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

22–783 2017

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ROLE IN 

ADVANCING THE NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND 

ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 

Serial No. 114–170 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY M CMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. M CKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, J R., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA D EGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY M CNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

VACANCY 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. M CKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY M CNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, J R., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 53 

WITNESSES

Ernest Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ......................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 55 

(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ROLE IN ADVANCING THE NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND 

ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Olson presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Olson, Barton, Latta, Harper, 

McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Flores, Mullin, Upton (ex 

officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Yarmuth, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, Energy & Power; 

Blair Ellis, Digital Coordinator/Press Secretary; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; Robert 

Ivanauskas, Detailee, Energy & Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Ben Lieberman, Counsel, Energy & Power; Brandon 

Mooney, Professional Staff Member, Energy & Power; Mary 

Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; John Ohly, Professional Staff, 

Oversight & Investigations; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter 

Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Andy Zach, Counsel, Energy & Environment; Jean Fruci, Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority 

Policy Coordinator; Dan Miller, Minority Staff Assistant; Alexander 

Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief 

Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, 

Outreach and Member Services; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy 

and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press 

Secretary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. OLSON. This hearing will finally come to order. Obviously, 

four votes and members going home have put a time crunch on this 

committee. 

I want every member to know, whether you’re Republican or 

Democrat, ten terms or your first term, you will have a chance to 

ask our witness your questions. 

2 

But that means I’ll be very aggressive with the gavel to ensure 

you stick to the 5-minute limit, and here’s my example. I give myself 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

America is back. We are an energy superpower. That statement 

would have sounded odd a handful of years ago and laughable in 

the 1970s. 

But the fact is we are awash in energy. Today, we are the world’s 

leading producer of oil and gas and we are less reliant upon foreign 

sources of energy. 

Our resources are plentiful and affordable—so affordable that 

low prices have become a common complaint back home in Houston, Texas, except for my daughter in college who now has more 

money from her allowance. Instead of buying gasoline, she goes to 

Starbucks more often. 

This subcommittee has been hard at work to bring energy policy 

into the 21st century and we are beginning to see positive effects. 

Since we have lifted the ban on crude exports last year, American 

oil is spreading all across the globe. We are undercutting OPEC 

and Russia, helping our allies and giving American workers an opportunity to compete. Natural gas imports are ramping up as well, 

a trend that’s likely to continue if we get the permitting process 

right. 

Unlike other energy commodities, you have to ask DOE for a permit to export natural gas. Unfortunately, these are applications 

that have been held up at DOE and sometimes for at least three 

years without a decision. 

These delays are jeopardizing major construction projects and 

threatening American jobs. We have the opportunity for jobs and 

affordable energy right here at home and to our allies abroad. 

But there is still much work to be done. It is hard to build infrastructure in this country. Yes, my own state of Texas has plenty 

of oil and gas to serve our homes and our businesses. But our 

friends in New England face gas shortages and price spikes because it is almost impossible to build a pipeline. 

In other parts of the country people pay more than they should 

for electricity because of harmful EPA regulations. We are using 

our Energy Conference with the Senate to examine ways to improve infrastructure permitting plus a whole host of other topics 

such as grid and cybersecurity, energy efficiency and workforce development. 

Likewise, we are in an era of abundance at home and must be 

vigilant concerning emergency preparedness. For example, the Nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve—the SPR—is aging rapidly and 

the DOE’s long-term strategic review, at least last week, raise very 

serious issues about the ability of the SPR to meet its mission. 

According to the report, the SPR may only be able to effectively 

distribute about half as much of the oil it is designed to supply in 

an emergency—one half. 

Congress has authorized $2 billion for SPR infrastructure modernization. But before that can be approved we need the department to be open and transparent about the condition of SPR and 

the funds required to rehabilitate it. 

We want to make DOE a bigger part, a critical part, of our emergency response and that’s why we used last year’s FAST Act to 

3 

grant new emergency authorities and procedures to act in some 

specific cases. 

However these limits—there are limits to this authority that we 

give DOE. Any new requests will be closely scrutinized. 

Again, thank you for joining us today, Mr. Secretary. I am proud 

that this hearing, just like last week’s, will mostly be bipartisan. 

Everybody on this dais wants the same thing—an energy economy 

that brings jobs and creates security at home with opportunities to 

advance our interests overseas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON

America is an energy superpower. That statement would have sounded odd a 

handful of years ago, and laughable in the 1970s. But the fact is that we are awash 

in energy. Today, we are the world’s leading producer of oil and gas and we’re less 

reliant on foreign imports. Our resources are plentiful and affordable—so affordable 

that low oil prices have become a common complaint back in Houston. 

This subcommittee has been hard at work to bring our energy policy into the 21st 

century, and we’re beginning to see the positive effects. Since we’ve lifted the ban 

on crude oil exports last year, American oil is a spreading across the globe. We are 

undercutting OPEC and Russia, helping our allies, and giving American workers an 

opportunity to compete. 

Natural gas exports are ramping up as well, a trend that is likely to continue if 

we get the permitting process right. Unlike other energy commodities, you have to 

ask DOE for a permit to export natural gas. Unfortunately, there are applications 

that have been held up at DOE for years without a decision. These delays are jeopardizing major construction projects and threatening American jobs. 

We have the opportunity for jobs and affordable energy at home and aid to our 

allies abroad. 

But there is still much work to be done—— 

It is too hard to build infrastructure in this country. Yes, Texas has plenty of oil 

and gas to serve our homes and businesses, but our friends in New England face 

gas shortages and price spikes because it’s almost impossible to build a new pipeline. And in other parts of the country, people pay more than they should for electricity because of harmful EPA regulations. 

We are using the energy conference to examine ways to improve infrastructure 

permitting, pl us a whole host of other topics such as grid and cyber-security, energy 

efficiency, and workforce development. 

Likewise, while we are in an era of abundance at home, we must be vigilant in 

considering emergency preparedness. For example, the nation’s Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve (SPR) is aging rapidly, and the DOE’s Long-Term Strategic Review, released last week, raised very serious issues about the ability of the SPR to meet 

its mission. 

According to the report, the SPR may only be able to effectively distribute about 

half as much oil as it is designed to supply in an emergency. Congress has already 

authorized $2 billion dollars for SPR infrastructure modernization. Before it can be 

appropriated, we need the Department to be open and transparent about the condition of the SPR and funds required to rehabilitate it. 

We want to make sure DOE stays a critical part of emergency response. That is 

why we used last year’s FAST Act to grant new emergency response procedures to 

the Department to act in some specific cases. However, there are limits to the authority we will give to the DOE. Any new request will be closely scrutinized. 

Again, thank you for joining us today Mr. Secretary. I am proud that this hearing—just like last week’s—is relatively bipartisan. Everyone on this dais wants the 

same thing: an energy economy that brings economic and security benefits at home 

and opportunities to advance our interests abroad. 

Mr. OLSON. And I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for an 

opening statement for 5 minutes. 

4 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for holding today’s hearing evaluating the Department of Energy’s work on energy security here in the United States and I’d like to welcome Secretary Moniz back and thank him for his efforts to provide us all 

with a more secure energy future. 

This is an important topic but the realities of energy security are 

changing as our energy mix changes. We can no longer simply look 

at oil supply when we think about energy security. 

Our country must take a broader approach that encompasses 

cleaner energy technologies including renewable energy technologies, which are becoming more affordable. 

And beyond the realities of our energy mix we must recognize 

the impacts climate change is having on energy security here in the 

United States and abroad. 

Our nation is not alone in this. The G7 Energy Initiative for Energy Security states ‘‘that reducing emissions from fossil fuels is 

necessary to tackle climate change and can enhance our energy security.’’ 

Simply put, an energy future that reduces our carbon emissions 

and our reliance on fossil fuels is a more secure energy future. But 

simply recognizing and identifying issues affecting our energy security is not enough. We must take real action to enhance and protect 

our energy infrastructure. I have championed two critical proposals 

borne out of DOE’s quadrennial energy review—one to support 

state efforts to modernize and harden the electricity grid and the 

other to encourage investment in the repair of old leaking natural 

gas pipeline infrastructure in major metropolitan regions. 

And to make our energy future more secure, we must make serious investments in our aging and often outdated energy infrastructure. 

I would be remiss if I did not also mention the energy bill conference. Along with my colleagues who sit on the conference committee, we have started the difficult process of merging two very 

different bills, and while some progress has been made there are 

still many contentious issues to be resolved and I have made it 

clear that one of my top priorities in any final energy conference 

report is providing investments in our energy infrastructure to address some of the needs outlined in the QER such as grid modernization. 

Mr. Chairman, the energy sector in 2016 looks vastly different 

than it did the last time we passed major energy legislation. 

Changes in energy markets, new technologies, improved efficiency 

and shifting consumer demand are all transforming how we think 

about energy security. 

Secretary Moniz, I want to thank you for bringing this conversation to the forefront and for your work to bolster our energy and 

overall national security and I look forward to your testimony. 

And I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. 

McNerney. 

5 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, first of all, I want to thank the chairman 

for holding this hearing. Energy is an issue I care deeply about. I 

am glad to have a chance to hear from Secretary Moniz. 

Mr. Secretary, I am always happy to have you in front of our 

committee to give us the latest information on what’s happening at 

the DOE and around the country in the energy sector. 

I doubt if anyone in our country is more knowledgeable than you 

are and you have the gift of being able to traverse the political 

landscape without too many scars to show. So congratulations. 

Our nation’s energy system works reasonably well most of the 

time, providing electricity, natural gas, oil and coal reliably and at 

an affordable cost. 

This has been one of the foundations of our nation’s economy and 

security. Because of this, most people take our energy system for 

granted until the disruption takes place such as an oil shortage or 

oil price spikes, large power failures or climate-caused disasters. 

It is our and your responsibility, Mr. Secretary, to make sure 

that the energy systems continue to operate smoothly and reliably. 

This means the proper regulatory framework be in place to encourage the investments needed to keep our energy systems operating 

and up to date with the challenges we face of new technology, 

changing demand, a changing generation—new sources of oil and 

gas—retiring nuclear plants and the different threats to our energy 

systems. 

The quadrennial energy review along with other statutes such as 

the FAST Act and the pending North America Energy Security and 

Investment Act are designed to make sure that we succeed in keeping our energy system in good condition. 

And that brings us to today’s hearing. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony and to the back and forth that will follow 

to help me increase my understanding of our successes and of the 

challenges that remain. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you Chairman Olson and Ranking Member Rush for holding today’s hearing evaluating the Department of Energy’s work on energy security here in the 

United States. I would like to welcome Secretary Moniz back and thank him for his 

efforts to provide us all with a more secure energy future. 

