U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–839PDF 2017

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 22, 2016 

Serial No. 114–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 22, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 65 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ........................................................................................................................ 98

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 130 

Documents submitted by Representative Marc Veasy, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 134 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 136 

Documents submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 143 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 144 

Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 161 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman SMITH. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the 

Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any 

time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of the Budget 

Proposal for the Department of Energy for Fiscal Year 2017.’’ I’ll 

recognize myself for an opening statement and the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from California, for hers. 

Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will examine the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget request. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over more than onethird of the Department’s $30 billion budget, including almost $13 

billion for fundamental scientific research and energy R&D. This 

includes the Department of Energy Office of Science, which is 

America’s lead federal agency for basic research in the physical 

sciences. DOE’s basic scientific research and energy R&D are conducted by 31,000 researchers at over 300 sites around the country, 

which include universities and the 17 national labs. 

The fundamental research conducted by the Office of Science has 

led to groundbreaking discoveries about our universe, made possible innovative new technologies, and provided the foundational 

knowledge for private sector achievements across our energy and 

manufacturing industries. 

This Committee provided strong support for the Office of Science 

through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which provided $5.3 billion for basic research. The Science Committee bill 

passed the House last year. And that authorized level was enacted 

into law as part of the 2016 omnibus appropriations. 

I’m pleased to see this budget proposal build on COMPETES and 

Congressional appropriations to provide priority funding for basic 

R&D. Unfortunately, the President’s budget proposal doesn’t stop 

there. The President refuses to make the tough choices necessary 

in a responsible budget environment. 

Instead, the fiscal year 2017 proposal reads like a wishlist for the 

White House’s political allies. It uses budget gimmicks to add more 

spending for expensive commercial technologies already available 

to American consumers or rejected by them in the market. For example, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE) receives an increase of $830 million, or 40 percent, in discretionary spending in the fiscal year 2017 budget. 

In addition to this unjustified substantial increase, the Obama 

Administration proposes adding another $1.3 billion in new mandatory spending for ‘‘clean transportation.’’ This allows DOE to commit large sums of money without following the budget caps set in 

law. Combined, this is a 105 percent increase in EERE’s budget. 

The President’s budget does not reflect current constraints on federal spending or support a balanced, all-of-the-above energy strategy. 

The President’s budget also proposes significant spending to support the administration’s Mission Innovation initiative. This commitment was made during the Paris climate change negotiations 

and doubles federal spending on clean energy research and development. 
14 

But investment is not made primarily in basic research in precommercial areas such as high-performance computing and advanced materials that cannot be accomplished by the private sector. Instead, this budget appears to focus Mission Innovation dollars on methods to move renewable energy into the market. 

The budget proposal lacks transparency on Mission Innovation. 

It should be clear what the Department hopes to accomplish since 

this budget proposal cuts projects with bipartisan support in order 

to fund this initiative. One example is the Department’s proposed 

$40 million in cuts to fusion energy research. This is $90 million 

below the authorization in the House-passed America COMPETES 

Act. Fusion energy research could provide for safe, clean, and reliable energy for Americans in the future. If Mission Innovation is 

about investing in long-term research for clean energy, fusion 

should be a priority. 

In my home state of Texas, funds awarded to the Texas Clean 

Energy Project, a coal gasification project with longstanding bipartisan support, were abruptly pulled to fund these new clean energy 

priorities. Since the project is expected to capture 90 percent of the 

CO2 emitted from enhanced oil recovery in the Permian Basin, it 

is hard to understand how this project doesn’t meet the administration’s ‘‘clean energy’’ standards. I’m pleased to be working with my 

Ranking Member colleague, Ms. Johnson, to restore funding to this 

important project. 

While Secretary Moniz and I may disagree on the spending and 

research priorities outlined in the administration’s budget, we do 

share an appreciation for DOE’s vital role in maintaining American 

leadership in scientific discovery and technological achievement. 

Over the past year, this Committee has examined a broad range 

of the Department’s research. It is our responsibility in Congress 

to ensure American tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. As 

we shape the future of DOE, our priority must be basic energy research and development that only the federal government has the 

resources to pursue. This will allow the private sector to move 

groundbreaking technology to the market across the energy spectrum, create jobs, and help our economy. 

I want to thank Secretary Moniz for a good working relationship 

with this Committee and for his open and straightforward approach to issues of mutual interest. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
15 
16 
17 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this 

hearing, and thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here to discuss 

the fiscal year 2017 budget proposal and for your distinguished 

service to our country not only during this Administration but 

throughout your career. 

I think we can all agree that the federal investments in research 

and development have proven to be worth every penny, especially 

in the energy sector. Without these crucial investments over the 

past century, the nuclear power industry would not be where it is 

today, the shale gas boom might never have happened, and our 

growing utilization of the vast array of renewable sources might be 

nonexistent. So I’m proud of our accomplishments but we need to 

look ahead. 

During the Paris climate negotiations, Secretary Moniz and Bill 

Gates took a basic idea, doubling our investment in clean energy, 

and grew it into an unprecedented effort to modernize our world 

energy economy. Mission Innovation is a joint effort between 20 

countries to double publicly funded clean energy research over the 

next 5 years. 

This was coupled with an announcement from a group of many 

of the world’s top private sector investors called the Breakthrough 

Energy Coalition which aims to invest billions of dollars in commercializing new technologies developed in Mission Innovation 

partner nations. COP21 was an ideal location for Mission Innovation to come to fruition, and the way we produce and use energies 

over the coming decades will ultimately determine the future of our 

planet. And technology and innovation is a key factor in all of this. 

And so I applaud you, Secretary Moniz, for your work to guarantee a brighter future in the face of the growing threat of climate 

change. 

The budget request is the first attempt to identify and account 

for Mission Innovation funding, and I’m pleased to say I believe the 

proposals for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Electricity, ARPA–E, and most of the programs 

within the Office of Science are in line with the thrust of this new 

initiative, and I strongly support them. 

However, I am concerned that some areas of the budget were neglected, areas that are consistent with the ultimate goal of achieving a clean energy future. And while I appreciate this year’s reasonable request for supporting the operations of the National Ignition Facility, the Fusion Energy Science budget, as the Chairman 

has mentioned, within the Office of Science seems to baffle me 

every year. With a ten percent cut proposed last year, followed a 

nine percent cut this year, it’s the only program within the Office 

of Science receiving a cut, and they’re just does not seem to be justification provided for this decision. 

The potential for fusion energy is growing, as we see incredibly 

innovative researchers and companies approaching this challenge 

with new ideas and designs, yet these innovative concepts seem to 

reach a dead-end if they go to FES for support. 

The landscape and potential for fusion research is changing, and 

it does not appear that the fusion energy budget is changing with 
18 

it. It would be disappointing and disheartening if the ultimate fusion breakthrough never saw the light of day because of unnecessary limitations within this budget. 

Now, Ranking Member Johnson is with President Obama today. 

It’s the only reason why she’s not here, and I want to mention her 

concern with the budget for the Office of Fossil Energy and in particular the proposed de-obligation of funds for the Texas Clean Energy Project also mentioned by the Chairman. I joined the Texas 

and Washington delegations in their desire to work with you to 

come to a fair and transparent path forward for this project. It appears to have a great deal of potential for developing and deploying 

carbon capture technologies that could be key to meeting our and 

the world’s climate targets. 

More broadly, the research and development activities carried 

out by the Office of Fossil Energy are almost entirely devoted to 

climate and environmental impact mitigation, and as much as I 

would like to see a faster shift toward renewable and other low-carbon sources in the near term, I expect that we will continue to rely 

on some mix of fossil fuels. So we need to find ways to make them 

cleaner sources of power in the interim, and I’m afraid this budget 

does not properly prioritize that responsibility, especially in the 

context of Mission Innovation. 

In addition, I’m interested in learning more about how the budget proposal supports the future of advanced fission reactors, which 

have the potential to be significantly safer while producing far less 

waste than the current generation of nuclear reactors. As a zeroemissions source of energy that can provide reliable baseload 

power, researching these new technologies should be a high priority. But the proposed 28 percent cut to advanced reactor technologies does not seem to indicate that. 

So while there’s lots to like in this budget request, I think we can 

understand why we’ll also have more than a few questions. Your 

agency plays a lead role in determining how we power our economy 

and protect our environment. I very much appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you to address each of these 

concerns. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Our witness today is the Hon. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz was the 

head of the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology where he was a faculty member since 1973. Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the Department of 

Energy where he oversaw the Department’s science and energy 

programs. From 1995 to 1997, he served as the Associate Director 

for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the 

Executive Office of the President. 

Dr. Moniz brings both impressive academic credentials and practical skills to a very demanding job. Dr. Moniz received a bachelor 

of science degree in physics from Boston College and a doctorate in 

theoretical physics from Stanford University. Secretary Moniz, we 

welcome you and look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lofgren and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our budget proposal with you today. It totals 

$32.5 billion in discretionary mandatory spending, but I want to 

emphasize the request for annual appropriations is $30.2 billion, 

an increase of two percent above the fiscal year 2016 enacted appropriation. And that two percent applies to both the national security and the domestic side of the ledger. It is supplemented by the $2.3 billion in mandatory spending re- quest, including $750 million for R&D and $674 million for uranium enrichment D&D, the latter from the USEC fund. 

I want to emphasize, however, that in particular the $1.6 billion 

USEC fund is an existing, not new, mandatory spending account, 

and our proposal is in keeping with the spirit of current authorization that revenues from the beneficiaries of past uranium enrichment, rather than taxpayers at large, be used to pay the cost of 

D&D of the now-shuttered facilities. The USEC fund, by the way, 

is one of three federal funds totaling nearly $5 billion that can be 

used in this manner. 

I want to acknowledge that underpinning all of these priorities 

is stewardship of the Department as a Science and Technology 

powerhouse, with an unparalleled network of 17 national laboratories. And we are working hard to strengthen the strategic relationship between the Department and our national laboratory network. 

And finally, in this introduction, I want to highlight the crosscutting R&D initiatives in the budget. Among these initiatives are 

large increases proposed for grid modernization, the energy-water 

nexus, and the exascale high-performance computing initiative to 

support everything from nuclear weapons to energy technologies to 

cancer solutions. 

