendous efficiency that is 

operating there without CCS, and how effective they have been 

able to do that at half the cost of a CCS facility? Would you be willing to go? 

Mr. MONIZ. I am sorry; where is Longview? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Three and a half hours away. 

Mr. MONIZ. No, is it in West Virginia? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes, it is. Maybe when you and I get to NETL 

again—— 

Mr. MONIZ. What I have said is, I would definitely like to get to 

West Virginia. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It is within a stone’s throw of NETL facility that 

we could go to—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Congressman, I would like to go to West Virginia, 

and we will work on the itinerary. 

66 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MONIZ. But I would just add, if I may, I won’t go into detail, 

but we do have a bunch of R&D going on that is quite relevant to 

higher efficiency coal plants: supercritical CO2 cycles, advanced materials that you need to go to higher temperatures and the like. We 

can discuss that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I am told from the people there it is sort of a 

drop in the bucket. It is more window dressing than sincere. So you 

and I can have more of a conversation. 

Mr. MONIZ. We can discuss that. But we have a substantial increase in the supercritical CO2

cycle, for example. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is good to have you here. 

Could you please provide the committee with an overview and 

your outlook on how we are doing on reducing carbon pollution? 

How are we doing here in the United States? What are our challenges and opportunities? And after the Paris agreement, give us 

a short sketch of the world community and whether or not you 

have seen countries begin to implement their commitments. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Well, overall, if you look over the last years, we 

are doing quite well in CO2. This last year, we did have a little bit 

of an increase. Low oil prices had something of an effect. But, overall, we would say we are still on track for being about 17 percent 

lower CO2 in 2020 relative to 2005, which was the first target for 

us to hit. So that is going on, but it will mean continuing to push. 

In fact, following on Mr. McKinley’s question, certainly on the demand side, the efficiency side will be absolutely critical for maintaining the momentum. 

Internationally, I think if you look at the major emitters, of 

course, the EU as a whole is making tremendous progress. China 

is the largest individual emitter, and they are making progress as 

well. And, of course, they have also announced—we will see what 

the implementation plan is—but they have announced a cap-andtrade system to put into place, actually I think later on this year 

or maybe next year. 

So I think countries are taking this quite seriously. In fact, I 

would argue that the progress made in Paris was enabled by things 

like the U.S.-China announcement. But they had impact only because both countries were actually walking the talk. 

Ms. CASTOR. And I understand here in the U.S. that, even with 

the hiccup on the Clean Power Plan at the Supreme Court, still, 

utilities overall and States and communities are moving toward the 

carbon reduction goals in any event because they know it is critical 

to the future of our country. Is that your understanding, too, that 

the markets are changing; the market for clean energy innovative 

solutions is growing at this time? 

Mr. MONIZ. Absolutely. Again, I would just reiterate what you 

implied, the Supreme Court ruling was simply a stay; it was not 

a judgment, obviously, on the plan. And we feel pretty confident 

about it. But independent of that, it is not uniform, but many 

67 

States and utilities are continuing with their planning for implementation because, frankly—and look, much of industry is acting 

already in the conviction that there will be increasing constraints 

on carbon emissions. In fact, for years, some of the major companies have included that in their capital planning because, you 

know, they commit capital for a long time. What they would like 

to get is some assurances, some stability, and then—they know 

how to run a successful business if you just give them the rules. 

Ms. CASTOR. Right. Sometimes there is a disconnect between 

what happens here on Capitol Hill and what is really happening 

out in the business world and locally, too. But I want to compliment you for what you have proposed to do in the upcoming 

budget. On Mission Innovation, you have launched this—after the 

landmark global agreement in Paris, you proposed double funding 

for Government-wide clean energy R&D over the next 5 years. 

Your agency is set to be the leader in this effort. And I look forward to working with you to make this a reality. I was pleased to 

see robust funding for this initiative in the budget request. 

Talk to us a little bit more about what you envision for Mission 

Innovation and how this is going to benefit all facets of our energy 

economy. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, maybe the best thing is just to use an example 

of the kind of thing that we have in mind here. And I will use 

ARPA–E—and by the way, for all the members, the ARPA–E summit is going on an as we speak out at the Gaylord Nelson Convention Center. And I invite all of you to go out there and see really 

neat technologies. But we just announced the new performance results of ARPA–E. And of the first roughly 200 projects that were 

funded, roughly a quarter have received $1.25 billion of private sector funding. Another quarter has received follow-on Government 

funding and not only from DOE but DOD. Thirty-six companies 

have been formed. There are 9 or 10 products out there already in 

the marketplace in a program that has only been operating essentially 5 years. 

The last round of proposals, the so-called open call in 2015, was 

very successful in terms of the projects funded. The trouble was it 

was just barely over 2 percent of the applicants. We are leaving a 

lot of innovation on the table. And so with the formation of these 

clean markets—and again, look, one can argue for or against, however you wish, the Paris agreement. But the fact is essentially 

every country in the world committed to going towards lower carbon. And that means the already growing clean energy marketplace 

is only going to take off even faster. And we should stay at the 

head of the train and continue our innovation tradition and capture 

the benefits of it domestically and globally. 

Ms. CASTOR. I agree. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [presiding]. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, 

Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to your country 

and for being here. I appreciate it. 

I just want to kind of briefly talk about something, and then I 

want to get into LNG a little bit more. Included in the budget are 

68 

plans to finalize DOE’s multiyear program plan for grid modernization, which will create an integrated R&D program that will help 

ensure the future grid will deliver reliable, affordable, secure, resilient, and clean electricity to consumers. What specific kind of 

projects will be undertaken in this program do you foresee? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I should note that a major piece of it—not all 

of it—but a major piece of it is also a lab consortium that came together to outline a program. There will be technology component 

R&D. We have a lot of stuff still to do. We have very large-scale 

power electronics, for example, managing grid flows in a new, 

smarter way. There will be the integration of information technology, particularly on distribution systems, including going behind 

the meter. But another kind of effort will be a real focus on doing, 

partly through large-scale modeling and simulation, system designs 

and trying to find the ways of working with that such that it helps 

also the ISOs, the State regulators, et cetera, in terms of building 

that new grid. I might add, if I may, that resilience is also critical. 

And some of the utilities are already making tremendous progress. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And then, just very briefly, what is kind of your 

timing to launch and finalize? And then what opportunities for 

State and local municipalities will there be in participating? And 

are there going to be funding opportunities that you foresee? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, it is already going. So fiscal year 2016, we have 

launched it. We have asked for a significant increase in fiscal year 

2017. As I say, we want to, especially on the systems side—I mean, 

as far as the technology goes, those will be competitive—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. And then what about like local municipalities 

and States to participate? 

Mr. MONIZ. So I think, right now, our focus has been more at the 

State level and things like the ISOs who manage, obviously, the 

system. But if there are good ideas as to how we can effectively 

bring in localities, that would be great. Frankly, the urban challenge is so great for the economy, for the environment, and the integration with things like electric vehicles. 

Mr. KINZINGER. All right. Thank you. 

I am going to switch subjects. LNG exports and crude oil exports 

put the U.S. well aligned to help the energy security of our allies 

in Europe and Asia. What steps are being taken to increase global 

access to reliable and affordable energy from us? And then also 

maybe when you are looking into Europe, for instance, and, frankly, that Russia has a grip on Eastern Europe and Europe, what are 

we doing to kind of help Europe develop their own energy as well 

as our exports? 