This is an important topic—but the realities of energy security are changing as 

our energy mix changes. We can no longer simply look at oil supply when we think 

about energy security; our country must take a broader approach that encompasses 

cleaner energy technologies, including renewable energy technologies, which are becoming more affordable. And, beyond the realities of our energy mix, we must recognize the impacts climate change is having on energy security here in the U.S. and 

abroad. Our nation is not alone in this: the G7 Energy Initiative for Energy Security 

states that ‘‘reducing emissions from fossil fuels is necessary to tackle climate 

change and can enhance our energy security.’’ Simply put, an energy future that reduces our carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels is a more secure energy 

future. 

But simply recognizing and identifying issues affecting our energy security is not 

enough—we must take real action to enhance and protect our energy infrastructure. 

I have championed two critical proposals—born out of DOE’s Quadrennial Energy 

Review (QER)—one to support state efforts to modernize and harden the electricity 

grid, and the other to encourage investment in the repair of old, leaking natural gas 

pipeline infrastructure in major metropolitan regions. To make our energy future 

6 

more secure, we must make serious investments in our aging and often outdated 

energy infrastructure. 

I would be remiss if I did not also mention the ongoing energy bill conference. 

Along with my colleagues who sit on the conference committee, we have started the 

difficult process of merging two very different bills. And while some progress has 

been made, there are still many contentious issues to be resolved. I have made it 

clear that one of my top priorities in any final energy conference report is providing 

investments in our energy infrastructure to address some of the needs outlined in 

the QER, such as grid modernization. 

The energy sector in 2016 looks vastly different than it did the last time we 

passed major energy legislation. Changes in energy markets, new technologies, improved efficiency and shifting consumer demand are all transforming how we think 

about energy security. Secretary Moniz, I thank you for bringing this conversation 

to the forefront and for your work to bolster our energy and overall national security. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back and right now it is time our 

distinguished witness to speak for 5 minutes. Mr. Moniz—he is our 

secretary of energy, a regular here at the committee. 

You have an invitation in December to come to Thompsons, 

Texas and see the energy at Petra Nova project. As you know, my 

friend, that’s the first viable carbon capture enhanced oil recovery 

situation in the whole country. So invitation and 5 minutes for 

your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Vice Chairman Olson and Ranking 

Member Pallone and members of the subcommittee. 

I am very pleased to be here to discuss our role in energy security. U.S. energy security must be considered in the context of the 

changing U.S. energy profile, the evolving threat environment and 

the global security challenges facing our country and our allies in 

various regional settings. 

The U.S. is now the number-one producer of liquid fuels and of 

natural gas in the world but remains a major importer of crude oil. 

The unconventional production locations of the new supply creates 

infrastructure challenges and the spread between U.S. and European and Asian natural gas prices has been reduced considerably. 

Renewable energy technology deployment is rising rapidly as 

costs continue to fall. Energy efficiency policies and technologies 

are contributing to slow growth in demand for electricity and flat 

or declining demand for oil even as our economy grows. 

Natural gas has replaced coal as the largest fuel source for power 

generation. This dramatically changed and changing energy landscape faces an evolving set of threats as well and the structure and 

nature of our energy emergency responses must keep pace with reality. 

We know that adversaries and homegrown actors are interested 

in the vulnerabilities of our critical infrastructures. Threats to our 

infrastructure includes severe weather, storm surges, exacerbated 

by rising and warming seas, earthquakes, wildfires, EMP, aging infrastructure, cyber threats, kinetic attacks, and growing infrastructure interdependencies. 

In response, there are now a range of laws, actions, and presidential directives and orders designed to protect our citizens, the 

7 

economy and critical infrastructures from those with malevolent intent and from the effects of natural disaster. 

Challenges like these underscore the need to rethink energy security in light of modern, domestic and global energy markets—the 

subject of this hearing. 

In June 2014, the G–7 and the EU endorsed a set of seven modern energy security principles. These principles are premised on 

the recognition of energy security as a collective responsibility 

among allies and friends. The first two principles deal with market 

structures, flexible, transparent and competitive energy markets, 

diversification of fuels, sources and routes, including indigenous 

sources. 

The next three principles highlight the transition to a low-carbon 

economy through clean energy and efficiency, innovation, and deployment as key to enduring energy security. 

And the last two principles deal with the need for energy infrastructure resilience and effective response to disruptions of all 

types including the need for strategic reserves. 

We have appreciated working with this committee and with Congress more broadly in responding to some of the resilience and response challenges and, as called for in the FAST Act, are working 

with the Department of State on an energy security evaluation 

study. 

In the remainder of this opening statement, I am just going to 

highlight a few points in my written submission to the committee. 

On oil, first, even with strong domestic production the U.S. remains directly tied to global oil markets, price volatility, and potential market disruptions. 

Second, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve remains essential to ensuring the U.S. economy can withstand serious oil supply disruptions and associated spikes in petroleum prices. 

The administration recommended in the QER and Congress authorized through the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act an investment of up to $2 billion in SPRO facilities and marine terminal infrastructure modernization. 

The long-term strategic review of the SPRO required by that act 

was submitted to Congress in August. 

The key issue on natural gas in energy security is the progress 

toward global natural gas markets principally through LNG developments. Increased U.S. natural gas production has contributed to 

a more financially liquid and competitive international and natural 

gas market which has improved global energy security for the U.S., 

our neighbors, partners, and allies. 

Physical exports of LNG from the lower 48 started in February 

of this year. Four more facilities are under construction. The U.S. 

entry into world LNG markets will also put downward pressure on 

European gas prices and could constrain the noncompetitive practices of Russia. 

The widening of the Panama Canal is coincident with growing 

U.S. LNG exports, thereby lowering supply chain costs from the 

Gulf to the Pacific Basin. 

The grid faces a lot of new demands based on new technologies 

for both generation and distribution and the need to address a new 

8 

set of vulnerabilities, institutional inertia, a complex jurisdictional 

environment, and a mix of delivery service models. 

The second installment of the QER, due later this year, will examine the issues confronting the nation’s electricity system. It’ll 

make policy recommendations on a range of issues including the 

changing generation mix, low load growth, increased 

vulnerabilities, severe weather and climate change, new technologies emerging, physical threats as well as cyber, aging infrastructure and workforce, jurisdictional issues, value creation and 

the need for an integrated North American electricity market. 

DOE’s grid modernization initiative complements the QER analysis by providing technology and system solutions. The majority of 

our national labs are directly involved in this. 

A key dimension of our efforts is our engagement with industry, 

especially through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council 

that bring together key federal agencies and electricity sector leaders around resilience and emergency response issues. 

Finally, the question of emergency authorities—with the FAST 

Act of last year, Congress provided DOE with a new authority to 

protect and restore critical infrastructure when the president declares a grid security emergency, enabling DOE to support preparation for and response to cyber, EMP, geomagnetic disturbance, and 

physical attack threats. The FAST Act also noted the critical nature of large power transformers and required a feasibility study 

of a strategic transformer reserve which we will complete by the 

end of the year. 

President Policy Directive 21 identifies DOE as the sector-specific 

agency for energy infrastructure. As that, we serve as the day-today federal interface for the prioritization and coordination of activities to strengthen the security and resilience of critical energy 

infrastructure. 

In addition, we serve as the lead agency for Emergency Support 

Function 12 under the national preparedness systems, the national 

response framework. So we are responsible for facilitating recovery 

from disruptions to the energy infrastructure. 

We look forward to working with Congress now on the alignment 

of authorities, responsibilities, resources and organization. 

In conclusion, it is clear that energy security has many dimensions, from global market structures to the low-carbon energy system, transformation to resilient infrastructure and response to a 

changing threat environment. 

Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the committee, I look forward to continuing to 

work with the committee and setting the stage for the next administration and beyond. I look forward to our discussion. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of the Honorable Ernest Moniz follows:] 

9 


22783.001
10 


22783.002
11 


22783.003
12 


22783.004
13 


22783.005
14 


22783.006
15 


22783.007
16 


22783.008
17 


22783.009
18 


22783.010
19 


22783.011
20 


22783.012
21 


22783.013
22 


22783.014
23 


22783.015
24 


22783.016
25 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir, and we will begin the questions with 

myself—5 minutes for questions. 

OK. Last year, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Budget Act and 

the FAST Act, as you mentioned. They have provisions to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—the SPR—and improve its 

emergency response capability. 

One of the requirements was for DOE to complete a long-term 

strategic review and report to Congress. That report is out, as you 

mentioned. 

It raised some serious questions about the ability of the SPR to 

meet its mission. My first question is how much oil are we supposed to have if we have to draw down from the SPR if we have 

an emergency? 

Secretary MONIZ. The designed draw down rate is just over 4 

million barrels a day. 

Mr. OLSON. What Is the actual draw down rate? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that depends very much on the specific 

circumstances but, of course, the whole point of the modernization 

of the SPRO is to improve our distributional capability, which has 

been compromised, actually ironically, by the very increase in production that we have seen in oil. 

Mr. OLSON. But your reports show the actual draw down is more 

than 2 million barrels per day below the designed draw down rate 

of 4.4 million barrels per day. Are you concerned by this? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, we are going to increase that with the 

project that the Congress has authorized and we’ve submitted our 

appropriation request for the first tranche. 

And if I may just add, Mr. Chairman, that it is urgent that that 

be approved because the authorization was only for 4 years. So we 

really need to get on with the project. 

Mr. OLSON. How do you suggest to meet the mission to make 

sure the SPR is viable? How should we do that? Any ideas? 

Secretary MONIZ. To make sure it is what? Well—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. To prove its ability. To prove its ability. 

Secretary MONIZ. It’s modernization and it is building new marine distribution infrastructure in the Gulf region. 

Mr. OLSON. Details. Great. The second line of questioning, both 

the House and Senate have passed bipartisan legislation to streamline a process for LNG exports and there’s more than one legislative option to push that across the finish line. 

The House would like to see it included in the defense spending 

bill. It is also under consideration in the Energy Conference. Do 

you agree that LNG exports offer wide-ranging benefits to the economy, energy security and maybe even the climate? 

Secretary MONIZ. The national interest determination that we 

make is precisely to answer those questions and so far we have approved and, frankly, since our change of the process in 2014 we 

have approved quite speedily every application that is ready for action. 

The idea that we are somehow dragging this out is simply incorrect. The national interest determination requires us to get the appropriate information including, for example, FERC’s action. 

So right now we have acted on all of the applications and, frankly, up to now we’ve approved them all. Since our streamlining of 

26 

the process in 2014 we have approved them as short as one day 

after having the FERC action to a few weeks. 

Mr. OLSON. Let us choose that one day all the time. That sounds 

like a benchmark we should over and over and over—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I think one day all the time would be stretching credulity since there are questions that we have to answer. But 

we have been committed to expeditiously addressing these applications. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My final question is what areas of the 

federal emergency permitting process need the most improvement? 