The supporting budget details for each of these are provided in 

an extensive statement for the record, which I request be inserted 

into the record, and I will spend my last few minutes discussing 

our Mission Innovation initiative. 
23 

The fiscal year 2017 budget includes an increase of 21 percent 

in discretionary spending for clean energy R&D activities supporting our U.S. Mission Innovation initiative. The President’s 

budget proposes this increase within the overall discretionary 

budget cap. 

Mission Innovation is an unprecedented global initiative by 20 

countries pledging to seek doubling of public clean energy R&D 

over five years. Those countries represent over 80 percent of global 

government investment in clean energy R&D, so this entails a 

highly leveraged opportunity to drive energy innovation. 

The initiative is long overdue. In 2010, the American Energy Innovation Council, comprised of CEOs from multiple sectors, recommended that the government triple its investment in clean energy R&D. The Council made three points: One, innovation is the 

essence of America’s strength; two, public investment is critical; 

three, the cost of RD&D are tiny compared with the benefits. 

So the pledge to seek to double the level of investment over five 

years is ambitious but needed in the context of the AEIC. Bill 

Gates, who was the leader of the AEIC, I know has recently met 

with a number of Members of Congress and reiterated the need for 

greatly increased government-sponsored energy R&D. 

The objective of Mission Innovation is to greatly expand the suite 

of investable opportunities in clean energy technologies. The U.S. 

and global clean energy markets have been growing rapidly, but 

they should pick up the pace even more now as the world’s nations 

implement the Paris agreement. Picking up the pace of our own 

clean energy innovation will result in commensurate benefits for 

our economy, environment, and security. 

The scope of Mission Innovation spans the innovation cycle, from 

the earliest stages through initial demonstration, but with a 

weighting towards the early stages. And all clean supply-and-demand technologies and infrastructure enablers are part of it. 

Mission Innovation is complemented by the Breakthrough Energy Coalition that was referred to, launched simultaneously with 

Mission Innovation, spearheaded by Bill Gates, launched with 28 

investors from 10 countries. The Coalition committed to providing 

investment in new technologies originating from the innovation 

pipelines in the Mission Innovation countries from early-stage R&D 

through ultimate deployment. These investors are committed to a 

higher risk tolerance and patience for return than is typical, combined with a willingness to take the most promising innovations all 

the way past the finish line to deployment. And that’s another important leveraging of the Mission Innovation proposal. 

In particular, I want to single out the fiscal year 2017 budget 

proposal for $110 million to establish Regional Clean Innovation 

Partnerships as not-for-profit consortia competitively selected for a 

fixed period to manage regional clean energy R&D programs focused on the energy needs, policies, resources, and markets of the 

individual regions. 

The program design and portfolio composition for each partnership will be based on regional priorities. As research portfolio managers, not performers, the partnerships will connect resources and 

capabilities across universities, industry, innovators, investors, and 
24 

other regional leaders to accelerate the innovation process within 

each region. 

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

very recently, U.S. federal agencies have done little to support 

state and regional innovation cluster initiatives’’ and recommended 

that ‘‘regional innovation cluster initiatives by state and local organizations should be assessed, and where appropriate, provided with 

greater funding and expanded geographically.’’ 

The Mission Innovation budget also supports increased investments in successful ongoing innovation programs at universities, 

national labs, companies, programs such as ARPA–E, energy frontier research centers, advanced manufacturing, bioenergy centers, 

advanced transportation technologies, advanced nuclear reactor 

technologies, and next-generation carbon-capture technologies, to 

name a few. 

In closing, I want to note that we will be holding a set of regional 

meetings across the country to gain input on these regional partnerships, and for the Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson, I’d 

like to say that we will have a May meeting in Texas, and we will 

extend invitations to both of you. 

That concludes my summary. Thank you for your interest, and 

I look forward to the discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Moniz follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Moniz, and I’ll recognize 

myself for questions. 

And that meeting that you just mentioned is going to be in Austin, Texas, is it not, May 9? 

Secretary MONIZ. May 9 is the plan—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —in Austin, Texas—— 

Chairman SMITH. Great. 

Secretary MONIZ. —at U.T. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. My first question goes to the subject 

of the budget, and just to make sure that we all understand, this 

is a budget proposal that the President cannot unilaterally implement. It is a budget that has to be authorized and appropriated by 

Congress, and that may or may not be exactly what the President 

requested. Is that the case? 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe we are here, in fact, to seek support 

for the budget, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Secretary Moniz, my next question goes 

to our oversight responsibilities. And the Committee has engaged 

in continued oversight of the Department, including raising questions about DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program, DOE home energy 

standards, DOE scientists who may have been fired for talking to 

the committee staff, and then just last week, a bipartisan request 

regarding the Texas Clean Energy Project. 

While we have received some documents from DOE on these 

issues, and I appreciate your telling me yesterday that you are conducting an investigation in regard to the home energy standards 

issue, many of our questions remain outstanding. For example, in 

the case of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program, we have yet to receive the Department’s Risk List, which would include DOE’s assessment of the risk for each loan guarantee. 

Now, just last week, news broke that the Ivanpah solar plant, 

which received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee, was struggling to 

meet its production commitments. And will you be able to assure 

us today that we will get the information we have requested, including the Risk List? 

Secretary MONIZ. As we discussed, Mr. Chairman, the Risk List 

is very sensitive for proprietary information, but I think the best 

thing we could do is perhaps arrange a briefing on that risk profile 

of our various projects. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Let’s start with the briefing and then 

we’ll go from there. Thank you. 

My next question is this: In—another subject involves the—what 

I mentioned just a minute ago, the DOE scientist who worked with 

this committee that was fired six days after meeting with our committee staff. These discussions took place at the Committee’s request, and the briefing was organized through DOE Congressional 

Affairs. 

I just am curious whether any officials connected to that episode 

have in any way been sanctioned or upbraided, or is that going to 

wait on your—on some internal investigation? 

Secretary MONIZ. That particular case, we indeed delved into 

that, and a settlement was reached that is confidential among the 
66 

parties. But the employee is employed at the Department of Energy. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. I understand that. We are still, however, interested in the circumstances that caused the dismissal of 

the employee. We’re also concerned about an intimidation factor in 

regard to other employees who might talk to members of our staff. 

And in that regard, will you also assure us today that you’ll provide the documents and information that we have requested? I 

know some more was forthcoming, I think, yesterday—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Last night, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. —but not everything we have asked for, and 

so in regard to what—the documents that remain that we’ve asked 

for, can we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, we—okay. I believe our General Counsel 

felt they were being responsive, but let’s get together again with 

your staff, make sure what the staff views as not including in those 

documents yesterday, and we’ll keep working at it to—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —get you what you want. 

Chairman SMITH. I would guess your general counsel knows the 

documents that we have not yet received, and I guess I’m looking 

for an assurance that, all things being equal, that we will get those 

documents in a timely fashion. 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, I am committed to providing documents 

as much as we can within the constraints of the General Counsel 

says if there are things that are—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —proprietary and need to be kept very close 

hold. Those could be a discussion with the counsel in terms of—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. In regard to this particular subject, we 

have not been told any of the documents are proprietary; it’s just 

the question of—— 

Secretary MONIZ. No, no, it’s not proprietary. It’s—the settlements was reached as a settlement between the employee and the 

department and—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. We’re looking at communications, as 

you may or may not know, and those communications, I don’t 

think, would be a part of any settlement. So to the extent that you 

can, you will give us the documents? 

Secretary MONIZ. I—absolutely. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Moniz. 

And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized 

for her questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just note that our staff calculates that your department 

has sent over about 8,000 pages of documents in response to inquiries this year, so I know you’ll continue to work with the Committee, but I wouldn’t want people to think that you haven’t delivered boatloads of information to the Committee. 

I also want to talk about fusion energy. As you know, we’ve 

talked about that in the past. I’m particularly concerned about the 

National Ignition Facility and its importance. I know you’re aware. 
67 

We were at the groundbreaking together. And I’ve been trying to 

follow up on this. As you know, I’m sure, Dr. Holden in 2014 said 

that we couldn’t support inertial fusion energy R&D activities that 

weren’t relevant to the nuclear weapons reliability unless ignition 

was achieved. 

Now, subsequent to that, there was a National Academy report 

that had some very important proposals. Actually, that was prior 

to that. And I felt that Dr. Holden, who I admire a great deal, that 

his answer to my questions were not consistent with the National 

Academy recommendations. 

To follow up, I sent a letter to you in November to try and clarify 

the misunderstanding, and there had been statements made by the 

co-Chairs of the Academy report explaining their findings, their intent. And last month, I heard from the NSA Administrator, not 

you, indicating that they could not divert so-called—it’s their 

word—the Fusion Energy Science program from its primary mission. 

Now, my question is this: The primary mission of the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Science program is to steward research in promising fusion energy pathways. And considering that 

there’s still no ongoing program at the Office of Science or ARPA– 

E for the—or the NNSA for proposals to conduct research in this 

area to compete for federal funding, how can we begin implementing the recommendations from the National Academy’s report 

and establish a program that directly, officially supports R&D in 

inertial fusion for energy applications or at least find a way to 

allow strong, merit-reviewed proposals for inertial fusion energy research to be eligible for federal support? How do we do that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. First, context would be interesting 

to put out there. And, first of all, the good news is NIF has become 

more effective in—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

Secretary MONIZ. —and up over 350 shots last year. And the primary mission unquestionably is the Stockpile Stewardship Program—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. 

Secretary MONIZ. —for which it has made major contributions. 

However, almost 20 percent of the shots were dedicated last year 

to non-stockpile stewardship activities, and those range from basic 

science in astrophysics to activities relevant to potential fusion. 

However, the National Academy’s overarching recommendation, 

as I understand it, was that a structured program would await ignition. And as you know, ignition has proved elusive. So we continue to optimize both beam and target physics to achieve ignition, 

which would be the threshold for a more systematic ICF program. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t think that’s correct. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And I don’t want to get in a debate here because 

our time is limited. Perhaps we can follow up after this hearing—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Sure. 

