U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–094 WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–493 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 1336 

S. 1455 

S. 1563 

S. 1851 

S. 1876 

S. 1981 

S. 2030 

DECEMBER 5, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CORY GARDNER, Chairman 

JAMES E. RISCH 

JEFF FLAKE 

STEVE DAINES 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

BILL CASSIDY 

ROB PORTMAN 

LUTHER STRANGE 

JOE MANCHIN III 

RON WYDEN 

BERNARD SANDERS 

AL FRANKEN 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO 

BRIAN HUGHES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

BRIANNE MILLER, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy Advisor 

MARY LOUISE WAGNER, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SCOTT MCKEE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ............................................... 1 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 

from West Virginia ............................................................................................... 5 

WITNESSES 

Tillis, Hon. Thom, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina ...................................... 9 

Menezes, Hon. Mark, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ................. 10 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Letter to Secretary Perry dated October 5, 2017 from Senators Cassidy, 

Barrasso and Murkowski ............................................................................. 3 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

U.S. Department of Energy Press Release entitled ‘‘High Concentrations 

of Rare Earth Elements Found in American Coal Basins’’ dated November 29, 2017 ................................................................................................... 7 

Menezes, Hon. Mark: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 10 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 12 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 28 

National Hydropower Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 51 

(The) Retail Industry Leaders Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 52 

Tillis, Hon. Thom: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 9 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=C916913D-3DA3-454B-A1B0-F4CAD5587F22. 

(1) 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator CASSIDY [presiding]. Good afternoon. I call this meeting 

to order. 

Today the business before the Subcommittee is to receive testimony on several pieces of legislation relating to the applied energy 

programs at the Department of Energy. 

I would like to thank Under Secretary Mark Menezes for appearing before the Subcommittee today to provide the Department of 

Energy’s perspective. A Louisiana native and fellow LSU Tiger, I 

introduced Under Secretary Menezes at his confirmation hearing. 

I am pleased to welcome him back today. 

A bill under consideration today is one I introduced with Senator 

Rubio, the Small Scale LNG Access Act of 2017. This legislation 

codifies a rule proposed by the Department of Energy to expedite 

the approval to small scale exports of natural gas. 

Small scale exports primarily target markets in the Caribbean, 

Central America and South America. These markets represent relatively untapped potential as the United States only exported approximately three billion cubic feet of natural gas to the region in 

2016. 

An increase in exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG, will 

decrease Caribbean and Central American reliance on Venezuelan 

fuel oil, increase economic opportunities and offer a cleaner burning fuel source for those nations. Reducing the time and investment 

required for small scale exports will simultaneously benefit U.S. 

production, manufacturing and construction jobs while also reducing trade deficits with the importing country. 

Increasing LNG exports, even on a small scale, will positively impact the economies of the U.S. and those receiving the U.S. gas. 

I would like to submit a letter for the record that I, along with 

Senator Barrasso and Chairman Murkowski, sent to Secretary 

Perry in support of the Department of Energy proposed rule. The 
2 

letter highlights the U.S.’s ability to meet the demands of increased 

LNG exports and benefits of doing so. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
3 

tinitrd ~tatrs ~rnatr WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

The Honorable Rick Perry 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Dear Secretary Perry, 

October 5, 2017 

We write in support of the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rule (RIN 190l-AB43) to 

expedite the approval of small-scale exports of natural gas. We appreciate this proposal and the 

series of steps the Department has taken to decrease burdensome regulations and increase the 

United States' energy security. 

Companies involved in the U.S. natural gas industry, throughout the entire supply chain, stand to 

be major beneficiaries of this proposed rule. As stated by the Department, this proposed rule will 

primarily service consumers in small-scale natural gas export markets in the Caribbean, Central 

America, and South America. The Caribbean small-scale LNG export market represents a 

relatively untapped outlet as the United States only exported approximately three billion cubic 

feet of natural gas to the region in 2016. 1 Increasing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) 

will decrease Caribbean and Central American reliance on Venezuelan fuel oil, increase 

economic opportunities, and offer a cleaner-burning fuel source for those nations. 

The LNG export market is a growing and promising opportunity, and the United States is well 

positioned to meet the anticipated four to five percent armual growth in global natural gas 

demand. 2 According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. has an estimated 2,355 

trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, enough to last an estimated 86 years at 

current consumption rates. 3 As the United States has increased LNG exports in recent years, 

natural gas prices have remained low for domestic energy users. 

U.S. natural gas offers a cleaner alternative to the fuel sources relied upon by many Caribbean, 

Central American, and South American countries. In 2014, Jamaica generated over 90% of its 

1 (2017, August 31). U.S. Natural Gas Exports and Re-Exports by Country. Retrieved from 

httos:/twww.eia.gov/dnavtntl/ng move expc s1 a.htm. 2 Shell LNG Outlook 2011. Retrieved from http:llwww.shelt.com/energy-and-innovation/natural-gas/!iquefoednaturaH«ts-lng/tagoutlook/ fer content/par/textlmage 1374226056.stream/1488553856456/88co7?c844a609eo5eae56198aalf92d 

35b6a33cc624cf!le4llSOaOa6b93c9dfb/shell-lng·outlook-2017·overvlew.pdf. 

3 (2017, July 25). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https:l!www.eia.gov/tools/fags/fao.php?id=S8&t=8. 
4 

electricity from fuel oil, with no electricity generated by natural gas. 4 If this rule is implemented, 

cheap U.S. LNG could offer countries like Jamaica a cleaner fuel source with which to generate 

electricity. 

The current permitting process for LNG export facilities is expensive, and small-scale projects 

often are not cost effective under current conditions. Reducing the time and investment required 

for small-scale exports will benefit U.S. production, manufacturing, and construction jobs while 

also reducing trade deficits with the importing country. Increasing LNG exports, even on a small 

scale, will positively impact the economies of the United States as well as the economies of those 

receiving U.S. natural gas. 

This rule would expedite the exportation of natural gas, creating well-paying jobs in the United 

States and contemporaneously offering a cleaner burning and inexpensive fuel source for 

Caribbean countries. Without this rule, U.S. investment will remain sidelined and our allies in 

the Caribbean will continue to pay higher energy prices for less reliable fuel sources. The federal 

government should facilitate U.S. natural gas exports, and we support policies that make U.S. 

natural gas more accessible. 

We support this proposed rule, and look forward to working with you and the Department to 

advance our shared goal of United States energy dominance. 

!LIJ L:,;;~1,W 111.rJ. 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

Sincerely, 

Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senator 

4 2017. Jamaica: Electricity and Heat for 2014. Retrieved from 

https:{fwww.iea.org/statistics./statistiossearch/report/?year=2014&countrv=Jamaica&product=Eiectricltvani:lHeat. 
5 

Senator CASSIDY. In addition, the Committee will consider three 

bills relating to energy storage. 

Just a few weeks ago in this room, the full Committee held a robust hearing on energy storage highlighting a number of opportunities and challenges associated with these technologies. Our accomplished panel of witnesses provided numerous thoughts on what a 

successful research development, demonstration and deployment 

program could look like. 

Today, we continue that conversation by considering S. 1455, 

Senator Flake’s Energy Storage Goals and Demonstration Projects 

Act; S. 1851, Senator Franken’s Advancing Grid Storage Act; and 

S. 1876, Senator Wyden’s Reducing the Cost of Energy Storage Act. 

In addition, we will consider Chairman Gardner’s Reliable Investment and Vital Energy Reauthorization Act, a bill that previously 

was reported from this Committee last year and included in the energy bill as well as Senator Tillis’ ceiling fan Energy Conservation 

Harmonization Act. Last, but not least, we will consider Senator 

Manchin’s Rare Earth Element Advanced Coal Technologies Act 

which I am sure he will touch on during his opening statement. 

With that, I turn to Senator Manchin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this 

hearing to discuss the seven bills on today’s agenda. I would like 

to also thank our witnesses, our dear friend, Senator Tillis, and 

Mr. Menezes, for being here. 

I would like to briefly discuss my bill which is Senate bill 1563, 

the Rare Earth Element Advanced Coal Technologies Act, which 

ensures the Department of Energy and its partners have the resources to continue its vital research into developing and commercializing a domestic source of rare earth elements from coal and 

coal by-products. 

