U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

90–823 PDF 2014

THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 3, 2014 

Serial No. 113–135 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

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 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

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 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (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. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 7 

WITNESSES

Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy .............................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Reply to Mr. Tonko ........................................................................................... 47 

Reply to Mr. Burgess ........................................................................................ 63 

Reply to Mr. Kinzinger ..................................................................................... 73 

Reply to Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................... 83 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 88 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Slide, DOE Budget for Applied Energy and ARPA–E, submitted by Mr. Burgess ........................................................................................................................ 61

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY BUDGET 

THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall, 

Shimkus, Terry, Burgess, Latta, Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, 

McNerney, Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Barrow, Matsui, 

Christensen, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Johnson. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres, 

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; 

Mike Bloomquist, General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications 

Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Allison Busbee, 

Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Annie Caputo, Professional 

Staff Member; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Tom 

Hassenboehler; Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Jason Knox, 

Counsel, Energy and Power; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff 

Member; Mary Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Peter Spencer, 

Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media 

Advisor; Jeff Baran, Democratic Senior Counsel; Greg Dotson, 

Democratic Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Caitlin 

Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Bruce Ho, Democratic 

Counsel. 

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

morning. And today, we are going to be looking at the fiscal year 

2015 budget for the United States Department of Energy. And of 

course, we are delighted that Secretary Moniz is with us this morning. I know he has been very busy on the Hill and the Senate side 

as well. And we really look forward to his testimony today and to 

the opportunity to ask questions regarding next year’s Department 

of Energy’s budget request. 

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

an opening statement. 

2 

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

DOE of course is tasked with developing and implementing a coordinated national energy policy, one that should further an all-ofthe-above energy strategy. It should also be fostering private sector 

competition and innovation of advanced energy technologies. And 

national energy policy should also continue to support job creation 

in our manufacturing renaissance by providing regulatory certainty 

rather than overreaching regulations so that we can maintain access to affordable, abundant and reliable energy supplies. I noticed that the DOE fiscal year 2015 budget request $9.8 billion for DOE Science and Energy programs that DOE states will 

play a key role in achieving the President’s Climate Action Plan. 

In other words, over a third of the entire $28 billion budget is 

being allocated to the President’s climate agenda. This budget affirms the DOE is putting the President’s climate change agenda 

ahead of the interest of a balanced national energy policy. Now, we 

can debate that, but it is quite clear that the President’s climate 

change agenda is right at the top of the mission of the DOE at this 

time. This mission is further evidenced by the fact that the DOE’s 

budget once again overwhelmingly favors the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which houses all of the President’s 

favorite green energy programs. And in fact, the 2.3 billion requests there is more than the combined budget requests for the Offices of Electricity, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy and ARPA–E. In 

my humble opinion, we have seen the Obama administration waste 

too much money on green energy projects that have failed. Many 

have gone into bankruptcy at the expense to the taxpayer. 

Another issue that is of concern to me and many others in the 

proposed is the substantially reduced funding for the mixed oxide 

fuel fabrication facility, MOX, currently under construction at Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In the case of the MOX plant, 

DOE has decided to abandon construction of the facility being built 

to eliminate 34 tons of surplus weapons plutonium, a project that 

was initiated in the Clinton administration. At this point, $4 billion 

has already been spent, and the facility is 60 percent complete. Yet, 

the Department has decided to shut down construction. And it appears, without any record of decision or any proposed alternative, 

or any analysis of the ramifications. Now, maybe they are there, 

but maybe we just haven’t seen them yet. Congress appropriated 

funds for the construction. But it is my understanding that DOE 

does intend to use those funds instead to shut down the project, resulting in 1,800 people at risk of being laid off at their job. And 

it is disturbing because of what had happened at Yucca Mountain; 

the money that was spent at Yucca Mountain, that was stopped, 

the lawsuits that were filed as a result of that, and the liability of 

the Federal Government under those lawsuits. People who are concerned about our debt are genuinely concerned about wasting that 

amount of money. 

I want to thank Secretary Moniz for appearing with us today on 

this budget. And as I said in the beginning, he has been a real energetic Secretary of Energy. He is willing to engage on these issues 

at any point. And it is good to have open discussion with him. And 

3 

I want to commend him for that. We look forward to hearing his 

testimony and asking him question about the budget. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning’s hearing will focus on the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget for the 

Department of Energy. Welcome, Secretary Moniz. We’re very pleased to have you 

here today to share your views on the Department of Energy’s FY 2015 budget. 

DOE is tasked with developing and implementing a coordinated national energy 

policy, one that should further an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ strategy that promotes greater 

production of all of America’s resources. It should foster private sector competition 

and innovation of advanced energy technologies. A national energy policy should 

also continue to support job creation and our manufacturing renaissance by providing regulatory certainty, rather than overreaching regulations, so we can maintain access to lowcost energy supplies. 

But the DOE budget before us today, I am disappointed to say, is not reflective 

of a true national energy policy. Rather, it contributes to the lending of taxpayer 

support to the President’s Climate Action Plan. To be sure, the DOE FY 2015 budget request includes $9.8 billion for DOE science and energy programs that DOE 

states ‘‘will play a key role in achieving [the President’s Climate Action Plan] goals.’’ 

In other words, over a third of DOE’s entire $28 billion budget is being allocated 

to the President’s climate agenda. 

This budget affirms that DOE is all-too-willing to acquiesce to EPA’s anti-energy 

agenda rather than affirmatively assert its own pro-energy agenda. This budget further creates additional concerns in my mind that DOE is blatantly putting the 

President’s climate change agenda ahead of the interests of a balanced national energy policy and the interests of the American people. This mission is further evidenced by the fact that DOE’s budget once again overwhelming favors the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which houses all of the President’s favored green energy programs. In fact, EERE’s $2.3 billion budget request 

is more than the combined budgets of the Offices of Electricity, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and ARPA–E. 

We’ve seen the Obama administration waste too much money on green energy pet 

projects that have failed, and we owe it to the taxpayers not to repeat those mistakes. That is why I am disappointed to see yet another DOE budget pursuing the 

same failed policies in pursuit of a climate agenda that has repeatedly been rejected. 

The fact that the President and DOE continue to circumvent Congress to unilaterally pursue policies that are not supported by the American people is an affront to 

the democratic process. 

DOE instead should be taking a much more balanced approach that reflects current energy and economic realities. For example, America’s abundant energy resources—including coal, oil and natural gas—holds tremendous potential for energy 

affordability and security, for job creation, for export opportunities, and for strengthening America’s standing in the world. But it also poses implementation and innovation challenges for which DOE can play a role. DOE should be out in front of this 

effort, but the proposed budget does not reflect this need. 

Another issue that is of great concern to me in the proposed budget is the substantially reduced funding for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) currently under construction at Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. In the 

case of the MOX plant, DOE has decided to abandon construction of the facility 

being built to eliminate 34 tons of surplus weapons plutonium, a project initiated 

by the Clinton administration. At this point, $4 billion has been spent and the facility is 60 percent complete, yet DOE has decided to shutdown construction apparently without any Record of Decision, any proposed alternative, or any analysis of 

the ramifications. Congress appropriated funds for construction, but it is my understanding that DOE intends to use those funds instead to shut down the project resulting in 1800 people at risk for layoffs. 

It seems to me that if DOE is going to abandon a $4 billion investment, the taxpayers and those at risk of losing their jobs deserve a thorough basis for it. I would 

urge DOE to use the funds for construction of the facility as originally appropriated 

by Congress. 

Again, I want to thank Secretary Moniz for appearing before us today on DOE’s 

FY2015 budget proposal. I look forward to hearing his testimony and asking him 

questions on issues before the Department of Energy. 

4 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time, I would like to recognize the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 5-minute opening statement. 

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

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today to discuss DOE’s 

fiscal year 2015 budget. 

Secretary Moniz, I would like to commend you for establishing 

the minority’s and energy’s initiative at DOE. Following discussions where I express my strong and overriding desire to increase 

minority participation and involvement within all sectors of the energy industry. While I believe that this is a first—a good first step, 

I have some serious concerns regarding the amount of resources 

the Agency is actually investing in this initiative, as evidenced by 

your own budget proposal. 

Mr. Secretary, to me, DOE’s budget is a moral statement of principles and a covenant with the American people. Mr. Secretary, 

when I speak to my constituents about this new initiative, one of 

the very first questions that they want to know is how committed 

is DOE to this program, and how much of the Department’s vast 

resources is the Agency willing to invest to ensure that this initiative achieves overwhelming success? 

Mr. Secretary, I am sure that you understand that in minority 

communities around the country, there is always skepticism when 

new programs or new policies are announced supposing to help increase opportunity when the resources to help make them successful are not included. So when members who represent these communities, such as myself and many, many others see a lack of investment in programs designed to assist minorities, it is our duty 

to hold the administration and the Agencies responsible in order to 

rectify the situation. For instance, Mr. Secretary, I am not impressed with the investment in the minority and energy initiative 

as it currently stands. And I want to work with you to make sure 

that we are not shortchanging these communities who are looking 

for opportunities to improve their livelihood, as so many others 

have already been afforded. 

And, Mr. Secretary, we know that these opportunities are out 

there. In fact, we have come a long way since I first inquired—first 

started inquiring into the levels of participation of minorities in all 

different sectors of the energy industry. And now we have the administration, the industry, schools, universities, and all—they are 

all talking about the concept of increasing the number of minorities 

in energy. As you know, I have a bill that will provide a pass way 

to energy jobs by reaching out to minority communities and informing them of mostly opportunities available within the energy sector, 

as well as the skills, training and certifications needed to take advantage of these opportunities. My office is actively reaching out to 

members on both sides of the aisle who understand the need for 

better preparing all Americans for energy jobs in the present and 

the future. And I will continue to work with any and all stakeholders who are of the same mind. 

5 

This is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can hold a hearing on 

this very important topic of minority participation in the energy 

sector in order to make up for the shortfall of workers who will be 

retiring and exiting the workforce, leaving behind a shortage of talented and skilled workers in their wing. And the fact of the matter 

is that increasing the number of skilled and trained workers will 

in fact be a win for the industry, a win for the minority communities and a win for the entire American economy as a whole. So 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, as well as members on both sides of the aisle to make this a real commitment on 

the part of the administration and—— 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I recognize 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. Well, Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the committee. 

I for one do appreciate your thoughtful insight and friendship. And 

when I look at DOE’s current energy policies, as well as its budget 

for fiscal year 2015, I must confess that I see an agency that is still 

struggling a bit to keep up with a changing energy landscape. The 

old assumptions of energy scarcity are somewhat pervasive, and it 

is time for DOE to adapt. 

It does appear that DOE is ultra-cautious approach to proving 

LNG Export’s—you would expect us to say this today—to non-free 

trade agreement trade agreement countries does not reflect our 

newfound age of energy abundance. Projections from the EIA, as 

well as DOE’s own analysis, confirm that we have more than 

enough natural gas to meet domestic needs affordably while supporting export markets. And this surplus situation is likely to last 

for many decades. The ramifications of DOE’s policy on exports can 

be measured not only in the thousands of unrealized jobs that 

could be constructed at LNG Export facilities and producing the 

extra natural gas for export, but also in the billions in revenues 

that could be flowing into the country and boosting the overall 

economy. Geo-political opportunities are also at risk. The mere signal that the U.S. is serious about entering export markets would 

have an immediate effect on our allies in Eastern Europe who are 

currently dependent on that—on Russia for natural gas. In fact, reports earlier this week show that Russia upped the bill by as much 

as 45 to 50 percent on our friends in Ukraine. That is why I and 

so many others support Cory Gardner’s bill, H.R. 6, bipartisan legislation, The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which 

would help clear the backlog of export applications currently at 

DOE. 

LNG export facilities are just one part of the larger infrastructure picture to make full use of our newfound energy advantage in 

H.R. 6, is one bill that facilities building these—this architecture 

of abundance. We are in the midst of a continued and comprehensive effort to review and update energy laws, many of which were 

written in a time of Jimmy Carter Era price controls and scarcity. 

And whether it is legislation to modernize and update transmission 

and distribution infrastructure, legislation to maintain adverse 

6 

electricity portfolio generation with a continued role for coal and 

nuclear renewables, or legislation seeking or ensure that we have 

the tools in place to permit a new manufacturing renaissance, we 

are building a record and exploring opportunities at every level. 

Now, I know that DOE is beginning a similar effort to look comprehensively at our energy infrastructure and broader strategy 

through the quadrennial energy review process, and I welcome that 

broad look. However, I remain skeptical of the Federal Government 

playing venture capitalist in making other decisions best left to the 

marketplace. DOE may be talking about the energy breakthroughs 

of the future, but the Agency is still trying to get there with central 

planning approaches of the past. In particular, the revival of the 

loan guarantee program that backs Solyndra and several other 

projects that went bust is of serious concern and will no doubt be 

a topic of discussion of today. 

I would like to conclude just by reminding you of DOE’s role in 

the Federal Government. Yesterday, this subcommittee held its 

EPA budget hearing. And I couldn’t help but notice the extent to 

which EPA sets the energy policy agenda in the administration, 

even though that Agency has no statutory authority to do so. DOE 

should be the energy policy setting body, but it seems as though 

it has relinquished that duty to a degree. In past administrations, 

both Republican and Democratic, DOE acted as a pro-energy counterweight to an EPA whose tendency was to regulate every BTU 

that it encountered. I know that we can restore DOE’s mission to 

ensure a more balanced approach to the energy policy. And I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Secretary Moniz, welcome back to the committee. When I look at DOE’s current 

energy policies as well as its budget for Fiscal Year 2015, I see an agency that is 

struggling to keep up with a changing energy landscape. The old assumptions of energy scarcity are still pervasive and it is time for DOE to adapt. 

For example, DOE’s ultra-cautious approach to approving LNG exports to nonFree Trade Agreement countries does not reflect our newfound age of energy abundance. Projections from the Energy Information Administration as well as DOE’s 

own analysis confirm we have more than enough natural gas to meet domestic 

needs affordably while also supporting export markets. And this surplus situation 

is likely to last for many decades. 

The ramifications of DOE’s sluggish policy on exports can be measured not only 

in the thousands of unrealized jobs that could be constructing LNG export facilities 

and producing the extra natural gas for export, but also in the billions in revenues 

that could be flowing into the country and boosting the overall economy. Geopolitical 

opportunities are also at risk. The mere signal that the U.S is serious about entering export markets would have an immediate effect on our allies in Eastern Europe 

who are currently dependent on Russia for natural gas. That is why I and so many 

others support Cory Gardner’s bill, H.R. 6, ‘‘The Domestic Prosperity and Global 

Freedom Act,’’ which would help clear the backlog of export applications currently 

languishing at DOE. 

LNG export facilities are just one part of the larger infrastructure picture to make 

full use of our newfound energy advantage, and H.R. 6 is just one bill that facilitates building this architecture of abundance. We are in the midst of a continued 

and comprehensive effort to review and update energy laws, many of which were 

written in a time of Carter era price controls and scarcity. Whether it is legislation 

to modernize and update transmission and distribution infrastructure, legislation to 

maintain a diverse electricity portfolio generation with a continued role for coal, nuclear and renewables, or legislation seeking to ensure we have the tools in place to 

7 

permit a new manufacturing renaissance, we are building a record and exploring 

opportunities at every level. 