Ms. LOFGREN. —and go through the National Academy report. 

Let’s talk about the alternative approaches. Now, there have 

been several promising alternative approaches to fusion from small 
68 

and midsize startups, and we had talked earlier about ARPA–E 

doing a three-year program to further explore potential for some of 

these concepts called the magnetized target fusion, but that program is temporary and it doesn’t cover the full range of emerging 

alternatives that currently don’t have federal support. 

What is the Department considering to ensure the full range of 

viable options for commercial fusion energy in terms of vetting and, 

where appropriate, actively—active pursuit? And does the Office of 

Science’s current fusion research program have the flexibility to 

shift resources to new approaches if they don’t align, for example, 

the tokamak research pathway? If not, what flexibility does the Office of Science need to be provided to do that? 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, the ARPA–E program, of course, 

like all the ARPA–E programs, are 3-year—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course. 

Secretary MONIZ. —kind of programs, and I might add, by the 

way, that some of the support from the ARPA–E program will actually be carried out at NIF, so that is part of a fusion program actually at NIF in terms of those experiments. 

In terms of the Office of Science fusion program—well, first of 

all, we have to say, you know, the—kind of the elephant in the 

room, frankly, is the trajectory for the ITER project—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —and we are due to provide Congress a report 

on May 2 following a major project review in April. No matter 

which way we and the Congress go, that will have significant implications obviously for the science fusion program. 

The program certainly has flexibilities within the budget constraints. I mean, there are discussions about, well, first of all the 

MIT—I am past my recusal period. The MIT program is shut down 

in this budget. That accounts for much of the drop in the budget. 

So General Atomics has the tokamak work. Princeton has alternative work. The whole stellarator approach is of interest there. So 

they have the flexibility. It’s a question of structuring the program 

within the budget. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, so 

thank you for yielding to me. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I may add, I would be happy to follow 

up on that ICF in the next few—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would look forward to that, and maybe we can 

get to—rather than sending letters back and forth, get to an understanding on it. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Secretary Moniz, for being here. 

And before I start my question, I would just like to extend my 

heartfelt prayers to the people in Brussels, Belgium, this morning 

for the horrific terrorist attacks taken against our friends and allies and remind people that it’s not just the people of the Belgium 

that were attacked, but many Americans who serve at NATO live 

in that area. And the terrorism is a real, real-time threat not only 
69 

overseas but here in the United States, as we have recently 

learned. 

As part of my responsibility in Congress, I serve as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, on this honorable committee. 

I also sit on the Homeland Security Committee, and back in May 

we traveled through the Middle East and even into Europe, and I 

went to Brussels as part of a counterterrorism task force. 

And one of the scenarios that we have to look at and one of the 

things that frightens me much more than other attacks that we 

have seen is a potential of a dirty bomb, release of radiation on our 

citizens not necessarily through a nuclear—traditional nuclear 

bomb but just a dirty bomb that releases radioactive material. 

And I want to follow up a little bit on what the Chairman had 

asked is in the last Congress the committee staff requested a briefing on low-dose radiation from your department regarding legislation dealing with low-dose radiation. And it’s important, as we develop legislation, to understand the effects of and the risks of lowdose radiation either through a dirty bomb, how do we evacuate, 

how do we protect the people, as well as physicians who deal with 

this type of radiation. 

And as was mentioned earlier, and as I was made aware, that 

subsequent to that briefing where technical questions were answered, this employee was fired from your department. And, again, 

this briefing was organized through your Congressional Affairs Office. 

And I’m gravely concerned that—how can Congress do our job if 

we don’t have timely and effective technical information which we 

rely on from agencies under the executive branch that we can effectively do our job not only from an oversight and investigatory authority that we have through the Constitution but also good legislation that represents the people, that we can effectively respond to 

these type of threats that we face or just the daily operation of 

using radiological material? 

What have you done in light of this to ensure that your employees are not intimidated from within to sharing truth and the information that Congress needs to be able to do our job that the American people expect us to do for them? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, thank you. If I may comment on Brussels 

first—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Please. 

Secretary MONIZ. —because of course we all align with your initial statement. But I just would note that our Deputy Secretary 

was actually in Brussels on Friday discussing precisely these issues 

offered to our Belgian colleagues, an opportunity to come to our 

laboratories to see some of the technologies that could be used to 

prevent these things—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you for that. 

Secretary MONIZ. —which they said immediately, yes, and just 

days before this terrible, terrible event. 

I would also mention that March 31 and April 1, so end of next 

week I guess, we will host the Nuclear Security Summit here in 

Washington, which will address many of these issues. 

With regard to the low-dose radiation issue, first of all, I am trying my best to make sure that there’s a culture of understanding, 
70 

that we want to have clear statements of what are technical facts, 

as I said, and in this case—that employee is at work at the Department of Energy so—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So she has been rehired—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —after being fired? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is correct. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. So—— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So at least there is some recognition—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Action was taken, correct. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. If I might add, on the substance, just to conclude on the low-dose radiation, I asked my Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board to look at that. They came back and said the important issue, we’re not the right group to look at this. We then 

charged the BER Advisory Committee to look at this. They will 

come back with a report this fall on what a restructured, effective 

program may look like. 

The reality is, as we all know, it’s been a frustrating subject in 

terms of being unable to reach the conclusions that we would like 

to operationalize what is a hugely important and expensive issue 

for us, how one treats low-dose radiation. So we are actively looking at that. In the fall we’ll have a report back. 

And I might add the cancer—this is a little bit of a stretch, but 

we can discuss it later—the cancer initiative may provide, through 

big-data analytics, one of the most effective ways of addressing the 

low-dose issue. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. And thank you for what you’re doing. And 

again, my concern goes back to—there may be a nuclear engineer 

on this committee. I am not one, and so therefore I rely heavily 

upon those that you employee to ensure that we do our job that the 

American people expect us to do. And things such as protecting 

against a dirty bomb, I can’t think of anything that would be more 

high priority than us being proactive in that and from a legislative 

standpoint. 

And I hope that you agree that working between the branches 

of government is extremely important, that we have the access to 

the information, and when we request information, that we receive 

honest, true information that’s comprehensive and in a timely matter to our job. Do you agree that—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. —we must do that? All right. Thank you. I 

yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, Secretary Moniz. It’s great to see you again. 

I wanted to start out by asking about the Advanced Photon 

Source at Argonne National Lab. It’s my understanding that the 

APS is slated for a major facilities upgrade and is the next project 

in line for an upgrade. So could you talk about the importance of 

upgrading the Advanced Photon Source and the importance, more 
71 

broadly speaking, of maintaining our global leadership in light 

sources? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, it is extremely important and, as you have 

said, we’re on a systematic march towards upgrading our light 

sources. Just last year, we completed the Brookhaven upgrade for 

very high brightness. Our current project is on the coherent light 

source, so-called x-ray laser at SLAC, and we are in the early engineering phases now of designing the APS upgrade, which will provide much greater coherence in the beam—and it’ll be an absolutely world-leading tool. 

So we’re systematically upgrading our light sources, which are 

premier tools, the biggest drivers really of our user communities in 

this country. And I think, as you know, others may not, also spending about 40 percent of their time in the life sciences and making 

enormous contributions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes, so thank you for that, and it’s important. As 

you said, we continue to move forward here. 

The second thing, as you know, an interest of mine is commercialization of DOE-funded research from universities and national 

labs. Last year, there were a couple of advancements on this front. 

First, the Office of Technology Transitions was tasked with supporting commercialization activities across the DOE; and second, 

the Lab-Corps program was created to accelerate the transfer of 

clean energy technologies from national labs such as Argonne to 

the commercial marketplace. Now, Lab-Corps is based on NSF’s I– 

Corps model, and the program trains researchers on how to turn 

the discoveries into real-world technology. 

As I mentioned, work going on at Argonne includes developing 

energy-efficient material for windows, processes for deionizing 

water, and devices for charging electric vehicles. 

So Lab-Corps just began the second round of training sessions. 

Could you give us an update on the Lab-Corps program and also 

on the activities of the Office of Technology Transitions? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, thank you. And I hope the Committee recognizes that we apparently can listen to these suggestions moving 

forward in these directions. So number one is the establishment of 

the Office of Technology Transitions under Jetta Wong, and I think 

that is making tremendous progress in multiple dimensions, including, I might add, implementing the 2005 Energy Policy Act call 

for a Technology Commercialization Fund. And that is approximately a $20 million fund specifically for commercializing laboratory technologies. 

I might say there is at least one difficulty that we would like to 

see addressed in that, and that is that currently, the $20 million 

fund is quite atomized by having the contributions to it siloed according to the program from which those funds came. And that 

leaves very, very small amounts, as opposed to what we might accomplish by further aggregation, so that’s an issue with the Congress that we would need authorization to address that. 

I might also add in the Office of Technology Transitions, we just 

established—and in January hired a person to head—an energy-investment activity that will provide much greater transparency for 

all investors to be able to access our technologies laboratory and 

university grants, et cetera. 
72 

Lab-CorpE and other specific programs such as a voucher program, as well we have in the budget, and there’s a lot of enthusiasm at the laboratories for advancing these. We can get you some 

statistics then for the record if you’d like. But I’m very pleased that 

the focus on technology transfer has been elevated quite dramatically. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, and I appreciate your responsiveness 

and the Department’s responsiveness, and these are things that I 

think are important for us to work together on as we move forward, so take a look at—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. —what you had mentioned. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

And another gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here today and for 

your testimony. 

And we are proud in Illinois to have two really first-class national laboratories, the Fermi National Accelerator Lab and also 

the Argonne National Lab. And looking at how we—the research, 

technology, and innovation that’s being done at these labs and how 

we ensure that we are getting that technology transfer information 

to the private sector, whether that’s entrepreneurs, whether that’s 

mature companies, how we do that and the potential barriers that 

are there, Secretary Moniz. Are you satisfied now we’re doing all 

we can to, you know, engage in that process and further the private sector, or is there more to do there? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, I think there’s certainly more. I’m pleased 

that we are doing more, but there’s clearly more to be done. The 

Energy Investment Center that I mentioned is part of that. That’s 

another new step to providing the transparency. 