Rare earth elements are an essential component for products 

that Americans rely on every day. The list includes everything from 

smartphones to wind turbines, to electronic vehicles, to national defense systems critical to our national security. The United States 

does not have a domestic source of these critical minerals. I repeat. 

The United States does not have a domestic source of these critical 

minerals, and instead imports nearly all of its rare earth elements 

from China. 

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Morgantown, West Virginia, has explored the concept of extracting rare 

earth elements from coal and coal by-products for some time now, 

and Congress recognized it as a liability to have a growing dependence on foreign imports and began appropriating funds for NETL’s 

Rare Earth Element Program in 2014. The Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2017 provided $15 million for NETL to develop prototype advanced separation technologies for rare earth elements 

from coal and coal by-products. 

My bill, Senate bill 1563, authorizes an annual appropriation of 

$20 million for the Department of Energy to continue its work on 

rare earth elements. I believe the Department of Energy’s research 
6 

will help set us on a path toward reestablishing domestic production of these critical minerals. 

My bill also directs Department of Energy to focus on the rare 

earth elements most critical to the national security interests of the 

United States. So far, NETL’s Rare Earth Element Program has 

produced promising results. 

Just last week Secretary Perry announced that NETL found high 

concentrations of rare earth elements in coal samples taken from 

various locations across the country, including the Northern Appalachia, Central Appalachia and the Rocky Mountain Coal basins. 

According to the Department of Energy, the samples contain concentrations of rare earth elements exceeding 300 parts per million, 

the necessary level to make commercial viability of these technologies a reality. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the press release from the Department of Energy be entered into the record. 

Senator CASSIDY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
7 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY 

Press Release 

News Media Contact: (202) 586-4940 

For Immediate Release: November 29, 2017 

High Concentrations of Rare Earth Elements Found in American Coal 

Basins 

WASHINGTON, D.C.- The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has found high rare earth 

element (REE) concentrations in coal samples taken from the Illinois, 

Northern Appalachian, Central Appalachian, Rocky Mountain Coal 

Basins, and the Pennsylvania Anthracite region. These highly 

concentrated samples are greater than 300 parts per million (ppm). 

"Rare Earth Elements are vital to the development and manufacturing 

of high-tech devices such as computers, cell phones, and our national 

defense systems," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. "The current 

difficulties and high expenses associated with REE extraction has left the 

U.S. dependent on foreign REE imports. Supporting innovative research 

and development to establish efficient, cost-effective REE extraction 

methods is critical to our country's energy and national security." 

Concentrations of rare earths at 300 ppm are integral to the commercial 

viability of extracting REEs from coal and coal by-products, making 

NETL's finding particularly significant in the effort to develop 

economical domestic supplies of these elements. 

The discovery was made in partnership with West Virginia University 

(WVU), the University of Kentucky (UK), Tetra Tech, and the Xlight 

Corporation. WVU explored acid mine drainage from bituminous coal 

mines in the Northern and Central Appalachian Coal Basins, while Tetra 

Tech looked at bituminous, subbituminous, and anthracite coal from the 

same basins. Meanwhile, UK analyzed western Kentucky bituminous 

coal in the Illinois Coal Basin, and Xlight Corporation investigated coalrelated materials in the Eastern Pennsylvania Anthracite Region. 

1 
8 

These findings could encourage technology developers to recover REEs 

from these basins by helping them find high quality feedstocks-the raw 

materials needed for REE recovery processes. Higher REE 

concentrations in the feedstock will improve the prospect of producing 

higher-purity REE materials. A separate research initiative is focusing on 

DOE cost-shared research projects to design, develop, and test 

technology to actually recover REEs from coal-related materials in a 

variety of American coal basins. 

These recovery projects began in October 2017 and will use materials 

from the high-REE containing coal basins as feedstocks. They include 

WVU using acid mine drainage from bituminous mines in the Northern 

and Central Appalachian Coal basins as a feedstock, with final design 

and construction of bench-scale test facilities beginning in January 2018. 

A second bench-scale facility is being designed for construction by the 

University of North Dakota to recover REEs from lignitic material. 

In addition, UK also began pilot-scale design and construction in 

October 2017 for systems using West Kentucky bituminous coal 

preparation plant refuse from the Illinois Coal basin. A second pilotscale facility is being designed and constructed by Physical Sciences Inc. 

Two additional pilot-scale facilities began in September 2017 as part of 

the Phase 1 project designs of small, pilot-scale, salable REE recovery 

systems. These include lnventure Renewables using material from the 

Eastern Pennsylvania Anthracite Region and Marshall Miller & 

Associates using Northern Appalachian Upper Freeport bituminous coal 

preparation plant middlings refuse. 

Identifying promising sources of domestic coal and coal by-products 

containing high REE concentrations is a key milestone on the pathway 

toward economic recovery of REEs from U.S. coal and coal by-products. 

Additional analytical results for REE-bearing coal-related material at the 

state and/or county level can be found at NETL's Rare Earth Elements 

Energy Data eXchange website. 

### 

2 
9 

Senator MANCHIN. In conclusion, I am excited about the work 

that NETL is doing, and I believe we have a tremendous opportunity to continue to use our nation’s abundant coal resources to 

strengthen our national security, introduce competition into the 

supply chain and ensure that America entrepreneurs have reliable 

access to these materials. 

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to 

the hearing. 

Senator CASSIDY. Our first witness, the Honorable Thom Tillis. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member. 

I just want to thank you and your staff for your willingness to hear 

a bipartisan, commonsense, regulatory reform idea. Ranking Member Manchin, I also want to thank you and your staff. You have 

been very helpful. 

I think it is a real testament to the simplicity of what we are trying to do here in terms of the underlying bill. 

I am deferred from presenting the 30-page PowerPoint that I had 

to describe the technical aspects of this bill. 

[Laughter.] 

With your approval—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Approved. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TILLIS. I will just simply say that Senator Heinrich and 

I just tried to come together on something that makes perfect 

sense. We have two regulations that are going to be implemented 

over the course of the next two years that could disrupt the supply 

chains all the way from the manufacturers to the retail outlets, 

twice, or we can simply harmonize it by targeting the dates, delaying a date, having both regs go into place at the same time. 

It makes good sense, particularly for all the consumers that rely 

on ceiling fans to actually—I have had a ceiling fan in my house 

forever. As a matter of fact, my wife brought it to my attention. My 

last ceiling fan I purchased back when grunge rock was very popular. They last a long time, but it is a significant purchase. What 

we don’t want to do is add cost and complexity to getting something as simple and as helpful as a ceiling fan in a home. 

So there are so many debates on regulatory reform to where we 

could really drill down and cause an impasse, but I don’t think this 

is one of them. I think that this commonsense legislation, if we can 

work it in to the markup and get it passed, makes perfect sense 

and it is an example where Democrats and Republicans can come 

together when you see a commonsense solution. 

I appreciate your support and serious consideration of Senate bill 

2030, the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act. 

That is all it is doing. Harmonizing regulations and moving forward. And I appreciate your serious consideration. 

Senator CASSIDY. Mr. Menezes. 
10 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. MENEZES. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Manchin, 

members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me here 

today to provide the Department’s testimony on the seven bills currently pending before the Committee. I ask that my written statement be included in the record. 

I have the honor of serving as the Under Secretary of Energy at 

the Department of Energy, and I appreciate the expeditious action 

that this Committee took to conduct my hearing and to report me 

unanimously to the full Senate. It was greatly appreciated. 

Having been confirmed about a month ago, I have had the opportunity to see the successes and challenges facing the U.S. energy 

sector firsthand. The Department of Energy is an agency tasked 

with a number of important responsibilities. Among them, assuring 

our nuclear readiness, overseeing the nation’s energy supply, carrying out environmental cleanup from the nuclear mission and 

managing the Department’s 17 national laboratories. 

The Department of Energy is fostering an environment that promotes responsible investment, increased efficiency and development of new technologies as well as predictability and ease of access by the private sector to the national labs and facilities. 

In support of the Administration’s goals of establishing energy 

dominance and economic competitiveness, the Department’s energy 

and science programs are focused on research and development 

across a variety of technologies and fuel sources. By carefully setting priorities and focusing on the most promising research, the 

Department and its national laboratories will continue to support 

the world’s best enterprise of scientists and engineers. These are 

the great men and women who create innovations that help drive 

American prosperity, security and competitiveness for the next generation. 