Why does it seem to take longer to permit midstream energy infrastructure like pipelines than it does to pass, site and approve a 

drilling rig and also power stations? 

How come they are different than pipelines? How come upstream 

is different than downstream and midstream? Also for the energy 

permitting process? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think of energy infrastructure as a 

whole. The Congress has, frankly, distributed responsibility for different elements of infrastructure among multiple agencies. 

DOE has some responsibility. The EPA has some. Department of 

Transportation has some. Department of State has some. Those 

particular issues that you raise certainly are not in the Department 

of Energy’s bailiwick. 

Mr. OLSON. Should they be? Should they be in your bailiwick? 

Can you take—you would be the big king of the jungle, so to speak? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think that would be an interesting discussion 

between the Congress and the administration. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. That’s the end of my questions. I now 

yield to the ranking member, to Mr. Pallone, ranking member of 

the full committee for his 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you some questions on LNG particularly related to language in the energy bill on LNG exports that 

is concerning me. 

As you know, applications for LNG export have been increasing 

in recent years. So since revising the approval process for LNG applications in 2014, DOE has been able to quickly approve applications after FERC completes their review. Is that correct? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, it is. 

Mr. PALLONE. And typically, how long does it take DOE to turn 

these applications around? 

Secretary MONIZ. As I said, it has been between a day and a few 

weeks, since 2014. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, the Energy Conference is considering two 

provisions that would require DOE to approve an application for 

export within 30 days of FERC publishing the final EIS. 

Proponents argue this deadline is necessary to ensure timely consideration by DOE. But given the department’s track record, I find 

this arbitrary deadline to be completely unnecessary. In fact, it 

could be detrimental to the ultimate approval of an expert application. 

In light of recent events related to the Jordan Cove application 

in Oregon, do you believe it makes sense to force DOE to hastily 

make a decision on an application based on the final EIS? 

27 

Secretary MONIZ. We have consistently said that we see no need 

for this by performance and as you’ve said, I think very correctly, 

there can be unintended consequences, in fact, which can go in the 

opposite direction. 

The Jordan Cove, for example, when that was rejected by FERC 

for non-environmental reasons it would have caused a problem 

with the bills as proposed. 

So, we really should be having records of decision by FERC in 

this case or MARAD for an offshore facility because that is the 

complete set of information that informs our final judgment. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Now, I wanted to ask you about climate change and note that climate change has to play—or is significant in terms of energy security. 

By lessening our reliance on fossil fuels and reducing our carbon 

emissions we can make our energy future more secure and you recognize this in your testimony when you reference the vulnerability 

of our energy systems to climate change. 

So my question is can you talk a bit more about the impacts climate change is having on our energy security and what can be 

done to address this important issue? 

Secretary MONIZ. Climate change—first of all, we have seen just 

this week that a number of military leaders have pointed out how 

climate change is a risk to our national security broadly, which 

has, of course, energy security implications as well. 

Then there are the issues around rising sea levels and weather, 

et cetera. But, of course, the threats of energy security ultimately 

come to fossil fuel supply since we all have our own solar supply, 

et cetera, et cetera. 

So, clearly, as we go into a low-carbon transition we are addressing energy security. But in the near to midterm, we are also going 

to have to increase our approach to resilience of infrastructure because the many threats associated with climate change to our infrastructure are just growing and they will grow further. So that’s 

where we need to harden our infrastructures. 

We also need to improve our response to the inevitable disruptions that we have been seeing—flooding, obviously, in the southeast is an enormous issue—for example, wildfires in the West, 

droughts in the Southwest and California. 

We can go on and on with these regional impacts. So we need 

to really think about addressing our security and our climate issues 

in an integrative way. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I am going to try to get one more question here and that is about the electricity grid. 

In your testimony you discuss modernizing our country’s energy 

infrastructure. We have an electricity grid that represents the energy mix of the 20th century and not the present, more dynamic 

state in which we currently exist. 

So in your view, what parts of our energy infrastructure are currently the most vulnerable and in need of attention. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think there are many parts including, 

as you mentioned, our old natural gas pipelines that are a major 

safety and environmental problem. 

28 

But I would just focus my comments on electricity because, as we 

know, electricity is the grid that all the other infrastructures depend upon as well. 

There, we have many tasks at hand. One is we have to better 

integrate resources that are distributed and I think there is a lot 

of consumer and customer interest in more distributed generation. 

But that does not fit the traditional model of how electricity is delivered. 

So we have both technical and regulatory issues. But I would say 

one very big overarching issue is that we need to really get on with 

the job, in my view, of a much more complete integration of information technologies into the grid both to provide reliability and resilience but also to integrate that with providing new consumer 

services. 

So it is really an end-to-end kind of utilization of information 

technology. I think we are just scratching the surface right now. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the head of the full committee, Mr. Upton, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome back. It’s good to see you. I appreciate 

the relationship that we have had all these different years. 

I want to go back to some of the questions as it relates to SPRO, 

and if you’re not able to answer, something in writing afterwards 

will be certainly sufficient. 

Some would argue that SPRO should now be eliminated or somewhat phased down. It’s a relative of the 1970s era when we were 

subject to the Arab embargo. 

I point out that, of course, domestic energy production is up and 

imports are down. Private domestic oil stockpiles are at record levels and, of course, we are able to export crude for almost a year 

now and, in fact, we see that happening. 

And there is more than or there is almost a billion and a half 

barrels of crude oil petroleum products in private storage so they 

ask do we really need a government-owned stockpile. 

Now, are we actually required to hold public stocks of oil to meet 

international agreements and how do other countries do it? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, of course, maybe it is worth 

saying that we are still importers of about 7 million barrels a day 

of crude oil. So we have very major imports. We are now net exporters of oil products but a lot of crude oil imports. 

We are required by our agreements with the International Energy Agency, formed in the 1970s, not only to hold strategic reserves but also to have a particular share, which is about 44 percent, of the collective response capability of the OECD. 

Mr. UPTON. Is there a mix that’s required in terms of public and 

private supplies or not? 

Secretary MONIZ. It’s done differently in different countries. We 

do it by, obviously, having a physical reserve with four locations. 

Some other countries do it by requiring reserves with distributors, 

for example. So there are different ways, but that amount of oil always has to be on call. 

29 

I would say that and we can go into more detail but as you 

opened up your question—‘‘Do we need a petroleum reserve?’’—I 

think most vociferously I would answer yes and, again, that’s 

very—— 

Mr. UPTON. I knew that answer which is why I didn’t define it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. But again, the issue is, as I said in my 

opening remarks, is that we cannot become complacent because we 

are producing more oil. Because we are and we will remain linked 

to the global oil price, and our economy is exposed to that and this 

is a very, very important tool. It’s our premier energy security tool. 

Mr. UPTON. Let me go a little bit into the maintenance. As you 

know, in the DOE IG report more than 70 percent of SPRO’s equipment and infrastructure exceeded its serviceable life. 

The report identified five separate major equipment failures in the last couple years. I know that we authorized $2 billion for 

SPRO modernization, which was intended to go to needed repairs 

and upgrades. 

Is there a focus on major maintenance in the backlog of the repairs? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. So we estimate and we will be seeking— 

well, we’ve already asked for the first appropriation. 

Mr. UPTON. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. We seek $800 million, roughly, for the modernization and the upgrading of the equipment and another billion, 

roughly, for enhancing the marine distribution capability, which we 

really need now because of the new oil flow patterns with shale oil. 

Mr. UPTON. And if that money came through how long would it 

take to complete the work? 

Secretary MONIZ. It would be a few years and in fact the authorization that you all provided was for 4 years. So we need to get on 

with that now, and it should be finished within I think around 3 

years. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The chairman yields back. The chair recognizes the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rush, from Illinois for 

5 minutes. 

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

Mr. Secretary, it is always good to see you and welcome back to 

the committee and during these waning days of the Obama administration I want you to know that to some of us you will always 

be our rock star superstar secretary and we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. For 128 more days. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, it has been indeed a pleasure working 

with you to establish the critically important Minorities in Energy 

Initiative in DOE and sometime before those 128 days are up I 

would like to sit down with you and look at the progress and what 

needs to be done and what we’ve accomplished so far in this particular area. 

So my staff will be in contact with appropriate people in order 

for us to arrange that meeting. 

Secretary MONIZ. That would be a pleasure and particularly if we 

could help to set up the transition to the next administration to 

continue that work. 

Mr. RUSH. I look forward to it. 

30 

Mr. Secretary, in the House bill there is a provision that would 

have delayed any action on new efficiency standards for furnaces 

until after the department had issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. 

This was a provision that Chairman Whitfield and I put together 

by arranging all the energy stakeholders and all the efficiency community stakeholders in a room together and having them negotiate 

directly with each other until a consensus was reached. To the best 

of my knowledge, everyone on both sides of the aisle supported that 

provision. 

However, a little less than 2 weeks ago your department actually 

issued and that stated supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. 

To my mind, Mr. Secretary, you met the bar that we and, more 

importantly, the stakeholders set for you in the House bill as a condition for moving forward with the first new furnace efficiency 

standards in almost—in around 15 years. 

Now as we are in conference on the House and Senate energy 

patent we have proposed that the House provision as well as a 

similar provision in the Senate bill be dropped because once again, 

Mr. Secretary, and I emphasize you met the bar that we set for 

you. 

Do you agree that we should let your department move forward 

on the standards now that you have done what we asked? And 

then some of the stakeholders are unhappy and have threatened to 

take this to the courts. 

Should we even let the courts handle this at the American Gas 

Association publically propose or let you and your department attempt to respond to these concerns? Isn’t it in your court and 

shouldn’t it be in your court right now? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, Congressman Rush, I completely agree 

with you that I think this process has worked well for all kinds of 

efficiency standards. 

We go through the process. We listen, which is why, as you said, 

we heard the input of industry, acknowledged that there were some 

issues raised. That’s why we went back with the SNOPR, which did 

establish a new class of small furnaces, addressed, certainly, perhaps not all but some of the industry’s concerns. 

So this is working. We are now absorbing their comments on the 

SNOPR and we would look to try to get a final rule out actually 

this year. 

So the process is working and I think there’s a slippery slope if 

one starts to have the process interfered with for very specific 

rulemakings and because we do have a successful process that we 

are executing expeditiously. Thank you. 

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

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes a fellow 

Texan, chairman emeritus of the full committee, Chairman Joe 

Barton for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We got a few folks in the audience. Congressman Gingrey, glad to have you back, sir—former member of 

the committee and I think the subcommittee—and Mr. Bud 

Albright, who’s former chief of staff of the committee. Glad to have 

you. 

31 

I can’t think of the last time, Mr. Secretary, we had a Cabinet 

secretary volunteer to testify. I am told that you wanted to be here. 