But also what I would say is what’s maybe most important in the 

end is not a specific program but the clear recognition by the laboratory directors that technology transition is part of their responsibility. So I think if it’s done at the laboratories with the commitment of the director, that in the end may be the most effective step. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And is it your view that that’s something that can 

be internally done by your department or is there something you 

need from us to ensure that we continue to engage in this? 

Secretary MONIZ. At a high-level we probably have the authorities that we need, but as I said earlier, something like the Technology Commercialization Fund—I already mentioned one problem, 

which is the atomization of it, the siloed nature, so that’s something we would need Congressional action. 

And another issue is there is a—at a minimum I would call it 

a lack of clarity on cost-sharing requirements. And our General 

Counsel is interpreting them rather narrowly that we are going to 

require at least 50/50 cost-sharing. In that kind of a program it 

would probably be better to have more flexibility, as we do in applied energy programs to have, for example, a 20 percent cost-sharing. So there’s a couple of places where Congressional action could 

be extremely helpful. 
73 

Mr. LAHOOD. And can you give us a couple examples of success 

stories you’ve had in the last couple years here in reducing these 

barriers and success that we’ve seen in the private sector? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think that success means things actually happening, and if we go to Argonne, to pick an arbitrary laboratory, for example, the JCESR, the hub on energy storage, has 

had results get out into the automotive sector already. So that’s a 

great example of technology transfer driven by the dialogue between the companies, including the companies in the region, obviously, with the Argonne leadership. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. And I guess I would just say, you know, highlighting more things like that, reducing those barriers, you know, 

is, you know, something that we need more of, and the public seeing the direct benefits of taxpayer money being spent at these labs 

and kind of the fruitful results of that, you know, is going to benefit us all—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. —and so I would encourage more of that with the 

Department. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. And I might add that part of the 

communication is that coming up in—what’s the date of Lab Day— 

I forgot. 

Anyway, assume coming up we will have here on the Hill Lab 

Day. I forget the exact date. And the focus this time is on science. 

We’re rotating it, national security, et cetera, science, and that’ll be 

an important part of the communication. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member Lofgren, for holding today’s hearing to review the U.S. Department of Energy’s science and technology priorities within its 

budget request for 2017. 

Secretary Moniz, please first let me allow you to—congratulate 

you on your excellent work in securing the historic climate pact in 

Paris just in the last few months. While it’s only a first step, we 

must all work together to take action on climate change. 

There are a couple of topics I’d like to touch on. The first is on 

the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act which Congress passed 

and the President signed into law in late 2014 establishing that it 

is a policy priority for the United States to pursue every opportunity to deepen our energy relationship with Israel. Managed by 

DOE with strong bipartisan support in Congress, the U.S.-Israel 

Energy Cooperation Program has set the stage for long-term strategic cooperation in the development of new energy technologies. 

Now, we know that Israel is a world leader in technological research and development with expertise in areas such as cleantech, 

water resource management, and cyber protection technologies that 

may be applicable to our own critical infrastructure. 

So a couple of questions: As DOE increases its investments in 

R&D, does the Department have plans to expand its current programs with Israel? And second, increased investment in R&D will 

also serve to improve cybersecurity in the electric power and nat-
74 

ural gas subsectors. And how do you see this benefiting the region 

like the Northeast, as you know well, where the natural gas supplies are constrained during winter months? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. If I may, by the way, note April 20 

is the day of Lab Day on the Hill for science. 

With regard to Israel, first of all, I’m happy to say that I will be 

traveling to Israel April the 2nd for a few days. I’ll be hosted by 

Minister Steinitz, my corresponding Cabinet member, and we are 

definitely talking about increasing our collaboration in energy. 

But I might also mention certainly I’m very interested in carrying forward the discussions we’ve already started on looking at 

the energy-water nexus. Israel is obviously well-known as a world 

leader in water management, all types of energy-efficient water 

management. It’s going to be a great area for collaboration. So I’m 

not saying we have something mapped out yet, but that’s an area 

that we will certainly be exploring. 

On cybersecurity more broadly—there was, of course, a discussion about some cyber issues in Israel not so long ago, but here in 

our program I want to emphasize we continue to have a very 

strong emphasis on cybersecurity. All the risks, frankly to the grid, 

cyber among them. I just want to emphasize that overall our budget is up, but in one program, the Office of Electricity, it went down. 

But I want to emphasize it’s because with the fiscal year 2016, we 

finished four discrete projects, so kind of the fundamentals are 

there as well. 

We also have expanded dramatically our interaction with industry. The Deputy Secretary chairs an initiative there, and in fact 

we’ve taken the step of doing things like providing clearances to 

key members of that industry to be able to share information. So 

this is a huge, huge issue, we know, and we will continue to focus 

on that quite strongly. 

Natural gas, our Quadrennial Energy Review, both the first installment on energy infrastructure and the second installment that 

we are working on now, which is on electricity end-to-end has a 

strong look at this because, as we’ve seen, there have been projections, of course, of natural gas growing dramatically in the energy 

sector. The growth has been even faster than anticipated, and indeed, in 2016 for the first time the EIA at least projects that natural gas will have a higher market share than coal over the entire 

year. This is an incredible change. 

Now, in looking at that, the QER analyses, interestingly enough, 

say that the scale of build-out of the transmission infrastructure to 

manage this growth actually does not have to be any bigger than 

the current rate, the current rate of build-out. Partly, that’s because of the geographical diversity now of the sources. 

However, there are localized issues—you mentioned New England—that’s the prime example where we continue to work on the 

constraints there. There is some development of increasing capacity, but that’s one where we have to keep an eye out. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. And I’ll follow up more on the desalination 

efforts in the proposal in the budget on that and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, we have a de-sal hub proposed in the 

budget, yes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 
75 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here. I’m glad to hear 

about the report of natural gas actually replacing coal in the marketplace or leading—having more of a market share. As Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Energy, that’s important to us. 

Do you think, just from a practical standpoint—so natural gas 

and nuclear for that matter, I guess, would be labeled as one of the 

more cleaner energies, I guess, for lack of a better term? Would you 

agree with that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEBER. Good. As you probably know, the Golden Pass LNG 

plant is actually in—well, you may not know it’s in my district— 

and it’s waiting to export, waiting on permits. The first DOE permit was first filed in 2012. Now, this project represents billions of 

dollars of private investment and thousands of jobs in Texas and 

in the nation, and you’ve already said natural gas is coming up in 

the marketplace. I’m glad to hear that. 

FERC—we want to get that permit expedited. They have to have 

a permit from FERC. So all of these LNG plans, I would argue, are 

critical. Will you commit to working with me to advance critical infrastructure projects like this, help DOE to move those projects 

along and in fact provide timely updates to me and my staff on 

those applications and where they stand? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, certainly. We’ve been, I think, very transparent and, quite frankly, processing things quite fast once they 

have their FERC EIS because—— 

Mr. WEBER. Do you think we can get that done in 30 days after 

their EIS is approved? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes. So the last two years we’ve been getting things out between day timescale to month timescale. So—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —that’s our intent. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, that’s—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And, of course, the FTA license was granted in 

2012. It’s the non-FTA that’s now on the—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right, so you’re going to work with us and we can 

get those as quickly as possible because, obviously, we’d like to 

take—we would like to take advantage of that market share increase that you’re talking about. 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe FERC’s docket shows the EIS coming 

up in the summer for this— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, that’s what we want to hear. 

I’m going to jump over to nuclear here now and put my nuclear 

hat on. H.R. 4084 is a bill that we passed out of this committee. 

Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson were cosponsors of 

it, as myself and many others on the Committee for that matter. 

And what it does is it—are you aware of that bill? It instructs the 

DOE to focus on the next round of nuclear generators research— 

I’m sorry, nuclear reactors research and to be able to partner with 

private industry to have the site developed so that we can actually 

come up with the next—are you familiar with 4084? 
76 

Secretary MONIZ. In general terms, not—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —in specifics. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. WEBER. So on February 29 it passed the House by voice vote. 

On January the 28th, the Senate language passed as an amendment by recorded vote of 87 to 4. Now, I bring those numbers up 

because that’s a pretty substantial backing bipartisan bill that we 

would argue, known as the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities 

Act. 

So do you know about the bill? And I guess I’ll put you on the 

spot. Do you support that kind of legislation? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I don’t know the specifics of the 

bill, but generally speaking, yes. I believe that nuclear and innovation in nuclear fission technologies is very important. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure, but you agreed with me earlier or you actually 

stated an opinion that natural gas and nuclear is among the cleaner energies. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, yes—no, so I—yes, I totally support the 

general objective—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —for sure, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. So if we can bring in the next round of reactors, that 

would be advantageous to us. 

Secretary MONIZ. And we did provide up to $80 million for molten salt and for pebble bed development, for example, in addition 

to supporting the ongoing work with the small modular reactor. 

Mr. WEBER. Right. Well, the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy supports civilian nuclear R&D for energy and we would argue national 

security needs. Now, based on what happened and what’s been 

happening around the world—and Representative Loudermilk 

brought it up earlier what happened in Brussels. We would argue 

that we need to be very intense and focused on our national security, and this is one way that if we’re in the lead, nuclear speaking, 

then we can help with nonproliferation. So I would say that for the 

DOE’s, I hope, point of view this is an important bill that would 

get you all’s support. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Again, I don’t know the specifics of everything—— 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. —in the bill, but generally speaking, absolutely. 

I might also add on Friday in China, we dedicated a Center of 

Excellence on Nuclear Security—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —that addresses some of those questions 

that—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I’m glad to hear that. Let me jump over real 

quick to, I think, what one of the other members brought up, the 

Iran nuclear deal. And even though I wasn’t supportive of that deal 

and I would say—I forget the number—70 percent of Americans 

were not in supportive of that deal, that deal was struck. And so 

it’s important that we maintain the parameters of that deal and 
77 

maintain a strict oversight on the nuclear deal. And I understand 

you were instrumental in negotiating the deal, is that right? 

Secretary MONIZ. I was certainly heavily involved, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. I’m sorry? 

Secretary MONIZ. I was certainly heavily involved. 