I have been asked to testify on multiple bills today which the Administration continues to review. They are, as mentioned: Senate 

bill 1455, the Energy Storage Goals and Demonstration Projects 

Act; Senate bill 1851, the Advancing Grid Storage Act; and Senate 

bill 1876, the Reducing Cost of Energy Storage Act. Let me pause 

here and remind the members that our Office of Electricity has an 

ongoing storage research office that looks at the materials, devices 

and systems and analyses necessary to help foster breakthrough 

technologies on battery storage. The specific national labs that are 

included in that are Sandia, Pacific Northwest and Oak Ridge. We 

partner with universities, utilities and industry, we have published 

185 peer-reviewed publications, and we hold 122 patents in this 

area. We have—we are holding over 20 commercial licenses, and 

we have won nine R&D 100 awards. So we are pleased to see additional bills on this topic, and we look forward to working with the 

members on the storage bills. 

In addition to those three bills, as Ranking Member Manchin 

said, we’re looking at his bill, 1563. And in addition to the comments that Ranking Member Manchin said, I’d like to point out to 

the Committee members that our Office of Rare Earth Elements at 

the Department has conducted over 1,000 rock samples in 14 states 
11 

and came to the conclusions that were expressed by Ranking Member Manchin, in your comments. 

Senator Tillis described the ceiling fan bill. And again, this bill 

seeks to harmonize two of the rules that we had issued, one for the 

electric motors and one for the electric lights. They were on the 

same timetable initially; however, they were finalized at different 

times and because a statute separated those two technologies and 

devices, there was no way that we could link them up. So, unless 

Congress acts we are really unable to do the harmonization ourselves. 

Chairman Cassidy described the small scale LNG access and 

there’s not anything I can add to his description of what it does in 

the reasons set forth, as he stated. 

And then finally, we have the Senate bill 1336, the Reliable Investment and Vital Energy Reauthorization Act, that is, the River 

Act. 

I look forward to discussing these bills in further detail and helping the Committee understand the impact these bills could potentially have on the Department. The Department appreciates the ongoing bipartisan efforts to address our nation’s challenges and 

looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and Committee on 

the legislation on today’s agenda and any future legislation. 

Our nation will achieve our economic energy and environmental 

goals by ensuring the United States continues to be a leader in energy technology, development and delivery and by unleashing 

America’s ingenuity to unlock our natural resources and energy potential. Through research and development, collaboration at all levels of the government and the private sector, the Department of 

Energy and our national labs aim to support the America’s energy 

renaissance. 

The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with 

Congress on legislation to enhance U.S. competitiveness and job 

creation. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward 

to your questions and, if the Chairman wishes, I can give a very 

brief update on the situation in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Isles, 

just having returned from a trip there, you know, over the weekend. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:] 
12 

Testimony of Under Secretary Mark Menezes 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Energy 

December 5, 2017 

Introduction 

Chairman Gardner, Ranking Member Manchin, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a 

privilege and an honor to serve at the Department of Energy (DOE), an agency tasked with 

fulfilling missions in nuclear security, basic scientific research, energy innovation and security, 

and environmental cleanup. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 

Department regarding seven bills that pertain to energy storage, rare earth elements, energy 

conservation standards, small volume exports ofliquefied natural gas, and hydroelectric power. 

In support of the Administration's goals of energy dominance and economic competitiveness, 

resources within DOE's energy and science programs are focused on early-stage research and 

development (R&D) across a variety of technologies that support American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth. Through careful prioritization and ensuring funding 

goes to the most promising research, DOE, through its national laboratories, will continue to 

support the world's best enterprise of scientists and engineers whose innovations drive American 

prosperity, security, and competitiveness for the next generation. This testimony is not intended 

to provide a formal Administration position, but rather to provide general and technical 

comments to the Committee. 

Energy Landscape 

There has been an energy revolution in the United States over the last decade. Through the 

increase in production of crude oil and other liquid fuels, refined petroleum products, and natural 

gas, this nation has become an ener!,'Y powerhouse. Wind and solar power generation also play a 

role in our energy mix and vehicles have reached historic levels of efficiency. 

The United States is, however, at an energy crossroads. Our energy landscape is changing with 

implications across the energy sector and the economy as a whole. These changes have created 

opportunities. At the same time, they pose a set of challenges for energy policy makers, 

investors, non-governmental organizations, and industry. 

These challenges to the energy system come in many forms, and addressing them will require 

action by many parties, including Congress, the private sector, and the public sector. The 

Administration looks forward to working closely with the Congress on this important topic. 
13 

I have been asked to testify on multiple bills today, which the Administration continues to 

review. Our understanding of what each bill seeks to accomplish is as follows: 

S. 1455- Energy Storage Goals and Demonstration Project Act 

It appears this bill sets new goals for research and demonstration projects, including the 

deployment of three grid-scale energy storage demonstrations. The future resiliency and 

reliability of our electric system likely depends to a large degree on the deployment of 

breakthrough battery technologies. While DOE appreciates the research priorities set forth in this 

bill, Administration goals are to encourage early-stage R&D programs and projects. This 

Administration believes the private sector has the most important role to play in the development 

of late stage energy projects. Currently, there are multiple private companies competing and 

installing grid scale battery storage projects and this Administration encourages an increased 

reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage development of energy technologies. The 

Department looks forward to working with the committee to review the technological objectives 

expressed in the bill and provide technical comments. 

S. 1851 -Advancing Grid Storage Act of 2017 

This bill requires the Secretary to establish an energy storage research program, a demonstration 

and deployment program, and a technical assistance and grant program. The bill seeks to 

continue R&D on storage materials, electrochemical systems, and power conversion 

technologies. It specifically directs the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) 

to conduct research, and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) to 

conduct technical assistance. The demonstration and deployment program does not appear to 

have been assigned to a specific DOE program office. 

The Department recognizes the content and approach taken within the proposed legislation. The 

basic elements of the program appear to foster the acceleration of energy storage systems. 

As the members of this Committee are aware, the Administration proposed to eliminate funding 

for ARPA-E in its FY 2018 budget request. It appears the language in the bill singles out 

ARPA-E for undertaking this research, however, the Department has typically undertaken gridscale energy storage research through its OE program with notable success. With this in mind, 

the Department hopes to have the discretion to determine under what program offices DOE 

would manage this research. 

Finally, advanced technologies owned by Federally funded laboratories are used to facilitate 

public/private partnerships. The Department has a proven record of success with this 

arrangement. Thus, it is important that "lab-owned" technologies (given the appropriate 

application of provisions for the licensing of intellectual property) be considered as potential 

candidates for demonstration projects in any legislation considered by the Committee. 

2 
14 

S. 1876 -Reducing the Cost of Energy Storage Act 

This bill seeks to "establish a cross-cutting national program" within DOE with the goal of 

reducing energy storage costs through research, development, and demonstration. 

Currently at the Department, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

researches energy storage for transportation purposes, and the Office of Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability (OE) researches energy storage technologies for grid-scale applications. 

EERE and OE coordinate their energy storage work through the Grid Modernization Initiative. 

The research investments in both vehicle technologies and grid-scale energy storage are greatly 

advancing the broader energy storage field. 

The Department appreciates the research priorities in the bill, and looks forward to working with 

the Committee to evaluate the technical targets contained in the bill, such as any specific cost 

targets for vehicular and grid energy storage. 

S. 1563- Rare Earth Element Advanced Coal Technologies Act 

It's likely the development of a domestic supply of rare earth elements (REEs) that is 

economically competitive will help fuel our nation's economic growth, secure our energy 

independence, and increase our national security. The bill appears to authorize $20 million per 

year from 2018 through 2025 for the Department of Energy (specifically the Office of Fossil 

Energy) to develop advanced separation technologies for the extraction and recovery of REEs 

and minerals from coal and coal byproducts. It appears the bill also requests that DOE, in 

consultation with the Department of Defense, within 1 year after date of enactment, submit a 

report that assesses the importance of REEs to the United States, evaluates the development of 

new separation technologies, and analyzes the market impact of new technologies. Due to the 

complexities of the research and scope of the report, Congress may want to consider extending 

the due date of the initial assessment. 