Usually, we got to drag you guys kicking and screaming and 

threatening and all kinds of stuff. 

Secretary MONIZ. This is an important discussion. 

Mr. BARTON. And so you just said hey, I want to come by and 

visit and we dropped everything we were doing so we could hear 

you. We appreciate that. 

You mentioned in your opening statement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the FAST Act and the review of the function. 

You all put out a report, as you pointed out, a month or two ago. 

That report is a little bit hazy on details. I’ve had a few inquiries 

in my office about when do you plan to put out, perhaps hopefully, 

for competitive bids some of the big projects—the Life Extension 

project, the Maritime Terminal Enhancement. 

Are you going to competitively bid those and if so do you have 

a timetable for when those requests for bids might go out? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Well, of course, we need to have the appropriation before we can go out and so we have our first request 

in for the first appropriation, which would be focused principally on 

the modernization part. But just last—— 

Mr. BARTON. So the next year or so? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, no, sir. Early in the next year. We’d like 

to move out early in the next year and, again, with only 4 years 

of authorization we need to be pretty snappy in terms of moving 

this all forward. 

But the—— 

Mr. BARTON. Snappy is a technical term that you learned? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. That’s right. We have this under our formal project management system. The first milestone for the modernization was done last year. 

So we are ready to go. The first milestone for the marine terminal distribution only just happened last month. So that project 

will kind of be second in line but we will be starting the conceptual 

engineering in the next year. 

Mr. BARTON. You answered a question to Chairman Upton how 

important the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is and that it still is 

relevant. But you also answered his question that other countries 

do it differently. 

When we passed the ban—to repeal the ban on crude oil exports 

we also put in a provision to do a study of the SPR. 

I think it would be worthwhile to look at privatizing. You mentioned in an answer to Chairman Upton’s question you’re going to 

need about almost $2 billion to modernize it. 

It would seem that now would be a good time to maybe take a 

page out of the play book of the Europeans and look at privatizing 

the SPR so that the government is not on the hook for the maintenance and the modernization. Any interest in doing that and while 

you’re moving forward also look at privatizing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, we can certainly make the next team 

aware of that possibility. 

Mr. BARTON. You may be part of the next team. You’re sitting 

there smiling and volunteering. If Mr. Trump is the president he 

may just ask you to stick around for a while. 

32 

Secretary MONIZ. We could discuss that. 

Mr. BARTON. Yes. I am about to run out of time here. The folks 

in Chicago just have an attitude. That’s all there is to it. 

What’s your view of the market for crude oil exports now that we 

have repealed that ban and we are exporting crude oil and we did 

it in a way that we really set up a market? 

There is not a lot of bells and whistles in terms of government 

oversight or interference or anything. I think it is doing very well 

and I am very happy that we have brought balance to the world 

oil markets by repealing the ability of our domestic producers to export. Do you have any views on that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think I would in many ways just repeat 

what I said last year in the discussion because I believe it is being 

played out. 

Certainly, the increase in the amount of exports has been very, 

very modest—about 10 percent—because of course, we used to export to Canada but and that’s in the context that we still import 

7 million barrels. 

But what’s happened is that there are customers who really want 

the light sweet oil coming out of the shale and so I think there’s 

been some optimization of refinery operations in various countries 

by getting some of our light sweet oil. 

It’s had some ironic changes. For example, I recently visited the 

biggest East coast refinery in Philadelphia and at one point, they 

were taking 20 percent of the Bakken crude and shut off their imports from Africa and now that’s flipped. They’re back to threequarters African imports as the market has readjusted. 

But macro, as I expected, frankly, at least for some years I don’t 

see an enormous increase in the exports and that’s shown because 

especially the Louisiana Light Index has actually been trading 

even above Brent. So there’s not a big price differential to work 

with. 

Mr. BARTON. Right. Well, that’s the whole point of a market. As 

you know as secretary is you let them actually operate and that is 

in itself a tremendous achievement and over time I think it is 

going to bring benefits to the producers and to the—and to the consumer. 

My time is expired. I simply want to say thank you for your service to the country. You’ve always been available to the members of 

the committee. You’ve always been cordial. Our differences have 

been on policy, not on personality. I think you’ve served your country well as secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. BARTON. And I wish you the best in whatever the future may 

hold for you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BARTON. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, again, I thank the chair. 

Mr. Secretary, as more renewables come onto the grid and as localized generation increases, what future do you see for the transmission as a business, going forward, for electrical transmission? 

33 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, clearly, one of the important issues is the 

ability to integrate large sources, wind and solar, typically over 

large distances. And as we know, there is difficulty in the siting 

and building of these long-distance high-voltage lines. 

We did use the congressional authorities given to the Department of Energy earlier this year to approve one such project that 

crosses several state borders. 

It’s sufficient, probably, to say that is now in litigation. But it is 

very important if we are going to be able to really maximize our 

system for the 21st century. 

We need everything from the very long-distance transmission to 

distributed generation and bringing all of those things together is 

going to require grid and storage solutions. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, following up with that question, what do you 

see the business models looking like for the large utilities as we get 

more distributed generation? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think that there’s clearly a bit of a challenge in terms of how these business models evolve. And it is not 

just distributed generation. 

Distributed generation is a very important part of that. But I 

would just also note that our success in demand side management 

is also a challenge to traditional business models because, particularly when the pie is getting bigger, when the market is getting 

bigger, there are many more ways of bringing in new players. So 

there is that kind of system. 

And finally, I think—well, not finally but one other factor is that 

the regulatory structures, largely in many ways state-based, certainly on the distribution side, clearly, but the issue of how to 

value all the new pieces in the grid like storage, like capacity 

value, like low-carbon value, et cetera, we really have not yet managed to solve that problem. 

And so valuation, which will open up new business models, will 

be extremely important and that is a focus of our quadrennial energy review work right now that we hope to get out in December 

or so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Well, water is an essential component to 

energy security. Can you elaborate on DOE’s water energy technology team? How are they addressing that issue—the water-energy nexus in security? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Now for the last 2 years we have been 

ramping up this water-energy nexus work and there are several 

elements there. 

One, by the way, that we are focused on besides new technologies 

and we have proposed, by the way, in our fiscal year 2017 budget 

a new kind of, roughly, $25 million a year hub around water. It’s 

called ‘‘de-sal’’ but it is not just about the membranes. It’s about 

the system and how you clean up the water and everything else. 

So that’s a focus. 

But in addition, I would just note that from our perspective we 

think the quality and comprehensiveness of data on water is not 

up to where it needs to be, certainly in terms of publicly available 

databases. 

So I think this issue of working on data, working on technology 

and working on the systems issues are all critical. 

34 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I might add one more thing, international partners are really excited about working with us on this, 

and certainly Israel, which is so far advanced in these technologies, 

is one that we are building up a stronger collaboration on. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And could you briefly talk about the energy storage program at the department? 

Secretary MONIZ. The energy storage program is also one that we 

have expanded—a lot of congressional interest in that and support, 

which we appreciate. So we have a battery hub, which is doing extremely well. It is centered at Argonne. Berkeley is the major partner. So that’s going on. 

And I might just add we recently put out—maybe a month ago— 

a report on hydro and pointed out that in terms of storage we still 

have a lot of capacity for pumped hydro in the country, which today 

is the most cost effective in the places where you can do it. 

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

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the chairman very much and, Mr. Secretary, 

thanks for being with us today. It’s good to see you again. 

And I would like to touch on a couple of areas that you brought 

up in your testimony, one being fixing America’s surface transportation under the FAST Act, and under the FAST Act provides that 

DOE, with a new authority to protect and restore critical infrastructure when the president declares a grid security emergency. 

How has this new authority changed the way DOE works with 

the private sector to protect and restore critical infrastructure? 

Secretary MONIZ. So we are really ramping up that intersection. 

In fact, our Deputy Secretary just hosted a meeting with leaders 

from the electricity sector last week at our Sandia laboratory. 

And in fact if I just mention, say, cyber security as an example 

of that, we have developed now with private sector CEOs—well, 

CEOs and people who work for the CEOs—a number of tools. 

Partly, it is something called CRISP, and I’ve forgotten what the 

acronym stands for, but it is a program of much more bidirectional 

exchange and situational awareness about cyber threats including 

the exchange of classified information. 

Secondly, we have developed what’s called a maturity model 

which allows the electricity sector—but also we’ve extended it to 

the oil and gas sectors—to get a much better understanding of 

where they are in their cyber capabilities. And third, we have just 

instituted in August an integrated joint cyber activity that knits together all of our capabilities from our laboratories on cyber for a 

faster identification and response to cyber threats. That’s already 

shown its potential in a particular cyber threat that was identified 

much faster than was done in the industry itself. 

Mr. LATTA. Since you brought up on the cyber side and especially 

what’s happening there, how’s your cooperation then working with 

other departments and agencies in the government, especially 

Homeland Security? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think it has been good and is getting better. 

In fact, this information sharing CRISP initiative is with DHS and 

35 

certainly we also work, I might say, not in electricity so much— 

well, it is electricity too but it is other areas—we work extremely 

well with FEMA in terms of addressing issues that included some 

of the flooding issues recently, for example. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And the FAST Act also requires you to submit 

a plan to Congress by the end of the year evaluating the feasibility 

of establishing a strategic transformer reserve for the storage of 

spare or large power transformers in emergency mobile substations 

to temporarily replace critically damaged equipment. 

Could you tell me what the status of the review is and when you 

would be able to complete that? 

Secretary MONIZ. We expect to meet that December target. We 

are well along in that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And one other thing, if I could, because it is one 

of the areas I am always interested in. In your testimony—you also 

brought it up in our opening statement that when you were talking 

about different threats that are out there, either natural or manmade, where are we at on especially DOE and trying to combat 

electromagnetic pulses, especially when they are manmade? 

Secretary MONIZ. We have done quite a bit of work on that in 

collaboration with EPRI. In fact, this is part of a report that we’d 

be happy to share with you if you get a chance—— 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, I’d like to get that. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. On resilient strategy. That was 

done with EPRI. We also have, of course, classified information 

that could be discussed in a different venue. 

Mr. LATTA. Right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. The chair now is happy to 

recognize the University of Houston’s biggest fan in Florida, Ms. 

Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. He says that because the university president used to be the provost at the University of South Florida campus. So we take ownership of her, too. 

But I want to thank you. At the University of South Florida in 

June at the Patel Center for Global Sustainability, Dr. Lidija 

Sekaric, your director of the Office of Solar Technologies, came to 

give a presentation and the room was packed even though we were 

in the midst of a huge rain event due to a tropical storm. 

And I think you’re absolutely correct that American families and 

businesses across the country have so much interest in the growing 

renewable marked and the potential to save money through energy 

efficiency. 