I know DOE is beginning a similar effort to look comprehensively at our energy 

infrastructure and broader strategy through its Quadrennial Energy Review process, and I welcome this broad look. However, I remain highly skeptical of the Federal Government playing venture capitalist and making other decisions best left to 

the marketplace. DOE may be talking about the energy breakthroughs of the future, 

but the agency is still trying to get there with the central planning approaches of 

the past. In particular, the revival of the loan-guarantee program that backed 

Solyndra and several other projects that went bust is of serious concern, and will 

no doubt be a topic for discussion today. 

I would like to conclude by reminding DOE of its role in the Federal Government. 

Just yesterday, this subcommittee held its EPA budget hearing, and I could not help 

but notice the extent to which EPA sets the energy policy agenda in this administration, even though that agency has no statutory authority to do so. DOE should be 

the energy policy-setting body, but it seems as though it has relinquished its duty. 

In past administrations, both Democratic and Republican, DOE acted as a pro-energy counterweight to an EPA whose tendency was to regulate every BTU it encounters. I hope we can restore DOE’s mission to ensure a more balanced approach to 

energy policy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Upton yields back the balance of his time. 

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 

welcome back to our committee. 

Last week, Geochemist James Lawrence Powell published a 

study documenting the scientific consensus on climate change. Dr. 

Powell, who, among other things, served on the National Science 

Board under both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 

looked at all the peer-reviewed scientific articles published on climate change in 2013. He found over 10,000 articles that agreed 

that climate change is real and caused by man. And only 2 out of 

more than 10,000 that rejected human-caused global warming. You 

can see his results on the screen. 

Secretary Moniz, you may not know this, but we took a vote on 

this issue earlier this year. Congresswoman Schakowsky offered an 

amendment that said greenhouse gas emissions threaten public 

health and welfare by disrupting the climate. That was the statement. The Republican members of this committee voted unanimously to reject that amendment. Just that statement. I have been 

in Congress for 40 years. This is my last year in Congress. And I 

have never seen just an embarrassing and dangerous disconnect 

between what scientists say and how this committee votes. On 

Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or 

IPCC, told us that climate change is happening today on ‘‘all continents across the oceans.’’ The world’s leading scientists explain 

that unless we take significant steps to reduce carbon pollution 

now, ‘‘climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic 

growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food 

security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps.’’ 

The science of climate change is settled. Climate change is happening. It is caused by humans. And its impacts are both serious 

and real. And it is time for us to listen to the scientists and to act. 

8 

I appreciate that we have a President who does listen to the scientists and is acting to address climate dangers. Under his Climate 

Action Plan, President Obama has committed to reducing our carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and has outlined a number of 

steps to do so. The President has committed to bend the post-2020 

global admissions trajectory further still. 

The Department of Energy has a key role to play under the 

President’s plan. The energy choices we make today will determine 

whether we address this threat or leave our children and grandchildren with a climate catastrophe. 

That means, Secretary Moniz, that you have one of the most important jobs in America. I view the paramount responsibility of the 

Secretary of Energy as advancing the Nation’s response to the 

threat of climate change. That is your responsibility as well as 

EPA’s. And I don’t think you ought to be fighting a turf war with 

them, as some of our colleagues here suggest. Under your leadership, the Department of Energy is working to meet the climate 

challenge. DOE is developing the energy efficiency standards we 

need to cut energy waste and save people money. You are engaged 

in research, development, demonstration and deployment of advanced renewable energy technologies, cleaner vehicles, energy 

storage and a modern electric grid that delivers reliable clean energy to power our homes and businesses. And you are hard at work 

developing next generation pollution control technologies for our 

fossil fuel systems. These new clean energy technologies will protect our environment, create new jobs and grow our economy. 

Mr. Secretary, the latest IPCC report confirms that we have a 

choice. We could listen to the scientists and invest in the energy 

technologies we need for a prosperous clean energy future, or we 

could ignore the climate problem and suffer dire consequences. Mr. 

Secretary, I am confident that you will continue to help us choose 

the right path to a clean energy future. I look forward to your testimony and your continued leadership on these issues. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. At this time, having completed the opening statements, Secretary Moniz, we are going to recognize you for your 5-minute 

opening statement. And once again, thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF ENERGY 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And—I should say 

chairmen Whitfield and Upton and ranking members Rush and 

Waxman. Members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to come here to discuss our budget proposal for fiscal year 2015. 

The President I think makes clear through this proposal that the 

Department of Energy has significant responsibilities in the advancing the Nation’s security—especially by maintaining a reliable 

nuclear deterrent and keeping nuclear materials out of the hands 

of terrorists, and for advancing the Nation’s prosperity, in particular by supporting the President’s all-of-the-above approach to 

energy and by helping to provide the foundation for the future of 

advanced manufacturing in this country. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Secretary, if I may? I am sorry to interrupt 

you. Would you move the microphone just a little bit closer to you? 

9 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, closer? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. OK. So the Department of Energy’s top- line discretionary budget request is $27.9 billion, a 2.6 percent increase from fiscal year 2014. And in this constrained budget environment, again, I think this reflects some of the high-priority missions that we have responsibility for. 

I will discuss very briefly a few points along DOE’s three major 

programmatic areas as we have organized them at the under secretary level, science and energy, which I understand will be the 

main focus of today’s discussions, and a few words about nuclear 

security, and management and performance. 

On science and energy, the President’s all-of-the-above energy 

strategy is driving economic growth, creating jobs while lowering 

carbon emissions. We are producing more natural gas in the United 

States than ever before. And for the first time in two decades, we 

are producing more oil at home than we import from the rest of the 

world. In fact, just yesterday, the EIA released some data showing 

that net energy imports in the United States now, which is about 

13 quads, is the same as in 1987, 30 years ago. So it has been a 

dramatic reduction. And in fact, more than a 10 percent reduction 

just from 2012 to 2013. 

We have also, at the same time, made remarkable progress in 

clean and renewable energy. In the last 5 years, more than doubled 

the amount of electricity from wind and solar, at the same time 

making the investments that enable coal and nuclear power to be 

competitive in a clean energy economy. We are aggressively advancing energy efficiency, bringing economic environmental and security benefits. 

In the last few years, we have seen technologies like LED lighting costs drop several fold, such that payback periods are now approaching one year, and along with that, tens of millions of units 

being deployed in the marketplace. 

The budget request is 9.8 billion, as the chairman said, for the 

science and energy activities, an increase of 5 percent for, again, 

advancing the all the above energy strategy, supporting the Climate Action Plan, continuing the quadrennial energy review focusing on energy infrastructure, and maintaining global scientific leadership. 

There are significant increases in several important applied programs. I will just say a couple words. In energy efficiency renewable energy, a 22 percent increase is proposed with focus areas in 

transportation, renewable technology, efficiency, advanced manufacturing. Office of Electricity: significant increase to support what 

we all see I think as important modernization of the grid, an enhancement of its resiliency in response to many threats that we are 

seeing. We are also building a strengthened emergency response 

capability as the lead agency for energy infrastructure under the 

leadership of FEMA in case of severe events. 

ARPE–E, which takes a unique entrepreneurial approach, we 

propose for a 16 percent increase. We would note that in its relatively brief existence so far there have been 24 startups coming 

10 

out of the ARPE–E programs, and many, many other indicators of 

success. We also have created, as part of our reorganization, the 

Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, mainly gathering 

policy elements from various program offices, but with a particularly critical responsibility for enhancing our analytical capacity 

and for advancing the Quadrennial Energy Review, looking at this 

country’s energy infrastructure challenges. 

DOE science programs really are the backbone of the American 

research enterprise and the physical sciences, and we have proposed $5.1 billion for science. As one example, in conjunction with 

the NNSA, our National Security Agency, the Office of Science will 

lead an initiative to develop exascale computing platforms, the next 

stage in a historic DOE role for keeping this country at the leadership edge of high performance computing. And of course, the many 

facilities that science supports, light sources, Spallation Neutron 

Source, the future Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, all sustained 

nearly 30,000 scientists in this country with cutting-edge activities. 

I mentioned cross cutting activities already, exascale, for example, and grid. One other one is subsurface science and engineering, 

where we find many energy issues involve subsurface science and 

engineering. We want to pull those together, make them more coherent, involve our laboratories as a system. 

In nuclear security, I will just end up by saying we have asked 

for 11.9 billion. I would say a highpoint there is that through an 

administration-wide process, we have firmly committed to the nuclear posture review approach to our nuclear deterrent, and that is 

stretched out a little bit because of budget constraints, but it is 

committed to as our direction there. In management performance, 

just emphasizing, and I think this committee would agree that, 

without improving our management performance, we will not be 

able to as effectively for sure execute our energy science and security missions. So this is a new focus under which we have moved 

environmental management to be a specific responsibility of that 

under secretary. 

I will just mention maybe from the point of view of a news item 

again, as you know we have had an issue at WIPP, our facility in 

New Mexico. I just wanted to emphasize first that there is no evidence of any significant exposures to people. But, obviously, we are 

shut down at the moment. But yesterday, two teams did enter the 

caverns, and we hope to move expeditiously towards a reopening. 

With that, I just want to thank you for your time and look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:] 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Once again, we 

appreciate you being here. At this time, I will recognize myself for 

5 minutes of questions. And while there are many broader policy 

concerns that I have, I do want to focus initially on the Paducah 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, because there is so many—it is going 

through a transition down there. 

And one question I would like to ask you is this—of course communication between the State of Kentucky, the City of Paducah 

and the Department of Energy is vitally important. And with all 

the changes taking place, the Paducah site has not really had a director or a lead that is really focused on that one area onsite. And 

we have had some previous discussions about this. But could you 

share with us this morning whether or not you all do intend to appoint a person that would be responsible for that site and be responsible for good communication with the community and the 

State? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. First of all, I appreciated also your intersession 

in helping us with those communications with the City and the 

State. My understanding is that we are in the process of hiring 

that person. I will—why don’t I get back and check exactly on the 

status of that and get back to you promptly? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But you do feel like—— 

Mr. MONIZ. We do want to have a dedicated site manager at Paducah. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Now, the fiscal year 2014 budget for 

the Paducah area, the cleanup and everything was around $265 

million. And it is my understanding that not all of that money is 

going to be able to be spent this year. But it is my understanding 

that the Department of Energy would have the option of directing 

some of that additional money for cleanup. And as you know, with 

USEC coming to an end, a lot of people are losing their jobs down 

there. Could the Department of Energy—or are you all considering 

funneling some of that money for additional cleanup so that some 

of these people would be able to retain those jobs? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are working to try to speed 

up the contract discussions. Typically, these large environmental 

management contracts, they are complicated. They are very longterm. They have very, very large contract amounts, are 12 to 14 

months. We are hoping to get that down a little bit shorter so that 

we can have that turnover early in the fall, and we are working 

hard on that. That is I think the reason why we anticipate having 

some carryover funds. We are trying to exercise what we can this 

year. I understand the concerns. But we will have carryover funds 

for sure. So I think also in the context of our fiscal year 2015 request, I think we will have a strong program. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You are referring to the IDIQ contract that—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And did I understand you to say that in September or did you—— 

Mr. MONIZ. September is when we are trying to push to get that 

contract concluded. 

35 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Well, of course, that remains a priority for 

all of us involved with this issue. So we do appreciate your focusing 

on it and expediting it as much as possible. 

Mr. MONIZ. We were able to beat the schedule last year on another issue. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ. Hopefully, we can beat the schedule this year. But 

we are trying. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And also, in the fiscal year 2015, there is talk 

in the budget about transitioning the facility into a cold and dark 

state. And of course, we don’t want it to be a cold and dark state, 

because we were more interested in decontamination and decommissioning of the facility. But your understanding, what is the definition of a cold and dark state for a facility like—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I can’t say that I have, to be honest, really focused on that. But I would say that it means I think we need to 

have the facility in a stable, safe condition without compromising 

the eventual D&D activities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ. Those would be the objectives, at least. I can’t say 

that I could describe in technical detail what it means. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Right. But it is the goal to decontaminate 

and decommission rather than—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. Oh, yes, it does. That is certainly a requirement. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for helping clarify some of those issues. I appreciate that very much. And I don’t 

know how much time you have. We may go to a second round if 

you have time. But at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes of questions, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 

do have a lot of questions that I want to cover. And I know I won’t 

have the time to do it all this morning, so I will be submitting 

questions for the record. And I would like the Agency to get back 

to me as promptly as possible to an issue that I want to discuss 

today on both the minorities and energy initiative and also the 

publicly funded national research labs. Of the Agency’s $27.9 billion budget request, what is the amount allocated to the Office of 

Economic Impact and Diversity, which is the Agency primarily responsible for enacting the Minorities and Energy Initiative both in 

terms of dollars and also in terms of percentage? Do you feel that 

this amount is adequately in terms of reflecting the priorities of 

reaching out and engaging minorities in the energy sector for both 

you and for President Obama, and can you do more? So those are 

the three questions. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I think the budget for the economic 

development and diversity office is approximately $6 million. I just 

want to clarify that in the budget, it shows a decrease. But it is 

not actually a decrease, because two functions were placed elsewhere. One is by law. We had to move the OSDBU office—I forgot 

the name—office of small—it is a small business office—I—the acronym, I have forgotten now what it stands for. But by statute, it 

turned out we had to move that outside and leave it as a coordinating office with the ED office under Dot Harris. The second thing 

36 

is that there was a function placed in there, which the office was 

paying for, for the department wide ombudsman, which was really 

misplaced. So we put that in the management and administration 

office as a better place. So the budget for that office really has not 

been cut. 

Mr. RUSH. So in your best estimates, the budget has flat lined 

to a degree—flat line—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe it is flat. 

Mr. RUSH. Without increase—without an increase, is that what 

you are saying? 

Mr. MONIZ. I believe it is flat. Yes. I think that is correct. And 

if I go on to discuss the Minorities in Energy Initiative, and by the 

way, I do want to say that, you know, the birth of that was in a 

hearing here last June when you raised the issue. I think it is off 

to a very, very successful start with the ambassadors. You know 

that very well, Mr. Rush. This is not on our budget, but, for example, the American Petroleum Institute, because of the initiative— 

and its director is one of the ambassadors—is having eight regional 

meetings to attract minorities into the oil and gas industry workforce. I personally went at the end of January to Hampton University and recruited the president, Mr. Harvey, to an ambassadorship. So we are promoting this, I think—— 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, can you do more? 

Mr. MONIZ. We can do more. And I would be happy to discuss 

with you how we could do more. 

Mr. RUSH. All right. Moving on to the area of the public funded 

national research labs. How many publicly funded research labs 

are there, and are any of these labs managed by or operated by a 

minority? 

Mr. MONIZ. We have 17 national laboratories. The—— 

Mr. RUSH. Are any of them operated by a minority? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, yes—I mean, they are operated by organizations. Let me say that I am dissatisfied frankly with the diversity 

in the upper-management ranks of these laboratories. And that is 

something that we have taken up with our lab policy counsels. 

Mr. RUSH. When you—yes, when you speak specifically about Argonne and Fermi which are located in my home State—Argonne 

and Fermi, which are located in my home State, what are the percentage of minority engagements at Argonne and Fermi lab? 

Mr. MONIZ. Sir, I will have to get back to you with that for the 

record, because I don’t know those numbers. 

Mr. RUSH. Right. Do you have—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I do know that the upper ranks of the management— 

we have inadequate representation. 

Mr. RUSH. Do you have figures for any other of the other 17 labs 

across the country? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, but I would be happy to get you those demographics. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. 

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

I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes. 

37 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. You are the only cabinet secretary that goes 

longer between haircuts than me. So I appreciate that. 