The bill appears to acknowledge the current ongoing efforts within DOE to advance separation 

technologies for the recovery of REEs. Thus, DOE appreciates the proposed legislation as it 

incorporates its ongoing R&D. DOE is developing technologies with the goal of enabling 

additional domestic supplies ofREEs, reducing environmental impact of coal and REE 

production, and delivering technologies that can be manufactured within the United States. DOE 

has accomplished much in this area, including the evaluation of pilot-scale processing options, 

and the nature and distribution ofREEs in U.S. coal deposits. 

S. 2030- Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act 

This bill changes the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fan 

light kits from January 7, 2019 to January 21, 2020 so that it aligns with the ceiling fan energy 

conservation standard. These products were listed separately under the Energy Policy and 

3 
15 

Conservation Act of 1975 and the compliance dates were developed under separate rulemakings. 

DOE cannot revise the dates of compliance for ceiling fan light kits set forth in its regulations 

without Congress making an exception from the anti-backsliding provision of the enabling 

statute, thus this bill will require an additional statutory change by Congress. 

By syncing up compliance dates, the date of importation of compliant products will be the same, 

allowing for easier compliance for manufacturers as well as government tracking for products 

entering the U.S. This harmonization will likely reduce the burden of tracking compliant and 

non-compliant products that are shipped in one box, especially for retailers. 

S. 1981- Small Scale LNG Access Act of2017 

Currently, all exports of natural gas, regardless of quantity, are subject to review and approval by 

the Department through its regulatory authority under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Applications 

are made under NGA Section 3(a) for exports of natural gas to non-free trade agreement 

countries or NGA Section 3(c) for exports of natural gas to free trade agreement countries. This 

bill amends Section 3( c) to expedite approval of exports of small volumes of natural gas. The 

effect of this bill would be to have qualifying applications granted automatically, saving several 

months of review time at a minimum. 

This bill appears to be similar to the volume criteria DOE laid out in a recent DOE Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) concerning small-scale natural gas exports published on 

September I, 2017. The NOPR sought to revise DOE's regulations in 10 CFR 590 concerning 

its role in administering the NGA DOE's NOPR proposed that natural gas export applications 

to non-free trade agreement countries that proposed to export up to and including 0.14 billion 

cubic feet per day (or 51.75 billion cubic feet per year) would be deemed to be consistent with 

the public interest. The Department looks forward to working with the Committee to determine 

the technical aspects of the bill. 

S. 1336- Reliable Investment in Vital E'nergy Reauthorization 

This bill reauthorizes hydropower production and efficiency upgrade incentives established in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for an additional 10 years. Hydropower production incentives, 

which are paid to qualifying hydropower facilities based on the amount of electricity they 

generate, are reauthorized from 2018 through 2027. Hydropower generation efficiency 

incentives, which support capital improvements to existing hydropower facilities that increase 

their efficiency, are likewise reauthorized from 2018 through 2027. 

Hydropower has significant capabilities to support economic competitiveness and electricity 

system reliability by providing low-cost, flexible generation. The recent Staff Report to the 

Secretary on Electricity Markets and Reliability found that while some hydropower plants are 

operated as baseload resources, many also support the dynamic behavior of grid operations by 

4 
16 

providing a full range of ancillary services. This flexibility has historically complemented other 

traditional forms of baseload generation, such as coal and nuclear. 

DOE appreciates the goal S. 1336 attempts to achieve. Hydropower furthers goals of economic 

competitiveness and electricity system reliability, and it appears this bill incentivizes both 

hydropower generation and efficiency upgrades. 

Conclusion 

DOE is fostering an environment that promotes responsible investment, increased efficiency and 

development of new technologies, as well as predictability and ease of access by the private 

sector to the national laboratories and facilities. 

Our nation will achieve our economic, energy, and environmental goals simultaneously by 

ensuring the United States continues to be a leader in energy technology, development, and 

delivery, and by unleashing America's ingenuity to unlock our natural resources. Through earlystage research and development, and collaborations at all levels of government and with the 

private sector, the Department of Energy and our National Laboratories aim to support an 

efficient transition during our nation's energy revolution. Significant progress has been made, 

however, more work is necessary to capture the full set of opportunities. 

The Department appreciates the ongoing bipartisan efforts to address our nation's energy 

challenges, and looks forward to working with the Committee on the legislation on today's 

agenda and any future legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

5 
17 

Senator CASSIDY. I think we have a bunch of folks who have to 

hustle, so I am going to ask you to hold that for a little bit. 

Senator Wyden wanted to make a short statement. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and it will literally 

be 30 seconds. 

First, I very much appreciate your putting my bill, S. 1876, on 

the schedule and the reason why is to get renewable energy to the 

power grid. Our country needs fresh strategies to reduce the cost. 

That is the point of this legislation. I appreciate it. 

The second. This is a complement to what I have been working 

over the years to look at using the tax code to provide incentives 

to promote energy storage as well. I think the one-two punch is 

going to make it possible and particularly as we move to a tech 

neutral policy with respect to energy. 

So I thank you and I apologize to my colleagues and appreciate 

them letting me leap in for this 30 seconds. 

Senator CASSIDY. I am not under a time constraint, so I am going 

to allow my Democratic colleagues to go because I think some of 

you all are. So, please proceed. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Menezes, I want to thank you for being here, but also on the 

rare earth bill that we are working on, I was amazed to find out 

that nowhere in the country are we mining any of this, producing 

any. We are totally dependent for things we depend on almost 

every minute of every day on other countries supplying us the rare 

earth minerals that we need to do this. 

I know that you all have partnered up with Western University, 

of which our state is very proud. If we have, we have already 

mined—we are still mining coal. We have already mined a lot of 

coal. 

There are three elements and three aspects, I guess we would 

have to do. First of all, we have what we call the coal fines in 

ponds and slurry dumps and all that. We can go back and reprocess that and get an awful lot out of that also. Next, you have coal 

that you are mining, that we are mining, fresh. When we do that, 

we wash some of it. So if the washing process is changed when we 

are cleaning the coal, taking the ash and all the particulates out 

of it, that could be an easy source also. And next, we run what we 

call run-of-the-mine (ROM), just taking the rock and that without 

going through a wash plant. 

Are you all looking with NETL and partnering up on all three 

technologies trying to find the best and most cost-effective way? Or 

my biggest question, are we looking at it from a defense of our nation, a national defense perspective, that we have to be able to 

produce so much of this in this country so that we are not entirely, 

totally dependent? 

Mr. MENEZES. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 

Manchin. To answer your last question first. 

Yes, you know, 84 percent of these minerals are produced in 

China. 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 
18 

Mr. MENEZES. We at one time had a mine in Eastern California 

that was attempting to produce, was producing, but it no longer is. 

Yes, you are correct that we are not producing this and we are dependent, primarily, on China and other countries for these rare 

earth minerals. 

With respect to your first question, the short answer is yes. We 

are doing all of those. We are looking at all of those different aspects of trying to recover those rare earth minerals in the most 

cost-effective or efficient way to do that. 

Senator MANCHIN. I think what I am asking also, with the Department of Energy, is if you all are supporting and stressing that 

with the defense of our nation, the security of our nation, that we 

should be mandated and basically finding ways that we can 

produce this in the United States of America whether it is through 

coal or, if there is a different process that can be used, but coal 

seems to be the most logical since we are mining through strata 

to begin with. It would seem to me that it would behoove our country to take a position that we are going to produce so much domestically, knowing that we can, just for the defense of our own nation, 

for the security of our nation. But unless you all, the Department 

of Energy, take that position, it might not be taken up at the highest level. 

Do you all feel it is that important or have you gotten to those 

discussions yet or do you not feel like we are vulnerable with 84 

percent dependent upon China with things that could go a little bit 

awry at any time? We have very little control over this. 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. 

And Secretary Perry, you know, serves on the NSC. 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 

Mr. MENEZES. And we also have NNSA within our jurisdiction. 

So readiness for our defense, our nuclear weapons program, I 

mean, our national security is one of our top priorities, should I 

say. 