Mr. WEBER. You were heavily involved so you were heavily invested? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I did spend 19 days straight in Vienna 

to—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, we want to make sure that you keep our 

committee informed with any information on briefings that we need 

when you think that deal has been—that the tenets of that deal 

have been broached. Will you commit to do that for us? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have to say the State Department leads this 

with DOE supporting them in terms of keeping the Congress informed, including on a classified level. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you have any oversight purview over that deal? 

I mean, you’re the ‘‘nuclear expert,’’ spent 19 days there. Are 

you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. By the way, along with Secretary Kerry. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. We were both there for 19 days. The—— 

Mr. WEBER. Did Secretary Kerry go to MIT? I’m just asking. 

Secretary MONIZ. Not yet. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. You’re working on him already? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, we’re working on it. Right. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. We did both go to Boston College, however. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. But the—— 

Mr. WEBER. Do you have any kind of oversight on that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, so, again—so the Department of Energy is 

the core team in the implementation phase, so the answer is yes, 

and I personally remain engaged. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So you will come back to this—if you see anything that adversely affects that deal and of course our national security, you would come back to this committee? 

Secretary MONIZ. We—again, through the state-led process we 

will keep the Congress informed, including providing regular reports typically through the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I think 

it’s open to all Members of Congress. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is recognized. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary 

Moniz, for your leadership and for being here today. 

I want to go back to Mission Innovation. And in Paris, the 

United States was one of 20 countries that agreed to double their 

support for clean energy research and development activities over 

the next five years, as you put it, creating a highly leveraged opportunity for us. And the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget lays 

out his plan to do just that, but we have grave concerns about the 

ability to get that budget through the House and Senate this year. 
78 

How important is it that we meet that goal of doubling our clean 

energy R&D over the next five years, and how important is it to 

where we stand with climate change? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think it’s very important on multiple counts. 

One, it’s important objectively as, again, the American Energy Innovation Council pointed out. They recommended a tripling. 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. We propose this doubling. Number two is I 

would say that, as is in many things, you know, the United States 

has a special role in leadership, and if we fall down in meeting our 

objective, I think that would have significant deleterious consequences much more broadly in this highly leveraged situation 

with other countries and with the private investors. 

And third, I think that, again, even without going into the specifics of the Paris agreement, et cetera, it is simply a fact that essentially every country in the world is committed to pursuing lower 

carbon fairly aggressively. That means multitrillion dollar markets 

are going to be developing even faster, and we want to keep our 

innovation edge to take advantage of those markets. 

Ms. CLARK. I think that is a critical point, and also going back 

to the end of your second point, with the public investment we saw 

with Bill Gates leading an effort but, I believe, 28 investors from 

10 different countries, how—if we don’t meet our goals on the public investment side, what do you think will happen to that private 

investment? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I think it will be very, very hard 

to sustain because this was viewed as two complementary initiative. They’re independent in principle but two complementary initiatives. We open up the innovation pipeline. They are prepared to 

put billions in to take advantage of that expanded pipeline. 

Ms. CLARK. And what do you think—thinking of American leadership abroad, you know, if we don’t meet this, what do you think 

will happen with the other countries’ commitments? Do you think 

they will continue on, leaving our markets, our innovation behind, 

or do you think we’ll have a destabilizing effect? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think some will and probably some won’t, but 

some of the bigger ones, to be perfectly honest, I think if you look 

at China’s initial publications of its 13th five-year plan—again, I 

was just there last week, spoke with many government officials— 

the first characteristic, all of them mentioned about the five-year 

plan was the emphasis on innovation. So they are going to be pushing on science and engineering innovation as a foundation of what 

they are doing in the next year. So they’re going to go ahead in my 

view as one example. 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that’s just an example of why we need to 

maintain competitive edge, which is innovation. 

Ms. CLARK. Yes. Well, we certainly believe that in Massachusetts, and I thank you for your efforts on this, and we look forward 

to working with you and also on the Regional Innovation Centers. 

I think that will be a critical piece to establishing our place in this 

marketplace not only because climate change has such a huge effect on our economy and our resiliency, but also because it is an 
79 

area where we can lead and really be—create such a viable market 

for clean energy products and technologies. 

So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Clark. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. It’s 

been a joy over the years actually having this interaction—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Quite a few years. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, it has been. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Was your hair gray when it started? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have no comment. I could—no, I won’t dare 

to ask the same question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mine wasn’t gray. 

Just a couple of thoughts here. The—when several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mentioned clean energy, let’s 

note that there is a differentiation between clean energy with a 

definition that’s aimed at stopping global warming versus clean energy that is based on human health. 

CO2, which is the target of global warming-focused energy reforms, CO2 is not in any way a threat to human health. However, 

NOx, SOx, and other things in the air, trying to get them out of 

the air is certainly important to people’s health and especially 

those of us who live in urban areas, as I do, and have children are 

very concerned about those pollution factors. So we do want clean 

air. 

And I want to mention the nuclear energy issue to you in a moment, but let us note that when you mentioned earlier in your testimony about the positive nature of going from coal to natural gas, 

which is, I think, a very big step forward for both health and global 

warming considerations, let us just note that that would not have 

happened if the administration, while trying to stop the production 

of CO2, would have had its way in terms of disrupting the evolution 

in fracking. Fracking has given us, has it not, a major increase in 

the production of natural gas? And so that’s if we get in the way 

of fracking and we get in the way of basically having a cleaner air, 

both for global warming and for people’s health. Would you like to 

comment on that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, of course it’s a fact that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is what’s opened up tremendous amounts of natural gas and oil production in this country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. But I guess I don’t quite understand the administration comment you made in the sense that, frankly, the administration has been supportive of these developments with natural gas. Obviously, there are environmental issues to address. A 

lot of those are being done in the states. For example, Oklahoma 

has been very concerned over the seismic issues, which are not 

from fracking but from water disposal—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —which is where that is coming. So I think 

that is a balance between state and federal—— 
80 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we believe someone has looked at that 

pipeline decision as being something that was based—fundamentally opposed to fracking and—because that’s where the—that 

extra oil was going to be coming from. 

Let me ask you about nuclear energy here. It has been of concern 

to me that as we move forward with—and, by the way, I would 

suggest that’s the one area that people on both sides of the global 

warming issue should be able to agree upon. 

But from the Department of Energy under your leadership I have 

not seen the shift away from the light-water reactors, which I believe are naturally dangerous. And we—I’ve been told and correct 

me if I’m wrong—is we do have the capability of the building reactors now, especially small modular reactors that are not based on 

light-water technology. Why are we not focused on getting away 

from light-water technology and putting our money in building a 

prototype from—of one of these small modular reactors that is not 

light-water reactor? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, of course as you know, we are 

supporting a light-water reactor small modular reactor—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —to go to design certification this year at the 

NRC. But I do want to add that even though it’s a light-water reactor, the safety characteristics are excellent. So we believe that is 

a very viable and safe—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Safer—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —technology. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —but not necessarily safe. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, it’s basically passively safe. Now, one of 

the reasons for that focus, our initial small modular reactor focus 

was on light-water reactors for the reason that those are the ones 

that could move most rapidly to a deployment because, frankly, it’s 

also on the regulatory side the NRC has got all the apparatus for 

licensing now. 

Having said that, we just announced a month ago I think roughly two awards, two consortia involving companies and labs, et 

cetera, one on molten salt, which is a design originated in Oak 

Ridge in fact some years ago, and another on pebble beds—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —a pebble bed reactor. So we are moving out 

on those two alternative technologies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate that, and I would just suggest 

that the money that we’re spending on light-water reactors is based 

on the past and we need to look to the future, and I think that is 

not based on light-water reactors. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for appearing before the panel. 

And just a question about—in multiple prior fiscal years, Congress has directed DOE to diversify its bioenergy program and specifically support the development of technologies that hold the 

promise of producing energy from municipally derived biosolids. I 

believe your office is familiar with this because the Office of Energy 
81 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, has yet to follow through 

on these directives. And our office and our constituents in the bay 

area has found this a little bit frustrating and troubling. 

And my staff has been told that finally a DOE funding announcement for projects promising to develop energy from municipally derived biosolids is forthcoming this March or April. First, is that correct, and can you commit today that such a funding announcement 

will be made in late March or April? And what type of total budget 

is planned for the funding announcement? 

And also, I did want to separately thank you for the very hard 

work you did and the participation with our national laboratories 

on the Iran nuclear agreement. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Thank you for that. 

First of all, the question of the biosolids, there have been solicitations where that has been an option but not singled out and then 

not always selected. That is correct that there will be solicitations 

coming forward. I don’t know the exact day. We can get back to you 

on that. That will have biosolids as the research topic. It will also 

include some SBIR solicitation for biosolids. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. And do you have any idea as to what the 

total budget for what the funding announcement could be? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think there are three—I don’t have an exact 

number. There were going to be three pieces that total roughly $20 

million, but I don’t—I think the exact breakout of that will depend 

upon the three awards. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. [Presiding.] Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, always so good to see you and honestly do 

appreciate your work and your passion, especially in our labs. As 

you know, that’s a special passion of mine. 

Secretary MONIZ. See you on Lab Day. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes, it’s going to be great. And boy, our labs are 

excited. I know that’s going to be very important, so thank you. 

Along with laboratories, also passionate about basic scientific research, which the Office of Science is doing to promote innovation 

and the energy future where America can lead. We had a good 

meeting last year with the Labs Caucus where you talked about 

the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and ways which we might be 

able to work together with Mission Innovation. I’d hoped the Office 

of Science would take the lead on this. 

While I think the gimmicks with the mandatory spending 

throughout the President’s budget were a disappointing reversal on 

his negotiated budget with Congress, I hope there are still some 

places we can work together. 

The Department is asking for $1.2 billion in new spending 

throughout the Science and Energy programs. The Office of 

Science, with the requested increase of $225 million, is only about 

18 percent of this requested increase. EERE was 68 percent of your 

requested increase. Quite honestly, I think this is shortsighted. 

AAAS estimates that across the board the President’s budget 

cuts basic R&D by 2.3 percent while increasing applied research by 
82 

2.8 percent. Maybe you all managed to save some shortsighted 

cuts, but I know you can’t speak to your deliberations with OMB. 