Mr. MONIZ. I didn’t know I had to come here to get that repeated. But anyway—— 

Mr. BARTON. No. I need a haircut. So you make me look sheared, 

so to speak. I know this is a budget hearing. And I know we should 

be asking questions about the DOE budget. But I want to ask you 

a few more questions about LNG Exports given what has happened 

in the Ukraine and Crimea. This subcommittee has done a number 

of forums where we have had almost a complete panoply of forum 

representatives. And to a person, they have all said that they want 

the United States to export LNG, and they want to do it sooner 

rather than later. The situation in the Ukraine obviously gives credence to that. I believe President Obama, when he was in Europe 

last week or the week before last, made some comments that said 

that we should do that. Now, I don’t want to say that in absolute 

certainty, because I don’t remember exactly what he said. Your 

Agency, your Department is the Department that has to give the 

initial approval. You just approved one on I think February the 

29th. So if that is possible, did we have a February the 29th this 

year? Any—in any event—— 

Mr. MONIZ. It was in March. 

Mr. BARTON. March. 

Mr. MONIZ. March. 

Mr. BARTON. March 29. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. I knew you would correct me. So you are right. 

March. March the 24th, actually. I was looking—any way, it is my 

fault. So it looks like when we read the approval documents that 

they are almost verbatim. And so my question is once you found 

that it is in the public interest for one of these projects, why does 

it keep taking so long to approve the next one? There are still 24 

in the queue. Why couldn’t we just get a big stamp and stamp 

them all approved and get on with it? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, there are a number of issues there. First of all, 

we do have these large dockets which do have specific comments 

with regard to different proposals. Secondly of course, as you know 

there is also the FERC process, which goes through the NEPA 

process on a secondary basis. 

Mr. BARTON. I am aware of that. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. BARTON. You don’t have to worry about that. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. BARTON. So that is not an excuse. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, no. But it is a fact. And right now, we have no 

proposals ready for that final declaration, because they are still in 

the NEPA process. Third is that the—— 

Mr. BARTON. But why would that impact the DOE process? I 

don’t understand that. Somebody is getting ready to run for President in 2 years, but that doesn’t impact my process of running for 

Congress this year. I mean, I don’t understand why DOE going 

through—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Well—— 

38 

Mr. BARTON. I mean, FERC going through the NEPA process 

makes it more difficult for you to give approval or disapproval. 

Mr. MONIZ. My understanding certainly is that we cannot act on 

a final approval until the FERC process is complete. 

Mr. BARTON. But you can do whatever you have been doing, this 

conditional approval? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, so the conditional approvals, we—— 

Mr. BARTON. You have done 7, I think. 

Mr. MONIZ. We do prior to the—typically prior to the FERC process, although I might say that now I think as the process has rolled 

forward, we are seeing some proposers filing with FERC prior to 

getting conditional approval. So this is an evolution that is happening that is—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is great information, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. But it is irrelevant to what your job is supposed to 

be. You have got 24 of these. And I am not trying to be argumentative. I happen to believe that you and I are on the same page. 

Mr. MONIZ. Then—— 

Mr. BARTON. All I want you to do is say I agree with you, we 

are going to get on it, we need to do it more quickly, you are right, 

Congressman. 

Mr. MONIZ. I—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is all you have got to do, and we go on to the 

next questioner. 

Mr. MONIZ. I agree that we are systematically working through 

the applications. Right—the law requires us to do a public interest 

determination. That public interest determination has multiple features. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. My time has expired. 

Mr. MONIZ. It includes—— 

Mr. BARTON. You have successfully filibustered the question period. I want you to do me one—go back to your office this afternoon. It is that big office in the corner on the top floor of the Forrestal Building, unless you have moved it. 

Mr. MONIZ. No. 

Mr. BARTON. And read the seven applications that you have approved. And give me a report on the—any wording differentiation 

in any of those seven approvals. They are almost verbatim. 

Mr. MONIZ. I would note for example in the last approval, the 

Jordan Cove, you will see a rather different discussion of international impacts in the public interest determination, for example. 

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

I would like to recognize the gentleman from California—no, have 

you asked some questions yet? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Where is Mr. Waxman? Who is next? 

Mr. BARTON. Go to Mr. McNerney. 

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

California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for that reluctance, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming this morning. And I would like 

to talk a little bit about fusion energy for a few minutes, if you 

don’t mind? 

39 

Fusion energy, as you know, consists of releasing energy by fusing nuclei of small elements together. And fusion of—the fuel for 

fusion energy would be virtually unlimited. Radioactive waste produced by fusion reaction is less dangerous than radioactive waste 

produced from nuclear power. And fusion reactors would inherently 

be failsafe in their operation. Do you agree with those statements? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, failsafe in terms of certain kinds of accidents. 

Obviously, they can have malfunctions. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. OK. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the DOE 

budget for fusion research is $416 million a year. Now, on the other 

hand, the fusion power supporters believe that fusion power could 

be practical in 10 years with a $3 billion investment per year. Do 

you believe that that is a realistic assessment? 

Mr. MONIZ. I should probably insert at this point—so just—I can 

answer that question but—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ. I am recused from dealing with the fusion program. 

So there may be some of these I will have to have my science office 

get back to you. But in terms of the statement just now in terms 

of a general objective, I think the 10-year estimate would certainly 

be viewed as optimistic by most scientists. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, so how long do you think it would 

take then with the 400 and—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I wouldn’t speculate. But for example, what is certainly part of the public discussion, again, I cannot make decisional 

statements on fusion. I believe, you know, the major international 

project currently going on doesn’t even plan to get to ignition in, 

I don’t know, quite a few years from now, at least a decade. And 

that would be many steps from that to a commercial plant. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Fair enough. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think it is a—that is a good investment 

of American dollars in fusion research? 

Mr. MONIZ. Again, as a general statement, I think we definitely 

should keep investing in fusion. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. We have fallen behind some of the other 

countries in that research area over the last decade or so. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, I think as—I am just going to my scientific background. I would say that we remain the leaders in 

many aspects of fusion. I think certainly in the large scale modeling and simulation of plasmas, I think we remain leaders. We are 

building many of the big components in terms of big magnets— 

superconducting magnets. So I think we are not so far behind, I 

would say in terms of our capacity. Obviously, we don’t have a facility of the scale that is being built in Europe. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, I am going to change the subject a little bit, if you don’t mind. Last week, the President announced an 

interagency methane strategy to reduce emissions of that potent 

greenhouse gas. DOE will play an important role, along with the 

EPA and the Department of Interior. The strategy document states 

that the DOE will sponsor roundtable discussions with stakeholders about methane emissions. What does the DOE hope to 

achieve in those roundtable discussions? 

40 

Mr. MONIZ. I just might add for the agencies that U.S.—that Agriculture is also a major player in that for different sources of 

methane. The Department of Energy—our focus is on data. And it 

is very much focused also on the kind of midstream and downstream systems. We had in the first of the roundtables, multiple 

constituencies, especially for that midstream and downstream, including, you know, companies, labor, environmental groups, et 

cetera. The big message for me in that meeting was the surprising 

degree of agreement in terms of a path forward and how much actually companies are already doing in the context of renewing old 

infrastructure and simultaneously addressing methane leaks. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there particular technologies that the DOE 

would want to support in this area? 

Mr. MONIZ. For example, we very much want to keep pushing— 

and ARPE–E will be pursuing this—really high quality, lower cost 

detectors and sensors so that we can know where the leaks are. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Performance based standards? 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate you having 

the hearing. And, Secretary Moniz, appreciate you being here to 

talk about the Department’s budget and obviously the policies that 

then go into the funding that would come from that budget. When 

I look at your budget, you are requesting a $715 million increase 

over where you currently are. And, obviously, we are trying to get 

control over spending in Washington. Washington is spending more 

than we take in. We are actually trying to go department by department to actually start trying to get Washington to live within 

its means, meaning to spend less than it is taking in—less than it 

is spending right now, because it spends more than it takes in. So 

when you ask for a $715 million increase, I know you look at some 

of the agencies, and you have a 22 percent increase requesting for 

renewable energy. And we are already spending a lot of money. It 

is not like there is not money being spent on renewable energy. 

This committee has had a lot of hearings on some of those boondoggles things, like Solyndra and others. And when you look at a 

request like this—and you are asking for 715 million more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million or more of that money is 

going to have to be borrowed from countries like China. I mean, do 

you factor that in when you are asking us for this kind of increase 

that a large portion of that is money that is not just sitting around 

somewhere? It is literally money that is going to be borrowed with 

that bill being sent to our kids? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first of all, I do not subscribe to the boondoggle. 

We can come back to that. But—— 

Mr. SCALISE. It is the level of the expenditure—— 

Mr. MONIZ. With regard to the budget—clearly, the administration budget is consistent with the underlying budget. So it obeys 

the cap. It is essentially flat dollars from fiscal year 2014. Within 

41 

that overall budget, the President chose to give greater emphasis 

to some of our programs, both in energy and in nuclear security. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I know we talked about this yesterday at a 

separate hearing, but, you know, the Secretary of State had made 

comments that global warming and this climate change agenda is 

a bigger threat to American than terrorism. I would dispute that. 

I don’t know—I won’t ask you for that reaction. But I do want to 

ask you because you did touch on the President’s supposed all-ofthe-above energy strategy, and I know your Agency is tasked with 

coming up with the strategy for the country. When we talk about 

the President’s approach to energy, you know, I know he talks 

about ‘‘all of the above,’’ but when you look at the numbers, it just 

doesn’t back up what he says. 

And specifically, I want to talk about energy production on Federal lands. I was able to get this information from the American 

Enterprise Institute. They do some really good research on a lot of 

fronts. But on energy production, they actually have charted how— 

this is actual change in fossil fuel production over the years. And 

so they are showing—you know, especially when you look from 

2009 to today, a dramatic increase in production on State and private lands, which I know the President likes taking credit for. But 

when it comes to areas where the Federal Government actually has 

authority, on Federal lands, you have a 15 percent decrease. So you 

have a dramatic difference in how our energy portfolio is playing 

out in the real world. You are seeing State and private land production dramatically up. But—on Federal lands, because of this administration’s policies, you actually see a dramatic decrease in energy production. 

And so when the President talks about an all-of-the-above strategy, he is not carrying that out in his policies. His policies are actually hurting production on Federal lands. Fortunately, we have got 

private lands in States that are making up the difference. But the 

Federal Government is going after them, too. 

So I want to ask you, when it comes to this idea of an all-of-theabove strategy, which I fully embrace, President Obama does not 

embrace and the numbers back that up. But when you see some 

of his other agencies, like EPA and Department of Interior, de facto 

carrying out a different strategy, how much interaction do you 

have, as Secretary of Energy, trying to push for an energy strategy 

on one hand, but then having agencies like the EPA trying to shut 

some of that production down? Do you all try to coordinate and say 

hey, we want an all-of-the-above strategy? And if you really mean 

it, are you going to agencies like EPA and saying stop this war on 

coal that is killing jobs, killing energy. Stop this war on—you 

know, they are attempting to have a war on hydraulic fracturing 

to shut some of that down. I mean, do you all have any interaction 

on that? 

Mr. MONIZ. We certainly do. I would like to note first of all that 

I feel we do have an all-of-the-above strategy. And it is a very 

strong one. And if I—— 

Mr. SCALISE. What do you say about these numbers though? The 

numbers don’t back it up. 

Mr. MONIZ. So if I may make two comments, sir? 

Mr. SCALISE. Sure. 

42 

Mr. MONIZ. Respectfully. The first, the investments in these different areas, it is not only these discretionary numbers in the fiscal 

year 2015 budget. If you look at coal, we have $6 billion in CCS 

projects that are coming on. We have an $8 billion loan guarantee 

program for fossil energy across the board. We just did a loan for 

nuclear. The—— 

Mr. SCALISE. You are talking about money. But I am talking 

about the results. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. SCALISE. The results are that production is down on Federal 

lands. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you dispute that? 

Mr. MONIZ. And if you look at that specific issue, I might observe 

that a major driver of that is geology. The—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you dispute that it is down, production is down 

on Federal lands? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, those are data. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. That is correct. 

Mr. MONIZ. However, unconventional reservoirs are not in the 

traditional areas. The market has moved to the Marcellus Shale, 

to the Eagle Ford, to the Bakken. So is the—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And I know I am out of time. I appreciate that. And 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Moniz, that 

was an interesting line of questioning. It was more trying to provoke you. Are we not following an all-of-the-above strategy? It 

seems to me you were outlining a lot of different areas where we 

are pursuing energy development. I assume that development on 

public lands is just a small part of the overall energy areas that 

we are concerned—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, bottom line, yes. We are pursuing an all-theabove strategy. And I think our energy system is showing it, even 

as we have reduced carbon emissions at the same time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I tend to think that the Republicans don’t want an 

‘‘all of the above,’’ they want a strategy to continue to rely on fossil 

fuels, especially coal. And then we talk about a war on coal. I just 

can’t understand this argument, the war on coal. Coal is losing out, 

not because of any Government actions. It is losing out because of 

market forces. Utilities are finding it less expensive to use natural 

gas. And even though we subsidize coal, but not requiring them to 

pay for the external costs of their use of cheap coal, they can’t compete at the present time. But they are also the leading source of 

carbon emissions. 

I mentioned in my opening statement the intergovernmental 

panel on climate change. Their report should be a wakeup call. Everyone is—the world’s leading scientists are telling us everyone is 

going to be impacted by climate change, no country or region is immune. If we listen to our scientists and invest in the clean energy 

technologies, that will put our country and the world on the path 

to a sustainable and prosperous energy future. That seems to be 

the course we should be taking, not just no action which is what 

43 

we hear more often than not from the leadership on this committee. 

As a scientist, I would like to ask you about the consequences of 

inaction. Last year, DOE examined the impacts of climate change 

and what it would mean for energy infrastructure as a result of 

higher temperatures, drought, sea level rise, extreme weather 

events. What did DOE find? 

Mr. MONIZ. I missed the last part. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I wanted to know what DOE found in terms 

of the impact of climate change on energy infrastructure. 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, I see. Um-hum. Um-hum. Yes. So the risks and 

vulnerabilities report that you are referring to certainly lays out 

rather dire consequences for our energy infrastructure. I might add 

the President, in the Climate Action Plan, of course, elevated adaptation and resilience of energy infrastructure to a very high level, 

precisely anticipating what the report said this week that we are 

seeing the consequences and they are going to get worse. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. MONIZ. And prudence requires us both to try to mitigate further consequences and to adapt as well. 

Mr. WAXMAN. But let me ask you, if we have sea levels rising 

and floods and storms and wildfires, I don’t—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That is going to put coastal and inland energy facilities at risk, among others. Droughts will impair power plant 

cooling systems, increase the risk of shutdowns. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Higher temperatures will put stress on our electricity systems and reduce the efficiency of generation and transmission infrastructure. If all those things happen, aren’t we talking 

about an all-of-the-above strategy of ignoring climate change at our 

own peril? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. And they have all happened already. We have 

had power plants shut down because of warmer waters, for example. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In the west, climate change is expected to decrease 

the amount of snow pack. And we are already seeing in recent 

years in California a problem. What effect is that going to have on 

water availability for energy generation, agriculture and drinking 

water? 