Mr. MONIZ. A lot of questions there. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, in terms of LNG exports, as you well 

know, last Wednesday, a week ago today, the first ship left the 

United States. Kind of a major milestone in our gas revolution. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Great. 

Mr. MONIZ. So, right now, there are several other facilities being 

built. We have licensed for non-free-trade-agreement countries now 

10.8 BCF per day. And we just finished the public comment period 

on the economic analysis of going up to 20 BCF per day. So we are 

now analyzing those comments. So that is going forward. 

69 

On the oil side, well, OK, oil exports are now going. And I have 

been consistently saying that at least for the foreseeable future this 

would have a relatively small impact. I see nothing so far to change 

that. It is a question of market structures and market prices. 

As far as Europe goes, if I might say, and we would be happy 

to come by and talk about this more, already going back to May 

of 2014, we worked in the G–7 context plus the EU to establish 

kind of a template of what are the new energy security principles 

of the 21st century? We are working with them. The European 

Commission put out an energy security plan that very much follows that set of principles. So we continue that. There is in the 

FAST Act a requirement that DOE, working with State, come back 

to the Congress with an energy security report. We are working on 

that. And, specifically, we continue our work with Ukraine in terms 

of helping them with their integrated energy planning. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. I only have 20 seconds, so I won’t 

ask my next question, but I will just make the statement that it 

is very appreciated. You know, I see our energy as a very important part of our national defense structure, of our soft power, which 

prevents the use of hard power in many cases, and a very important part of posturing against the Russians and strengthening our 

NATO allies. So to the extent that you can continue to partner 

with that in development in terms of utilizing our blessed resources 

that we have would be very appreciated. So I appreciate you being 

here again, and thanks for your service. 

And I will yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

And sorry my phone was so loud. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony and your presence here. 

As you well know, climate change is real. The effects are real, 

and the time to act is now. Communities across the country and 

around the world are already facing the consequences. And it is 

going to take great leadership and political will to do what is necessary to act decisively to change this troubling trajectory. 

This past December, almost all the world’s countries came together to forge a path forward to respond to this fact. At the heart 

of this need is the requirement that we recognize the dangers associated with a business-as-usual approach to our energy landscape 

and embrace and implement the renewable energy technologies as 

quickly and broadly as possible. I was glad you spoke to this in 

your opening remarks. 

This need is twofold. First, we need to rapidly expand on the implementation of existing green technologies, such as solar power, 

increased energy efficiency, but we also need to invest in developing new technologies that will help us transition to renewable 

energy sources. This is important, of course, for the environment, 

but also it really is a boost to our economy with the good-paying 

jobs that it can create. 

70 

But in order to lead in green tech innovation, we must actively 

support our researchers, scientists, startups, and investors. For example, the universities in my district have been integrally involved 

in research into developing green technologies. And you mentioned 

the Energy Frontier Research Centers designed by DOE in 2009. 

And UC Santa Barbara in my district was one of the first to apply 

and receive this boost. Since then, the center has made significant 

advances in key energy technologies, like photovoltaics and LEDs. 

Similarly, Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo has recently been awarded 

a DOE grant to conduct research into energy-generating offshore 

wave technology as part of the CalWave project. 

So, Secretary Moniz, Mission Innovation, you have described it 

as a landmark commitment to dramatically accelerate public and 

private global clean energy innovation. Will you just give an example or two of how—I know you have already done so, but expand 

on that a bit—how this will help develop technologies required to 

move us toward a greener future? Specifically, I think how we can 

incentivize. To me, it is so much about our universities and research institutions. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. And maybe I will start by apologizing 

that yesterday we stole from your district Mike Witherell to become 

the director of the Berkeley Laboratories. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I know you did. 

Mr. MONIZ. Mission Innovation, again, obviously, it is going to be 

a very broad approach to energy technologies. But some of the high 

points, I think—well, for one, I have to say that I think the regional innovation partnerships are really important. They will lead 

to portfolio diversification and I think help build innovation ecosystems more broadly in the country. 

If you go to specific areas, one of the focal points is certainly on 

the EFRCs, we want to expand that program. It has been a great 

success. The ARPA–E, here I would note: I mentioned early on in 

the discussion that the budget has a fairly modest discretionary increase, 2 percent, although with a priority attached to Mission Innovation, but also some mandatory requests. I say that now if we 

turn to ARPA–E, the request for ARPA–E is for a 20-percent increase in discretionary funding to $350 million. I think the track 

record, I said earlier, more than justifies that. But it also suggests 

$150 million of mandatory so that ARPA–E could also take on some 

different dimensions. In terms of some projects, for example, one of 

the advantages of mandatory funding is that it can give more certainty about a long-term commitment. And that is something that 

could be taken in this case. There could be scale up to more systems integration of different technologies. So I think we have 

thought this through in ways that are complementary. But then, 

of course, I mean, the specific technologies, frankly, across the 

board, we will look to get more innovation. Again, as I said earlier, 

there is a lot of innovation that we are leaving on the table. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

My second question, Mr. Chairman, was going to be to ask you 

to elaborate even more on ARPA–E, but you have already done so. 

If you want to submit anything more for the record. I am so taken 

by the significance of ARPA–E to our national security. The more 

we become energy independent as a Nation, the better it is for the 

71 

world and, certainly, for our place in the world. But thank you 

again. 

Mr. MONIZ. In fact, if I may just add—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, 

but just add, if you go out to the Gaylord Nelson Center and see 

these technologies—I was there yesterday—and you see everything 

from novel renewables to an incredible small compact methane detector that can be used in hydrocarbon production and other settings. It is really great stuff. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Maybe he is suggesting a field trip for the committee. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mrs. Capps, you lead that field trip, and maybe 

we can get it going out there. 

Mr. MONIZ. After lunch. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much. 

Let me start, Mr. Secretary, in saying you were here a previous 

time and indicated, after hearing a number of us from coal country 

talk about the problems that we were having, that your team was 

willing to work with us. They sat down with us. They even come 

to my district. Very much appreciate it. And we have a symposium 

that we are working on to have some of your folks come in and talk 

to the people who are in the industry in the district to figure out 

where we go in the future. So I greatly appreciate that. I appreciate you have already commented on my favorite, chemical looping, and other technologies that are out there. 

In regard to the R&D, the Mission Innovation initiative that was 

launched by the administration in November to try to accomplish 

global clean energy innovation is working with a number of countries, China, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Germany, who 

also recognize that coal is an important part of their electric generation into the future, and they share our northern hemisphere 

air with us. And I am just wondering what we can do because they 

are looking at coal long term. How do you intend to work within 

the initiative to develop cleaner coal technologies domestically so 

that then we can support international efforts to do the same? Be 

brief, because I got lots of questions. 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, Congressman, I want to thank you for 

hosting our people to go to your district and following through on 

that. That is the way we like to work with the Members whenever 

possible. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. You are one of the few who has followed through when they have said something in the committee 

about helping or at least looking at the problem. 