So my first question is about how we can make our Office of 

Science programs better aligned with the private sector be it the 

Breakthrough Energy Coalition or anyone else. If OMB passed 

back your budget request and told you to realign your increases so 

that EERE and Office of Science were flipped, how would you propose to handle nearly $829 million in new spending? And what do 

you think personally the labs need to do to be more nimble and accessible to the outside? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, let me just comment. I’m not 

aware of the specifics of this AAAS scoring, but—and there may be 

also a labeling issue for—I just don’t know, but for example, part 

of the proposal would be to add—even in its first year—five new 

Energy Frontier Research Centers. I would call that use-inspired 

basic research. I don’t know how that is scored in there. 

But I’ve said earlier that in our increase, our intent certainly is 

to weight more towards the earlier stages of R&D, and science 

plays an important role in there. There are many other proposals 

besides the EFRCs, but I also want to single—ARPA–E is also 

very, very important, and has tremendous results, I think. So anyway—so we will be having strong focus there. 

I also might add that some of the proposal, for example, on the 

regional centers was placed in EREE even though it’s across the 

board. It’s not only efficiency and renewables. So we’ve already 

talked with some in Congress about the need to find a different 

budget structure for that to reflect the reality. 

As far as the labs being nimble, well, I think for one thing is—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Can I ask a quick question real quick? So why 

didn’t some of the basic energy science programs get similar increases to EERE? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, there are complicated dynamics in 

there. I think what we did is we put in specific increases that we 

thought made a lot of sense, including like the EFRCs and BES, 

which was one particular area. 

But again, look, obviously we’re here to discuss with Congress 

what is the right mix there. We do want to increase energy R&D, 

and we’d like the increases, as I said, to be weighted towards the 

earlier stages. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I just have about 45 seconds left. Let me get to 

one other thing if I could real quick, and we’ll keep our conversation going. So thank you. 

I’m not sure if you remember I represent Fermilab. Just kidding. 

Secretary MONIZ. Do you? 

Mr. HULTGREN. I’m just kidding. You hear that a lot for me, but 

I’m so proud of the great work that they do and really am honored 

to be able to represent them. And I do want to thank you for the 

time that you’ve made available to me over the last months and 

years. 

But I want to just ask you how do you see the implementation 

of P5 going, and how have efforts in creating international collaboration out of LBNF been going? Are we meeting, exceeding, or behind your expectations in getting international commitments? 
83 

Secretary MONIZ. So, first of all, LBNF and P5 LBNF, strong emphasis, it’s the centerpiece. We’re on the ramp up for LBNF and— 

which does remind one that we hope we don’t end up in CR land 

again because things like these new projects—things that go up 

and go down don’t go up in the CR world, so let’s hope we can get 

to a budget that has priorities in it. 

In terms of international, I think the discussions are very encouraging. I’ve had discussions myself with two major countries in 

the last month, nothing you sign on the dotted line yet, but I think 

it’s going well. And of course a critical piece is going to be the 

whole work with the EU and CERN—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. —as a lead investor. But I’m very optimistic. 

There’s a lot of excitement about this and this is going to be a great 

good. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, thank you. That means a lot to us. I know 

it means a lot to the physics community. But any way we can be 

helpful, I do know this is something that pulls us together. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Ranking Member Foster, Bill Foster and I and 

others obviously have met with you and our delegation about the 

importance of this and want to thank you for your role, and any 

way we can help with that, we certainly want to do that. My time 

is well past expired. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for appearing today to discuss 

DOE’s science budget. And I look forward also to having hearings 

on the Republican budget proposal. But I also would like to thank 

Secretary Moniz for his work on the Iran nuclear deal. 

I have personally found the DOE extremely supportive in responding to Member requests for detailed briefings on this. I think 

I had more than a dozen classified briefings on this, many of them 

individual briefings, and I found—where I’ve had access to the 

DOE experts in weapons and nonproliferation. And so I just want 

to say that we really got our question answered in whatever detail 

we ask, and I want to thank you for that. 

I’d also like echo the sentiments of my colleague Mr. Hultgren 

and take the opportunity to thank you once again for meeting with 

the Illinois and South Dakota delegations of both the House and 

Senate to reiterate your support for the Long-Baseline Neutrino 

Facility. Your support for this is very much appreciated. I was 

somewhat disappointed to see that LBNF received less than they 

need to to move forward at full schedule, but I trust that you and 

DOE are still supportive of this project? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes, and my impression is that the budget 

proposal will allow them to move forward quite nicely. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, the civil part was, I think, adequately funded. 

There was some—I think some of the approval is pending the international contribution—— 
84 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes, but again, Congressman Foster, no 

bones about it, I mean, this is a high-priority project, the highestpriority project certainly in particle physics. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I may add something—— 

Mr. FOSTER. So your comments on the CR, I think, are very relevant—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —as well. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. And if I may add, I just want to thank you 

for the interest you took in the Iran deal. Using your physics background was really important, and we really are appreciative. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. I also want to thank you for your supportive words about Argonne’s Advanced Photon Source to Mr. 

Lipinski, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to make sure that the APS upgrade has the necessary 

funds to complete the upgrade on time. 

I was pleased to be joined by 11 of my colleagues, Democrats and 

Republicans, on a letter to the Appropriations Committee in support of full funding for the APS upgrade, so that’s on our radar 

screen as well. 

Let’s see. One thing having to do with—you know, there’s this report that’s due out, I think, in May having to do with a way forward on ITER. And so I was wondering what sort of plan—we 

could find ourselves in one of two places on that, one—a positive 

indication of the letter will, I think, cause most people to think that 

the amount of money we’re spending on ITER is too low to, you 

know, complete the project on the proposed schedule. 

On the other hand, if we decide to withdraw, I think that some 

money will have—rapidly have to be reprogrammed. And so in the 

context of a CR, that could be very painful either way you have to 

adjust it. I was wondering if there’s contingency planning underway in DOE to understand how you’d respond to this? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am just, in fact, kicking off exactly that kind 

of planning for the two possible directions because frankly, we’re 

going to be quite compressed in time with the technical report and 

review in April and then the May 2 report due to the Congress. So 

I think we’re going to have to stay close on this and respond appropriately. 

Certainly going forward, as you implied, the U.S. obligation of 

roughly nine percent of the project for both capital and operating 

is likely to require, you know, a significant increase in the scale of 

the fusion budget. 

Mr. FOSTER. And now to—— 

Secretary MONIZ. If one goes forward, I mean. 

Mr. FOSTER. And now to change subjects rather significantly, 

how much effort is being put into the use—to the prospect of using 

naval propulsion systems with, say, 20 percent enriched uranium 

as a way to really—you know, if that became the international 

standard for things like naval propulsion? It would be very positive 

for nonproliferation. And how much effort are we putting into that? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would say modest. It is being looked at, but 

it’s in the early stages frankly because there’s a major focus on, 

first, the new power plants for the Ford-class aircraft carriers, 
85 

those are now done. The first one went critical last year, and the 

Ford will sail in the next few months. And now there’s also the 

power plant for the next—the Ohio-class replacements to submarines—— 

Mr. FOSTER. So are there alternative—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —designs being developed for the use of less enriched uranium or is that not likely to happen? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would say there’s early-stage work for a future generation potential LEU power plant. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Well, thank you. 

I guess my time is expired, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Foster. 

And the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here today. 

In the budget request for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, the proposed budget for the bioenergy program is increased 

by 24 percent and is largely focused on research and development 

on a drop in biofuels and algae feedstocks to lower the cost of 

biofuels without increasing the cost of food or disrupting agriculture. 

While the budget mentions the Biomass Research and Development Board, the collaborative effort with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and U.S. Department of Environmental Protection—or 

the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure efforts made 

across the government are coordinated, there is no mention of collaboration with the Forest Service to assess the biomass potential 

for our forests. 

So I’ve got a forestry degree and an engineering degree, so forestry and energy are two things that I like to talk about. And if 

we look just on federal lands last year, we had ten million acres 

of forest go up in smoke. If you put that on an energy equivalent 

using Forest Service data, that’s a lot of BTUs converted back. And 

to put it in terms of something we understand, it’s about 26 billion 

gallons of gasoline is the equivalent of the energy that went up on 

our national forests. That’s about 19 percent of all the gasoline 

used in our country each year. 

So I’m going to go out to the Berkeley Lab and visit it later this 

week. I’m looking forward to that, and I hope they’re going to tell 

me they’re doing a lot of research on forest biomass to drop in 

fuels. But has the Department explored working with the Forest 

Service or our research universities to incorporate forest biomass 

into the DOE research and development portfolio? 

Secretary MONIZ. Our program does work with the Forest Service 

on woody biomass. I’d have to check this, but I think we are spending something around $20 million in the woody biomass area. I’ll 

have to check that. A large focus is on combustion, and I think cofiring and these kinds of things, some work on conversion to 

biofuels, but I can get back to you with a more detailed answer. 

But we do work with the Forest Service. We have a woody biomass program, and I’ll get you the details. 
86 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And I’m familiar, you know, making pellets out 

of wood, which is not the most efficient way to use it—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —maybe, but if we’re doing research on any 

kind of biomass, it seems like, you know, just on federal lands we 

had ten million acres burn up, and that doesn’t even start to touch 

the amount of thinning that needs to be done on our federal forests. If you throw in private lands, the potential for a fuel source 

if we could come up with a feasible way to convert that to—or to 

a liquid fuel—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Liquid fuels, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. —it’s tremendous. So it seems to me like it 

would be prudent to put more money into research biomass to 

biofuels. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I was just told that, yes, $22 million in 

woody biomass so—but why don’t we get back to you with the program specifics. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Okay. I appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized 

for her questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Moniz, welcome back to the Committee. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. BONAMICI. My State of Oregon is a leader in the effort to establish a marine renewable energy industry in the United States, 

and we’re proud to host the Department of Energy-funded Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center that’s co-managed 

by Oregon State University, the University of Washington, and the 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. The center is working with the national labs and private sector technology developers to provide research and testing capabilities. 