Our Fossil Energy Office is working with those labs and the industries to, in fact, try to become more independent in our own production and supply of these materials. So, yes, I mean, I agree. 

Senator MANCHIN. But we are depending on your support because I think the State of West Virginia can produce what is needed to be produced if we have the technology and the support from 

NETL and support for NETL to work with WVU and the research 

people we have there. To find a way that we can extract and 

produce it right here in America. 

Mr. MENEZES. And I appreciate your comments in talking to the 

program scientists who have been doing this. They were genuinely 

pleased to see your bill. 

Senator MANCHIN. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. So, it seems as though it is building on what we 

have been doing. 

Senator MANCHIN. Good. 

Mr. MENEZES. It recognizes the work that has been going on and 

the need to continue it. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, we appreciate your support on this, and 

tell Secretary Perry we appreciate his support very much. 

Thank you. 
19 

Senator CASSIDY. Senator Heinrich, I was going to let you go 

next, but my staff tells me I have to be some places too. 

[Laughter.] 

So, if you don’t mind, knowing that you have a Committee. 

Our bill, Mr. Menezes, there has been bipartisan interest, and I 

am sorry that I am not hearing what you have to say about USVI 

and Puerto Rico. 

If you could submit that for the record, I would like to review 

that. 

There has been bipartisan interest in how we can make the grids 

more resilient for those two places. 

One thing that I have been trying to promote is that we would 

have some sort of mix, again, trying to find 60 votes of renewables 

and a microgrid, but the backstop being LNG. 

Now knowing that about 17 percent of the Puerto Rican grid 

right now is LNG but knowing that they have clearly got a grid 

that is vulnerable to storms empirically, we see that. 

What is the possibility of these floating gasification tankers going 

to the Caribbean Islands or a place like Puerto Rico and providing 

the backstop for the microgrids as we build that out? Is that pie 

in the sky or is that something that we can reasonably do? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, to be sure we have heard from many interested parties on a variety of ways to make improvements to the 

grid down there and making both their generation, transmission 

and distribution systems more resilient because as we know there 

will be additional extreme weather events on the island. 

Regarding LNG, indeed, those that are there have looked at modernizing, if you will, some of the generation there to be able to get 

off of the bunker oil that they currently are on. 

Senator CASSIDY. Could they use the same turbines if we came 

in with a tanker that gasified LNG, pulls it up and provides the 

fuel, does everything else stay the same or do they have to change 

the turbines to adapt to a different fuel source? 

Mr. MENEZES. Excellent question. 

As we’ve discovered, and others have known this, but a lot of 

their generation really has, you know, had not been properly maintained. 

There’s a particular unit, Palo Seco, which is important to the 

San Juan area. It runs on bunker fuel. It’s dated. It needs to be 

redone. 

And so, in this instance, were you to bring LNG there, right now 

we have, I think, two 30-megawatt, natural gas, modular units that 

have re-energized the grid around San Juan. It uses natural gas. 

That is being brought in by LNG. Now it’s re-gasified, and that’s 

what’s powering it. 

Senator CASSIDY. On the boat itself, I presume. 

Mr. MENEZES. On the island. 

I’m not sure, I think it’s re-gasified there. There is a re-gasification unit there, but I’m not sure that it’s operating at this time. 

But the point being is that they’re very desirous of getting off the 

bunker fuel. 

Senator CASSIDY. But to the point, those are two temporary turbines. If they have a turbine in Haiti that is running off of bunker 

fuel and they bring in liquefied natural gas, can they use the same 
20 

turbines that they are using now, just replacing the bunker fuel 

with the natural gas or do they actually need to replace the electricity generating unit? 

Mr. MENEZES. We’re looking at this right now, Senator Cassidy. 

I’m not sure that I can answer that question. 

Senator CASSIDY. Let me also ask what is the possibility, because 

I think there is a lot of interest here and I am obviously mixing 

what you are going to say about Puerto Rico with finding a utility 

for liquefied natural gas. I think we could get bipartisan support, 

if it was somehow tied to increased use of renewables and a 

microgrid. 

You have been going to Puerto Rico. What is the feasibility of 

that? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, what we’re doing is next week we are having 

a workshop where we are bringing in all of the parties that have 

made proposals on refurbishing generation, the transmission system and the distribution system. The staffs of this Committee have 

been invited, actually, the Chairman and Ranking Member have 

been invited. We expect their staffs to attend, as well as the House. 

But attending will be DOE, will be FEMA, the Corps, our labs that 

have been asked to do the resiliency modeling, the economic analyses, New York Power Authority, NYPA, and its consultant, 

Navigant, will be there, and all of the interested parties. The goal 

is to put everybody’s best thinking there to look at an all-of-theabove strategy, to make it as resilient as we can and the placement 

of these. 

LNG is certainly one of the key fuel choices that are being looked 

at, as well as renewables, the integrated microgrids and to try to 

modernize the system. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Mr. MENEZES. So that will occur next week and your staffs, your 

Committee staff has been invited to participate. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

holding this hearing today, and I am certainly pleased to co-sponsor three of the bills on today’s agenda. 

Mr. Menezes, congratulations on your recent confirmation. 

Mr. MENEZES. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HEINRICH. I also want to say a special thank you to Senator Tillis for his testimony on our bill, S. 2030, and suggest that 

it might be time for him to consider a new ceiling fan. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Menezes, I wanted to ask you about the status of the reorganization at DOE and, in particular, do you know yet what specific 

areas that yourself and Under Secretary Dabbar are going to be responsible for? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, we have considered a realignment in several 

categories and we have been discussing our plans, what we’ve been 

thinking about, with the staffs of this Committee. We have also 

been meeting with other stakeholders on the Hill, particularly the 

appropriators, to talk about our ideas that we have. We have not 

made any announcements yet. We haven’t made any final decisions 
21 

yet. We have committed not to, frankly, do any realignment until 

after you all have completed your work on the budget, on the CR, 

and then it would, we would continue to get input. 

Senator HEINRICH. Let me shift here—— 

Mr. MENEZES. But as a practical matter, you know, I think as 

we have told your staffs on the realignment, I would have the applied offices. Under Secretary Dabbar would have the science labs. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Mr. MENEZES. And so, we’re going to follow that kind of model. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Let me just shift gears on you real quick then. 

I was pleased to host in Albuquerque last year a summit that 

was focused just on energy storage. We had more than 200 industry leaders, scientists and grid experts who came together from all 

around the country, as well as national labs, experts from Sandia 

and Los Alamos. 

One outcome of this summit was that New Mexico became the 

first state that requires investor-owned utility companies to include 

storage in their integrated resource plans. So they don’t have to 

pick it, but they have to model it and see if it comes out cheaper 

than other alternatives. 

Do you think sufficient attention is being given to energy storage 

in utility system planning and is there a role for DOE and/or the 

labs to play in that process? 

Mr. MENEZES. There’s a big role for DOE and the labs to play. 

In looking at the bills submitted, for example, you may have different technical objectives whether it’s stationary battery storage, 

if you will, or transportation and perhaps in some instances you 

can gain economies of scale or sharing of technologies in both, but 

generally for the reach goals and to make the breakthrough technologies, you’re going to make sure, we would like to make sure, 

that you have metrics for each because we don’t know whether or 

not, even if we have a transportation battery that works, it may 

not be able to just easily be grid scale. So we play a big role in 

that. And I think you would be pleased were the program folks 

with me to testify, I think that you would be pleased with the work 

that they have done. And as I had mentioned, the patents and the 

licenses that, you know, that they have. 

Regarding whether or not utilities are doing enough in the IRP, 

a lot of that is, of course, driven by their individual states, if they 

go through the IRP and whether or not it’s a priority there. FERC, 

I think, can play a role in trying to make, send out, guidelines. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. Right, as to, as you know, there’s state jurisdictional and what is FERC jurisdictional. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. And so if we had some clarity on that. 

Senator HEINRICH. Let me ask you about that, that FERC piece, 

in following up, because last year FERC issued a proposed rule 

that would assure that energy storage is compensated properly for 

the flexibility that it provides to grid operations, things like frequency and voltage control. 

Do you believe that utilities and regulators have the tools that 

they need to properly model the market value of energy storage 
22 

and is there a useful role for DOE and the labs to help power markets and regulators make sure that they accurately value the services that storage provides? 