Mr. MONIZ. We try. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Look, I recognize that and commend you for it and 

appreciate it. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

In terms of developing the coal technologies, again, I do want to 

emphasize something that we have said before, that in the budget 

there are many, many different ways—it is not just the fossil enVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:52 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X123DOEBUDGET\114X123DOEBUDGETPENDING WAYNE
72 

ergy R&D program. But in the fossil energy R&D program, we 

have, I think, basically streamlined in terms of the very large 

CCUS demos and now, in 2017, focused on developing these more 

advanced technologies, which could be big breakthroughs. So that 

is number one. 

But we have things in science. We have things in ARPA–E. And we have things, like incentives, like the $5 billion tax incentive 

that is being proposed for carbon capture and sequestration. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I do appreciate that, and I will come back to that 

in a minute. 

I am also concerned, Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the 

EPA, has said that she is still going to move forward with expending taxpayer resources, despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling 

staying implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Is DOE following 

the letter and spirit of the stay request and stopping any coordination on the State level when it comes to compliance with the Clean 

Power Plan? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, of course, again, as we said earlier, the 

Supreme Court action was a stay; it was not a judgment. We have 

ongoing work with States. It is longstanding. We give grants to 

States, the State energy offices. We do technical assistance to State 

energy offices. We established a program with labor unions to provide them technical assistance in terms of how State implementation plans could maximize job creation, something that, again, 

could be of interest to you. So we continue those kinds of activities. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. Can you tell me how many carbon capture and storage commercial-scale power projects are up 

and running today? 

Mr. MONIZ. Up and running? Well, there is Boundary Dam in 

Canada. There are a variety of industrial facilities that have CCUS 

here and globally. There is one operating in the United States; one 

about to operate; and Petra Nova in probably less than a year, as 

a coal powerplant in Texas with enhanced oil recovery. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Because talking about Boundary Dam, 

my understanding is that the project—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I should have said Kemper is coming as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. But my understanding is Boundary Dam is 

currently the only operating post-combustion capture system in the 

world. And the EPA relied on that to make its determination that 

CCS is adequately demonstrated for commercial power production. 

But I am reading all these articles that say they are only hitting 

about 40 percent of where they thought they would be. I am just 

wondering if you can say, is that accurate to your understanding? 

Are they doing better than hitting about 40 percent of what they 

projected? 

Mr. MONIZ. I think, frankly, it is not different from many other 

of these technologies where we are pushing forward where it takes 

engineering know-how. I mean, forget carbon capture—when the 

first integrated gasification coal plant started operating in Florida, 

for example, and the same experience was in other—in Spain and 

elsewhere, that IGCC plant, it took 3 years to reach its operating 

because you are learning, you are breaking it in. And so I think 

this is nothing unusual. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think—— 

73 

Mr. MONIZ. The same is true, by the way, for CSP plants. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I would just say that, while you would expect 

some, 40 percent seems awfully low. And I think it may take them 

a little bit longer than 3 years. 

Mr. MONIZ. I could come and show you the IGCC histories, no 

carbon capture, just IGCC, and you will see maybe it is on track. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, 

Mr. Sarbanes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I can’t tell you how much confidence you give me 

in the Department of Energy’s role in the environment portfolio, all 

of these innovations. And I think your positive impact in so many 

ways around the country is probably unrivaled in terms of someone 

serving in your capacity. So I want to thank you for that. I just get 

excited listening to all the things that you are working on and proposing, because I do think it puts—— 

Mr. MONIZ. It is a great department. 

Mr. SARBANES. You are on the cutting edge. I think you are having a field day. So I did want to talk about I noticed in the budget 

that you proposed consolidating the Department’s efforts in a new 

Office of Energy Jobs Development. I wanted to speak about that 

for a moment. And that office is going to do a number of things: 

manage the collection of energy jobs data, which is critical, and 

then issue an annual report on our progress there; coordinate the 

ongoing energy workforce development activities across the Department and in this amazing network of National Labs that you alluded to; and, thirdly, provide technical advice and support to 

States and localities to advance energy workforce training and economic development. 

And we have already seen examples of that in Baltimore. And I 

want to support the DOE’s investment in these sorts of activities. 

In particular, the clean energy sector has tremendous potential, as 

you know, to be the next big growth industry that can spur the 

economy. We have an amazing partnership that has come together 

in Baltimore recently that has begun to be developed between the 

Department of Energy, that is providing its expertise and technical 

assistance, the City of Baltimore, the Maryland Clean Energy Center, and a variety of nonprofits to create a sustainable low-income 

solar installation workforce training initiative, which would accelerate home weatherization, the deployment of solar energy, with a 

focus on low-income housing in the City of Baltimore, train underemployed or unemployed community members to step up into these 

job opportunities as part of an energy industry workforce, and then 

secure full-time employment for trainees within the growing energy 

industry in Maryland. In that sense, this project or initiative really 

models the kinds of things that you are already doing across the 

country and can increase efforts around the country in a like manner. 

So can you just give me some of your thoughts? Because, obviously, the Department views this as a priority and just a basic economic development initiative, particularly one that can focus on 

some hard-hit and neglected economic areas around the country. It 

offers great promise. 

74 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, thank you, Congressman. And also thank you 

for your personal engagement in the Baltimore solar initiative. 

Also, Congressman Cummings and Senator Cardin, as well. But 

you have been particularly deeply engaged, which we appreciate. 

So the Baltimore initiative was, I think, as you say, a good model. 

We are working with the local institutions, Morgan State University being just one of them. And the idea is here, for the members, 

is to try to integrate solar deployment with the weatherization of 

homes for higher efficiency in low-income areas. And, obviously, 

Baltimore has had its challenges over the last year. 

So I would like to use that to go to your opening statement about 

establishing the Energy Jobs Development Office. About 2 years 

ago, we brought in I think two outstanding individuals. And they 

were prime movers for the Baltimore thing. But they have done a 

terrific job on jobs broadly. You mentioned data. It is very hard to 

get data on what energy jobs are. So we have been working with 

the Department of Labor to do this, as you say, in an annual report. And that is a foundation for understanding not only what is 

happening, but what can we do to make it better? So that is just 

one example. So I do ask the Congress to allow us to have a separate budget line, rather than passing a tin cup around, to have this 

jobs focus. I just mention, the last thing I will say is, again, you 

have raised it, is in this case of the solar, it would be great to link 

that then to training local citizens to do things like solar installation. In November, this country passed 208,000 direct jobs in solar 

alone. And on the installation side, you are certainly talking north 

of $20 an hour for an installer. Get some training. We will do a 

community college program to do that. I think this is what we have 

to do in more urban areas. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thanks very much. We look forward to working 

with you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. Before I get into 

my questions, I would like to engage in a topic that you and I have 

had a conversation about many times before. And I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight my disappointment with your Department’s recent decision to withdraw support for the American Centrifuge Project down in Piketon, Ohio. I think this is a very seriously flawed decision. I believe that by allowing the ACP to shutter 

operations, we are essentially seriously further hindering our ability to readily provide domestically enriched uranium for national 

security purposes. 

And one of my biggest concerns is the contradictory nature of the 

decision in light of the very report that your Department produced 

upon which the decision was made, because one of the viable options in that report that was discounted was discounted because of 

the loss of the workforce from a previous facility. And I worry 

about how this loss of this uniquely skilled workforce is going to 

play out over time, and how that could be detrimental when DOE 

eventually decides, once again, that we need to build out our domestic uranium enrichment capability. That workforce is not going 

75 

to sit there and wait. Those people have got to find jobs somewhere, and they are not going to be sitting idly by. 