In fact, at the end of August during the primary election we had 

a constitutional amendment on the ballot to provide a little help to 

solar industry and it passed by 73 percent. 

And I think folks are frustrated in the Sunshine State because 

we have no goals for renewable portfolio standards and they even 

cut back on energy efficiency. 

So what you say about the business models at the state level 

really hit home and we can talk a little bit more about that. 

But the Energy Information Administration is projecting that 

growth in renewable energy is going to grow faster than just about 

36 

any other energy sector and in fact they say over the past year 

we’ve exceeded projections month after month after month. 

You’ve said, in this QER right now, that it is outdated—that 

we’ve got to look beyond oil security and energy security needs to 

be more broadly defined to cover not only oil but other sources. 

Combating climate change is also essential to strengthening collective energy security. How far behind are we? I know the big grid 

modernization effort is very important but what else do we need to 

be focused on? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, addressing the clean energy part, 

which were the third, fourth, and fifth principles. There the major 

initiative that we put forward is the idea of doubling our innovation budgets over, say, a 5-year period and we’ve been pleased that 

the concept has gotten very strong bipartisan support. That’s got 

to get translated into numbers over these years. 

But I think that’s very important. I might also add, and it’ll 

probably be referred to soon by Mr. McKinley, that I was in Morgantown earlier this week for our thirteenth regional innovation 

meeting because we are emphasizing that we think regional portfolio management actually will be a real plus, and I am pleased to 

say there’s been a lot of support for that, too. Now we need Congress to hopefully authorize that. 

So that is on that side. But in terms of the more global aspects 

of energy security, I think since 2014 when those principles were 

put out we had made substantial progress, particularly in our discussions with the European Commission. 

The European Commission then adopted a very strong energy security policy in line with those principles and we work closely with 

them. 

There is still a lot of implementation to go in the European context. But that’s been important and I might say a lot of it was driven initially by the Ukraine aggression. 

Ms. CASTOR. I think that’s right because what I hear back home 

they think the clean energy future will involve a lot of job creation 

so that investment in innovative technology is very important. 

They know it is going to save them money as they take control 

of distributed energy or even right at their thermostat in their 

home and climate change—they see the cost right now after this 

recent tropical storm. They understand. We have salt water intrusion. 

These huge rain events are costing people money—flood insurance, emergency response—and if we don’t do more up front it is 

going to be very, very costly and they understand that. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if I may say, I visited Florida Power and 

Light and, yes, they are doing a lot but it costs money to harden 

the system because of the obvious risk to sea level rise, et cetera. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentlelady yields back and, Mr. Secretary, ask 

and you shall receive. We recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again, 

Mr. Secretary, for coming to West Virginia to participate in that 

panel and also the trip to Longview power plant that was—I hope 

it was beneficial to you. 

37 

I have got a couple comments. I want to build up a bit of what 

my friend from California was talking about because when I read 

the—your written statements and listened to your opening statement there were two omissions that I heard. 

One was you didn’t talk about water as being part of our national and economic security for this country, which I thought was 

made. But even more, so you didn’t mention coal, other than the 

fact that gas is going to supplant coal perhaps in the near to longterm future. 

So just getting past that, we are just going to have a disagreement. I think it deserved to have some mention as part of our national economic security of this country on that. 

But let me go to some questions, however quickly. We’ve had testimony from Phil Moeller when he was back with FERC and he has 

since confirmed again that we have apparently—talking about grid 

security and reliability that we have lost apparently somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants around 

the country and we’ve been replacing them with gas and renewables but more, from what I understand, with renewables so it’s an 

intermittent load. It’s not base load. 

We are still at a net loss but much of that gain that we’ve made 

that replacement is over in renewables, which we can’t count on because of their intermittent use with it. 

So how do we—how can FERC—how can Congress get involved 

in valuing just dependable base load power plants, whether that’s 

using gas or coal? What do we do to incentivize that so we’ve got 

a satisfactory grid? 

Because we know there’s a fair—we know we can’t count on wind 

and solar to power our base load. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, OK. Of course, at the current levels of 

penetration in effect, the grid is the storage system for wind and 

solar. 

Now, as those penetrations—if they get much, much higher, of 

course, then we will have to manage the variability of those 

sources. 

Now, part of it can be, of course, technology like storage. Energy 

storage would take care of that. But your suggestion I think goes 

right to something I mentioned earlier and that is, ‘‘What is the 

way of valuing different services in the grid that have not been 

part of the traditional regulated utility model?’’ 

And one of those would be this question of value of base load 

which, by the way, of course, right now that’s a major issue as well 

with nuclear with the shutdown of a number of nuclear plants as 

well. 

And so in terms of response, currently I would say that there are 

certainly very few authorities in the federal government, certainly 

at DOE. 

FERC is doing work on what they call price formation, which is 

a question of how do you value these other qualities, and states are 

the center of the action. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I’d like to follow up more with you. 

Maybe we can have more of a conversation about that so that we 

can have more to battle with. 

38 

But you also talked about that energy storage and part of the 

House package and also in the Senate package—the energy bill— 

there is the ethane storage and what we refer to as the Appalachian hub so that we would be able to have storage of ethane not 

only on the Gulf coast but someplace in the northeast. 

Are you aware of that and do you see an advantage of having a— 

for energy security and national security having a separate ethane 

storage facility? 

Secretary MONIZ. I have to be honest, I haven’t really thought 

that through. So I really would like to think about that and get 

back to you. 

But I would say that, of course, as we know, in Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, Ohio there’s a tremendous opportunity given all the 

ethane production for building on industry and so it is an extremely valuable commodity. 

But, again, specifically on the issue of ethane storage, I have to 

admit I have not thought that through. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Just in the remaining time I have, just quickly. 

When you met with Longview and they made the statement that 

they are the most efficient and cleanest coal-fired power plant in 

America ahead of Turk but yet they’ve said they can’t get a permit 

to build a second facility to build off that. What did you learn at 

how we could help another facility like that be constructed? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, as we discussed in Morgantown, 

first of all, we continue to be very committed to carbon capture sequestration as a critical technology that we will need—and the IEA 

says that and everyone else says that—to meet our climate goals 

most economically. So that’s very important. 

I thought the proposal that they made there about a 50 percent 

coal-firing was quite interesting, and in fact I hope I do get a 

spreadsheet on that to look at, meeting the clean power plant goals 

with the coal and gas coal-firing will be quite interesting. 

So I am happy to discuss it. Oh, and a third one, which I mentioned as a big game changer if we can really solve it but it is probably longer term is the question of ‘‘what are the technologies for 

economic very, very large-scale utilization of CO2.’’ 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. That’s a big deal if we can solve that problem. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the number-one fan of the Houston 

Cougars from Houston, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It’s good to see you again and I know 

each of us have worn different hats over the years and I appreciate 

the job you’re doing. 

Let me start out on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We import 

now 7 million barrels a day. How long would it take if all of a sudden we had an embargo and we couldn’t ramp up in our own domestic production, which I think we could, to be able to draw anything out of the SPRO? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, we could certainly start withdrawing 

from the SPRO. I think it is in a week time frame, something like 

that. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

39 

Secretary MONIZ. So it is a rapid reaction. Whereas going to the 

uncompleted wells would be a several month activity. 

Mr. GREEN. Because I was told it was much longer than that because and that’s why some of the things we did—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I will check on that. But I believe it is more 

like a week. It’s not so much a technical constraint as it is getting 

sometimes all of the bids required for the distribution of the oil. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. Because even though we have a great pipeline 

accessing Louisiana and Texas, like you said, the bare time issues 

that we have to actually get it—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, because of reverse flows in some of those 

pipes to get incremental barrels out is probably going to require, 

as we said, much more maritime distribution. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, the main questions I have, and you talked 

a little bit about it is that in 2014 one-third of the intentional cyber 

attacks targeted energy infrastructure. 

In your testimony speaking about cyber security you stated we 

are seeing threats continuing to increase in numbers and sophistication. This evolution has profound impacts on the security and 

resilience of our energy sector. 

I hope in our hearing today we can understand what’s being done 

and on what more we can do in Congress to protect from these increasing hazards. 

Of course, it is not just Russians looking at Democrat or Republican. But we are talking about refineries in East Harris County 

and Louisiana—you know, coal plants, natural gas facilities and 

things like that. 

What are the most significant challenge in securing energy delivery systems against the cyber attacks? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would just add, if I may, the point you make 

about the interconnectedness I think is very important and as 

we’ve pointed out that electricity problems have led to enormous 

refinery and fuels problems, et cetera, et cetera. 

So it is really important and cyber is a growing threat. So I think 

the key is, as I said earlier, working with industry. At DOE, let me 

emphasize, we have, I would say, three different kinds of cyber 

challenges. 

One is a standard big entity, administrative systems and personal information. A second is our nuclear weapons information. 

And third, and the hardest one in many ways, is working with the 

private sector on the energy system. 

So it is really information exchange including making technology 

available to the private sector is really a key in many ways. A second key for us is to use all of our assets including those at our laboratories and bring those to the table on cyber threats, and we’ve 

done enterprise wide. 

One thing that I would say is, in terms of possible changes and 

maybe legislative—and it is not only for cyber, it is for other issues 

as well—is that we need to make sure that there are not barriers 

which could be competitiveness barriers, for example, that are out 

there for different parts of the industry working together on the response. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I will close with one example. When we had 

Hurricane Ike come through East Harris County and it shut down 

40 

the refineries in Galveston Bay and both United Airlines who said 

we’d never lighter planes out of Houston and we are having to do 

it and the Air Force was there too, saying—and the Navy because 

we needed to have this jet fuel and so that’s why we need the grid 

up. 

Secretary MONIZ. Coordination. 

Mr. GREEN. Each plan has their own but you can’t run a plant 

on generators. You have to have the grid to help and so that’s why 

it is so important. 

And I know in some areas, like in East Harris County we have 

a partnership both for security and other things. But I just want 

to make sure that everybody is on the same page. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. The coordination is important. I might add 

that, for example, in May we ran a very big so-called tabletop exercise in the northwest with lots of industry participation, many 

agencies, so that everybody could understand the challenges of everybody working together on the same page. So that’s important. 

Another thing I’ll just mention is that, because the SPRO was 

mentioned, even though it is much smaller, we have moved out in 

a couple of product reserves as opposed to crude oil reserves and 

that came into play in Sandy when we released that to some of the 

first responders so that they would have the fuel to respond. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, the diesel and everything else. 

Secretary MONIZ. And so that’s another interesting discussion. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from the Commonwealth, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you 

for being here as well. 

The last time you were before this committee back in March I expressed my appreciation for the folks at Department of Energy 

working with me to set up a visit to my district to discuss the future of coal. 