Mr. MENEZES. We do think that we have a role. We can certainly 

provide a collaborative forum, if you will, for these issues to be resolved because we know that we have differing markets throughout 

the country, across the country, rather, I should say, with differing 

rules. And so, not all have capacity markets, for example. 

Senator HEINRICH. And some don’t have rules. 

Mr. MENEZES. And some don’t have any rules. That is correct. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is a good first step, I think. 

Mr. MENEZES. But if, even if, in any event there’s always how 

can you work with the states, with the commissions or with FERC. 

And indeed, in getting prepared for this hearing our program 

folks made it clear there’s one of the bills, and I generally think 

this is kind of a good thing, I think it’s Senator Franken’s bill that 

talks about, you know, nothing in here will cloud the jurisdiction, 

if you will, of the various agencies. I can see that as a good thing 

because you don’t really, necessarily, want to make that an issue 

in the bill itself. 

But on the other hand, they said, we want to make sure that we 

can continue to work with the state officials or the state commissioners who ask us, as a practical matter, how does this work? 

Right? How could it be priced? What is the cost? You know? How 

can it be integrated? Right? Basic questions like that. And so, those 

regulators come to us just to ask for technical assistance. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. They don’t ask our opinion as to whether they 

should have jurisdiction over something or not and we can’t comment on that. But again, we’re a source of information to help people understand. And then they can go with their pricing and figure 

out—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Make those decisions, yes. 

Thank you, I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. 

Senator STRANGE [presiding]. I was interested in the answer. 

That is great. 

I can save my questions for last. Senator King, if you would like 

to ask your questions, I recognize you. 

Senator KING. Well, I was going to point out when Senator Heinrich leaves you and I are in charge. What part of the Constitution 

do you want to rewrite? We could, there is just the two of us here. 

Mr. Menezes, thank you and congratulations again on your confirmation. 

Mr. MENEZES. Thank you. 

Senator KING. There is a notice of proposed rulemaking which 

was submitted to FERC, I think, by the Department, called the Resiliency Rule. It seems to identify two main sources, nuclear and 

coal. Wouldn’t storage have been a logical part of that proposal because storage is clearly a resiliency technology. Why was it left 

out? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, the rule was written generally. The rule was 

not written specifically for any fuel at all. You just have to simply 

meet the criteria of the rule, as it was in storage, but certainly, you 
23 

know, qualify. It’s a 90-day on-site fuel requirement, but it could 

be anything. 

The key about batteries is that it actually has to act like a fuel. 

In other words, it has to accept, receive the electricity, hold it over 

a short or longer period of time and then to be able to discharge 

electricity when—— 

Senator KING. So is your interpretation of the submission that it 

would, in fact, accommodate a storage component, if it met the 

other requirements of the rule? 

Mr. MENEZES. It could, certainly. 

Senator KING. Fine, thank you. 

Mr. MENEZES. It’s fuel neutral. 

Senator KING. And let me ask, and I think you covered this 

somewhat with Senator Cassidy on Puerto Rico. Many of us think 

that Puerto Rico offers us a huge opportunity to build the grid of 

the 21st century instead of rebuilding a grid of the 20th century. 

There were some questions with regard to the Stafford Act that 

disaster funds can only be used to rebuild, not to build new. 

Do you know—— 

Mr. MENEZES. To restore—to restore not to rebuild. 

Senator KING. Restore, yes. 

Do you consider that a limitation on our ability to do, for example, a more distributed grid using LNG and renewables? Is the 

Stafford Act an obstacle and, if so, I would appreciate for the record 

if you would let us know how we might fix that. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, thank you for the opportunity to talk about 

the Stafford Act. I know it’s not the subject of the hearing, and I’m 

sure we could fill up the whole day of testimony on the Stafford 

Act. 

It has been the experience here that the Stafford Act does go 

through a process. And indeed, it is restore. And in this case, 

where the Corps went in and had to decide on whether or not restore would be tantamount to a rebuild, it created some confusion. 

Our role was to help play a role, rather, in making determinations. As a practical matter now we are moving toward, I think, 

triggering what’s called the 428 under the Stafford Act and move 

toward a rebuild. And indeed, historically, you do have a transition 

from restoration to a rebuild. 

Senator KING. So, the Stafford Act does allow—— 

Mr. MENEZES. It does. 

Senator KING. ——some new infrastructure as opposed to just rebuilding or restoring what was already there. 

Mr. MENEZES. It does. 

The Stafford Act probably did not anticipate a situation like 

Puerto Rico in that to restore, it was tantamount to rebuild. 

Senator KING. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. And that caused lawyers, everybody, to look at it 

and to say well, do we have the authority and not FEMA that has 

to make the calls, was relying on DOE in a lot of respects. 

Senator KING. Has that call been made? Are we moving toward 

a new form of grid or are we rebuilding the old one? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, as I said, we’re now in anticipation of moving toward spending monies to a potential rebuild. We have put in 

place this workshop to put together a comprehensive plan on the 
24 

rebuild as to what it would look like to make it more resilient so 

that we’re not coming and doing the same kind of restoration the 

next time a hurricane hits. 

I just saw before coming over here we were getting briefed by 

NYPA in what was going on down there. We had modeled the hurricane tracking across Puerto Rico, I mean, just going back—— 

Senator KING. Well, as I understand it one of the problems is 

most of the generation is in—— 

Mr. MENEZES. South. 

Senator KING. In the south. 

Mr. MENEZES. Correct. 

Senator KING. And the load is in the north. 

Mr. MENEZES. That is correct. 

Senator KING. There are these long transmission lines which, of 

course—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Across the mountains. 

Senator KING. Across the mountains? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes. 

Senator KING. Vulnerable? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes. 

Senator KING. And transmission loss. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes. 

Senator KING. So are we going to be able to build a more distributed grid? 

Mr. MENEZES. We are. We’re looking at distributed—— 

Senator KING. Whose call? Who makes this decision? Who decides what goes? Is it the Puerto Rico Power Authority or is it 

FEMA or is it you? Who makes the decision we are going to rebuild 

that high-tension line or we are going to do something different? 

Mr. MENEZES. That’s an excellent question. I mean, right now 

we’re still restoring so those decisions are fairly easy to make. 

We’re doing whatever it takes—— 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Mr. MENEZES. ——to restore. 

Senator KING. I understand that. But I am talking about the 

longer-term. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yeah, the longer-term. 

We intend to submit this to the White House, to Congress, to the 

Corps. We will have it, and we will all be united on the priorities. The Corps has now let over $1 billion to floor and contractors to 

begin to rebuild. So we’ve got that amount to work with initially. 

We expect that whatever this group produces will likely have some 

cost scenarios. And so, it will probably need approval from Congress, in all honesty, to be able to do it. We look forward to working 

with everybody as we go forward. 

But next week will be the big gathering where we’re going to try 

to make—— 

Senator KING. I would appreciate it—— 

Mr. MENEZES. ——consensus, if you will. 

Senator KING. ——if you could keep this Committee informed of 

the steps and the plan and this process so that we can have an opportunity to review the progress, but not only the progress but the 

plans and structure of the response. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yeah. 
25 

Senator KING. Final question. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, good. 

Senator KING. Final question, I am out of time, but Senator 

Cassidy’s bill talks about small, relatively small, exports of LNG 

and it said, it basically exempts them from the finding of public interest. 

But I remember voting on an amendment here a couple of years 

ago that said that those decisions had to be made within 90 days 

or something and the Department was here and they said there 

was no problem. We are doing them rapidly anyway. 

My question is, and maybe you want to take this for the record, 

what is the timeframe for making these national interest decisions? 

Do we need this bill, I guess is the question, or is there a holdup 

or is there not? 

I would like, and you don’t have to answer now, but—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Yeah, let me take that one for the record. 

Senator KING. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MENEZES. So we can have a timeframe. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MENEZES. Can I? 

I was just going to say something else. 

Senator STRANGE. Well, if you want to, go ahead and finish your 

thought. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I was just going to say that it’s really an exciting project because we do have the labs that are doing modeling. 

The White House is in full backing of us to try to identify opportunities for microgrids, for example, you know, these would be integrated microgrids. 

Senator STRANGE. Sure. 