So I just wanted to reiterate one more time, Mr. Secretary, that 

I believe that is a very flawed decision. And I hope you will take 

that under consideration. And if there is any way to reverse it, you 

certainly have my support, and I believe many of my colleagues as 

well. 

Mr. MONIZ. Should I comment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. 

Mr. MONIZ. I won’t go through the entire decision process, but 

just to note that, first of all, the program continues. Unfortunately, 

for the Portsmouth side—and it is not nice, I am not happy about 

it—but the spinning of the existing old centrifuges has stopped. 

But key skills will be sustained. But the real issue is that we do 

need—I have been totally consistent and agree with you—at some 

point for sure we need a national security enrichment train. And, 

right now, the ACP is the only candidate at the moment for sure. 

And the Portsmouth facility remains uniquely suited and designed 

to house that national security train. The thing is it costs billions 

of dollars, which have not been made available at the moment. And 

with the long—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I could interrupt you, Mr. Secretary, they have 

been made available, because Congress continues to fund that 

project. How can you say they are not available? 

Mr. MONIZ. Billions of dollars to build a new national security 

train. That is the issue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I don’t think I grasp that. 

Mr. MONIZ. I would be happy to get together with you and do it 

again. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We will take that offline, because that is a new 

one that I am not familiar with. Because the cascade is there now. 

And the cost to change that cascade to an operational one seems 

to me would be a lot cheaper than starting from scratch. 

Mr. MONIZ. No, but the problem is that—well, again, we should 

maybe go offline. But that cascade will not be part of a national 

security train. We can discuss that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Let’s talk about it. Now, another USEC-related question, you said that Congress gave DOE authority in 2000 

to use the USEC funds, which is the American Centrifuge Project, 

for the D&D cleanup. But from 2000 through 2015 or 2016, that 

was never proposed. Why now would the budget propose using the 

D&D—or the USEC funds to fund the D&D? Just a clarification. 

Mr. MONIZ. There were proposals in 2000 to use the USEC fund. 

They, in the end, were not approved to use the fund. And in the 

intervening period, of course, the utilities then stopped paying into 

the UE D&D fund. Congress has essentially chosen to appropriate 

out of discretionary funds. We are suggesting that it is time, when 

we have $5 billion in three funds, we think it is time to go back 

and to think about what might be, frankly, also a kind of a stable 

way potentially of addressing this. One of the differences to when 

the utility payments were ceased upon agreement was that the full 

cost of the D&D was not known. Now we see about a $22 billion 

to go on UE D&D. So it is a big number. And there is about $5 

billion in those three uranium funds today in the Treasury. And by 

76 

the way, one of the ironies, we would say, is that interest is 

charged. So they sit in the Treasury. Interest is charged. The 

amounts keep growing. We are just proposing maybe it is time to 

start using those. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. We will talk offline. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank my two colleagues for their courtesy in letting me speak today. 

Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here. It is always a pleasure to have you here in front of our committee. And I want you to 

know how much I appreciated your visit last year to Pittsburgh. 

And you didn’t get a chance to tour the NETL, so I want to invite 

you to come back as soon as possible so that you and I can visit 

the NETL in Pittsburgh and the incredible workforce that is down 

there. 

Let me ask you a question. This is the first DOE budget to distinguish or delineate between the NETL’s infrastructure program 

versus the research and operations program. Can you explain this 

distinction in a little greater detail and the reason why you have 

decided to structure the budget this way? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, one of the principal reasons is that the outstanding relatively new director of NETL urged us to do it this 

way. And I think she is right. Previously, the budget was kind of— 

it was hard to figure out what it was. A piece of it was in the CCS 

line. A piece of it was in program administration. And now I think 

this gives greater transparency because, of course, as you well 

know, NETL has got two very different functions: one is the R&D, 

and one largely is kind of a contract manager, not only for FE but 

for other programs as well. This gives kind of identity to the research program. And we remain very interested in strengthening 

it. In fact, there is an increase this year particularly to, finally, I 

think, address the supercomputer needs at NETL. 

Mr. DOYLE. So, as far as the impacts on the workforce and the 

organizational structure at NETL, you are saying this just helps 

distinguish funding lines for program management versus R&D? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Correct. And, in fact, there has been an increase 

in the R&D. 

Mr. DOYLE. I certainly support increased funding for the NETL 

that is featured in the budget. But I am a little concerned that the 

request seems to represent an overall decrease in funding for fossil 

energy R&D and so, specifically, a significant decrease in funding 

for CCS and advanced power systems at NETL. Can you explain 

a little bit the reasoning for this decrease? 

Mr. MONIZ. See, part of that is the—we can call it restructuring, 

but it is the, frankly, the termination of some of the large demonstration projects that could not reach financial close. And so 

those funds have been redirected to supporting now what I would 

call more R&D as opposed to the demonstration projects. So that 

is where the pilot projects, for example, for chemical looping, which 

NETL is actually working on right now—they have a smallish facilVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:52 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X123DOEBUDGET\114X123DOEBUDGETPENDING WAYNE
77 

ity—and oxycombustion and the like, so I think this actually 

strengthens what I would call more of the basic R&D program. 

Mr. DOYLE. So, also, in the budget, you are basically adding natural gas carbon capture under the carbon capture heading that was 

previously reserved for coal-related research. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. Could you just expand a little bit on your thought 

process for that? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, so that is a relatively small amount of fund- ing—I forget the exact number, maybe $15-million-something—to 

go into the design of what could then be a natural gas carbon capture demonstration of some undetermined scale at the moment. 

Because the reasoning is quite simple. Clearly, carbon capture 

with coal, whether it is direct as we are now doing or some of the 

new approaches, is important. But, also, with natural gas. We have 

a long view in terms of our technology development. And, right 

now, gas, one can argue, has been contributing to lower carbon 

emissions, but if we are going to practically decarbonize the electricity sector, ultimately natural gas would have to have carbon 

capture as well. 

So this is the early stages of design. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

And, finally, I was pleased to see the administration’s initiative 

to increase investment and research dollars in clean transportation 

systems. Can you explain how, under the 21st Century Clean 

Transportation Plan, stakeholders like our universities or companies in the area can work with the administration? 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, I think there would be substantial calls for pro- posals to do that. The proposal in that plan is for $500 million additional in transportation. So it would be very, very broad-based. 

And that is quite separate from the infrastructure, the fuels infrastructure issues. It is really R&D on those areas. So, certainly, if 

I am issuing that, there will be plenty of chances for the universities to—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Great. Thank you. And let’s get a date to go down 

to NETL in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. MONIZ. You got it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Moniz. It is always a pleasure to see 

you here and hear from you. You kind of brighten my day when 

you come in and talk to us, so thank you. 

One of the—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Uh-uh. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. New projects announced at the Paris climate conference is the Mission Innovation program. Now, I am taking my family down to Disney World later this month, and if I saw 

a ride there, Mission Innovation, it would not surprise me because 

that sounds like something you would ride at Disney World. But 

78 

this involves the U.S. and 19 other countries. A key component of 

the program is the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, which is a 

group of international private capital investors. 