Mr. MONIZ. It would be a tremendous impact. And, again, it is 

already there. We are seeing it. The Colorado River, as you know 

very well, is in a very difficult situation after years of drought. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Climate change is going to impact everyone, but it 

won’t impact everyone equally. Some in the coal industry are engaged in a publicity campaign to convince Americans that the key 

to addressing poverty in the world’s poorest countries is to get 

them to use coal. I find this deeply cynical. In fact, Secretary 

Moniz, didn’t the IPPC find that poor people and poor countries 

will be hit hardest by climate change? And wouldn’t uncontrolled 

burning of coal exacerbate these impacts? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, increased carbon emissions in general would, of 

course. And you are certainly correct that the poorest societies are 

the most vulnerable. 

44 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, it just strikes me that we are whistling past 

the graveyard when we hear people talking about how the war on 

terrorism is something that we ought to pay more attention to than 

climate change. You know, you got to pay attention to problems. 

And the big, huge problem that is being ignored on this committee 

is the problem of climate change. And I hope that will change, because we do have a choice to make. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MONIZ. I agree. 

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

I will recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, I 

thank you for being here. It is good to see you again. 

Mr. MONIZ. Good to see you. 

Mr. HALL. I want to touch on what is going on in Russia and the 

Ukraine a bit, and also a little bit from what we have been talking 

about. But what—I know that crisis must have influenced your decision in making with respect to LNG Exports. And I understand 

Russia has recently raised the price of natural gas to Ukraine by 

40 percent. It seemed like the chairman of Energy and Commerce 

touched on that a moment ago. Do you think—at what point are 

delays going to deny the private sector the ability to export LNG 

negatively? How does that impact job creation here in our country? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, sir, again, the public interest determination 

that we are required to make by law has us balancing various factors. The international situation is certainly one of them. And that 

was noted in our last Jordan Cove conditional approval. But also 

of course, very paramount is the impact on domestic markets and 

manufacturing. And as you know, many in the manufacturing community remain very concerned not about having no exports, but 

about going too fast. So we are in a situation of balancing that. We 

have to look at the cumulative impacts of exports. I might add, you 

know, there is this view of somehow not doing enough or something. But I might add—— 

Mr. HALL. Are delays—— 

Mr. MONIZ. But I might add that, so far, the conditional approvals—again, we all know that gas will not flow for several years yet, 

except for the first project. But the amount of approval so far, 9.3 

billion cubic feet per day, is almost equal to the amount currently 

exported by the world’s biggest exporter by far, Qatar. So what we 

have approved already puts us essentially at the top of the export 

list. So this is not a small amount. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I want to get back to offshore situation. In December 2012, Congress passed, and our President signed into law, 

the Deepwater Ports Act, containing authority for DOE to create a 

similar and a simultaneous process for offshore projects that would 

be permitted under the Department of Transportation Maritime 

Administration, not for—and the land-based projects would continue under FERC. But from what I have been told, and I guess 

what I understand, the DOE is not complying with the 2012 law 

change, allowing non-FERC offshore projects. Is that true? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I don’t believe so. But I will look into this, Mr. 

Hall. Certainly, I know there it is a different process using 

MARAD. 

Mr. HALL. And if it is, what seems to be the holdup? 

45 

Mr. MONIZ. My understanding is that—and, again, I will have to 

get back to you on this in detail. I am sorry. 

Mr. HALL. All right. 

Mr. MONIZ. But I think they address—— 

Mr. HALL. If you would—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I will do that. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. I don’t know how much time—I can’t see that sign too 

good. But I have heard from companies that are ready for their 

permits to be approved and would be able to export LNG this year. 

They have global customers just waiting for these projects to move 

forward, I am told. And the sooner we do this, Mr. Secretary, the 

better it is going to be for our economy, I think. And the faster we 

can provide stability in uneasy parts of the world, like the Ukraine 

that I mentioned to start with, I would appreciate you also looking 

into that and giving me some information on it. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. May I add one comment on that? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. Please. 

Mr. MONIZ. Just to note that in a certain sense, we have already 

had some kind of shadow exports in the sense that as you well 

know 5, 6 years ago, there was the expectation of major LNG imports to the United States. Our not having those imports has had 

those cargoes go elsewhere, including to Europe. 

Mr. HALL. And we have European allies that are losing their bargaining power with Russia. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Last week, in fact it was announced in Europe— 

and Tuesday—Wednesday—what is today? Yesterday, there as a 

meeting in Brussels. And we are going to have a meeting of the G7 

energy ministers to look at our collective energy security. 

Mr. HALL. All right. And I thank you. And I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you for 

your tremendous leadership over at DOE. I am very pleased to see 

the administration’s request for an increase in the energy efficiency 

renewable energy account. While I know you were just criticized for 

that, I for one am very pleased with that outcome for many reasons, including the promising opportunities for clean energy, improvements in energy efficiency, domestic manufacturing and certainly for modernizing the grid and making it more secure and resilient. 

One of the key technologies that will enable much of this is of 

course energy storage. I firmly believe if we can make better batteries and energy storage systems, we will advance in many of the 

areas more expeditiously in those areas that I have just mentioned. 

I know this area of research and development is part of the vehicles technology work at the Department of Energy and that you are 

doing it very well. How close are we to getting energy storage systems that will enable us to rely more heavily with the opportunity 

for storage with our solar and wind power? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, if I start with the vehicle storage that you mentioned, we should note that costs per kilowatt of storage have 

46 

dropped by a factor of two in about 4 years, which is very encouraging. We need another factor of two or three to really get to the 

cost point of a major commercial market, although we are seeing 

tremendous progress. We did have almost 100,000 plug-in hybrid 

sales last year, for example, double 2012. So that is looking very 

promising over the next, say, 10 years. 

On utility scale storage, we produced a report. If you haven’t 

seen it, we would be happy to provide it, on utility scale storage 

a few months ago. Let us get that to you if you haven’t see it. We 

have a ways to go to reach the cost points that one will need. We 

did have a budget increase request for fiscal year 2015. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. And I know that GE in my district is working 

on advanced battery manufacturing that will address storage capacity for renewables. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. Does DOE have some demonstration projects underway with these systems? 

Mr. MONIZ. I am not personally aware, but I will check back on 

that. I am just not aware, Mr. Tonko. 

[The information follows:] 

47 

48 

49 

50 

Mr. TONKO. OK. As you well know, the electric generation and 

transmission systems that make up the grid are undergoing tremendous changes due to many factors, including an increased deployment of distributed generation, retirement of old generating 

plants, shifts in the areas with electricity demand, and certainly 

shifts in fuel mix, to name a few. I believe energy storage could 

play an important role in a newly designed grid that is more flexible, resilient and efficient. But these developments will also challenge the traditional financing model for utilities. Is the Department looking at both the technical and non-technical barriers to deployment of clean energy technologies, and the challenges that— 

the challenge that is presented to our current grid infrastructure 

and traditional financing models? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. That is a very important point. Thank you. We 

are looking at this in a number of ways. In particular, again, the 

Quadrennial Energy Review for this year, is entirely focused on the 

transmission, storage and distribution of energy, both electricity 

and fuels. It is a key issue. Clearly, there is technology involved 

with the grid making phase or measurements, et cetera. But a lot 

of it is policy, including State policy as to how one does that. The 

other point I would mention is—and again, you are completely on 

the mark as far as I am concerned—is business models are challenged as we look forward to distributed generation, smarter grids. 

But also, I might add, the anticipation that we will continue to 

have no or very, very modest demand growth as our efficiency actions take hold. And so we are trying to think through how do we 

see a transformation happening in a period of, let us say, flat demand. 

Mr. TONKO. Um-hum. In your testimony, you also talked about 

the impact on the utilities with experiences like Hurricane Sandy 

in New York. Given our recent experiences and the prospect of 

more storms of this type as a result of climate change, is this something the administration sees as a key component of climate adaptation? 

Mr. MONIZ. Absolutely. And we have in our budge, in fact, a proposals for increasing our emergency response capacity that we exercise under FEMA. That would include, for example, setting up an 

emergency response room for energy infrastructure. And it also 

would be a good investment to have a DOE person assigned to each 

of the FEMA regions so that the energy issues are understood upfront, and that can cut time out from any response to an emergency. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. And I thank you for your efforts. Mr. Chair, I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, on July 

31 of last year, you testified before this committee, and you said, 

and I quote, ‘‘We had made very clear we follow the law. The law 

will be determined by this Court decision that we are all awaiting. 

And if it directs the NRC to pick up the license, we will do our job 

to support that, given appropriations.’’ Your quotation. On NovemVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Nov 17, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 -AWAIT PT B\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 PENDING
51 

ber 19 of last year, the DC Circuit Court observed that the DOE 

is not following the law, noting that DOE’s current strategy, and 

I quote, ‘‘is based on assumptions directly contrary to the law.’’ 

The Court ordered you to, and I quote, ‘‘submit to Congress a 

proposal to change the fee to zero until such a time as either the 

Secretary’’—that is you—‘‘chooses to comply with the Act as it is 

currently written, or until Congress’’—that is us—‘‘enacts an alternative waste management plan.’’ 

Does the administration have any plans to resume work on 

Yucca Mountain and comply with the law, which is the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, as it is currently written? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first, of course, we did submit the letter to the 

Congress on I think January 3 on the— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, the question is, does the administration have 

any plans to resume work on Yucca Mountain and comply with the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act as it is currently written—as it is currently written? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. Secondly—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What is the answer? 

Mr. MONIZ. In terms of the Court decision with the NRC, of 

course. They have resumed their activity. We are supporting that 

as I said we would. So we will in fact probably have our technical—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, I am going to follow through, because I think 

we have got questions and testimony in your budget submission 

that adequately will prove that you are not complying and following with the law. The administration’s budget indicates the 

need for legislation to carry out your DOE strategy for spent nuclear fuel management, especially considering it is based on assumptions directly contrary to law. Is the administration going to 

propose legislation? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would have to go consult with my colleagues on 

that. I am not aware of anything at the moment. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So let me get this straight. The administration 

doesn’t like the existing law and is choosing not to execute it. So 

the administration wants Congress to write a new law that it 

might like better, but won’t propose to Congress what that new law 

should look like? And in the meantime, you want to keep spending 

taxpayer’s money on your strategy, even after the DC Circuit Court 

noted that it is based upon assumptions directly contrary to law, 

and has directed DOE—that is you—to stop collecting the nuclear 

waste fees from electricity consumers. If the administration won’t 

follow the law on the books, why should we have any confidence 

that you will follow a new law? 

Mr. MONIZ. First, I would like to note that as was stated publicly 

in a Senate hearing, I did in fact work with the committee in terms 

of shaping a proposal—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Secretary, this is a budget hearing—— 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS [continuing]. And what we are trying to find out is 

why you are not submitting money to comply with the law. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

52 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And by not submitting money in your proposed 

budget, in conclusion, you are directing your Agency to not follow 

the law. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I may add, I am also happy to work with this body 

to formulate any bill. Secondly, we have more than adequate funding right now to do all the responses that might be called for from 

the NRC to support their process. As I said, we expect our first report to be submitted very soon, probably the end of this month. 

And, third, our budget request is for all activities, which are authorized under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In the context of DOE’s assurances that it would 

follow the law, you, DOE, has repeatedly committed to this committee that DOE would honor the NRC’s November 19 Order, both 

in correspondence and in hearings, including your testimony that 

I noted earlier. As recently as January 9 letter to this committee, 

DOE stated it would honor NRC’s request, complete a groundwater 

supplement to Yucca Mountain EIS. However, on February 28, you, 

DOE, notified NRC that it would not prepare the EIS supplement. 

Why did DOE change its mind over those seven weeks, and was 

your commitment to this committee even a factor in that decision? 

Mr. MONIZ. Again, the core activity that we need to do for NRC 

is updating the technical issues on groundwater. The— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I have 15 seconds. Let me just go to a statement 

you have in your testimony. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You say, ‘‘and a consent-based citing.’’ Where in 

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is there a—any—the words anywhere 

‘‘consent-based citing’’? Where is it in the law? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would have to go back to my general counsel to answer that question. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Oh, come on, Mr. Secretary, you know that consent-based citing is not in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And that 

is why your job is to comply with the laws of the land, and you continually thwart doing that. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we believe we are complying. 

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

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Moniz, 

welcome you back to our committee. I also want to thank you for 

your recent trip to Houston and speaking to our Senator conference 

there. The budget we are discussing today has a significant impact 

on the activities you witnessed in Houston. 

I want to start by asking you about pending LNG export applications. On March the 24th, the DOE approved the seventh non-FTA 

application for the Jordan Cove energy to be located on the west 

coast. This approval came within six weeks after the approval of 

the Cameron location from Louisiana. The—in October of 2013, the 

Government was shut down for 17 days. The Department repeatedly stated due to the shutdown, the operations of the Agency significantly slowed down. 

My first question is has the Department fully recovered and 

staffed up from the delay, and does the fiscal year 2015 budget include this? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, yes. We are fully operational. 

53 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does the six week approval of Jordan Cove reflect this recovery? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, each license is a little bit different in terms of 

the timing. But I think if you look historically, you can see what 

the timing has been post-shut down. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Will the Department continue to move at this 

pace? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, I cannot make a prediction on any individual application. But our process, as you know, is well known. It 

has been very transparent. Not everyone is happy with it apparently, but it is a pretty transparent process. And we have managed 

to now to get through—well, in my tenure, I think 5 of these licenses. 

Mr. GREEN. Once FERC issues the environmental assessment, 

what steps or analysis does the DOE take with respect to the final 

issuance of the non-FTA’s work permit? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, when it comes back to the Department, then 

we obviously look at the NEPA statement. There is a decision to 

be made as to whether any other analysis is required. But that is 

something that we haven’t faced yet, at least I haven’t faced yet. 

But—so we are expecting to get some of these NEPA analyses back 

from FERC this spring. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and you know the history of the—we first 

thought we were going to import LNG in ’05. And now we are 

using that ’05 law to export it. And there is I guess some interest 

in expanding exporting, and there is legislation to consider it. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREEN. But the Department is actually, you know, approving 

these permits. And there will still be a—I think the first one probably won’t be able to export until sometime next year, which is a 

Cheniere facility in—— 

Mr. MONIZ. End of next year. 

Mr. GREEN. End of next year. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREEN. So even if we approved all of these permits now, that 

natural gas—that LNG probably wouldn’t get to someone. And my 

concern is yesterday I met with a number of German industrialists 

who would like to buy our natural gas. The problem is most of 

those permits that have been issued, and the ones that are on 

the—in line are actually contracted to send that LNG to Asia. And 

I asked them, I said if you all want to get in line, you know, you 

don’t build an LNG permit unless you can have some customers for 

it. And I know a lot of these companies would like to have the customers in Europe as well as Asia. So—but any way, I appreciate 

that. So—— 

Mr. MONIZ. May I just comment, if—— 

Mr. GREEN. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ. That the first license that was granted, the Cheniere 

project that you mentioned to export at end of next year, they do 

have European companies. In fact, they just announced one with 

a European company contracting for the volumes. But I want to 

emphasize European companies does not necessarily mean they 

will deliver the cargoes to Europe. 

Mr. GREEN. Well—— 

54 

Mr. MONIZ. That is up to those companies to decide. 