Mr. MENEZES. So that, you know, both the structure, the grid, 

benefits as well as the individual places that take advantage of distributed generation. 

Senator KING. And my understanding from a prior hearing is 

that the solar installations on Puerto Rico survived pretty well and 

also on the Virgin Islands, that there were some that were destroyed, but others survived, depending, I think the testimony was, 

on how they were built and, you know, this is a place where there 

is certainly an abundance of solar energy. 

We want to be sure that is part of the solution. 

Mr. MENEZES. I mean, the fact is that those that were in the 

path of the storm did not survive well at all. 

We visited—— 

Senator KING. Well, that’s contrary to the testimony we had from 

the Governor of the Virgin Islands—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Well—— 

Senator KING. ——who said that depending upon how they were 

built some survived amazingly. In fact, we saw photographs of 

some surviving amazingly well and they were in the track of the 

storm. 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. 

Senator KING. But I think it depends. He said it was how they 

were engineered. 

Mr. MENEZES. He’s talking about—in fact, we just saw these over 

the weekend. 
26 

On St. Croix we passed and they were fairly close together, I 

mean, within several miles. We saw one solar array, probably a 

couple acres, nothing was touched. In fact, I have pictures here. 

They look fine. Okay? 

We literally went down the road toward the municipal building, 

believe it or not, where it was across from the municipal building 

a similar array totally trashed, okay. 

Now this was film. It wasn’t like glass panes. It wasn’t smashed 

like one of the arrays were on Puerto Rico. So the question was 

well, why? Right? I mean, clearly the hurricane passed over this 

area. As explained was in one area on the frame structure the 

boards that held the film lined up with the frame structure. On the 

one that was destroyed, they overlapped just by a couple of inches. 

And that lip was essentially like a wing and it caught it and they 

were tighter on the structure than the structure was on the ground 

and it literally lifted the whole thing and twisted it and it was 

amazing to be told. So, yes, to answer your question, those that 

told you that, in fact, that is true. 

My point—— 

Senator KING. I will follow up on this. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yeah, yeah. 

Senator KING. I don’t want to take too much of the Senator’s 

time. 

Mr. MENEZES. No. 

Senator KING. But I just don’t want to miss this opportunity to 

do it right. 

Mr. MENEZES. Exactly. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Senator STRANGE. I appreciate that, Senator King. And I think 

you actually have taken my entire time which I—— 

Senator KING. Sorry. 

Senator STRANGE. ——which I am happy to concede to you because I was very fascinated by your line of inquiry there and what 

is going on in Puerto Rico. 

I do have some questions, but I am going to submit them for the 

record. 

You have had plenty of time to testify today, I know. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Menezes and Senator Tillis, for being 

here and remind my colleagues that questions for the record are 

due by the close of business on Thursday. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(27) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
28 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

February 27, 2018 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Madam Chairman: 

On December 5, 2017, Under Secretary of Energy Mark Menezes testified regarding 

seven Senate energy bills. 

Enclosed are answers to questions submitted by Senators Ron Wyden, AI Franken, 

Martin Heinrich, Bill Cassidy, Luther Strange and you. 

If you need any additional information or further assistance, please contact me or Fahiye 

Yusuf, Office of Congressionai and Intergovermnental Affairs at (202) 586-5450. 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

n_=;·a- ~' 0 

'(lnJ;) A. Lorlne 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Senate Affairs 

Congressional and Intergovermnental Affairs 

® Printed with soy Ink on recycled paper 
29 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN 

Ql. Tesla's Gigafact01y in Nevada is a promising example of how new technologies can grow 

American manufacturing and create middle-class jobs. However, according to a June 

report in Bloomberg News, China is building so many factories that they will be able to 

produce four times as many batteries as Tesla by 2021. I am concerned that the United 

States could fall behind China in a technology area that is already so important, and will 

become even more critical in the future. My bill, the Reducing the Cost of Energy 

Storage Act, was written to help spur innovation and ensure that Americans have access 

to low-cost energy storage technologies. 

Q1a. What should the United States government be doing to ensure to we have a leading role 

in energy storage technologies? 

Ala. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's (OE's) Energy Storage 

program has utilized the 2013 Grid Storage Report as a roadmap to address the 

challenges facing deployment of grid scale energy storage. 1 To date, the program's R&D 

efforts in cost-competitive technologies, improved safety and reliability, standardized 

valuation methodologies, and industrial acceptance have resulted in significant 

innovations that enable the greater adoption of energy storage. Since 2012, the program 

has contributed 185 peer reviewed journal publications, 122 patents and applications, and 

9 R&D I 00 awards. While these innovations have already resulted in new storage startups in emerging technology areas such as redox flow batteries and power electronics, 

there remain significant opportunities to further enhance U.S. leadership in the field. 

• R&D efforts in materials modeling, combinatorial testing, and in-situ 

characterization can accelerate the materials discovery process and provide a suite 

of potential new chemistries for battery energy storage. 

• The development of common manufacturing architectures that are applicable to 

entire classes of storage technologies can greatly reduce the time between 

innovation and validated system-level performance. 

• New design tools for utilities and regulators that accurately determine optimal 

sizes, locations, and economic and resiliency benefits that storage provides can 

greatly reduce institutional uncertainty surrounding energy storage. 

1 https://energy.gov foe/downloads/ grid-energy -storagc-december-20 13 
30 

These efforts provide a holistic development approach that can enable continued U.S. 

leadership. 

Q lb. What are other examples that show how research and development funding at the 

Department of Energy resulted in more manufacturing in the United States? 

Alb. Several ofOE's energy R&D investments for grid scale storage have resulted in private 

sector investments and continued commercialization by U.S. industry. To date, 

22 companies have licensed technologies from DOE national laboratories that have 

directly led to new high-tech jobs and manufacturing in the United States. For example, 

early stage R&D efforts in vanadium redox flow batteries enabled the technology to 

overcome several technical barriers that limited commercialization and has been licensed 

to eight companies. 

One of these companies, UniEnergy Technologies (UET), was started by two former 

PNNL scientists in 2012 and currently employs more than 60 workers at its facility, north 

of Seattle, Washington. UET has currently installed 18.5 megawatt-hours of commercial 

systems in the United States and abroad, and has an additional 365 megawatt-hours under 

contract or award as the technology starts to achieve cost parity with lithium-ion systems. 

These efforts have firmly established U.S. leadership in flow battery technology, a 

leadership that will continue as OE invests in the development of the next generation of 

flow chemistries that offer an additional 50 percent reduction in cost. 

OE efforts to facilitate the development of uniform codes and standards, support 

installation and techno-economic assessments of deployed storage systems, and develop 

valuation methodologies for industry have greatly increased stakeholder confidence in the 

technology and made the path to commercialization easier for U.S. companies. 

Argonne National Laboratory's advanced battery research lead to the development of the 

nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) blended cathode and is a major leap in lithium-ion 

battery technology from earlier cathode chemistries. TODAAmerica, lnc. licensed the 

NMC technology and built a $70 million lithium-ion cathode materials plant and a 

$24 million expansion in Battle Creek, Michigan, which manufacturers multiple cathode 

materials, but chiefly NMC. Customers of the TODA plant include LG Chern's battery 

2 
31 

production facility in Holland, Michigan. BASF Corporation licensed the NMC cathode 

technology and built a 70,000-square-foot plant in Elyria, Ohio, to produce NMC-based 

products. General Motors licensed NMC for use in the Chevrolet Volt, the first massproduced plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. NMC is also found in the battery in the Chevy 

Bolt, the successor to the Volt. 