Could you expand on how this investment coalition is comprised 

and what the level of involvement is or cooperation between the 

Department of Energy and this breakthrough group? 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. The 2 initiatives or coalitions, if you like, 

the 20 countries and the 28 investors from 10 countries, they are 

independent. Now, there is communication. So they were formed in 

parallel, and the idea was, because they have the opportunity to 

feed off of each other, we increased the innovation pipeline, that 

gives more investment opportunities, and these investors declare, 

‘‘Well, yes, if you guys give us more opportunities, we are going to 

be there with billions of dollars to come and invest.’’ 

But I want to emphasize that, whatever information is generated, for example, it is possible that—we have talked about but 

have not yet nailed down—around June, early June, we should 

have this kind of more nailed down, the relationship. We may do 

some joint technology roadmaps, like what is the pathway to sunlight to fuels as a kind of a possible transformative thing. 

But if done—after all, we are a Government agency—such information would not be proprietary to those investors. That would be 

open to everybody to see the benefits of. 

Mr. LONG. That was part of my next question, is do you have any 

concerns that these private investors are gaining an advantage or 

an upper hand through special treatment from the Department of 

Energy’s clean energy program. 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, well, that is what I just addressed. No. So we 

have to make it sure that it is great but they don’t have special 

access to information or to lab technologies, et cetera. We have to 

make this transparent. And we have done this, by the way—— 

Mr. LONG. So at what point is this available to the public, I 

mean, these findings or whatever you want to call it? 

Mr. MONIZ. Whenever they are done. I mean, like, if it is a technology roadmap, when we have it—— 

Mr. LONG. So they are going to be private investors working with 

the Department of Energy to come up—— 

Mr. MONIZ. It could be, and with some others, talking about—so 

the idea is—— 

Mr. LONG. So you wouldn’t feel that it would give them an advantage? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, the information would then have to be available to everyone as a public DOE report. And, no, so we are very 

sensitive to that, that—— 

Mr. LONG. So that is a no, I take it. You don’t think that it would 

give them an advantage. 

I am just thinking that if they are involved from day one and the 

way things develop—— 

Mr. MONIZ. The only advantage would be—but it would not be 

exclusive to them—would be to have thought about this particular 

technology area. But others are thinking about it. In fact, the one 

I mentioned, we already have a hub doing it, with all the results 

published. 

Mr. LONG. OK. 

79 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. You mention in your testimony that the budget request takes steps to implement recommendations from the first installment of the 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review. 

Which recommendations are you referring to in your report 

there? And what is the timeframe for implementing the recommendations from the QER? 

Mr. MONIZ. For that, I should probably find my notes, because 

it is quite a long list in the FAST Act. 

There are issues of our being charged to do an energy security 

plan, for example, with State. There are issues about doing a study 

to bring to the Congress on the establishment of an electric power 

transformer reserve, for example. There is a really long list of 

issues, and we are working on all of them. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Could you maybe summarize that or get me, like, 

bullet—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Sure. 

Mr. LONG [continuing]. Points or something to give that to my 

staff? Because I do have—— 

Mr. MONIZ. If I can find it in my papers, I can give it to you now, 

actually. 

Mr. LONG. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. Anyway, we will certainly get that to you. 

Mr. LONG. We have 8 seconds till liftoff, so we had better—if you 

can get it to me later, I would appreciate it. 

And, like I said, it is a pleasure to have you in here. Thank you 

for being here. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back his 1 second. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, nice to see you here. Thank you for your responses 

and your presentation. 

I want to congratulate the committee chair, my colleague from 

Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for holding this hearing and for allowing 

you to present the concepts and the priorities of the Department 

of Energy. 

And I cannot resist taking the opportunity to say that, as a member of the Budget Committee, I was astonished that the chairman 

of the Budget Committee, for the first time in 40 years, did not 

allow the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to come 

to the Hill and present the administration’s overall budget. 

And I think the usefulness of a hearing like this, in which we 

really do get into the plans and priorities of the Department, is 

something that could benefit the American people and the Congress, as well, if we were able to discuss the President’s overall 

budget. So I wish that Chairman Price of the Budget Committee 

would reconsider that and allow such a presentation. And I will tell 

him how much I appreciated this hearing. 

One of the things that I think about a lot, Mr. Secretary, is that, 

at its optimum efficiency, Congress moves at 10 miles an hour, and 

we have a world that is moving at 100 miles an hour, and how are 

80 

we able to make long-term policy that actually makes sense when 

things are changing so rapidly? 

And I think about, for instance, driverless cars and the work that 

Government is going to have to do very quickly to figure out how 

to accommodate that. So I can’t imagine a field that this is more 

appropriate to discuss within than the energy field. And I know so 

many things have been happening and are happening. 

So I guess a broad question is, can you think of areas in which 

Congress really needs to start thinking about policy for things that 

are about to happen that we are totally unprepared for? 

Mr. MONIZ. It is always hard to predict what you are unprepared 

for, but I certainly agree with you. Your clock speed statement is 

very apt, and the driverless cars are a terrific example. I think 2 

years ago very few would have seen this coming at us so fast. And 

it raises huge numbers of policy issues, obviously, with liabilities 

and all kinds of issues. 

So I would just say there are two areas where I think—and they 

are actually in some sense linked—where I see enormous change 

happening, the kind of change that we didn’t anticipate with the 

oil and gas revolution, say, 15 years ago. 

One is that, if you look at the entire electricity system—and, by 

the way, the second installment of our Quadrennial Energy Review—the first one was on infrastructure across the board. This 

one is on the electricity system end-to-end. And there are so many 

moving parts—on the high-voltage grid, on the distribution system, 

the integration of IT, energy storage suddenly coming to maturity 

in terms of costs. 

So there are the technology issues, but then how do we value the 

services; how do we value fuel diversity; how do we value storage 

in the system; how do we value when we have distributed generation and what it is doing not only in terms of supplying energy but 

in terms of, potentially, stability in the system, voltage stability, 

you know, you name it; how do we go, in this example, behind the 

meter into the consumer’s place in terms of new services. 

As we do that and as we get more and more successful, or continuing our success, in terms of decreasing energy intensity, energy 

efficiency, et cetera, business models of utilities have to change. It 

is not going to be the same system. 

What does that mean for our regulatory system? I don’t want to 

open Pandora’s box. But, you know, we have a historical system 

built around States, and we have to work with it, but recognizing 

that it does not match the physical realities of the system as it 

emerges. So that is a big one to think through, that whole kind of 

system. 

Another one is, I think—and it is not unconnected—is the urban 

environment and potential transformation there, I mean energylinked. Your driverless cars, for example, can be a big piece of that, 

right? A whole different ownership model, a whole different—the 

model is different. 

And, furthermore, if you speculate—and now I am going off into 

the wild blue yonder. But if you speculate about a city that has become practically all electric and quiet and clean, well, maybe you 

build your buildings in different ways. 

81 

So I think those are two big issues where there are so many 

threads to pull together. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. I appreciate that answer very much. Thank 

you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here again. I know we have spoken on 

several different occasions. 