Mr. GREEN. That is true. Thank you. The carbon capture and 

storage is constantly discussed in the context of use and the possibility to be used as carbon control technology under EPA rules for 

utilities and refiners. The problem is that it is still too expensive 

commercially to be used. This year, the Department’s budget was 

reduced for carbon capture and storage by 40 percent. Does this reduced funding level indicate Department believes CCS is commercially viable? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, I wouldn’t reach that conclusion or the opposite 

conclusion, either. I mean, I think we are continuing to move forward with these projects. All the technologies have been used in a 

commercial context. Clearly, as with any of the new technologies, 

renewables as well, our job is to continue to work on cost reduction 

across the board. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, and I think we probably disagree a little bit 

on commercially, you know, cost effective. But I know we would 

like to do it. Mr. Chairman, I have another question I would like 

to submit on American manufacturing. And I support that in the 

President’s budget recommending a 69 percent increase in advanced manufacturing funding. And I would hope we could have a 

response from the Department. Thank you. And I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That will be given to the Department for response. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I noted in the budget that the lowest 

sub-agency or department—lowest funded is the electric delivery 

and energy reliability. And so could you give me quickly the mission statement of that sub-agency, electric delivery and energy reliability? 

Mr. MONIZ. It has two—I would say two principle roles. One is 

to develop and—in the Recovery Act period, to also deploy critical 

technologies for 21st century grid modernization. So for example, 

they did a tremendous amount in terms of doing phase measurements to understand stability of the grid, working with the utilities 

and ISOs, actually. The second area is the one that I did mention 

earlier on strengthening emergency response capabilities. So the 

principle organization for our work on emergency response under 

FEMA is in that office. 

Mr. TERRY. Can you tell me how this Department or DOE then, 

on reliability and delivery, works with FERC and—I am sorry, 

EPA, or do they? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, obviously, we all have different responsibilities. 

We certainly coordinate. As an example, Acting Chairman LaFleur 

from FERC has come over twice for us to discuss the risks that 

have been very prominent recently around physical attacks on infrastructure. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. And that is going to be my next question. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. So—— 

Mr. TERRY. But how about with EPA? 

Mr. MONIZ. And with EPA, we have many, many discussions. 

Often, what we do is provide kind of technical—underpinning techVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Nov 17, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 -AWAIT PT B\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 PENDING
55 

nical support in areas that they are considering. We collaborate on 

things like the interagency methane strategy, et cetera. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, the methane strategy is an interesting one, too. 

Now, I will disagree slightly in part with Mr. Waxman on market 

forces being simply prices, because sometimes energy feed stock 

sources are regional. For example, Nebraska, being a couple-hour 

train ride for Powder River Basin coal, and so therefore Nebraska’s 

heavily reliant on that level of coal. But it appears that some of the 

rules that the EPA is promulgating would force some of those 

smaller, older power—coal-fired power plants to spend more than 

the building or facility is worth to change to natural gas, or close. 

So I want to know if the electric delivery and energy reliability department sub-agency is working with EPA to figure out reliability 

when we have large gaps in production electrical generation in 

States like Nebraska if these rules become permanent? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would say that there are three places in the Department that address these kinds of issues. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. 

Mr. MONIZ. I mean, one of course is EIA just on a purely data 

basis. 

Mr. TERRY. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ. The Office of Electricity, as we mentioned. But the 

third, and in some sense maybe the most active at the moment in 

the way you are mentioning is the Energy Policy and Systems 

Analysis Office, because in this Quadrennial Energy Review, in 

which they play a key role, this whole question of reliability and 

resilience of energy infrastructure is the focus area for this year. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. And in that regard, and what happened in California, the Department, do they do a risk assessment on the vulnerability of the powered grid, either by an attack that occurred 

out in California, or even at a higher level that seems to be the 

rage in a lot of TV shows, EMPs? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, on the first part, we have worked together with 

Homeland Security and State agencies, the Deputy Secretary in 

particular. We have had 13 regional meetings to address the issues 

of physical security. We work with utilities very closely. The utilities have done probably more than has been acknowledged in the 

press already, but there is a ways to go. The last of these meetings 

was just a week ago Friday, in fact, in New York. That was the 

last of the 13 meetings. EMPs is on the screen. 

In our look at resiliency of infrastructure, both electricity and 

fuels, we are trying to start an analysis based on integrated sets 

of risks. So it is extreme weather. It is cyber. It is physical. It is 

EMPs. And it is the interdependencies of infrastructures as a risk 

in and of itself. 

Mr. TERRY. Yield back. 

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

I will recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today for your testimony. I am a longtime supporter of the Department of Energy’s efforts to develop 

clean, renewable energy technologies. And of the many renewables 

out there, wind and solar are obviously the furthest along. But 

56 

there are some other promising renewables in the works, including 

marine and hydrokinetic or MHK technologies. 

As you know, Federal investments are crucial to advancing these 

technologies to commercial viability. And I will quote the DOE, as 

you stated in your 2015 budget justification. ‘‘DOE plays a critical 

role in MHK technologies because of their nascent stage of development, which is similar to that of wind and solar technologies 20 

years ago. 

I have three questions around this topic, pretty specific or brief, 

if you will. Could you expand upon this point briefly? Why is DOE’s 

involvement so important for developing these technologies at this 

early stage? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think as you said, as with others, the early 

stage is very hard to attract private sector funding, at least if it 

is not leveraged with some public funding. 

Mrs. CAPPS. You can recall that I—perhaps I can—that I raised 

this issue with you last September during a hearing as well. And 

you responded by saying that DOE was looking for ways to increase support, just as you just did, for what you referred to as 

these forgotten renewables, if you will. Given this perspective, I 

was puzzled to see a 25 percent decrease for MHK in DOE’s budget 

request this year. This was particularly troubling when compared 

to the 20 percent increase for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, EERE, office overall. So what is with this divergence? Why 

did the relatively small MHK budget get such a sharp reduction? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we did increase in terms of the other renewables, geothermal and in water. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. MONIZ. Within water, what the program did was rebalance 

because it was viewed as the relatively near term major microhydro opportunity. So they rebalanced. But, you know, I have said 

already I am happy to reexamine the balance of that with Members 

who are interested. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I appreciate that, because I would like to question, 

you know, and say I like the old balance before. Some of my research companies do as well. It wouldn’t take much to make a really big difference for these MHK industries right in such a critical 

time, as you know, in their development. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I encourage the Department to make these investments, if you can. But even with this limited funding, I applaud 

you for making such good progress. In my district alone, DOE has 

funded two promising ocean energy projects, a local company called 

Aquantis is leveraging DOE investments to develop a cutting edge 

turbine to harness energy from ocean currents. And Cal Poly University in San Los Obispo in my district received funding to start 

planning a promising wave energy demonstration off—a project off 

the coast of California—central coast. I am proud to say that Cal 

Poly is one of only two projects selected in the country. 

Now, I want to ask you if DOE plans to provide continued support for these demonstration projects to help them get up and running. Is that critical as we—you acknowledge and I agree that 

what they call they dark phase of trying to attract funding from 

the outside when you—— 

57 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. CAPPS. But so much promise is held there in this area. 

What are the next steps? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I can assure you, first of all, I will go back and 

look at those projects. I am not up to the—on the specifics. And will 

get back to you in terms how that looks going forward. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Excellent. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Because I believe, as many of the folks who have 

done the research in my district have demonstrated to me, this 

holds great promise for the future. But it isn’t yet to that stage 

that solar and wind are now even. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. Yes. It is longer term. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is right. And so I would encourage you to explore in this direction. And I thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 

time. Are you—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. Oh, I am sorry. I do. Yes. 

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

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 

thanks again for being with us today. And I know that I think from 

the last time you were here, I mentioned this before, but I think 

it is worth mentioning again because we all have to look at who 

we represent. I represent about 60,000 manufacturing jobs in 

northwest and west central Ohio, and recently I have heard from 

one of my constituent companies out there—and it is a large manufacturer—that they are in a voluntary curtailment contract with a 

local utility. In the years past, the agreement with the utility has 

amounted to some small savings for that company during these demands, during the peak periods. But recently, the curtailments 

have often not really given any savings, because they have been actually cut back because we have had a pretty tough winter in Ohio 

and utilities are asked to, you know, do what they could. So they 

asked the companies. So it is important in these cases, because the 

minor savings that they had enjoyed are gone now. And it is also 

important that, because of that, they have lost production time, 

which means that if folks aren’t working, people aren’t bringing 

home a paycheck. And the employees of course got reduced hours. 

And then of course when you put that in—when people take their 

paychecks home with the increased electrical bills and more expensive healthcare premiums and things like that, it is pretty tough. 

So my concern and the concern of the manufacturers that I represent is that the problems today are only going to get worse as 

more and more of our coal-powered generation units are being retired as a result of the administration’s regulations. And it is also 

important to note, again, in Ohio that 78 percent of our energy in 

Ohio is coal based. And in some parts of the State, particularly in 

my area, it is even greater than that 78 percent. 

So my first question is, What will DOE do, and you, to ensure 

that this Nation’s manufacturers have access to reliable and affordable electricity going forward? And again, a lot of my manufacturers are ones out there that really need that base load capacity beVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:08 Nov 17, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 -AWAIT PT B\113-135 DOE BUDGET FY2015 PENDING
58 

cause they run forges and everything else. So what can we expect 

in the future from the DOE? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, basically, I would say ‘‘all of the above’’ is part 

of addressing the electricity system, not only the electricity but certainly in that area. The fact is I think rates in general for consumers have come down with the natural gas revolution. And of 

course, that has also stimulated more manufacturing. Again, we 

have had perhaps $125 billion invested in new manufacturing capacity directly associated with the natural gas revolution. We will 

continue to work on the technology side to drive costs down for all 

of the energy sources and also, as was mentioned earlier, storage 

eventually to help with variable sources. And we will continue to— 

in this budget request, we will continue to have a major focus on 

trying to develop the foundational technologies for our advanced 

manufacturing future. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, and I agree that we are seeing an explosion out 

there on the natural gas side, which is tremendous for our country. 

But in Ohio, we are very fortunate. In the eastern side of the State, 

we do have the Utica Shale. And of course, in Pennsylvania, you 

have Marcellus. But we just can’t retrofit these plants. You know, 

the costs would almost be the costs of building a new plant in the 

retrofits. So these costs are going to be passed along to these manufacturers. So don’t you agree that our manufacturers out there, to 

stay competitive across the world, have to have utility rates that 

are competitive, not just here in this country but across the world? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, and I think that is what we are seeing. We are 

seeing that the whole mentality internationally has changed about 

now the United States being a kind of a manufacturing center increasingly. And a large part of that is because of our energy costs. 

So maintaining that edge is—— 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this. I know my time has run out. I just 

have one last question for you. If you would see that EPA regulations out there are going to impair electricity reliability and raise 

rates, would you raise those concerns directly to the EPA? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, obviously, we communicate. But especially this year in this Quadrennial Energy Review, it will be looking across the administration in an integrated way at how we 

maintain and sustain and develop energy infrastructure that 

serves the goals that you have stated. 

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

back. 

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

I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Moniz, 

welcome to the committee. It is a pleasure to have you here. 

Mr. Secretary, the National Energy Technology Lab budget is 

something that I have a particular interest in. And as you may 

know, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have asked the appropriators that the NETL be funded at 775.5 million for fiscal 

year 2015. And of course, the President’s budget has a number that 

is much, much lower than that. I wonder if you could elaborate on 

the administration’s vision for the NETL as it relates to the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request, and could you hypothesize 

59 

about the effects of the President’s proposed budget on both research and jobs in southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia 

as it relates to the NETL? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, NETL, as you well know, and Mr. McKinley as 

well knows, is our lead fossil energy laboratory. It does have an unusual structure compared to our other laboratories in having Federal employees as opposed to contractor employees. I certainly remain committed to, in particular, to be honest, try to continue to 

build up the research and development activity within the laboratory. I think that we have room to increase that. And as one example in our budget submission this year, an area where NETL certainly has an interest in and strength is in something like methane 

hydrates where we proposed an increase I think from 5 to 15 million dollars, you know, because this could be—we don’t know. But 

in a couple decades, this could be the new shale gas going forward. 

So those are the things that I will be looking at. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, thank you. And since Mr. McKinley is asking 

questions next, I am sure he will follow-up on NETL. I would like 

to move to CCS though. The Department’s carbon capture and storage roadmap, which is the blueprint for DOE CCS investments 

notes that the Agency is developing the advanced technology platforms needed to prove that CCS can be a viable climate mitigation 

strategy. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to take this opportunity to hear more 

about the current status of DOE CCS research development and 

demonstration efforts. And in your view, if you could tell us what 

role CCS technologies play in the future of coal in this country and 

around the world? And also, while you are addressing that, we 

know that EPA has proposed pollution standards for new coal fired 

plants that would effectively require such plants to use partial 

CCS. Some members of this committee have asserted that CCS just 

isn’t feasible for coal fired plants at this time. Dr. Julio Friedmann 

from your Department testified in an O&I Subcommittee that first 

generation CCS technologies are proven and commercially available 

for coal fired power plants right now. A plant owner can go out and 

buy them today with performance. Can you tell me first if you 

agree with that assessment, and then maybe elaborate on the Department’s efforts with CCS? 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. Again, the technologies are available 

today. They have all been used in a number of venues. And as I 

said earlier, as with all of our new technologies, we remain focused 

on technology development for further cost reduction. In terms of 

our program, we have right now eight major projects. And I would 

note that most of them are actually CCUS where the U is for utilization of the carbon dioxide, in this case through enhanced oil recovery, which obviously then gives you a monetary return for the 

CO2. 

Mr. DOYLE. But isn’t it true that in certain parts of the country, 

that is just not possible because—shared oil there? 

Mr. MONIZ. Correct. Sure. So that is not—in fact, in particular 

it is no accident that, of the eight major projects that we have, the 

two that do not have utilization are in Illinois, where that is not 

such an attractive option. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

60 

Mr. MONIZ. Although I might say there have been many interesting discussions about if and when one goes to a system with lots 

of capture plants around the country, including in the Midwest and 

western Pennsylvania, et cetera, that there is a lot of interest in 

building an infrastructure of CO2 that would go down to the Gulf 

and then over towards the Rocky Mountains to have a major CO2

infrastructure. 

Mr. DOYLE. Do you think—— 

Mr. MONIZ. That is in the future. 

Mr. DOYLE. Do you think, though, that CCS technology in areas 

like western Pennsylvania where there isn’t oil to recover—if there 

isn’t a recovery part to help pay for the costs that it is still economically and commercially viable in those areas? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, look. I think we are going to have to keep 

working to, again, drive costs down. And besides the demonstration 

projects today, which are using basically today’s technology, we 

also have—including in ARPE–E, et cetera, programs to look at 

new technologies that can have substantially lower costs. I think 

the research program for these novel technologies, next-generation 

technologies, is in a very early stage. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I think that CCS is 

a key to the administration’s all-of-the-above strategy if we are 

going to have one. 

Mr. MONIZ. It is. 

Mr. DOYLE. And I would encourage you to keep the investments 

going. Thank you. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. We will. 

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

Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you so much for being here and your forbearance today. Let us stay 

on the all-of-the-above strategy concept for just a moment. I think 

we have a slide that shows the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in comparison to other aspects of the—of your energy budget. 

[The information follows:] 

61 

62 

Mr. BURGESS. And it is—looking at the bar graph, it is pretty— 

it is hard to read the writing. But ERE is the big one. And everything else are the small ones. So ERE just absolutely overwhelms 

like nuclear energy, more traditional fossil energy and more traditional sources of energy. So it seems like the Office of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy and Electricity would have critical roles to play 

in shaping the future energy policy of the United States. Would— 

is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MONIZ. It is. I could comment on the graph, however, and 

note that EERE, we might think of as two programs, efficiency and 

renewables. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I am glad you brought that up, because I 

wished you would. And I believe in energy efficiency. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. BURGESS. And sometimes coupling it with renewable energy 

in fact distracts us from the validity and the importance of energy 

efficiency. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. BURGESS. No one of either political party is going to run on 

a platform of wasting energy. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. BURGESS. So energy efficiency is one of the things that I 

should think we should put high on our list. So in fact for future 

graphs, I would appreciate the ability to tease out what is renewable energy and what are the gains that we can have from expanded energy efficiency. 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. BURGESS. You were starting to answer. I will let you finish. 