In addition, Oregon State University is developing a DOE-funded 

offshore wave energy testing facility so innovators in the United 

States will have access to a domestic testing facility rather than 

going overseas. 

Now, I understand that the DOE estimates that up to 20 percent 

of the electricity requirements of Oregon, along with California and 

Washington, could come from marine renewable energy resources. 

In places like Alaska and Hawaii, that could be up to 100 percent. 

Over the years, the wind and solar industries have received substantial and ongoing federal research and demonstration funding 

support. That’s gone on for decades and it’s resulted in the maturation, cost competitiveness, and rapid development and deployment 

of these technologies. The marine energy industry needs the same 

kind of sustained federal assistance to help private companies have 

that certainty they need to develop promising technologies that are 

really on the verge of commercial viability. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I’ve been an ongoing supporter of water power 

and the programs, so I’ve led appropriations letters and amendments requesting increase support for research. 

The fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill called for the creation of a new 

Water Power Technologies Office, so will you please provide an up-
87 

date on the efforts underway to set up the office and select a Director? 

And then also I wanted you to also address this issue. I appreciate including in the funding for fiscal year 2017 a request to continue the construction of an offshore wave energy test facility, but 

my understanding is that the amount of funding proposed by the 

Administration, along with the cost-share requirements, is not 

enough to construct a robust and sufficiently sized facility. 

So will you please also elaborate on the budget proposals requested funding level? Going forward, will the Department participate in discussions with interested stakeholders to develop a plan 

that will truly ensure successful deployment of this very promising 

wave energy test facility? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think the answer is yes, certainly to the last 

question. So, as you indicated, I think the budget for marine and 

hydrokinetic is about a 25 percent increase proposed within the 

open water test facility as a central piece of that. Certainly my understanding is that that has been developed in considerable discussion with industry stakeholders in terms of what are these test requirements. 

In terms of the scale, I think the issue is that this budget in fiscal year 2017 would support the design phase leading them to a 

kind of go/no go decision in terms of actual construction. That’s my 

understanding, but why don’t I clarify that and will get back to on 

that? 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that. And then was that in response 

to the Water Power Technologies Office? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, again, if I may get back to you for the 

record on that because—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. —to be honest, I’m not quite sure where that 

stands. 

Ms. BONAMICI. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr.—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, I’m sorry. I was just given a note from— 

by my staff, if I may, that an announcement just went out for a 

new Director hiring for the water power program. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. I wasn’t aware that. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, 

is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

My question regards the fossil R&D budget proposal, which included a $240 million reduction of funds from the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative, or the CCPI projects to meet the total budget requirements for fiscal year 2017. This effectively pulled the remaining funding for the Texas Clean Energy Project, or TCEP, a coal 

gasification project with longstanding bipartisan support. 

At the same time the budget touts Mission Innovation funds 

within the fossil R&D program as ‘‘doubling federal clean energy 

research and development investments.’’ Does the administration 
88 

no longer consider CCPI projects like the Summit Power Group’s 

Texas Clean Energy Project 400 megawatt coal gasification plant 

as a ‘‘clean’’ energy? Isn’t this just the sort of project that is exactly 

what the administration promised would be the result of Mission 

Innovation? 

It is my understanding that the company had every indication 

from DOE that they were moving forward, only to be told as the 

budget was released that the entirety of the remaining funding for 

the project was being repurposed in this year’s proposal. 

I’m sure that you’re aware that the Texas delegation sent out a 

bipartisan letter to you last week asking for specifics on the Department’s interactions with TCEP. And without objection, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to enter this letter into the record. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. BABIN. And can you provide any additional information, Mr. 

Secretary, on why this decision was made with practically—virtually no notice? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, sir. First of all, I want to emphasize this 

was a programmatic choice, but you asked several questions. Number one is, yes, this is a Clean Energy Project, as are all of the carbon capture utilization and sequestration projects. 

Number two, we remain committed to having a strong program 

in this arena. And in fact, there are three large-scale capture 

projects that are either operating already or will be operating two 

more within a year. That includes the Petra Nova project in Texas 

with a coal combustion plant. 

The issue with the Summit project, the TCEP project, is that 

frankly, after a long time of us trying to support them—because, 

by the way, the program and I think this is a good project. I mean, 

it’s—conceptually, it’s a great project. The trouble is they’ve been 

unable to meet many of their key milestones. 

This discussion has been ongoing. They have had, I don’t know, 

five or so transfers of phase 2 funding to phase 1. The program has 

gone out of its way to help. I personally was recruited to meet with 

the Chinese Exim Bank head twice. The program met in December 

with the CEO of the program. They asked for a financial plan. It 

was not forthcoming, and the program finally decided it was time 

to move on, giving, however, a no-cost extension to May to still give 

some time for the project to try to reach its milestones. 

So I think this has been an ongoing, longstanding discussion, and 

the fact of the matter is critical milestones are way overdue and 

are still not met. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, I hear that, but one concerning thing is 

that the Department of Energy continually cites these failures to 

secure engineering and performance contracts as one of the major 

missed milestones, but in fact these contracts were publicly signed 

in December and January, and the December signing ceremony 

was in Beijing, even had DOE officials in attendance at that ceremony. 

Secretary MONIZ. There has been EPC contract progress; partial, 

not complete, and the whole issue of financial close has certainly 

not been addressed. Again, we’re not happy about it, but at some 

point the question was to move on, and in fact what the program 
89 

is proposing is to repurpose those funds into new, innovative technologies at a smaller scale, chemical looping, oxy-combustion alternative approaches. So that’s where the program has come down. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, and I appreciate what you’re saying. You’re for 

the concept because the concept here, this project would store 90 

percent of the CO2 emitted. And carbon capture and storage is 

something that I think is the goal of this administration and of 

your department. 

Secretary MONIZ. And we do have three large demonstration 

projects that will do that as well. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have similar questions that I want to ask you, 

but first, let me also take the time to submit a letter to the record 

regarding the Texas Clean Energy Project. The Texas Clean Air 

Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Great Plains 

Institute, Third Way, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 

also sent a letter of support praising the potential for CO2 capture. 

And also, Mr. Secretary, I wanted you to know that in addition 

to the Texas delegation letter of support that was just mentioned, 

the Washington State delegation and other environmental organizations will also be sending letters of support asking for DOE’s consideration. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And without objection, those letters will 

be made a part of the record. 

[The information appears on Appendix II] 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Also, Mr. Moniz, let me ask you about just being able to work 

with Congress to find a fair and transparent way to approach this 

project. And you just kind of—and you kind of touched on it a little 

bit but can you delve into that just a little bit more? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, as I said, I mean, the program, first of 

all, has taken many, many steps to help the project to be able to 

reach its goals. Most especially, financial closure has not happened. 

The—so the—but the program, again, gave the extension into May, 

the no-cost extension, to provide more time. If they were to meet 

milestones in that period, obviously, we would be going back to 

work with the project. But at some point we need performance. 

There’s no—no one questions the desirability of the project as a 

project design, its objectives, its goals. That isn’t the issue. But the 

program decided it was just time to move on and to invest in some 

new innovative technologies because of the lack of milestones being 

met. 

Chairman SMITH. Would the gentleman from Texas yield just for 

a minute? 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Secretary Moniz, just a follow-up on your—on 

that statement, it seems to me that in a budget of the size of the 

Department of Energy and with all the agreement we have on the 

necessity for research and development in certain areas, that the 

Department might be able to take another look at that project and 
90 

find some additional funds. We’re just talking about several million 

dollars on a yearly basis, and I hope the Secretary would consider 

doing that. 

Secretary MONIZ. We will—okay. We will certainly—I will certainly go back and—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —talk with the program about that. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Also, most of the questions I wanted to ask, they were already 

covered, but I did want to ask you just one more thing and that 

is about EOR, enhanced oil recovery. You know, with carbon capture being a part of the question that I asked you earlier, what do 

you think of the future of EOR? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, EOR is a—has been extremely important, 

as you—I think in—you may know there’s a lot of CO2 flooding 

right now producing oil. The—a real issue has been the substantial 

drop in the oil price has made the EOR benefit less consequential 

for the overall economics. But the potential is dramatic. 

There’s a report now, it’s quite old, it’s more than a decade old 

that said that, conceivably, the United States could reach two to 

three million barrels of oil per day from CO2 flooding, and that 

would require hundreds of megatons of CO2 per year that would 

have to be found from commercial plants. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. PALMER. [Presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Takano 

from Hawaii. 

Mr. TAKANO. California. 

Mr. PALMER. California, I’m sorry. Hawaii, California. 

Mr. TAKANO. That’s the other Mr. Takano. 

Mr. PALMER. Sorry. 

Mr. TAKANO. Other Mr. Takei. 

Mr. PALMER. Takei. Okay. For five minutes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for being here. You 

know my own home State of California has a 1.3 gigawatt energy 

storage mandate, and utilities must procure 50 percent of their energy from renewables by 2030. As a Californian and the co-Chair 

of the bipartisan Battery Energy Storage Caucus, I am very interested in supporting this technology. 

It was recently announced that the Advanced Research Energy 

Projects-Energy, ARPA–E, made a big breakthrough in battery 

storage technology and have reached some holy grails in batteries. 

Can you talk a little bit about this breakthrough and how research 

and development dollars are so critical to fostering this type of 

high-risk technology? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly, the—first of all, storage is a 

critical technology and potential game-changer, so we’re all on the 

same page with that. And in fact in this budget there is substantial 

increased support for storage, both grid storage and mobile vehicle 

storage. The goals are—include things like doubling energy density 
91 

while halving the costs, so they’re pretty aggressive goals. I think 

we’re making excellent progress towards them. 

And there are a variety of technologies being looked at. I think 

what you’re referring to, I believe, is a flow battery advance that 

is still not quite at the holy grail but it’s very, very, very encouraging. 

Mr. TAKANO. Great. I know you’ve already talked about renewable energy and the grid, and could you talk a little bit more about 

the Department of Energy’s Grid Modernization Initiative, and 

what about—and what the grid of the future looks like? And how 

does the budget request help us get there? 