And, you know, you come today asking for a significant increase 

at a time when we are still running deficits across the country. Can 

you just give me your number-one priority, what you would use the 

money for? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, the first point I would make is that, again, our 

discretionary request—— 

Mr. MULLIN. No. The number-one thing, what are you looking 

for, the number-one—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I want to make the point, it is 2 percent, and the 

President’s budget is within the cap. 

Now, in terms of this budget and the number-one issue in terms 

of new direction is the Mission Innovation direction writ large—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Is that across the board, or is that just with renewables? 

Mr. MONIZ. It is across the board. 

Mr. MULLIN. Because the policy in the past that your administration has put forth, and your agency, isn’t across the board. It is not 

equally yoked. It seems to have a tendency to lean towards renewables. 

And with that being said, I have another question for you. DOE 

is charged with setting effective and comprehensive national energy policy. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONIZ. Sort of. 

Mr. MULLIN. Sort of? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, only because—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I mean, I thought that was the reason why it was 

in existence to begin with. 

Mr. MONIZ. No, no, no, the Energy Department, of course, has 

the major—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, it is not ‘‘sort of.’’ It is either ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Makes energy technology development. 

But my point simply is, as was evident in the Quadrennial Energy 

Review, energy is—— 

Mr. MULLIN. No, I am talking—I don’t care about the energy review. I am talking about DOE is charged with setting effective and 

comprehensive national energy policy. Is that a yes or a no? 

Mr. MONIZ. Energy touches many equities—— 

Mr. MULLIN. It is just a simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MONIZ. I am trying to answer the question. 

Mr. MULLIN. I don’t need an explanation. I just need a ‘‘yes’’ or 

‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MONIZ. Because the answer is, then if you take something 

like the Quadrennial Energy Review—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Just a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ sir. 

82 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. That is bringing together—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I am not asking for a long answer. I just want a 

‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MONIZ. I am giving you the shortest answer that is meaningful. 

Mr. MULLIN. The shortest one would be ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ It is either 

a three-letter word or a two-letter word. 

Mr. MONIZ. We play a central role in pulling—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Now, sir, I just want a simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Together the energy threads for a coherent energy policy. 

Mr. MULLIN. So is that a—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. MULLIN [continuing]. ‘‘Yes’’? Why didn’t you just say that to 

begin with? 

Mr. MONIZ. Because it needed a little bit of—— 

Mr. MULLIN. No, it didn’t need anything else. All I needed was 

a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

So is part of that about the affordable and reliability of our energy policy? 

Mr. MONIZ. Say it again. I am sorry. 

Mr. MULLIN. Is part of that policy about the affordable and the 

reliability to our taxpayers, to the American people? 

Mr. MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. MULLIN. Then why are we allowing—— 

Mr. MONIZ. And security and environment. 

Mr. MULLIN. Then why are we allowing the EPA to set agenda 

for DOE? 

Mr. MONIZ. Those are environmental rules about air quality. 

Mr. MULLIN. Clean Power Plan? Is that not going to affect affordable and reliability issues? 

Mr. MONIZ. This goes back to the earlier answer, why it is more 

complicated than ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. MULLIN. No, it is not. What we are doing is you are allowing 

agencies to—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Environmental policy has historically always affected 

energy policy, as has, often, security policy and—— 

Mr. MULLIN. We all want to be good stewards, but what I have 

an issue with is when the EPA becomes able to set policy for the 

DOE and when DOE becomes a source of agenda-driven issues 

rather than really focusing on making sure that we have reliable 

and effective, efficient energy sources to the American people. And 

when we start looking at only one factor, such as green renewables, 

which is an agenda-driven policy, and we take a look away from 

what has driven this economy and our energy resilience, I have an 

issue with that. 

And we want the Department of Energy to be successful because 

we want America to be successful, but we don’t want it to be agenda-driven. And we are allowing the EPA step all over your agenda 

or your policies by setting policies through the Clean Power—and 

I don’t see any pushback from you or your agency saying, ‘‘Wait, 

this is part of ours too. You are affecting us.’’ Instead, you are just 

going along to get along. 

83 

That is from my perspective. Now, if you can tell me something 

different, please let me know. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. So the EPA is putting out a clean air regulation. 

Our job in the energy sector, as it is in any sector that influences 

air quality, is to develop the ways to respond to what the regulations, the laws of the land are. 

Mr. MULLIN. What if it affects the reliability of it? 

Mr. MONIZ. Sorry? 

Mr. MULLIN. What if it affects the reliability? 

I don’t know who you keep looking to over there, but you and I 

are the ones talking here. 

So what if it affects the reliability of it? 

Mr. MONIZ. The reliability is clearly an issue. Some of our analyses—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Do you not see the Clean Power Plan being a reliability issue if it goes into full effect? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, for example, we did an analysis around the 

natural gas system, and we found that there were not reliability 

risks. 

Mr. MULLIN. That is very hard to believe. 

Mr. MONIZ. We can show you the analysis. 

Mr. MULLIN. I appreciate it. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. It is published. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

You know, taking up on Mr. Mullin’s questions, there is required 

to be a change in the model if we are going to change our energy 

mix, if we are going to move to distributed generation. And those 

are extraordinary challenges that our utilities face. 

But that is an agenda that we have in Vermont. You know, we 

have utilities that are all in on trying to promote distributed generation, that are promoting solar, that are really strong on efficiency. And it is a complete departure from the old model that used 

to exist in the Vermont utilities of just promoting more usage of energy. 

And my question—one, I want to cite that. And, two, I notice in 

your budget there is a lot of emphasis on trying to facilitate activities such as distributed generation, renewable battery storage, and 

so on, and just give you a quick minute to comment on that. 

Mr. MONIZ. I would say yes. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. 

You know, the second thing, Mr. McKinley was asking about coal 

country and inviting you to West Virginia. I want to thank you for 

coming to Vermont. It was a very meaningful visit. Go to West Virginia. I went there with Mr. McKinley. He took me into a coal 

mine. And I want to focus attention on the parts of your budget 

that are going to help coal country out. Because whatever one 

thinks about coal, those coal workers have kept the lights on in 

this country for generations. 

And I want to just give you an opportunity to comment on the 

President’s proposal with respect to money that can help the AppaVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:52 Oct 06, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\114THCONGRESS\114X123DOEBUDGET\114X123DOEBUDGETPENDING WAYNE
84 

lachian fund. And a billion dollars is being proposed to come from 

the abandoned mine fund to help out in coal country. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. So, again, without repeating it, I just again 

want to emphasize that there are a huge number of pieces that affect coal in our budget, not just the fossil energy R&D budget. 

Among those, again, I will mention something that I think will 

be very important to put in are the tax credits that I mentioned 

earlier, but, very importantly, the Power Plus Plan, which is precisely the plan—it is administration-wide, it is not DOE, administration-wide, in terms of really helping communities in multiple 

ways, including what we can help with in terms of economic development but certainly retraining and other programs, of course 

weatherization, et cetera. 

This is part of why we have two offices that are critical here. One 

is the ED office, the economic development and diversity office, and 

then this jobs focus, this Jobs Strategy Council I formed. They have 

been in coal country. Well, they have visited Mr. Griffith, for example, and I think it was a—I heard from them, as well, that it was 

a very good visit. And we are trying very hard—— 

Mr. WELCH. I would encourage you to keep doing that because 

that is the one area where—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH. And these coal workers are—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. Wonderful people, and they—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WELCH [continuing]. Are getting hammered, and we have to 

help them. 