Mr. MONIZ. And I want to let you know, I am just going to add 

that in the budget request for fiscal year 2015, in fact, energy efficiency is actually the largest of the proposed increases. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let us—and will you be able to—can you provide 

us those figures? 

Mr. MONIZ. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

63 

64 

Mr. BURGESS. OK. Thank you. And we don’t need to go into it 

now, but if you could make that available? I think that would be 

helpful. And I have got a series of questions that might in fact then 

not be necessary looking at those numbers. I have got some questions. The homebuilders back home are really concerned. You have 

got energy building codes that were developed by the Department 

of Energy and authorized to serve as the technical advisor during 

the development of the codes. Your role has expanded over time. 

And now, it has almost moved into the point of advocacy. The Department of Energy representatives even pursue what are very aggressive energy goals that actually increase the cost of housing by 

having to meet these requirements. Is that something that you are 

willing to take a look at? 

Mr. MONIZ. I—yes. I am not familiar with that. I will look at it. 

Mr. BURGESS. I can provide you information that has been provided to me by homebuilders in north Texas. 

Mr. MONIZ. That would be—— 

Mr. BURGESS. But apparently, it has been—the requirements 

have been out there for some time. The world has changed around 

them. But the net effect is we are expending a lot of money to meet 

those requirements on technologies that aren’t adding that much to 

energy efficiency but really do drive the cost of construction when 

other things might be a more reasonable expenditure. So I will 

make that information available to your office. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I would appreciate your response on that. 

Mr. MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I am going 

to yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. 

Secretary. We are really excited to have you here to discuss the 

2015 budget for the Department of Energy. 

In order to meet the President’s clean energy targets by 2020, we 

must continue to support the development and the deployment of 

new innovative clean energy technologies, but we also much encourage initiatives that support families to make any change that 

they can at the household level to make to increase efficiency. So 

I am pleased to see that the weatherization assistance program has 

been designated a 31 percent increase in funding. And I hope this 

continues to be a priority item as it serves critical needs in my district where residential rate pairs are charged over 51 cents per kilowatt and commercial over 55 cents. And I know you have heard 

me say that before. 

The weatherization program allows our local energy office to assist low-income families to reduce their energy costs by providing 

new efficient refrigerators, solar water heaters, air conditioning, 

different bulbs and similar improvements which may seem small 

for some but go a long way in our small and tightknit communities. 

It is also a great benefit to the local vendors that provide the products and service for the program. 

65 

The State energy program is another key program that we really 

depend on a lot to provide energy programs for the general public, 

and we want to thank—I want to thank you for your support of 

these two important programs. 

I want to go back to climate change for a minute. And much has 

been said about the intergovernmental panel on climate change 

and their new report that was reported earlier this week that described the impact of climate change on our natural environment 

but also warns about the impacts on human health and safety. The 

scientists identified several key risks. One is risk of death, injury, 

ill-health or disruptive livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and 

small island developing States like mine, and other small islands 

due to storm surges, coastal flooding and sea level rise. 

When I was here earlier, you talked about the threats to utilities 

and water supplies. Mr. Secretary, would you agree that the potential impacts of climate change pose a human health and safety risk 

to people who live along coastal areas or islands as well? 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. And islands of course are often quite exposed. Um-hum. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. Periods of extreme heat pose public 

health risks, too. How worried should we be that heat waves resulting from—about the heat waves resulting from unchecked climate 

change? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, again, I think what we see are more extremes, 

both hot and cold. We also have the polar vortex, in fact, recently. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. And the IPPC report also warns that extreme weather events, as you said, will become more frequent as 

the climate warms, will damage infrastructure and critical services. 

Given all of these potential impacts, would you characterize climate 

change as also a critical public health challenges, not only an environmental challenge? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, it is an environment, economy, health and security challenge. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. A lot of times when we talk about, you 

know, moving to a greener economy and renewable fuels, the talk 

is about the cost and jobs and economic damage. But we never take 

into account the public health cost. And so I just wanted to focus 

on public health in my questioning. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for 

being here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moniz, how are 

you? 

Mr. MONIZ. Hello. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Listen. In am following up with something that Mr. 

Hall asked earlier regarding the offshore deep water port facilities 

for liquefied natural gas. Now, as I am told—I was in another 

meeting. I was told that you had mentioned kind of a lack of familiarity with it, but you would look into it. Now, my concern is that 

I have here a letter dated October the 18th, 2013, from Mr. Jonathan Levy, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Office of the Secretary of 

66 

the DOE, and he was requesting that the—that there would be a 

parallel process to review these offshore LNG terminals as opposed 

to the FERC terminals. Now, since we are looking to see how we 

can expedite the approval of these processes, and I gather in the 

FERC process, whichever comes off next is the one that you review 

next, clearly, we have something which is outside FERC. It is a 

parallel agency. And this seems something that again the secretary 

suggested that you all would set up the parallel process. 

So with that introduction, it is kind of troubling to me that you 

would not be familiar with it. It tells me that if the letter came October 18—and it refers actually to another letter from 2012—that 

this would not be a priority for your agency. And if it is not a priority, it is probably not going to happen. Can you reassure me regarding my concerns? 

Mr. MONIZ. And as I said to Mr. Hall, I think, I will certainly 

go back and look at this whole issue of the MARAD approvals in 

the queue. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, if you could, because, frankly, it seems like a 

parallel process is indicated, particularly if we are trying to make 

export of LNG a priority. And, again, my concern, the fact that it 

is kind of an unknown issue suggests that it is not a priority. 

Those are jobs in my State. 

Mr. MONIZ. No. To clarify—I mean, I am certainly aware of the 

issue of the MARAD approvals in lieu of FERC approvals for that. 

I just have to go back and look at where we stand in that discussion. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. I don’t want to give misinformation. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. Thank you. Let me change gears to mixed 

oxide fuel fabrication. Does that plant on the—in South Carolina, 

I gather that the Department of Energy is seeking to put in I 

would call it mothball. I think it is called cold standby. Now, it is 

my understanding that this was not supposed to be done because 

Congress had indicated that this process should be created, that we 

are now 60 percent through with the process and it is going to cost 

a certain amount of money to put it in cold standby that actually 

could be used for the completion of the project. So if—but again, 

I gather that it is being shut down, if you will, because if your concerned about the cost. Can you give us that cost analysis to put the 

facility into the cold shutdown? How much will it cost to do so? 

Mr. MONIZ. Oh, well, first of all, there are several analyses about 

the large lifecycle cost, which are frankly all converging to this $30 

billion or so. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I am told there is a—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Like—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am sorry. I don’t—limited time. I am sorry. I am 

told there is a GAO report that pegs it at 24 billion. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. So the GAO said 24 billion. But it acknowledged 

that it had left things out and suggested it was likely to be higher. 

And so I think I would put them and the DOE analysis and the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ analysis of the facility are all consistent 

in terms—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I am told that that Army Corps analysis is 

not yet public. Are—is that going to be made public? 

67 

Mr. MONIZ. I anticipate it will be. Yes. It was not full lifecycle. 

That was for the capital facility. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MONIZ. But on that part, it was in line—in fact, a little bit higher than our estimate. So again, the approach was that $30 billion lifecycle looks pretty hard to sustain. So we felt that in the fiscal year 2015 budget, we proposed roughly $220 million for an options analysis to make sure in the end the administration and the 

Congress have to come together to decide, you know, how are we 

going to dispose of this plutonium. Is a $30 billion project the way 

to go? The standby—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. So is there—I am almost out of time. So if there 

is an alternative, has the alternative been identified? And if so, 

what would be the lifecycle cost of the alternative? 

Mr. MONIZ. There was a National Academy report in the 1990s 

that identified 31 alternatives. We have restricted that to four or 

five. Some are reactor alternatives. Some are non-reactor alternatives. Our initial look suggests that some of these are as expensive, but some may not be. So that is what we need to work up and 

come to the Congress with in terms of the path forward. We want 

to make sure that in the standby, nothing is irreversible, because 

MOX remains an option in the suite. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. AT this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. And welcome back, Secretary 

Moniz. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. My questions today will focus on the nuclear power 

workforce, grid challenges during disasters and, for a change, LNG 

exports. 

First, the energy nuclear power workforce. The South Texas 

Project in Bay City, Texas, is key to the Gulf Coast grid. It provides reliable, affordable power to the entire Houston area. It has 

been doing that since 1988. However, STP is dealing with an aging 

workforce. Workers are retiring, and there aren’t enough qualified 

replacements. Now, Wharton County Junior College is stepping up 

to the challenge, led by the great president, Betty McCrohan. 

Wharton has opened a fourth campus in Bay City. And with the 

help of the Matagorda County Judge, Nate McDonald, they are offering 2-year degrees, associate degrees, in three nuclear power 

specialties. I would love to have you come down and see that facility some time, if you are going by the South Texas plant. 

But nationally, nuclear power workers and STEM aren’t as exciting as 4-year liberal arts degrees. And that concerns me. I am 

proud. I graduated from Rice University and from UT Law School. 

But lawyers like me who never practice law and liberal arts majors 

are great with pens and paper but terrible with fixing combined 

cycle gas turbines. And so my question is, What do you see when 

we look at our energy workforce? Is there anything DOE can do in 

its budget relating to finding the next generation of scientists, engineers or high-tech construction workers? 

Mr. MONIZ. I think, you know, we do have somewhat limited authorities in terms of direct educational programs. But I think this 

68 

issue of workforce in a number of areas is of relevance to the Department’s missions. It is a major challenge. By the way, we have 

the same issue in some of our laboratories in terms of the nuclear 

workforce. So we would like to work to find ways to focus on core 

disciplines—core areas of relevance to the energy space where we 

might look at increasing things like internship programs, 

traineeship programs, that kind of activity. Because I agree. In 

fact, Mr. Rush mentioned earlier in terms of the Minorities in Energy—we need more people coming into the workforce. And that is 

only going to be helped if we work across the entire spectrum, gender, race, et cetera. So I would be happy to work with you. And—— 

Mr. OLSON. By yourself or—— 

Mr. MONIZ. I would send Pete Lyons up to see you. 

Mr. OLSON. There you go. Send him down there to Bay City, 

Texas. 

Mr. MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. OLSON. My second question is about grid recovery and disaster. The 2014 hurricane season starts June 1. My hometown of 

Houston, the whole area is in Hurricane Alley. As we have seen, 

the grid can be very vulnerable in severe weather. Keeping lights 

and air conditioning on should be a top priority for all of us. When 

Hurricane Ike hit in 2008, 2 million people lost their power. DOE’s 

budget has some priorities I think are interesting. You want to 

spend five times the amount on wind energy, $115 million, than on 

energy infrastructure security and restoration, $22.6 million. Texans love wind. We are the number one producers of wind in America. But we also remember America’s most disastrous hurricane, 

the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, when over 6,000 people, minimum, were killed. Should I be concerned by DOE’s priorities here? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think frankly we are trying to ramp up our 

emergency response capability, and also our what you might call 

prevention possibility through looking at—to make our infrastructure more resilient so that if something does happen, it doesn’t go 

down. Or if it goes down, it comes back faster. So that is a big focus 

for us. Again, we have some specific proposals in the fiscal year 

2015 budget to amplify these capacities. One is to have a dedicated 

energy infrastructure response center. It is—I forget, it is a 6 or 

8 million dollars proposal to outfit a place where we can look at the 

country’s infrastructure and help us in directing Federal assets to 

assist with recovery. We also propose to place one person in each 

of the FEMA districts to understand the region specific issues with 

regard to risks. And we feel that, you know, that having a person 

embedded in that way, you really understand the local situation, 

and you can understand who to call quickly. Where there are problems, you could do training, all kinds of things. So those are two 

specific initiatives on emergency response. But in addition, in the 

Quadrennial Energy Review, there are basically going to be two 

major focuses. One is electricity system, and the other one is the 

fuels infrastructure. And on the latter, for sure, we are going to do 

region by region analyses of the resilient fuels infrastructure, because we have seen different problems in all different parts of the 

country. Just recently, the propane, for example—especially in the 

upper Midwest, although it went to other parts of the country as 

well. 

69 

So we really are building in this area. We think it is a high priority. 

Mr. OLSON. Come see Wharton County Junior College, my friend. 

I yield back. 

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

West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again, 

Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us. I want to build off a little 

bit of what Mr. Green—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would the gentleman move the microphone up? 

Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have to hold it, I guess. The—I want to build 

off what Doyle and Green both talked about with NETL and CCS. 

The back—so the backdrop of my question is going to have to do 

with that. There are folks that will contend, and maybe justifiably, 

that some of the climate change involves CO2 emissions. I am not 

going to disagree there is climate change. The question I think is 

how much is manmade. Are you with me on—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, I am trying—yes, I think it—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. How much of it is manmade? So I just—just 

looking at a chart that we put together. Yes. Because the variable 

is the amount produced by man. 

And in this chart, you see that almost 70 percent comes from fossil fuels of the energy produced. Now, the second chart shows that. 

The second chart shows that very little is being spent in research 

in fossil fuels. And if that indeed is the problem—if fossil fuels is 

the problem, I don’t understand why there is a disconnect between 

that and the research with that, because you can look at it. The 

research dollars is only around 18 percent. But more specifically, 

for NETL, the fossil energy research has been cut by over 15 percent. And importantly, the comment that was raised over there 

that carbon capture, one of the keys to the future of using fossil 

fuels and under some of the regulations that are being issued by 

the EPA, they have cut the research money in carbon capture by 

16 percent. They have cut the—on carbon storage by 26 percent. 

If we are serious about trying to include fossil fuels in our energy 

matrix, I think someone is being disingenuous about their interest 

in ‘‘all of the above.’’ And rather, there truly is this war on coal. 

So is this—are we—do you think the President is deliberately trying to discredit or diminish the use of coal in America? 

Mr. MONIZ. Again, in terms of the R&D numbers, for example, 

I respectfully feel that this does not give the full picture. I mean, 

this administration is unprecedented in its investments in coal, 

CCS in particular—CCUS, with $6 billion. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Then why do we see cuts of 40 and 40-some 

percent with NETL? That is—— 

Mr. MONIZ. But $6 billion in CCUS. And right now, an active 

loan program solicitation of $8 billion for fossil fuels generally. I 

can’t get into the specifics of some of the initial proposals. There 

will be more proposals. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Mr. Secretary—— 

Mr. MONIZ. But there is coal—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You can appreciate, we have that 5-minute drill 

we have to—we have limited ability to ask enough questions here. 