About a month later, David Mohler, DOE’s deputy for clean coal 

and carbon management, came down to our coal field region for a 

round table discussion with community leaders. A public symposium at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise was held on 

the future of coal technology, innovation in industry. 

And I’ll also highlight after we did that with all the opinion 

shapers and the business leaders and the folks who work in the 

coal industry your team went over to Clintwood, which doesn’t get 

many visitors—there’s no four-lane highways in Dickinson County—to visit students at Ridgeview High School, which is a brand 

new high school built with a lot of dollars from the federal government because the county is not wealthy. It is central Appalachia 

and the coal fields, mountains, trees, and lots of good people and 

not a whole lot else. 

That visit was particularly important for the students there in 

Dickinson County because your team made it clear that there are 

possibilities in science that can affect the coal industry positively. 

It was just a great visit and I commend your folks for doing that. 

I also commend you for having the leadership to have folks—I 

heard you talking about with some of the other folks visits that 

41 

had been made by yourself and members of your team in other districts as well. 

I think that speaks highly of the work that you’re doing. And 

while we may not always agree—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH [continuing]. With your leadership at the Department of Energy we are headed in a better direction and I appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. May I say, Congressman—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Please. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. That because maybe it has been 

provided to you but just to make sure—actually at the end of August we produced I think a very nice synthetic paper on all of the 

coal issues that we are dealing with and if you not seen that we’ll 

shoot it to your office. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I haven’t seen it but my staff may have it and it 

has been one of those busy times in DC, as you know, when I have 

a few weeks. But I’ll try to read that when I get home. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But we had a lot of good discussions and we talked 

about a lot of different things on how we can get our coal miners 

back to work, how we can find a continued future in the coal region 

and our economy and in our electric generation fleet. 

It meant a lot to the people of southwest Virginia and particularly in the coal fields in those counties. So I appreciate the hard 

work that you did in making all that happen. 

Now, one of the main things that I found particularly interesting 

in our discussions is we talked about the need for research parity 

for clean coal technology, and while you’ve touched today already 

on some of the things with carbon capture and sequestration, I 

think that’s the hot button issue and probably a good source in the 

short run. But with research I am convinced we can use our fossil 

fuels—not just coal but the other fossil fuels as well in better ways. 

Can you just take a minute and discuss some of the things you 

all are working on with all of the different fossil fuels and research 

and the importance of having parity with—there’s nothing wrong 

with renewables but parity in that research because we are going 

to continue to need the fossil fuels as well. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, on carbon capture I want to 

emphasize that’s not only about coal. Coal is, obviously, kind of the 

marquee application in many ways but I believe ultimately we will 

need it for natural gas and, very importantly, for a whole variety 

of industrial facilities. We also support ethanol plants and natural 

gas processing plants, et cetera. So that’s important, and I want to emphasize, we have spent $5 billion on CCS. We also have an $8.5 billion loan guarantee program open right now for fossil technologies, et cetera. 

But one of the things that really excites me for the longer term— 

and I just mentioned one example of really breakthrough carbon 

management possibilities would have enormous implications for 

how fossil fuels then can be used in the energy economy—one of 

those is, as I said, the potential for really big-scale CO2 utilization. 

And if I toss out, like a holy grail of that, sunlight, water and CO2

to hydrocarbon fuels, that would be a complete game changer. 

42 

Some in the fuels industry would be challenged. But that would be, 

for example, a game changer. There are negative carbon technologies that we should pursue. 

So I think, in terms of coal, when I say coal there’s three big 

thrusts. One is the innovation agenda around things like CCS, et 

cetera. 

Another is the transitional assistance to economies and workers 

in coal country and we just issued $39 million there. And then 

third is these really big breakthrough possibilities that could 

change the entire carbon management equation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to echo what 

my colleague, Mr. Barton, said earlier and thank you for—you’re a 

pretty regular witness here on our committee over your tenure at 

the White House and you have been by all appearances very willing to answer all kinds of questions on this, which is a most pressing topic. So I thank you for the time you’ve spent with us. 

Your testimony today indicates this is a timely and pressing 

issue before us. We are currently in a conference level committee 

trying to negotiate an energy bill that will help define our energy 

landscape for the next decade. 

At the same time, we know these threats from climate change 

are real. So bold action needs to be taken. 

Communities across the nation are already facing the threats of 

climate change. In fact, I don’t call it a threat anymore as much 

as dealing with the outcomes which we are experiencing, whether 

through increased storm severity or flooding or, as in California, 

the crippling impacts of our drought. My area—5-year drought. 

We’re building a desal plant. It’s very expensive and the technology is pretty precarious. And the massive forest fires that we’ve 

had to deal with are very costly, too. 

So I believe it is time we stop considering these conditions as 

anomalies and start addressing them as the new normal and we 

start implementing strategies not only to adapt to these scenarios 

but to the extent possible mitigate them by reducing our contributions to climate change that’s happening. 

President Obama has made real progress in laying out a framework to start this transition but there is a lot more work that 

needs to be done. 

We must expand the implementation of existing green technologies such as solar power and increased energy efficiency and 

invest in the new technologies that will carry us into the future. 

Many of our research universities are really leading the way and 

doing this, which will benefit not only our energy security but our 

national security and our economy at the same time. 

You mentioned this in your opening statement but I’d like to give 

you a little more time to discuss the ways renewable energy and 

investments in renewable energy and efficiency will bolster our energy and national security. 

43 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Well, the answer to the last part is pretty 

straightforward. Again, the renewable technologies are not looking 

at—there’s no issue of importing or exporting the fuels. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. It’s what we have and that’s true anywhere in 

the world, basically. The mix may be different but that’s true anywhere. 

So the importance of this as an element of our energy and national security is, I think, quite clear. Now, in terms of moving the 

ball, again, I, of course, am maybe not totally objective but I think 

innovation is absolutely the core to this, and that’s good news for 

us because we lead in innovation and we’ve got to stay the leaders 

in innovation. Particularly because, as one of our CEO friends in 

the industry, Tom Fanning, the head of Southern Company, says 

you can’t keep the waves off the beach. 

We are heading in this direction inexorably in terms of lower carbon and the Paris Agreement, no matter what one thinks about it, 

it tells you that we are developing a multi-trillion dollar global 

clean energy technology business. So we also want to be at the 

head of that train. 

Now, cost reduction is critical and we, through innovation and 

through deployment—they work together. More deployment, more 

innovation drives those costs down. We’ve seen that now for solar 

PV. We’ve seen it for wind. 

We’ve seen it for LEDs, which is not quite renewable energy but 

uses less energy, and now we have to keep that kind of cost reduction pathway going and do it for carbon capture and do it for nuclear and do it for offshore wind as opposed to the onshore wind 

progress. 

So we’ve just got to keep at this across the board. I remain an 

all-of-the-above guy aimed at a low-carbon future where hopefully 

all of our industries, all of our people can be part of that solution. 

Ms. CAPPS. That’s right. And just the right amount of time, but 

a word to say thank you because this path of progress during your 

administration, your leadership at the department and to the extent that we were able to work with you has really made, I hope, 

significant progress. 

Although, as I said, there’s a lot more work to be done but hopefully this is a movement now that will not be questioned as much 

as it used to be but that we’ll see it as progress all along the way. 

Secretary MONIZ. Innovation. Innovation. 

Ms. CAPPS. Exactly. Innovation. That’s a great word. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chair now 

recognizes a fellow Texan, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. The U.S. is now 

the leading producer of oil and natural gas and how is this new age 

of energy abundance benefitted our global competitiveness and allowed the U.S. to position itself as a global superpower? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, it has had an enormous impact on natural 

gas, first of all. First of all, we have not become major importers 

of LNG. Now we are going to be exporting LNG. We expect to be 

net natural gas exporters in 2017. But domestically it has both led 

44 

to a tremendous renewal in manufacturing—$170 billion capital invested in just in the kind of the chemical arena and, by the way, 

also reducing carbon emissions. 

On the oil side, again, we remain very large crude oil importers 

but the dramatic decrease in our net oil and oil products imports 

has had a tremendous balance of payments impact. 

Both of them have changed the world energy scene and we are 

now looked at in a very, very different way. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. You haven’t even talked about the geopolitical implications. 

Secretary MONIZ. That’s what’s I meant. Geopolitically we are 

looked at in a very, very different way. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. I am talking about from a world security, world stability standpoint. But that’s for another day. 

So moving on, you’ve talked about the failure of our nation’s infrastructure to keep up with the new dynamics that we have in 

this energy industry not only with respect to transmission of electricity but also transmission of oil and natural gas. 

And so the lack of capacity and the recent opposition to new infrastructure means that the average consumer pays more energy 

than they should. Are we headed for price spikes again this winter 

because of the lack of infrastructure under the—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I would not want to predict. But, obviously, there’s a vulnerability if the infrastructure is not there. Another polar vortex or who knows what would happen. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. But also with that, it is not even just wires and 

pipes but also, as we pointed out in the QER, inland waterways, 

ports, et cetera. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. And also cyber as well. 

Secretary MONIZ. Cyber, yes. 

Mr. FLORES. Cyber issues. Your QER devotes an entire chapter 

to improving North American energy integration. But it makes no 

mention of the issues that arise with cross-border presidential permitting, in general or in particular the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Do you agree that our current ad hoc or siloed permitting process, as the QER puts it, creates significant uncertainty? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that’s what the QER said so therefore we 

back it. 

Mr. FLORES. All right. You agree, since it said it. 

So that goes to the next question. That is, how has the inability 

to render a decision on the Keystone Pipeline impacted other energy projects? 

Secretary MONIZ. I cannot say that I’ve seen any impact, to be 

honest. Again, I think the QER pointed out—I’ve forgotten the 

exact number but we have a lot of infrastructure crossing the border and, certainly, our electricity systems are essentially integrated 

with Canada and now with Mexico. There’s going to be increasing 

integration there as well. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Right. Are you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. In fact, Texas and Mexico, as you know, do 

trade electricity. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. Oh, absolutely. We already trade. Texas leads 

the country in all this. 

45 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. FLORES. Including wind power as well so—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES [continuing]. Let me ask you this. Are you happy 

with the time it took to reach a decision on Keystone? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think that’s a question for the Department of 

State. That’s not my responsibility. 

Mr. FLORES. Oh, OK. All right. I mean, you’re the—you’re the 

head of DOE so you’ve got a dog in this hunt. 

Secretary MONIZ. That’s a question for the Department of State. 

Mr. FLORES. All right. OK. 

Is there room to establish a more uniform coordinated modern 

process for the consideration of cross-border pipelines and electric 

transmission facilities? I am sure you’ve got an opinion on this. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think that what’s—the only thing I 

would say more broadly, and it does apply to other DOE responsibilities, is I think the Congress has, for good reason, over the 

years put in all of these statutory assignments, the idea of national 

interest determinations, and I think that’s what we do for LNG exports. And that’s what state does for their responsibilities. We also 

have it for cross-border electricity lines. 