Mr. MONIZ. We completely agree. And, again, I would urge that 

the Congress look favorably, I hope, on our trying to convert that 

into a separate budget line, a little office. Frankly—— 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I would be glad to work with you and colleagues on doing that. 

Mr. MONIZ. And that goes back to what Mr. Rush said earlier. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Because I think, if we do that, we have a better 

chance of trying to kind of get that planted in the Department of 

Energy as a function that will go on in the next administration. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, thank you. 

I have 1 more minute. We have a plant, a nuclear plant, that is 

being decommissioned, and we are just stuck with the nuclear 

waste that is in dry-cask storage along the banks of the Connecticut River. It is really a problem. It is a problem for us. We are 

going to live with this for how long, we don’t know. 

Yucca Mountain, none of us are particularly optimistic about its 

prospects. We have a bill in Congress, a bipartisan bill, where 

Texas wants to have an interim storage site. Vermont would be 

glad to provide some stuff to store. The administration’s blue ribbon commission seems to be open to that. 

I know this is a difficult, delicate issue for you, but what about 

the prospects of having some interim storage site while whatever 

is going to happen with Yucca works itself out so that we don’t 

have this waste literally right along the banks of the Connecticut 

River? 

85 

Mr. MONIZ. We have a request for information out right now to 

the public, following through on the consent-based approach to 

storage—pilot interim storage, big interim storage, and geological 

repositories for both civilian spent fuel and high-level waste. 

We are moving forward, to the extent that we can, in getting the 

interim storage advanced. We cannot without congressional authorization actually do a site. 

But the issue that has arisen with Texas about the possibility of 

a private site is one that we would support the Congress providing 

clarity on that as being an acceptable path forward because, ultimately, presumably, to work, that may at least require access to 

the Nuclear Waste Fund, and it would certainly require legislative 

action. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Secretary Moniz. 

And my time is up, and I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Hudson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. 

The original Advanced Research Projects Agency within DOE has 

been in existence for a few years now. Part of the mission of the 

program is to, quote, ‘‘accelerate transformational energy technologies from concept to market,’’ end quote. 

Has anything come to market yet since the program’s inception 

6 years ago? For example, has there been any wide-scale deployment of commercialized product that has resulted from the ARPA– 

E program? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, sir. And, you know, this is a pretty short time 

for this kind of business, and already there are 36 companies and, 

I don’t know, 9 or 10 commercial products being sold. And they 

span quite a diversity of technologies. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, that is encouraging to hear. 

What metrics does DOE use to evaluate the success of these 

projects? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I would like to talk about intermediate metrics 

and then the ultimate metrics. 

The ultimate metrics are that these technologies have indeed— 

that some number of them have indeed gone into the marketplace 

and have scaled some appreciable time. In the energy business, 

that is not a 5-year business. 

But the intermediate metrics, I would say, are very positive. I 

mentioned already the 36 companies and 9 or 10 products, but, in 

addition, about a quarter of all of the projects that have been completed have attracted well over a billion dollars of private-sector 

funding. Another quarter of the projects, roughly, has attracted follow-on interest from the Department of Energy or other Government agencies, like DOD, for example. 

So when you take a program that is, by its nature, kind of pushing on the edge of the technology and roughly half of them after 

a 3-year project have got follow-on, including company creation, 

that is pretty good. If anything, it makes you worry, are we taking 

enough risk? 

86 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, when an ARPA–E funded project isn’t resulting in progress or benefits, are there any protocols in place for ending that project? 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, yes. ARPA–E is a very different, by creation, a 

different structure. And you have active program managers who 

are very much close to the project—which is also, by the way, also 

receiving advice on tech to market. But if they are not working, 

then they just end. In fact, it has been said that, you know, in this 

kind of business, what you like is quick failure and long success. 

Mr. HUDSON. Switching gears a little bit, you mentioned the first 

Quadrennial Energy Review. Can you tell me how much that first 

review cost? 

Mr. MONIZ. To be honest, I don’t have a precise number, but I 

would say a few million dollars out of our Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Office. Some of the work was done analytically in 

house, and then some of it was, you know, specific studies contracted outside. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, if you could get back to me with maybe 

more—— 

Mr. MONIZ. OK, we will try to—I am not sure we have actually 

kept a budget number in that way, but we will make an attempt 

at it. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. I appreciate that. 

But assuming the costs are generally what you are saying, would 

you say it has been valuable based on that cost? 

Mr. MONIZ. Extremely. I think it has been a tremendous return. 

The action of this committee and this Congress in incorporating a 

tremendous number of the recommendations into legislation has 

been important. It has also being actively used in the current Senate legislation being developed right now. And, in addition, it has 

influenced significantly State energy offices. We have had many 

interactions. 

So we think this has been a great success, I think, verifying the 

idea that doing a deep, analytically driven document can really provide an excellent basis for discussions with the Congress and others. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. 

And you have said the second installment of QER will conduct 

a competence review of the Nation’s electricity system. What was 

the agency’s motivation for focusing solely on electricity for the second QER? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, the motivation was that, as we are looking to 

put together the pieces for ultimately bringing them all together, 

in the first QER, which looked at all the energy infrastructures, it 

kind of said, well, you know, the electricity infrastructure is kind 

of first among equals, because so many other infrastructures in energy, information technology and the like, depend upon electricity. 

So we think this is actually a core system. As I said earlier also 

in a response, it is also a system that is perhaps ripe for—well, it 

is going through some change and there may be a lot more coming 

as technology and new services drive the electricity system. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. 

87 

Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. And I will submit written 

questions to follow up on, just sort of what the timeframe for participation and when we expect that QER draft to come forward. 

Mr. MONIZ. And I might add, the NC State hub on wide bandgap 

semiconductors is part of the technology for this new grid. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, Secretary Moniz, welcome. You have had quite a busy year 

since our last budget meeting. And to your credit, I want to thank 

and congratulate you on all you have done, ranging from the Iran 

nuclear outcome to Paris and the climate agreement and certainly 

embracing innovation. Your expertise and your leadership have 

been critical for our Nation, if not our planet’s, future security and 

sustainability. So an awesome thanks. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Secretary, Mission Innovation is a critical aspect 

toward meeting the goals of COP21 agreement. There was consensus coming out of Paris that new technologies and energy innovation will be needed to enable the transition to a low-, if not zero- 

, carbon-emission future. 

And, by the way, I have to tell you I did a visit to the ARPA– 

E Innovation Summit. Tremendous leadership there. Thank you for 

the foresight, for the vision, and for the structuring of such a summit. 

Can you explain the United States and its financial commitment 

to the Mission Innovation initiative? And how much more investment would you believe is necessary to meet that 5-year goal? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, the commitment specifically, to choose the 

words carefully, was to seek to double the energy R&D over 5 

years, because, obviously, we have to work with the Congress to 

reach that. But the request this year, as you know, is 21 percent 

in the discretionary funds, and that would be, obviously, a linear 

trajectory to doubling. 

And, again, I would just say, it may be semi-anecdotal, but every 

piece of evidence I have says we could get a lot more innovation 

with that increased investment. 