70 

But the—my focus again is over NETL. It is providing increase research dollars into NETL. And I think it sends a message to the 

laboratories, both in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, that we are 

serious about them, whether that is a chemical loop, whether that 

is a fracking techniques, and all the things that have been developed at NETL that they will continue, that they can count on, that 

their employment is secure. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I think it also sends a message if we split the 

proper amount of money in NETL. We are sending a strong message to the coalminers all across America in the coalfields that 

their jobs are secure, that there is a future for coalmining. And it 

just eliminates the uncertainty. I am—I use that backdrop as—for 

NETL. But also if we continue this attack on coal and fossil fuels, 

and not put the money into the research, if we de-carbonize America, do you really think the health of the world will improve that 

much if America alone, by itself, were to not burn fossil fuels? Do 

you think the health of the world would be better? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, first, let me say, I will go back and look at the 

NETL program specifically. Number two, as mentioned earlier, 

things like methane hydrates, I think we tripled, which will be a 

NETL interest. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ. Third, on the last question, we all recognize that obviously the United States alone cannot change the trajectory. But 

what we do is very, very important. And I think, and the President 

feels—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But wouldn’t the other nations—— 

Mr. MONIZ. And we will share leadership here. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But, Mr. Secretary, the other nations aren’t following us. Germany is building more coal fire power houses. So my 

message is until we get a global unanimous effort to try to do this, 

why do we continue to attack our coal industry and diminish it and 

cause uncertainty with it? I am past my time. I am sorry. And I 

would go back to—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Again, I would just say that we are making unprecedented investments in coal, huge in scale. 

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

I will recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Mr. Secretary. I just want to first say that overall I am satisfied with the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget, the Department 

of Energy. At a time of significant alarm over climate change, I am 

encouraged that the budget request offers a 2.6 increase above fiscal year 2014. And I am particularly interested in the budgeting for 

alternative transportation fuels. I want to commend you and the 

President for proposing a 2 billion set aside for an energy security 

trust, as well as other investments in alternative fuels and energy 

efficiency. 

For many years, I have introduced the Open Fuel Standard Act 

just recently with my colleague from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

I have done this for the past several years with bipartisan support 

from this committee. And I do believe that this legislation will 

71 

drive—help drive domestic production of all types of alternative 

fuels, while decreasing our reliance on foreign oil from hostile regimes. And it has also been the goal of my oil and national security 

caucus, which is focused on ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while making the U.S. energy independent. 

So, Mr. Secretary, in the past, you have mentioned electric vehicles. Can you expand on what other types of alternative fuels you 

foresee being developed and funded through the energy security 

trust? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I think first of all, with regard to vehicles, let 

us say very broadly, I think there are three major thrusts on what 

we are trying to accomplish. One is efficiency vehicles. Second is 

alternative fuels. The open fuel standard would fit in there, of 

course. And third, electrification. And we think they are all important directions, and in fact can work together. So on the electric vehicles, if you want to focus on that first, we of course are continuing the battery research. But issues such as light-weighting 

have very, very important implications for electric vehicles because 

of range issues, et cetera. So we are pushing on that. And yesterday, we had a discussion with the auto suppliers of the United 

States in terms of the advanced vehicle technology program at 

DOE. And they are noted that much of the—almost any plug-in hybrid sold anywhere has some DOE driven technology in it. And this 

provides new opportunities for our suppliers. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. I want to just make a couple of statements about some things pertaining to New York. And you could 

submit it to me, because we only have 5 minutes. I know there is 

not time. But, obviously, about Hurricane Sandy is something that 

we are still feeling the pangs of in the northeast. During that hurricane or super storm, significant fuel supply shortages in New 

York City area were caused by damages to supply train components in New Jersey. And the City and State have no authority— 

regulatory authority to intervene, and it has caused problems. I am 

told New York City requested that DOE and the National Petroleum Counsel to convene a regional working group to develop a 

strategy for securing physical infrastructure like pipelines, refineries and terminals. So I am wondering if you could submit to me— 

you don’t have to do it now—an update on the status of the working group and its findings. And I also would like to ask you to have 

the Agency follow-up with my office and the City to discuss the 

findings, and to address some of the jurisdictional concerns that 

took place after the storm. 

Mr. MONIZ. Certainly. I charged the National Petroleum Counsel 

last October to do this fuel resiliency studies. And it will involve 

as well these issues of authorities and seams in gaps of authorities. 

So that is very important. And we will get back to you—to your office. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. And, finally, I just want to mention the 

whole issue of fracking and with the difficulties we are having with 

Russia bullying all the neighboring countries, whether the United 

States should export natural gas and other such things. Can you 

address what steps DOE is taking to deal with environmental concerns that are a result of fracking, such as methane leaks and 

groundwater contamination? People in my district get very nervous 

72 

about it. I have spoken with the people that do this. And they, you 

know, assure me. I have been to Alberta. I have been to North Dakota. And they assure us that there is no damage of any contamination. Can you tell us what your observations are? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, we have been consistently stating that the environmental—the footprint issues of production, they are challenging but they are manageable. The issue is you have to manage 

them. And we still think there are ways to go. For example, our 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board just last Friday, I think it was, 

finalized a report called FracFocus, looking at the issues of disclosures of chemicals, et cetera, et cetera. And while, you know, it 

gave some credit for progress, it also pointed out many areas of 

possible improvement. So what we are doing is, whether it is research or it is on issues like this where we are trying to push for 

a continuous improvement, best practices is absolutely critical in 

all cases. So, obviously, it has been a big boom to our economy. It 

will continue to be one. But we need to keep working on the footprint. And we have an interagency methane strategy where again 

we will have a lot of responsibilities, not only in production but in 

things like mid and downstream gas transportation. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

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

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for being here, and thanks for serving your country. 

In 2010, the National Insulation Association, in conjunction with 

the Department of Energy, estimated that the simple maintenance 

of mechanical insulation in industrial and manufacturing plants 

could deliver 3.7 billion in energy savings every year. In today’s 

budget climate, would you agree that it makes sense to pursue cost 

saving measures such as the increase use and maintenance of mechanical insulation in Federal buildings and facilities to help save 

hard-working-taxpayer dollars and overall energy consumption? 

Mr. MONIZ. Absolutely. Efficiency of buildings is a major opportunity. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Has your Agency, through its Federal Energy 

Management Program or any other program, ever evaluated the 

potential energy savings available to Federal agencies through the 

greater utilization or upgrading to mechanical insulation in Federal facilities? 

Mr. MONIZ. I don’t know the answer to that question, but I will 

find it. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. If I could get back to you—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, would you commit to evaluating the potential source, the energy savings? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

73 

74 

75 

Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Secretary, as we have seen in this committee 

and others, Russia has been wielding its energy prowess on the 

world stage for some time now. Not only do they supply the majority of natural gas to our European allies, but they are also exporting their nuclear technology at a rapid pace. In fact, I was recently 

in Hungary. And they signed another agreement with the Russians 

in terms of nuclear production. In fact, Russia has either built or 

is in the process of building 36 reactors around the world. The last 

time we had a chance to talk on this subcommittee, I expressed my 

concerns that a vacuum of U.S. nuclear energy exports would occur 

in the very near future if your Agency did not set out clear and 

concise guidelines to push forward an effective nuclear energy policy. I believe the U.S. should be the leader in the realm of nuclear 

expertise. But Russia’s influence in nuclear energy exports, and 

therefore their geopolitical influence, seems to be expanding beyond 

ours. What are you doing, and your Agency doing, to reestablish 

our competitiveness in this area? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, it is a whole variety of things. One is we did 

provide a loan guarantee for the new AP1000 construction reactors 

in Georgia. We are pursuing of course R&D. But in addition to 

that, I might say on a very different vein, when sanctioned by the 

Government, we have been very active in promoting U.S. technology abroad, including quite recently the—I think there is a lot 

of promise for both Westinghouse and GE technologies right now 

abroad. The fact that we are building in this country makes a huge 

difference in terms of being able to promote the technology. China 

is building a whole bunch of Westinghouse reactors. But just one 

comment, Russia—you mentioned Russia. I would just note that in 

some cases, they do something that we can’t do—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. Which is essentially provide the financing and make it a turnkey operation. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes, and I appreciate that. And I think that is 

a conversation as a Congress we have to have, and with the administration in terms of that. Because, obviously, the Russians are providing this financial support for a reason, for a geopolitical advantage. So when we don’t do things like that, or we are not competitive in this arena, I think it affects us geopolitically. 

As the chairman noted earlier, and it was mentioned earlier, I 

also have concerns with your decision to stop the construction of 

the MOX plan in South Carolina. Beyond the concerns I have with 

the decision with taxpayer money sitting dormant on a project that 

is nearly 60 percent complete, I have concerns with the impact that 

this will have in the realm of non-proliferation with Russia. I have 

seen comments from a former Russian official who said the decision 

to stop construction of this plant is a breach of the U.S./Russian 

agreement on this issue, and that Russia may decide to go their 

own way since the U.S. is not following through with its end of the 

deal. Did you consider the ramifications when you made this decision? If so, why? If not, why? And if so, do you believe this is still 

the correct path forward? 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, those issues were very much a part of 

the discussion. And I do want to emphasize, we have not canceled 

the MOX project. The—— 

76 

Mr. KINZINGER. The Russians think we have. So—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, I would just say discussions with Russia have 

changed in character over the last couple of months. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Understood. 

Mr. MONIZ. So I did discuss this with Mr. Kirienko, head of 

Rosatom, twice, as I saw the costs going up, just saying look, this 

is just a heads up kind of thing. I don’t know where we are going 

with that yet. But what I want to emphasize is that, as I said earlier, I think the lifecycle cost estimates are pretty much converging 

to this kind of $30 billion number. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. And that is a big number. And I think it is a collective decision about what we can do. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. And I will just end with this, over 

the past decade, the EEU has pursued a broad range of climate 

policies, including renewable energy subsidies for wind and solar 

power. Those climate policies have led to high energy costs in Europe. In fact, I had some interesting conversation with some CEOs 

of European companies. And they are threatening the competitiveness of many of Europe’s energy intensive industries. I just want 

to say in closing, I hope that raises red flags with you, and you 

take a look at kind of the European experience versus ours and act 

accordingly. Thank you for your time and being here, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Thank you so much for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Clean Coal Technology Program and certain tax credits to assist development of the 

next generation clean coal technology, including carbon capture and 

sequestration. My understanding of what your discussion was earlier this morning with Congressman Doyle was that the DOE believes these projects on carbon capture and sequestration that are 

currently ongoing reflect technology that is already in or demonstrated as viable for commercial service in coal power plants. Is 

that—am I correct in my understanding of your previous testimony? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes, they are mainly using solvent technologies that 

have been used before. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So here is the Catch 22. I am not sure I agree 

with you, because also, as Congressman Doyle pointed out, unless 

you happen to be like the Mississippi facility right down the road 

from the oil well where you are going to use the carbon to push 

up the oil that they may not be commercially viable. But the Catch 

22 is that if that is accurate, the statute makes it clear that you 

are not supposed to be giving them money anymore. If they are 

commercially viable now, they don’t need the support from the tax 

credits. But you are still giving them the tax credits, are you not? 

Mr. MONIZ. The issue is that this is a system integration issue 

pursuing a new deployment of the whole system. So it is I would 

say quite eligible. 

77 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, I mean the problem is it says that this technology has to be well beyond the level therein commercial service 

or have been demonstrated as viable for commercial service. So you 

are in a Catch 22 because if they are in fact viable for commercial 

service, as both you and the EPA submit—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. I happen to disagree they are not eligible for the money. If they are commercially viable, they are not 

eligible for the money. And so I would submit that you all need to 

figure that one out, either cut the money off or—and say that they 

are commercially viable, or admit that they aren’t commercially 

viable. 

Mr. MONIZ. Well—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I don’t know that there is an answer necessary for that. But that is the dilemma that we have is that if you 

are following the code, which I always think is the right thing to 

do—that is why we have a Congress. That is why we pass laws. 

Mr. MONIZ. Agreed. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. This is why we have a Senate and a House that 

pass them, and a President that signs them. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Is because we actually mean for people to follow 

them. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If we follow the law, you can’t have it both ways. 

You can’t say they are commercially viable, therefore these new 

regs come into effect, or they aren’t commercially viable, therefore 

they are eligible for the tax credits. I submit they are eligible for 

the tax credits, but that the EPA has got the cart before the horse 

and that you need to probably call their hand on it. That being 

said, let me move on because you can’t respond. And I appreciate 

that. And I understand that. I am not offended by that. 

The EIA has reported in February that the number of coal fired 

power plant retirements will be higher than originally anticipated, 

and that an estimated 60 gigawatts of coal fired capacity will retire 

by 2020. Notably, EIA expects 90 percent of the coal fired capacity 

retirements to occur by 2016. Now, this means nearly 18 percent 

of all coal fired generation in the United States will retire in the 

next 2 years due to new regulations. Are you concerned—is the 

DOE concerned that the loss of these critical generation facilities 

in such a short timeframe will make it increasingly difficult to 

meet electricity demands as we move forward, putting reliability at 

risk? 

Mr. MONIZ. First, I would just comment that I think, you know, 

the market forces with gas cannot also be dismissed in terms of 

what is happening with coal. But the analyses that I have seen 

suggest that reliability will certainly be preserved if this is what 

happens over these next years. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, and my concern is that I recognize that at 

some point, because of the regulations, gas is going to surpass coal. 

I may not like that, but that is where we are headed. And I also 

recognize that someday coal—gas may be able to take up that 

slack. What I am concerned about is between today and that time 

period. I am concerned that next year, or in the winter of 2016, 

78 

that we will see some real problems with this many coal plants 

being reduced. And I think that DOE ought to be concerned about 

that as well. 

Also, with all that new expenditure, closing down facilities—in 

fact, there are two different facilities—three different generators, 

but two facilities in my district alone that will be closing down. 

One of the ones that will close down, which is a third one I didn’t— 

or a fourth one, depending on how you count them—that I didn’t 

mention is converting to natural gas. But with all those expenditures having to be made by the power companies, it is reasonably 

expected that costs will go up as the power companies recoup their 

expenditures. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. MONIZ. I assume. I don’t know the details of the rate case. 

But I assume that that would be the case. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And let me make an assumption, and you correct 

me if I am wrong. I would assume that you all are talking with 

EPA about any concerns related to reliability between the present 

and whenever natural gas can pick up the slack? But if we are 

going to lose 18 percent over the next 2 years, that is a pretty significant cliff—— 

Mr. MONIZ. And—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. For the power companies to adjust to, 

is it not? 

Mr. MONIZ. And with FERC. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And with FERC. Sure. But that is a big—that is 

a steep cliff, is it not? Eighteen percent of coal being gone when 

it is about 40 percent? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, 60 gigawatts to 2020 would be a substantial 

amount. But again, analyses that have been done suggest that reliability will be preserved. That is also at the ISO level a lot, those 

calculations. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I hope you are right. I yield back. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

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

I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to you, 

Mr. Secretary. And I join my colleagues in thanking you for your 

service as well. 

I have just a couple of questions for you. In May of last year, 

President Obama was quoted as saying he has to make an executive decision broadly about whether or not we export liquefied natural gas at all. What discussions have you had with President 

Obama regarding the issue of LNG exports? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, and we have discussed this, including recently 

obviously in the context of the situation in Europe at the moment. 

And at this stage, we are carrying through with the process and 

the strategy as has been practiced. And again, as I noted earlier, 

one should not dismiss the scale of what has already been at least 

conditionally approved prior to the FERC approval, because the 9.3 

BCF per day is already essentially equal to the exports to Qatar, 

the world’s largest LNG exporter. 

79 

Mr. GARDNER. But has the crisis involving Russia and the 

Ukraine influenced your decision making or your timeframe at all 

with respect to LNG exports? 