Secretary MONIZ. So the Grid Modernization Initiative is the socalled crosscut that—for which we have the largest increase proposed because we think it is so central. We have a lot of infrastructures that depend upon the grid infrastructure for their operations. 

So it’s absolutely central. 

So the Grid Modernization Initiative I would say at high level it 

certainly advances the technologies that one needs for a much more 

sophisticated set of sensors, IT data integration, real-time modeling 

of the grid for reliability and resilience and for connecting potentially very geographically diverse sources and loads. It will also go 

through the distribution system. We have a strong focus on the systems analysis, how do you put all of this together in a way that 

operates, again, emphasizing resilience and reliability. 

I might also add it will address the spectrum of risks from cyber 

to physical to geomagnetic disturbances. We have a program on 

EMP going on with Oak Ridge and EPRI, so it’s a pretty comprehensive program looking at this grid of the future, which will 

need to serve in a very different way, particularly if distributed 

generation becomes a large part of the picture. 

Mr. TAKANO. Distributed generation meaning not so centralized? 

Secretary MONIZ. The generation more at the load themselves 

like, for example, rooftop solar would be—— 

Mr. TAKANO. That’s a good example—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —a clear example—— 

Mr. TAKANO. —of distributed—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Distributed generation. Right. 

Mr. TAKANO. You know, in light of the events—you mentioned 

kind of the different kinds of threats to the grid. In light of the 

events in the Ukraine where it appears that a coordinated cyber attack was successfully carried out on the country’s electric grid, how 

is DOE prioritizing research in grid security? 

Secretary MONIZ. Quite high. I mean, cybersecurity is a very, 

very serious threat, and I can say that the energy infrastructure 

is a target of many cyber attacks, and those are increasing year by 

year. So we have programs looking at new technology approaches. 

We have programs looking at working with the utilities directly in 

terms of their cyber defenses. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. Thank 

you. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. I’d like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, 

some big-picture questions about fusion energy. As it safe to say 
92 

that fusion energy is possible? In other words, it’s not a like a perpetual motion machine, it’s not like traveling faster than the speed 

of light? It’s possible that we could have sustainable fusion energy 

reactors, right? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. So it’s been 50 years since we started 

trying and we’ve spent, oh, probably more than $50 billion trying 

to accomplish this. Why hasn’t it happened yet? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is extremely difficult. The—certainly in confined plasma approaches, you know, the kinds of temperatures 

and—that are reached are extraordinary and we have materials 

issues, we have instability issues, and while there has been a lot 

of progress in terms of increasing the density of plasmas, we’re not 

anywhere near there. We’ve not achieved ignition whether it’s in 

confined plasma or in ICF. 

Mr. GRAYSON. So what do we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And I might add that ARPA–E did put out a 

program which tried to open up a new frontier in some sense intermediate between inertial confined fusion and magnetically confined 

plasmas. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And the status of that? 

Secretary MONIZ. I’m sorry? 

Mr. GRAYSON. The status of that? 

Secretary MONIZ. The work is—the awards were made last year, 

and they’re typically three-year awards. The research is going on 

right now. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What percentage of the fusion budget is now being 

spent on ITER—the ITER project? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the ITER—the appropriation this year for 

ITER is $115 million, and the total fusion budget—I forgot exactly 

but it’s 200 and something. It’s probably, I’m guessing, 40 percent, 

something like that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Maybe not putting all of our eggs in one 

basket but aren’t we putting an awful lot of eggs in that one basket? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly, it’s a large fraction of the budget. It’s actually below the nine percent that ITER calls for. As you 

know, we have a report due to Congress on May 2 on making a recommendation on what path to take with ITER, and that will be 

based in turn, among other things, on a technical review report due 

in April. So I think, you know, obviously the Congress has called 

for a decision point, and in May we will be providing a report. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What would be some of the economic and social 

impacts if you were able to solve this problem, we had feasible fusion reaction? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, of course, I just want to emphasize that 

feasible here in the end does also require an economic test in terms 

of its being competitive in the—in a low-carbon marketplace. Certainly if that’s the case, fusion has the advantage of not having 

some of the waste challenges that one has in fission, for example, 

and it could provide a major baseload power source. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What do you mean by the issue that you just—the 

waste? Be more specific about that, please. 
93 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, in fission the dominant part of the waste 

are the fission products that remain the challenge for a few hundred years typically. And so it’s very, very radioactive and also very 

temperature hot as well, at least initially, whereas in fusion where 

one is dealing with very light elements, you do not have anything 

like the fission products. You clearly have materials that have been 

irradiated by neutrons, you know, that need to be D&D’ed at the 

end of the life of the reactor, but it’s nothing like the long-term radioactivity of fission-spent fuel. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you picture the operating costs, not the capital 

costs but the operating costs of a fusion reactor to be high, low, or 

very, very low? 

Secretary MONIZ. I just don’t know until we see what the technology is. I just—as you said, it’s been 50 years but I think we still 

can’t answer that question. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, a couple decades ago NASA was running 

into a problem with giant white elephant projects, and they decided 

to go by a different route that they refer to as faster, better, and 

cheaper. Do you think that that tells us anything about where we 

should be going with fusion? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, there’s no way around the fact 

that in fusion you’re going to have to, one way or another, confine 

a nuclei in a challenging way. 

Now, what is interesting in my view is that there are about 50 

companies in the United States pursuing nuclear technologies, 

most of them fission but some of them fusion. Some of them have 

been prominently displayed on the front cover of a popular magazine, for example, two months ago. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. My time is up. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. I now recognize myself for questions. Mr. Moniz, in 

February of this year a report surfaced that you, along with other 

senior department officials, are using private email accounts to conduct official work-related business. Have you ever transmitted sensitive or classified information over your private email? 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly not, but I do need to clarify. I believe 

there’s a little bit of a—just to make sure we’re talking about the 

same thing. At DOE I have two accounts, one of which is ‘‘my private account’’ that I get emails directly to and another which is, 

frankly, the public-facing account, which gets screened by the Executive Secretary. So—the—but those are both DOE accounts. 

On the occasions when—if I get an email to my personal, personal account that’s relevant to DOE business, I copy it to the government accounts so that there’s a record of all—of everything. 

Mr. PALMER. So you’re testifying that you’ve got two official accounts—— 

Secretary MONIZ. At DOE—— 

Mr. PALMER. —at DOE—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —correct. 

Mr. PALMER. —and that occasionally you’ve used your personal 

account? Have you ever transmitted classified— 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely not. 

Mr. PALMER. —sensitive data over your personal account? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely not. And everything—— 
94 

Mr. PALMER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And everything is—if that comes in—mostly 

coming-in mail, then I copy it and any response into my DOE—in 

my DOE account—— 

Mr. PALMER. Do—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —so there’ll be a complete government record. 

Mr. PALMER. Do other members of—or officials in the Department of Energy use personal email accounts to your knowledge? 

Secretary MONIZ. To my knowledge, no. Again, with—no, at least 

not—if—again, we can’t avoid receiving an email—— 

Mr. PALMER. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. —but then the direction is everything has to be 

copied to the government account. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, that’s interesting because the—are you aware 

of this report about federal agencies and particularly DOE and 

FERC using personal emails for business? 

Secretary MONIZ. My understanding—I’ve not seen the report, 

but my understanding is that was this confusion over having the 

two emails—— 

Mr. PALMER. Well, it’s not just you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. —in DOE. 

Mr. PALMER. —it’s some of the officials at DOE. 

Secretary MONIZ. To my knowledge, no one is using personal 

email for government business without having it in the government 

record. 

Mr. PALMER. Without having it in the government record. Title 

44 covers that and requires that if you do use a personal email account that you’ve got to copy that to your government account 

within 20 days. Do you have a policy to ensure that any employee 

who may use a personal email account complies with the law? 

Secretary MONIZ. I—well, I assume since it’s the law that it is 

a policy, but I’d have to check with general counsel in terms of how 

explicitly we have that. But I can assure you with me it’s 20 seconds. 

Mr. PALMER. That’s very reassuring, and we’re all grateful for 

that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. I do think, though, that considering the reports that 

are out there and considering what’s going on in other agencies and 

it is going on in other agencies—and the reason I bring this up is 

that we’ve had this come up with—I’m on the Oversight Committee. It’s come up with this. One of the things that I’m trying to 

do is ensure that we protect our information systems and particularly our most sensitive information systems. 

As we’ve had some discussions here—I think Mr. Grayson raised 

this about some of the things—or I think it was you that says it 

shows up in some of the Popular Science or whatever magazines. 

But there are some things that need to be protected, and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And, sir, I’m happy, by the way—I’ll go back 

and check with the counsel, and we’re happy to reinforce the guidelines to everyone. Again, I don’t know of any issue, but we can reinforce that. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, the reason I’m bringing this up is that the 

same information that we had made the claim that there was a 
95 

FOIA request that the department officials declined to respond to 

because it involved information transmitted over your private 

email account. Now, private email account, can you distinguish between the two accounts that you have at the Department of Energy? Is—one of those might be considered a private account versus 

your personal email account? 

Secretary MONIZ. The—again, the—one account at the Department of Energy is private in the sense that that—— 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. —email address is certainly not available to 

the public, but it is a government account. It is completely a government account. 

Mr. PALMER. Are you aware of anyone in your department refusing to comply with a FOIA request? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am not aware of it, no. I’d have to check with 

the General Counsel. 

Mr. PALMER. Can you check with the General Counsel and get 

back with us—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. —and we can submit some very specific questions 

that you can respond to. So we would like to know whether or not 

there had been a FOIA request that involved any of your email accounts in which the Department did not respond. And so if you 

could do that, we’ll get the questions to you, and we’d like an answer, I think, within 10 days. Would that be sufficient? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would think so. I will—again, I’ll talk to my 

counsel. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I’d like to thank the witness for his testimony 

and the members for their questions. The record will remain open 

for two weeks for additional written comments and written questions from members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(97) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
98 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Ernest Moniz 
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) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
130 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN BABIN
131 
132 
133 
134 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASY
135 
136 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE LAMAR S. SMITH
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ELIZABETH H. ESTY
144 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE THE HON. ERNEST MONIZ
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
162 
163 

Æ