Mr. TONKO. I share, certainly, that belief. It is important. 

DOE’s proposed fiscal year 2017 investment makes up more than 

three-quarters of the Government’s Mission Innovation commitment, but it will really be a partnership amongst numerous agencies, the private sector, and other nations. 

Can you explain just how that investment will be broken down 

across multiple DOE offices and Federal agencies? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I don’t have the exact table for the Federal 

agencies right now, but the second-biggest amount is in the Department of Defense, where they actually have quite a bit of energy 

work going on, substantially less than DOE, obviously, but quite 

substantial. They have interest in and we partner with them already in things like advanced drop-in biofuels. So they would like 

88 

to reduce their oil dependence, but they can’t replace the engine, 

so they have to go to drop-in biofuel. So that is still a big challenge. 

They have lots of interest in things like microgrids for their stationary assets, for their facilities. And, of course, something that is 

not a major energy user on the scale of, you know, quads of energy 

but very important for our warfighters is the question of portable 

energy that the people on the front lines can use. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And there are some 19 other countries that have also made R&D 

commitments. What are the benefits of working with international 

investors? And what is the cooperative, collaborative research concept that you are hoping for here? 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, it is important to note that, among the 

countries, the 20 countries, there is no obligation, you know, to 

work together on projects. Every country makes its sovereign 

choice about managing its expanded portfolio. So the main thing 

here is that it gets a lot more innovation going. 

Now, I expect that there will be enhanced collaboration between 

countries that share a specific interest in a project. For example, 

with India, we have, you know, discussed in general terms that distributed generation may provide a great opportunity for much more 

collaboration with them on technology development. We both have 

distributed-generation needs; they are somewhat different. But 

that could be a logical one. 

Another one where we are already ramping up but, say, in our 

discussion with the Saudis, quite different, the issue of what are 

we going to do about HFC replacements, especially for warm climates, not only different operating fluids, potentially, but new 

thermodynamic cycles that are more adventurous, if you like, in 

the technology. 

So I think those will appear, but we have no obligation for enhanced international collaboration. We manage our portfolio. The 

investors are international. They will be looking for the best opportunities that come out of these innovation pipelines in any of the 

20 countries. So the extent to which we push, we are also going to 

capture that investment. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I have used up my time. Let me again thank you 

for your leadership. It is awesome. And the benefits of your leadership are showing themselves through all of this. 

So, with that, I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

And now I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions since 

I waited until everyone else asked their questions first. 

Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being here today. We 

really appreciate it. 

Reference was made to the nuclear waste problem. And I am not 

sure exactly how many nuclear power plants we have operating in 

the U.S. today. I think it is roughly 100 or—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Roughly 100. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Ninety-nine. 

Mr. MONIZ. Ninety-nine, yes, right. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And this does not reflect on you, but, as a Nation, I think we have made some major blunders in the area of 

89 

dealing with nuclear waste. I know the Nuclear Waste Fund, nuclear power plants have been contributing to that for some time. 

We have spent roughly—you can correct me if I am wrong, but we 

have spent roughly $12 billion or so on Yucca Mountain. 

When the day came for the Government to take possession of 

this waste and start moving it to Yucca Mountain, Yucca Mountain 

was not ready to take it, not certified. And so the nuclear power 

plants filed the lawsuit against the Federal Government and obtained a judgment against the Federal Government. I don’t remember the exact amount of that judgment. I was told it was roughly 

$10 billion. But do you know the exact amount? 

Mr. MONIZ. I don’t know the exact up to now, but the projections 

have said it could reach $20 billion eventually. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, because it is ongoing, because they can’t 

take—so roughly $20 billion. 

And now we are looking at maybe an interim site. And it is my 

understanding—and I think you confirmed this—that that interim 

site would never work unless Congress approves it. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, we 

cannot establish an interim site without—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. And so here we are kind of at a stalemate 

on that issue. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yep. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And then that brings up three other funds. On 

the Nuclear Waste Fund, the nuclear power plants are not paying 

into that fund as a result—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. Of the judgment. 

Mr. MONIZ. That was suspended. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

And the Government is paying them every year, I guess, a certain amount of money to satisfy this judgment. I don’t know how 

much, but whatever it is. OK. 

So, on the other side, the D&D fund, the USEC fund, the uranium supply and enrichment fund activities. On the D&D fund, 

normally the money from the cleanup—Paducah, for example, 

comes from the D&D fund. And it is my understanding that the 

D&D fund is funded from the utility plants as a result of some legislation maybe that passed around 1992 or so and that that was 

suspended in 2007 roughly. So, since then, they have not paid into 

this fund. 

And how much is the Department of Energy spending each year 

to assist these communities in cleanup, total? Do you know exactly? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, but I would guess it is—for the three sites, it is 

probably on the order of $500 million. But, obviously, we can add 

up the numbers. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. I mean, I think Paducah is roughly $270 

million, $280 million. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. I may be a bit low. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. And Portsmouth, of course, there is also the barter 

contribution—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

90 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Of about $150 million. If you don’t count 

that, then we are probably around $500 million, I would guess. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But, now, you all are proposing some mandatory 

funding and taking money out of the USEC fund which I guess has 

just been sitting there—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Accumulating interest. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, is that interest staying in the fund? 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe so. That is my understanding. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And in order to go to the mandatory funding, the way you all are suggesting, that would require legislation, 

as well. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, we would need some authorization. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe. I believe that is the case. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. 

Mr. MONIZ. I should check with the experts. But, also, there is 

also the question of offsets—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Because of the budget cap. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Right. 

Now, OK, so—I wish we could talk a little bit more about that, 

but I only have, like, 20-some seconds left. 

Mr. MONIZ. And I would just add, we did suggest a possible offset 

with the quarter-mil per kilowatt hour from the relevant utilities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. OK. 

Now, this is really a parochial issue. This gets down to Paducah. 

On September 2, you all issued a request for information for the 

Paducah cleanup project. And it is my understanding that the contract will expire—the current contract expires in July 2017. And do 

you have any idea if you all expect to renew a contract by that 

time? Or can you give me a brief explanation of where you think 

you are? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would certainly expect that. But why don’t I nail 

that down and get back to you promptly. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. But, yes, our expectation is we are moving towards 

having a contract in place. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. But we certainly need continuity, obviously. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Yes. 

And then, in closing, I am going to editorialize for just a minute, 

just a pet peeve that I have, which does not relate to you. I hear 

so many people talk about we need to expand solar and wind to 

make us less dependent on foreign oil, which I have never exactly 

understood because wind and solar is about electricity and oil is 

about transportation. 

Mr. MONIZ. I never said that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You didn’t say that, but so many people say that, 

and so that is my editorial. 

So, having said that, I want to thank you very much for being 

with us. And we have been here almost 3 hours, so thank you for 

your patience. We look forward to working with you on the important agenda of the Department of Energy. 

91 

And we will keep the record open for 10 days. I think various 

members said they—some of them had additional questions and so 

forth. 

And do we have anything for the record? OK. 

Mr. Rush, do you have anything? 

Mr. RUSH. No, nothing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. 

Then, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. 

And that concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

Mr. Moniz’ response has been retained in committee files and 

also is available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/ 

20160302/104593/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-MonizE-20160302- 

SD086.pdf. 

Æ