Mr. MONIZ. A major issue there is if you look at our last Order, 

the Jordon Cove Order of last week, I think it was, or the week 

before, there is a discussion of the international markets and putting LNG into international markets. But the major thing right 

now is we are going to have, as was announced—well, really announced—last week and discussed again in Brussels yesterday, we 

are going to have, under the G7 umbrella, an energy minister’s 

process that was going to look at our collective energy security. 

Mr. GARDNER. So we are exporting our energy security to other 

nations to make that decision? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, no, no, no. Quite the contrary. Obviously—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So the G7 will make decisions on whether or not 

we expedite LNG exports? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. We are going to have a meeting to discuss our 

collective interest in energy security. Now, obviously, the risks—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So we are waiting for the G7 to get back to us on 

whether or not we expedite LNG permitting? 

Mr. MONIZ. Look, obviously, we are evaluating this ourselves—— 

Mr. GARDNER. But is—so are we waiting for G7 signoff? 

Mr. MONIZ. The process we are talking about—there was a meeting already yesterday. And—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Of the G7? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. There was a meeting yesterday of ESEU Secretary Kerry and DOE Deputy Secretary Poneman. And we will 

very soon be having a G7 process—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Let me just ask this, because I have a number of 

other questions, including whether or not you have taken the time 

to look at H.R. 6 in the House and whether or not you support the 

legislation making it easier to export. But I want to make this 

clear, so we are asking the G7 whether or not it is in the world’s 

interest to export LNG from the United States? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. I did not say that. We will be having a discussion 

around the whole set of issues of energy security, what it means 

for us, what it means for them. 

Mr. GARDNER. And permitting—— 

Mr. MONIZ. It is not—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you see issues coming out of that? 

Mr. MONIZ. It is not an LNG export caucus. 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, let me just ask you this then, are you basing 

determinations on LNG exports in part on those discussions with 

the G7 nations? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would use that as an input going forward. Of 

course. 

Mr. GARDNER. So is it the President’s—is it the administration’s 

opinion that we will wait for G7 discussions before we approve further DOE permits? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, I did not say that. No. 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, I would like to know more about this, because I think it is alarming that we would wait for G7 nations for 

approval to export LNG. 

Mr. MONIZ. Which is why I did not say we would wait. 

80 

Mr. GARDNER. You just said that part of your determinations 

would be made on discussions with G7. 

Mr. MONIZ. As we go down the road, we—this is a long process. 

Mr. GARDNER. To approve the permits is a long process? 

Mr. MONIZ. Well, look, we have a public interest determination 

by law. 

Mr. GARDNER. Should we or should we not expedite LNG permitting in this country? 

Mr. MONIZ. We have been working expeditiously on a case by 

case basis, based upon substantial—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Could we do it faster than we already are? 

Mr. MONIZ [continuing]. And making a public interest determination that we are required to make by law. If the law changes, we 

will follow the law. 

Mr. GARDNER. Will the public interest determination weigh in 

part on the G7 discussions? 

Mr. MONIZ. Not directly. That is our responsibility to do that. 

Mr. GARDNER. But indirectly, the G7 discussions will weigh on 

a U.S. public interest determination? 

Mr. MONIZ. Geopolitical issues have always been on the list of 

issues to address in the public interest determination. They are 

there. Now, obviously, discussing with our friends and allies energy 

security issues is part of a geopolitical consideration. 

Mr. GARDNER. Is there any—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Which is balanced against things like domestic market considerations. 

Mr. GARDNER. Is there anything in the law right now preventing 

DOE from a decision to approve all pending permits? 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, we cannot give approval until, at a minimum, the NEPA process is completed, which is at FERC. 

Mr. GARDNER. DOE is waiting on FERC first before you make a 

decision? That is not what you mean? 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. The current approach is that we give a conditional—just to clarify: We have issued one final and six conditional 

approvals. There is only one final approval. That is the Sabine Pass 

Project in Louisiana. And they will start exporting in 2015. The additional six—and I have approved five of those—are conditional. 

Mr. GARDNER. Conditionally—conditional. 

Mr. MONIZ. Conditional approvals. They must also get NEPA 

process approval through FERC, although earlier—— 

Mr. GARDNER. But DOE—for your side, you don’t wait for FERC 

to make their determination for your side to approve? You are saying that? 

Mr. MONIZ. No. We have to wait. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. By law, we—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ. WE must have the environmental—the NEPA approval. 

Mr. GARDNER. Right. 

Mr. MONIZ. And just to clarify, because two other members mentioned this earlier, the one distinction is that there are now some 

applicants for deep water LNG. So that would not be FERC, but 

81 

there would be an analogous MARAD determination that we would 

need to have on the environmental side. 

Mr. GARDNER. I am running out of time here. In fact, I think I 

have run out of time. But another question, H.R. 6, the bill that 

we mentioned was in the House would provide expedited approval 

to World Trade Organization member nations. Wouldn’t this bill 

make your job easier and reduce the time required to wait for 

DOE, and indeed improve our geopolitical security around the 

world? 

Mr. MONIZ. I think the choice is to Congress whether it wants 

to or not want to emphasize the public interest determination. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Time has expired. At this time, I recognize the 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary, 

good to see you again. 

Mr. MONIZ. Good to see you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for being here. I would like to ask a 

few questions about the American centrifuge program in Piketon, 

Ohio, which I think you know is a couple of frog jumps away from 

my district border, just across the county line. I first want to ask 

you—and I think I know the answer to this, because I asked you 

this the last time you were with us. Do you still believe the U.S.— 

the United States needs a domestic enrichment capacity for national security purposes? 

Mr. MONIZ. For national security purposes, we need an American 

technology capacity for enrichment. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I think so, too. Over the last 2 years, the Department has invested 280 million to build, install and test the centrifuge machines needed to address this very critical national security purpose. Your Department actually owns the centrifuge machines and the support equipment. And testing over the past year 

has demonstrated its technical readiness. I understand that yesterday, when you testified before Energy and Water Development 

Subcommittee, you indicated that the Department was looking to 

use the transfer authority provided in the omnibus to fund the continued activities after the RD&D program concludes on April 15. 

Mr. MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This would avoid the major disruptions from job 

losses, industrial demobilization and operational stoppage, and will 

likely save the taxpayers money in the long run. I want to commend you for that—for pursuing this course of action. I do have a 

couple of questions though about the timing. First, the language in 

the omnibus states that before the Department can transfer the 

56.65 million, DOE must first submit a cost benefit report on all 

the options for securing the low enriched uranium fuel needed for 

national security purposes and your preference. And most importantly, that report must cite—or must sit with the two relevant appropriation subcommittees for 30 days and receive their approval 

before you can initiate the transfer. So the clock must run for at 

least 30 days, but the current funding for the enrichment activities 

expires April 15. So you can see mine and others concerns with regards to the timing. First, how are you going to fund the continued 

82 

operations after April 15 until the report has made it through the 

appropriations subcommittees? 

Mr. MONIZ. We are working that assiduously at the moment. We 

think we can get through this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you are determined to get through it? 

Mr. MONIZ. That is absolutely the intent. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Second, I know that yesterday you said your 

Department was working to expeditiously work to finish the report. 

But can you give us any more precise timeline on when the Department’s cost benefit report and reprogramming request might be 

sent to Congress? 

Mr. MONIZ. I would prefer to check back with the people and 

get—I can get back to you shortly after this—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Can you get back to me on—— 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

83 

84 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. Finally, I understand that there 

is about 10 million of funding that remains available for you to use 

from the 62 million that Congress appropriated in the fiscal year 

2014 omnibus. Are you prepared to utilize those funds to continue 

operations and avoid a major disruption in the program to cover 

the gap until the transfer authority is received? 

Mr. MONIZ. As I said, I think we have ways of getting through 

this period. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. 

Mr. MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, as you can imagine, I have some concerned 

constituents that have received warn notices recently, and only 

want to ensure that we don’t have any work stoppages. Anything 

that I can do to help move this process along, I want you to know 

that I stand ready to help. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you for your leadership on this issue. Not 

only does this program support jobs for my constituents, but, as we 

discussed, it is vitally important for our national security. And I 

look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. MONIZ. I would just add that again, we are committed to preserving the technology and the IP. The management structure, for 

obvious reasons, may be transitioning. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, shifting gears just a little bit, going back to 

the LNG export issue. You and I have discussed LNG exports. I cochair the LNG export working group here in the House. Some report—some press reports have indicated that there has been potentially some kind of deal struck between your Department and Senator Stabenow. You know, she was opposed to liquid natural gas 

exports. She was putting a hold on one of your committee’s nominees coming through the Senate. And but now she has said hey, 

I am now more comfortable with what the Department is doing. 

Has there been some kind of deal struck between you and Senator 

Stabenow that we need to know about? 

Mr. MONIZ. No, we—um-hum—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because quite honestly, Mr. Secretary, and I love 

the work that you are doing, you and I have a very different definition of expeditiously, especially with all of the opportunities for job 

creation and energy independence. 

Mr. MONIZ. Um-hum. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I just—I still fail to understand why it is taking 

so long to get these permits approved. 

Mr. MONIZ. First, let me say, Senator Stabenow, of course, is by 

no means the only member of Congress who is concerned about the 

ramp rate of LNG exports. No one to my knowledge is—well, almost no one at least is arguing against LNG exports. It is this 

whole question of pace and cumulative impacts as it might have in 

terms of domestic prices for consumers and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So has there been any kind of deal made between—— 

Mr. MONIZ. No. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I see. 

85 

Mr. MONIZ. So we have had—with her and with others, we have 

had discussions about what our process is and what the role is for 

cumulative impacts on the economy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, sir. And I am going to have some concluding 

remarks that I want to make. Maybe there will be a question or 

two in there. And then if you want to respond to it, you are free 

to do so. And certainly, Mr. Rush, as well. 

But I just wanted to comment on your response to Cory Gardner’s question about his legislation, H.R. 6, conjured up in my mind 

what I am getting ready to say. You answered him by saying, you 

know, that is a legislative decision about whether or not the Congress will pass this legislation or not. And part of the animosity 

that is developed in the Congress with the President of the United 

States particularly has related to climate change. And particularly, 

when he has emphatically made it very clear that, ‘‘If Congress 

does not act in a way that I want it to act, then I am going to do 

what I want to do anyway.’’ And the point that I would make is 

that Congress did act, in my view. Congress did not pass the Cap 

and Trade Bill. It was a Democratic-controlled Senate that did not 

pass the Cap and Trade Bill. 

The House, last week, passed legislation. That was the first time 

ever that Congress gave EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse 

gases, CO2 emissions. Now, I am not going to get into the court— 

Supreme Court decision. But this legislation passed Congress giving EPA the authority. And we cannot get the administration to 

focus on it. The President said he would veto that bill. So I take 

it from that that if we don’t do precisely what he wants on global— 

on climate change, that, as he said, he will go it alone. And many 

people in his administration have said the same thing. 

And so when I look at the—and he is doing that by executive 

order, by executive actions. And when I look at the budget here, 

electric delivery and energy reliability, $180 million. Renewable energy alone, $1.3 billion. And then when you look at the original legislation establishing the Department of Energy, it says the mission 

is to promote the interest of consumers through the provision of an 

adequate and reliable supply of energy at the lowest reasonable 

cost. And so many agencies of the Federal Government are totally 

focused on climate change. That is why so much money is going 

into that, even though it is contrary to the original mission statute. 

And the bottom line of it turns out to be this: When the EPA 

issued that greenhouse gas regulation, which in effect makes it impossible to build a new coal plant in America—and I agree with 

you, Mr. Secretary, no one is getting ready to build a coal plant in 

America, because the natural gas prices are so low. But what if we 

find ourselves the way Europe has found themselves? The gas coming from Russia is so expensive that last year, Europe imported 53 

percent of our coal exports, and they are building coal plants. So 

if our natural gas prices start going up, we don’t have the option. 

And then next year, 2015, they are going to be coming out with 

a regulation on existing coal-fired plants, in addition to the utility 

86 

MAC, in addition to the new. So we have genuine concerns about 

our ability to compete in the global marketplace. And we are moving so fast. The President’s pushing so hard. I agree with Professor 

Turlington over at George Washington University who said the 

President is becoming a government into himself. So I just want to 

make that comment. And you may not agree with me on this, 

Bobby. 

Mr. RUSH. I certainly don’t agree with that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But let me just conclude by saying thank you for 

being with us. We look forward to continued work this you on a lot 

of issues affecting our country. And we appreciate your being available all the time. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, I don’t agree with 

you on this. And I very rarely agree with you. So it is not out of 

the question that I don’t agree with you right—at this present 

time. I think your characterization of the President is totally inadequate. And—so but we have had disagreements for a long time 

now. And I don’t think either one of us is going to change our opinion about our President. 

Mr. Secretary, one area that DOE can have a direct impact in 

helping to increase minority engagement is in the 17 publicly funded national research labs, and in areas of contracting and management and operations, technology transfers. I am finding that most 

of these labs are mostly failing in their outreach and partnerships 

with historically black colleges and universities, minority serving 

institutions, as well as minority contractors and entrepreneurial 

and in the whole are of minority engagement, they are willfully 

lacking in. I mean, almost heartbreakingly lacking you look at 

them—you look at the lineup and you visit these places and you 

see no diversity at all. And having seen diversity therein in decades, and some of them never had any diverse top level staffing 

and leadership. And I think that, as you indicated earlier, maybe 

the problem is a lack of minorities in key leadership positions, 

most—at the labs and maybe even at the Department itself. What 

do you think are some of the obstacles that we are—that we must 

overcome, some of the prohibitions? And is your Department sufficiently diverse to—in the decision making process to allow for more 

diversity in leadership—not only in the Department but in these 

labs? I mean, these labs are just enormous public taxpayer dollars. 

And some of them have—don’t even remotely reflect any attempt 

at diversity. And I am really concerned about that. So can you give 

me some idea about how you—what you—how you view the problem? And I know we have had this discussion many times, you 

know, but I want to just refresh the discussion. 

Mr. MONIZ. First of all, I think it is important that it is clearly 

understood that the Secretary considers this a priority. And we are 

promulgating this. We have raised it with the lab directors. And 

they have responded enthusiastically. Now, we have to do something about it. But frankly, when I raised this at the laboratory 

policy counsel, the reaction of the lab directors was, ‘‘God, you are 

right. We just have to do this.’’ So that is a good start. But that 

is only a start. Number two, we have just in the last month, by the 

way, including at Argonne, in your neck of the woods, appointed 

87 

lab directors. In each case, we went through very carefully the nature of the search, its openness, et cetera. And, frankly, while those 

appointed themselves did not increase the diversity, each one of the 

three made very, very strong commitments to look at this. 

I think that is what has been missing—and I am talking in the 

laboratory system. And the lab directors have responded very positively on this. It is not that it is totally missing, but we are not 

up to snuff in terms of what I would call leadership development 

programs. That it is not only for diverse candidates but includes a 

focus on diversity of understanding—I think as many corporations 

do extremely well. You are always looking at how you develop the 

leaders in the organization so that you have people who can come 

up. So that is a focus that we are going to advance, and we have 

started. But we have a long way to go. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, I really look forward to working with 

you and see—as you well know, I am very passionate about this 

issue. I—and so I look forward to working with you on this issue. 

Mr. MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. RUSH. And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to us having a discussion in terms of having a hearing on these and other matters. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. Yes, and we are going to be setting down 

the next couple of days on your legislation, because our staff has 

been working together. But—well, that concludes today’s hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you once again. And thank you for your staff 

and all of your time and availability. 

Mr. MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And the record will remain open for 10 days. 

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

Æ