Mr. FLORES. Of course, in my opinion, this is an area where Congress needs to get involved and clean up the statutory 

underpinnings of the decisionmaking process in this regard. And so 

I am assuming you’d be willing to provide technical assistance to 

Congress in trying to formulate this? 

Secretary MONIZ. We are always happy to provide technical assistance. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you very much and I yield back the balance 

of my time. Thank you. 

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

The chair now calls upon the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, first of all, thank you for your service. I’ve been 

in Congress 22 years and been through five or six secretaries of energy. You’re by far one of the best and you’re going to be missed 

here. So I want to say that right up front. 

Just two quick things. I know we all agree on the importance of 

carbon capture, utilization, and storage. There is international consensus that it would be very difficult if not impossible to meet our 

climate change goals by 2050 without this in place. 

And also, without additional investment in the electricity sector—if we try to limit global warming to the 2 degree scenario 

without it it is going to cost $2 trillion over the next 40 years. 

So it is not only necessary to meet the goal but it is necessary 

to meet the goal in an affordable way. Now, I know the white paper 

that you issued recently listed several bills here in Congress which 

would change tax credits or financing options or CCS. 

But my question is do you think what we are doing is substantial 

enough and what other options might we pursue? It seems like we 

have been talking about CCS forever but it doesn’t seem we are 

any closer to actually seeing, you know, implementation of this 

technology on a scale where it can be helpful. 

46 

And as you said, it is not just coal. It is natural gas, too. And 

what do we need to do to sort of make this a moon shot and get 

this technology out there? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, in terms of where we have come, 

how far or how not far, depends on how you look at it, we have 

come—of course, the point is that there has not been a price signal 

to the private sector there, and I think that’s what we need to have 

for sure. 

And I would just make another point, if I might, on this kind of 

finance side. As you know, the administration has proposed now for 

2 years tax credits for carbon capture, both investment tax credits 

and storage credits. 

In Congress there is a lot of discussion around 45Q, as they have 

some different numbers but fundamentally it is the same idea. 

I think a point that has not been appreciated enough and is why 

I think Congress addressing this with some urgency is called for, 

is that big capital expenditures by utilities, by investors, et cetera, 

have a long gestation time, and I think that there are two signals 

that would be very powerful for pushing on CCUS. 

One would be something like these tax credits that were put in 

place for a long period of time. OK. Now I understand what I am 

getting into and, secondly, of course, is the clean power plan does 

that through the regulatory approach. There are other approaches, 

obviously, including a direct one. 

But all I am saying I think signals now—it is not saying, look, 

CCS might be a big deal in 2030 so let’s wait. You need the signals 

now if you’re going to get those investments made. 

Now, on the research side, it goes back to this need to increase 

our innovation investments. Now, in fiscal year 2016 and 2017, we 

are moving forward into pilot project scale—10 megawatt scale for 

alternative technologies. 

We could take a lot bigger steps with more resources. So I think 

those are the two areas that are kind of that signal side on finance 

and carbon management and the innovation. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Let me ask you quickly about nuclear energy, too. We are seeing 

some of these premature nuclear plant retirements and that could 

cause a threat to our diversity in power generation. 

And I know during the summit you emphasized some of the valuable attributes that nuclear plants provide like carbon-free electricity, high availability, reliable service, fuel diversity, and explained that these are not systematically valued by electricity markets. 

You further stated that the department is prepared to take action to help address the economic market and valuation challenges 

for nuclear power. 

So could you explain the actions that the department has taken 

since the nuclear summit to ensure that nuclear plants are compensated for the energy security, reliability, and other benefits they 

provide to the electricity sector? 

Secretary MONIZ. We don’t have the authorities to take those 

regulatory actions. But what we have been doing and are doing are 

the studies of how to value those attributes and then that will lead 

47 

to some recommendations in our quadrennial energy review second 

installment at the end of the year. 

So that’s one thing. Now, it is true we also continue to have discussions with FERC, which does have some authorities in terms of 

the price formation at the wholesale level. That’s going on. 

But of course, a lot of the action is at the states and certainly, 

one of the notable actions was the New York initiative in August 

for the so-called clean energy standard, so a kind of technologyneutral carbon approach. That’s very important. 

Now, the other thing is, in terms of the nuclear plants shutting 

down is, clearly, the clean power plant implementation plans and 

we are rather confident on the court side. 2018 is when the implementation plans are due. 

Now, it would seem ironic to have lost zero carbon assets just as 

states are going forward with implementation plans. 

So that’s why something like the New York activity and Illinois 

is considering something similar, I think, are quite important. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLSON. Gentleman’s time has expired. The chair calls upon 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, I 

do want to echo the comments of some of my colleagues. It’s been 

a pleasure working with you over the last few years. 

As we talk about these important ideas around energy security 

I am glad to hear you say that you remain an all-of-the-above advocate. 

I certainly hope that as you transition—assuming that you transition out someone else transitions in—that you will pass that advocacy on to your successor in the sense that we—one of these 

days, because we are problem solvers here in America—we always 

have been. 

You look back throughout our history. We won’t go through the 

litany but there have been a lot of them. Someday somebody might 

solve the problem, I suspect, of harnessing the sun’s energy and 

storing it up so that it can be made available on the energy grid 

for base load. Same thing with wind energy, other alternative energy forms. 

I just hope that we can return once again to kind of a common 

sense approach to an all-of-the-above energy policy where we don’t 

throw out the baby with the bathwater and we are not killing jobs 

and that we are looking more for market-driven solutions rather 

than solutions from inside the Washington Beltway because I think 

the American people are screaming for that. 

And I don’t think we can forget about the impact that we have 

made to our communities that have served our energy and national 

security needs and I hope that we can continue to work together 

throughout the rest of your tenure and that you also pass along the 

importance of finding a long-term funding solution for those funding challenges at DOE’s cleanup sites like the Piketon facility. 

Those are very important that we keep those projects on a path 

to completion so that we can redevelop those properties and put 

them back into good use for the communities that have given so 

much already for our energy future. 

48 

Mr. Secretary, DOE, as you well know all too well, is central to 

America’s role in international, civil, and nuclear commerce markets through what is known as the Part 810 process. 

Under the Atomic Energy Act, DOE authorizes certain foreign 

interactions such as technology transfer and assistance on commercial nuclear power plants provided by our domestic nuclear industry. 

This authorization process has been the subject of scrutiny from 

both GAO and this committee due to a long bureaucratic approval 

process and I recognize that DOE has been working to address 

these criticisms over the last several years by developing and implementing an updated streamlined process. Are you the deputy 

secretary monitoring progress of these reforms? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Yes, we are, in fact, and I would be happy 

to share with you some data that I saw just maybe 2 months ago, 

I think, in terms of some progress actually in terms of shortening 

the times. Because one of the issues we have managed with the 

interagency because DOE is responsible, again, but yet we work 

with state and other agencies and what we have, I think, succeeded 

in is eliminating a lot of serial activity with some parallel activity. 

And so the data suggests that there has been some progress. I’d be 

happy to share those with you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Can you send that over to us? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would be great. That would be great. 

In the remaining time, I understand DOE after two years of talking about it has not yet deployed its electronic tracking system to 

incorporate transparency and accountability into the process and 

assist applicants. 

What is the source of that delay and do you have an estimate for 

when this new tracking system will be active? 

Secretary MONIZ. On that, I’ll have to get back to you and respond for the record. I am just not up to speed on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. You can—you can respond back on both of 

those. That would be great, Mr. Secretary. 

Good luck to you. I too have enjoyed working with you and I appreciate your sound reasoned approach on most of the issues that 

we have dealt with here. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, may I just 

make—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. I am going back to the congressman’s earlier statements. On the job creation front, I do want to 

emphasize that things like the renewable space, energy efficiency, 

we have had tremendous job growth. 

So certainly in the energy sector—and I am not talking about oil 

and gas production. There is that, too. But we have had tremendous job growth net. 

But we also recognize that there are distributional issues. That’s 

not a uniform issue and that’s why working with our communities 

and talking about transitional activities is quite important. 

But the net job growth has been actually quite substantial. Just 

solar alone is over 200,000 full time jobs. 

49 

Energy efficiency jobs, which are a little bit hard to define, I 

would also be happy to share with you an energy jobs report that 

we did earlier this year. It was quite surprising—1.9 million jobs 

associated with energy efficiency in the country. 

But we have distributional problems and, obviously, Appalachia 

is prime among those. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, and the coal industry and the job losses associated with that. It’s pretty hard to get my folks to look at a jobs 

report that shows all of this optimism that you’re reflecting when 

we are seeing communities go into shutdown mode because of the 

coal industry. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair now 

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

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

for your bold leadership and for your visionary approach to what 

is a very difficult policy area, and we as a nation have prospered 

from your knowledge base and your determination to make a difference and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. For the leadership of the past and, I am 

certain, into the future, thank you. Thank you for leading us. 

The major player in our energy arena—the utilities—in the past 

the tradition was spin those meters, assess the bills, print those 

bills to the customer and all functioned. 

As we transition to transform with technology, with renewable, 

with research, with distributed generation, with customer choice, 

how do we bring the utilities along in that effort to make certain 

that they are able to be as strong a player as possible assisting the 

growth of commerce and responding to quality opportunities to the 

residential base and commercial base they serve and at the same 

time address national security? 

There is a big challenge there as we transition and transform. 

How can we best assist in that effort? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think with the link to security, certainly, a critical element is their responsibilities and maybe opportunities to address resilience and reliability together because that’s 

a new challenge. 

Now, that has to be typically, of course, appropriately internalized in rate structures, which tends to be a state-by-state activity. 

So I think the Congress would have to think through how it 

wanted to do that intersection with the states. Perhaps by 

incentivizing the build-out of infrastructure that we need, particularly for resilience against that entire threat spectrum that I mentioned earlier including climate-induced threats, physical threats to 

cyber, and the like. 

So I think that is a very, very important part. A second part 

which, again, would typically be at the state level because it involves the distribution system, as opposed to the high voltage 

transmission lines, is the question of what are utilities able to do 

regulatorily, and what are they able to do in a business sense in 

terms of bundling new services to customers along with electricity 

50 

supply. Because, again, as I said earlier, we don’t anticipate a big 

growth in electricity demand. 

Maybe even eventually decreasing demand, even as the economy 

grows. And then that means the business model needs to evolve as 

well—probably into new services. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Well, as you know, in New York, my home state, 

the REV process is underway and everyone is waiting for what that 

produces because it does, I think, look very strategically at the 

transformation taking place in this industry. 

And, again, with having lived through Super Storm Sandy, we 

saw what worked and what didn’t. Distributed generation had a 

major plus report card after that aftermath of Super Storm Sandy. 

So—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. And New York is certainly a leader and 

also, I might say, not in the policy arena but also integrated with 

its very strong NYSERDA and the strong R & D as well at a state 

level. 

Mr. TONKO. My old digs before I came here so thank you for 

mentioning them. 

What do commitments to Mission Innovation, and other investments in clean energy research mean to a stronger outcome for national security? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think it is absolutely critical because, 

as we said, first of all, the whole clean energy push is part and parcel of a modern energy security picture. 

So I’ve said it before that I think that—well, I’ve said it also 

here—there is also an enormous economic opportunity that we 

have to take advantage of, and it wasn’t exactly a question but I 

want to emphasize that the question of doubling our innovation 

budget raises the question of, ‘‘do you have the capacity to absorb 

it well?’’ 

I think we have so much unused capacity for innovation in this 

country that that will not be a problem and I can go through examples, like, with ARPA–E, for example, where we are funding, you 

know, 2.5 percent of the proposals in a program that is by any logical measure extremely successful. 

So I think there is a big payoff for us in the economy, in environment and security with that kind of investment. 

Mr. TONKO. I agree. Having watched some of those activities, the 

ripple effects of sound paying jobs that are associated with that too 

is also a shot in the arm for the economy. 

Secretary MONIZ. To me, it is that and the infrastructure renewal agenda which is just absolutely critical. 

Mr. TONKO. Again, Secretary, thank you and we are all made 

stronger because of your leadership. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

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

The chairman calls on the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Secretary, you get two New Yorkers in a row. 

That’s pretty good. 

First of all, I want to add my voice to the thanks and the accolades that have been given to you. You have been accessible. You 

have been intelligent. You’ve been just terrific, not only with EnVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Jan 25, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-170 CHRIS
51 

ergy and things that this committee does but, on the Iran deal you 

were right up front and answering questions. And we didn’t always 

agree but you were always brilliant so I want to just thank you for 

your hard work. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. We really appreciate it. I want to start by talking 

about offshore wind energy. That hasn’t really been talked about 

very much here today. A small percentage of our global wind energy is generated offshore and much of the capacity is in northern 

Europe. But we are now starting to invest here in the United 

States. 

The first offshore wind farm is set to begin commercial operation 

in early November and several others are being developed. And in 

New York the Long Island Power Authority is currently working to 

approve a 90-megawatt wind farm that would become the largest 

in the United States. 

So can you talk a little bit about that, what your take is on the 

future appetite for offshore wind generation in the U.S.? What are 

the challenges, security or otherwise, that the federal government 

needs to address with this? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Well, this is a very interesting time for offshore wind. As you mentioned, the Block Island project—the 30- 

megawatt project will be—actually they finished construction and 

they will start getting into the grid in November. So that’s the first 

U.S. offshore wind farm. 

Number two, actually last Friday, Secretary Jewell and I released a jointly developed offshore wind strategy, and if you haven’t 

seen that we’d be happy to shoot that over to you—— 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. To lay out a bunch of the issues. 

And by the way, one of the issues is not just kind of the technology 

we think about but there is a lot more data we need to understand 

the development of offshore wind. 

Third, I do want to emphasize that in the Block Island project 

there is really excellent collaboration between the wind people and 

the Wildlife Federation protecting whales and this kind of thing. So 

I think that’s an important part of the development. That’s kind of 

going well. 

Then I think we are now also moving into an arena where we 

will start to see floating platforms and we have three pilot 

projects—one in Maine; one in Jersey-New York area, Fisherman’s 

Wharf; and one in Lake Erie, the so-called North Coast—that are 

looking at novel technologies. 

The Maine project in particular is a floating platform that will 

ultimately be for deepwater. There is discussion of a massive deepwater wind farm off of Hawaii as well. So I say all of this that I 

think it is the same story I said earlier. Technology, development 

and deployment going hand in hand to drive cost down. So I think 

we are now at that place for offshore wind where we can anticipate 

that kind of trajectory of getting the cost down. 

Now, the Block Island project PPA I think is 24 cents per kilowatt hour. Of course, for an island like that, that is a lot less than 

they are now paying by bringing in diesel fuel. 

52 

So I think we are at that beginning of that virtuous cycle of technology and deployment and cost reduction and then we will see 

much more. 

Mr. ENGEL. It’s really exciting. I want to talk about one other 

thing and that’s—your testimony, which we have read, touched on 

the increasing electrification of certain aspects of our economy including telecommunications and transportation and I want to talk 

a little bit about how the relationships among these sectors apply 

to the emergency response capabilities. 

Let’s talk a little bit about Hurricane or Super Storm Sandy. 

When it hit the East coast in 2012 it is impact on energy infrastructure was, obviously, especially devastating and it illustrated 

in many ways that our energy systems were vulnerable to disruption because we all know more than 8 million people lost power 

and field distribution networks were paralyzed and service stations 

couldn’t pump gas into New York and New Jersey and critical terminals for petroleum and petroleum products were badly damaged. 

Since that time, we have instituted a wide range of policies and 

procedures designed to better protect our citizens and infrastructure and we have made tremendous improvements. But it is still 

a work in progress. 

Mr. Tonko talked about distributed generation. In your view, 

what are the biggest remaining vulnerabilities that need to be addressed and what steps should the government and the private sector take next? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly for Sandy and, obviously, 

Katrina and Rita and go through the list—certainly, in the coastal 

areas the reality is that we have to be preparing much more and 

hardening our infrastructure for the inevitable, continually increasing sea level and water temperature which both contribute to the 

amplification of storm surges and the damage that we have seen. 

So there is a lot of blocking and tackling there that we have to 

do. I mentioned earlier, for example, Florida Power and Light. 

They are going through replacement of all the, essentially, the 

wooden poles. They are worried about the substations that are in 

flood areas. 

But as they are doing it and I am sure they could do other things 

too but I give them credit, as they do the kind of straightforward 

hardening, at the same time they integrate smart technology. 

So they are getting resilience, reliability, and the possibilities 

also of more information for managing the grid. So I think there 

is a lot of that that we have to do. 

A second point I’ll make and, again, in New Jersey, we did a 

project with our Sandia laboratory after Sandy to design a major 

micro-grid system with distributed energy that will sustain the 

electrified transport corridor, which is a critical public safety issue. 

That went down, too, with Sandy. 

So there is also now getting that kind of micro-grid structure to 

make sure that really critical pieces of infrastructure can operate 

during these storms. So that’s important, and there is a whole 

string of things but those are some examples. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Thank you, and once again, thanks for all you’ve 

done. We very much appreciate it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

53 

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

Mr. Secretary, it is over. I want to close by saying thank you so 

very much for your patience, your expertise and your frankness. 

In Texas, we say you’re a straight shooter. That’s a very high 

compliment. No matter what happens in the future, I want you to 

know you have a standing invitation to come to Texas 22, my district, to see the Petra Nova project up and running. 

A big part of that at MIT and at DOE, as you know she’s coming 

online this December. She will capture 95 percent of the CO2 out 

of one stack of carbon that’s powered from coal, capturing 95 percent of CO2, use it to get an old oilfield about 65 miles south. 

It’s the first economically viable carbon capturing sequestration 

project in America and a big project. So thank you, thank you, 

thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. And we are excited about it. 

Mr. OLSON. We are as well. Give us a little more time. Best barbecue at the Swingdoor up there in Rosenberg and actually pop by 

also Bob’s Taco Station, the best tacos in Fort Bend County. 

With that, members, you have 5 days to submit questions for the 

record. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

The Subcommittee on Energy and Power has accomplished a good deal to say yes 

to energy and update and improve the nation’s energy policy, and the American people are beginning to see the economic and energy security benefits. The Department 

of Energy has been a partner in these efforts, and I welcome back Secretary Moniz 

to discuss what we have already accomplished and what we hope to do in the years 

ahead. 

The most direct benefit of America’s newfound energy abundance can be seen at 

gas stations in Southwest Michigan and across the country, where fuel prices have 

dipped toward $2 per gallon, even in the midst of serious Middle East turmoil. This 

would not have been possible without the tremendous growth in domestic oil output 

along with the emergence of a North American energy market that now plays a 

prominent role on the world stage. We are also seeing abundant natural gas supplies and modest prices, which of course is critical as we head into the cold weather 

months. 

But the benefits go well beyond cheaper fill-ups and more affordable heating bills. 

Energy has been one of the most important drivers for economic growth, and with 

expanded domestic energy production, reduced reliance on foreign imports, increased energy efficiency and productivity, and significant cost reductions, we are 

arguably more energy secure than ever before. 

Although the private sector deserves the bulk of the credit for its advances in innovative technologies that have expanded our oil and gas supplies, Congress is making important policy changes, and DOE has been a valuable source of information 

in these ongoing efforts. For example, the agency’s Quadrennial Energy Review detailed the existing permitting challenges we face as we struggle to update and expand the nation’s energy infrastructure, and the Long- Term Strategic Review 

helped bring to light the need for improvements to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

(SPR). 

With input from DOE, this subcommittee has spearheaded a number of efforts 

that have been passed into law. Last year’s long-term highway bill, the FAST Act, 

contains key provisions to modernize the SPR, improve emergency preparedness for 

energy supply disruptions, protect critical electric infrastructure security, and 

prioritize energy security in federal decision-making. Last year’s government funding bill lifted the decades-old restrictions on the export of crude oil, a long-chamVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:08 Jan 25, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-170 CHRIS
54 

pioned priority of this committee, and we are beginning to see the job creation and 

energy diplomacy benefits of doing so. 

We continue working on legislation. The pending energy bill contains language 

addressing the siting and permitting process for pipelines and hydroelectric generation, efficiency measures, and energy workforce development initiatives. Many of 

these provisions will be implemented by DOE. 

Whether by backing basic research and development to enable a technology based 

energy revolution, protecting the electric grid from cyber-attacks, or by tracking and 

responding to energy disruptions around the world, the department has an important role to play in our evolving energy marketplace. 

Today’s hearing will provide an opportunity for Secretary Moniz to preview some 

of the major challenges and opportunities presented by the nation’s changing energy 

landscape. We will also have a chance to examine DOE’s progress in implementing 

recently enacted legislation, including the upgrades to the SPR. Our energy future 

can be a bright one—if we adopt the right policies and implement them effectively 

and I welcome DOE’s continued role in this effort. 

55 


22783.017
56 


22783.018
57 


22783.019
58 


22783.020
59 


22783.021
60 


22783.022
61 


22783.023
62 


22783.024
63 


22783.025
64 


22783.026
65 


22783.027
66 


22783.028
67 


22783.029
68 


22783.030
69 


22783.031
70 


22783.032
71 


22783.033
72 


22783.034
73 


22783.035
74 

Æ 


22783.036