Argonne National Laboratory researchers have also collaborated with companies such as 

Caterpillar, Cummins, and Delphi Automotive to discover and test new fuel injection 

nozzle designs. These companies tapped into capabilities at Argonne to understand the 

complex physics and chemistry happening within the fuel nozzles allowing them to save 

time, money, and energy in designing injectors. Without Argonne's high resolution 

measurements and kinetic modeling simulation of the fuel nozzle inner workings, 

Caterpillar, Cummins, and Delphi would have had to rely on costly prototype hardware 

and physical testing for the designs. Laboratory costs for such assistance are fully 

reimbursed by the companies. 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Advanced Manufacturing 

Office (AMO) brings together national laboratories, educational institutions, companies 

(for-profit and not-for-profit), and state and local governments to identify scientific and 

technical challenges; catalyze innovation; and support R&D of materials, processes, and 

information technologies needed for an efficient, productive, and competitive American 

manufacturing sector leading to enduring economic growth and increased domestic 

manufacturing. Historically, over 300 AMO (and its predecessor programs) supported 

R&D projects have resulted in the development of a commercialized technology since the 

1970s. By employing these technologies, manufacturers have saved considerable 

amounts of energy and money and have increased manufacturing activity. Additionally, 

since 1991, 78 technologies have received an R&D l 00 Award, with 50 of those awarded 

after the year 2000. Over 500 patents that enable new manufacturing activity have also 

been issued as a result of AMO-funded R&D projects. Examples include: 

• The expansion of manufacturers like LeMond and Leisure Pools to East 

Tennessee to leverage the carbon fiber composite and additive manufacturing 

3 
32 

expertise of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Manufacturing Demonstration and 

Carbon Fiber Test Facilities. 

• Overseeing six current consortia with over 600 members focused on key 

manufacturing-related technology areas, 2 commercialized technologies, and 

11 R&D 100 Awards. 

• The Critical Materials Institute's filing of 45 invention disclosures and 15 patent 

applications and licensing of two technologies to industry-a strong basis for a 

response to China's near-monopoly on the rare earth materials supply chain. 

• Working with private sector partner X-Fab, through the Power America 

Manufacturing USA Institute, to convert its Lubbock, Texas, silicon wafer 

fabrication facility to also produce silicon carbide, supporting 400 jobs through 

access to the advanced power electronics market that would have been lost. 

• The Lab Embedded Entrepreneurship Program, which includes the Cyclotron 

Road program, which has spun off six advanced manufacturing startups with over 

$15 million in follow-on funding. 

Q2. Department of Energy research programs and private companies are making huge strides 

in new energy storage technologies like sodium batteries and flow batteries. But these 

discoveries can take decades. The initial discovery that led to lithium-ion batteries took 

place in 1980! It took three decades of government-sponsored research to get lithium 

batteries to the point where Americans could use them on the grid and in our cars. 

Two things are clear from the development oflithium batteries: First, there's still a role 

for government funding in new energy technologies. Second, the pace of innovation has 

to increase if the U.S. is going to transition to a low-carbon economy by mid-century. 

What is the Department of Energy doing to ensure that new energy storage 

technologies-which could reduce the cost of storage-move from discovery to 

commercialization faster than lithium-ion batteries did7 

A2. In 2017, the OE Energy Storage program initiated the development of common 

manufacturing architectures that can be utilized by several different storage chemistries 

that share key common characteristics. For example, OE is currently investing in the 

development of a flow battery stack architecture that could be utilized by multiple 

electrochemistries (vanadium, iron-chromium, aqueous soluble organic electrolyte, etc.) 

that have similar pH, concentration, viscosity, and operating voltage ranges. Any new 

4 
33 

chemistry that shares similar properties could utilize this platform to accelerate the scaleup and validation of the technology at scale. Since multiple developers can use the same 

platform, all benefit from a lower cost through aggregated production volumes. 

The development of common manufacturing architectures for all classes of battery 

systems is one method to reduce the time between innovation and validated system-level 

perfonnance, while enabling these technologies to meet the ever-demanding cost targets 

of the market 

5 
34 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR AL FRANKEN 

Ql. Energy storage improves the reliability and resilience of the electric grid to in the face of 

extreme weather events. It allows existing infrastructure to be used more efficiently, 

saving ratepayers money, and it facilitates increased amounts of renewable energy on the 

grid. 

That's why we're seeing more and more communities looking at energy storage. Just last 

week, the largest battery storage project in the world came online in Australia. The 

project was commissioned to improve the resilience of their grid. And similar decisions 

are being discussed around the United States. In Minnesota, Connexus Energy, a rural 

electric cooperative, is planning a 20 megawatt battery storage project outside of the 

Twin Cities. I think that the federal government has an important role to play in 

developing new storage technologies and to help communities plan and finance these 

type of projects. 

The Advancing Grid Storage Act promotes research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment of grid-scale energy storage systems. The bill provides dedicated funding for 

storage systems within ARP A-E and creates grant and technical assistance programs to 

help overcome barriers to deployment. Does the Department of Energy support increased 

federal investment in research, development and deployment of energy storage? What do 

you see as the role of the federal government overall in developing reliable, efficient, and 

cost-effective advanced energy storage? 

AI. DOE is refocusing the Department's energy and science programs on early-stage research 

and development with a renewed focus on cutting-edge innovation. DOE will also 

provide technical assistance to various stakeholders where appropriate. Accelerating the 

transition of energy technologies from the laboratory bench to the marketplace is an 

important component of increasing America's economic prosperity and energy security. 

The Office of Technology Transition's Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF) 

provides funding to help businesses move promising energy technologies from DOE's 

National Laboratories to the marketplace. I 

1 U.S. Department of Energy. "Secretary of Energy Rick Peny Announces Nearly $20 Million To Help 

Commercialize Promising Energy Tcclmologies." September 13, 2017, accessed: December 19, 2017, 

https :!/energy. gov/teclmologytransitions/articlcs/secrctary -energy -rick -pcny -amiOunces-nearly-20-million-help 

6 
35 

Q2. What barriers do you see to the deployment of energy storage systems-particularly for 

smaller utilities, municipal utilities, and rural electric cooperatives? And how can the 

federal government help overcome these barriers? 

A2. Science and technology efforts are critical to enable the development and deployment of 

energy storage by utilities. However, utilities at all levels-consumer-owned, investorowned, municipalities-must also have the capacity to understand and quantify the value 

energy storage provides to their systems. State regulators need the same tools and data 

sets to evaluate energy storage, so they can provide an appropriate policy environment for 

the efficient and effective deployment of energy storage technologies. 

Value propositions for grid storage often depend on identifying the institutional and 

regulatory hurdles to deployment and understanding how storage benefits can be 

evaluated when compared to other grid resources. Currently, the Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) Energy Storage program is working with selected 

utilities and public service commissions across the country to develop an analytical 

framework for the accurate valuation and use of energy storage. The development of a 

uniform analytical framework will enable industry stakeholders to utilize the same tools 

and data sets and more accurately inform policy decisions that help reduce the barriers for 

energy storage deployment. 

Q3. Thank you for joining Chairman Murkowski, Senator Cassidy, and me on our trip last 

month to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to see the impact of Hurricanes Irma 

and Maria and to affirm federal commitment to the rebuilding effort. As you recall, 

during our trip, we toured a children's hospital where after the storm, Tesla installed a 

solar array and an energy storage backup. The solar plus storage project provides the 

majority of the power for the hospital. And in the case of a hurricane that takes down the 

grid, the hospital can go into "island" mode and continue to operate. 

We know that we're going to see more hurricanes and extreme weather events, and we 

know that we need to rebuild in a more resilient and sustainable way that is better able to 

withstand the effects of these disasters. We simply cannot allow communities to be 

without power for three months as is currently the case in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. What role do you see for energy storage in the grid resilience for these islands? 

And how is DOE going to be involved in planning and rebuilding the grid? 

A3. The hurricanes that impacted the United States and its territories this past fall 

demonstrated the resiliency benefits of integrating storage into solar-outfitted individual 

7 
36 

homes and emergency shelters. In certain cases, these facilities were able to provide 

essential services while awaiting repair of the electrical infrastructure. Greater adoption 

of storage, from utility-scale systems at substations to commercial, community, and 

residential microgrids could enable a hierarchy of resiliency that helps ensure some level 

of electrical services in times of national disasters. 

For the past decade, the OE Energy Storage program has been actively engaged with the 

integration of energy storage into islandable microgrids. Program efforts in Alaska, 

Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Oregon are helping regional entities optimize the suite of 

microgrid assets (diesel generators, solar, storage, etc.) to ensure a high degree of 

survivability while maximizing the economic benefits of the system during normal 

operations. These demonstration efforts can provide a template for other regions, like 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Q4. I noticed in your testimony that you reiterated this administration's desire to end the 

incredibly successful and innovative APRA-E program. This summer, the American Energy 

Innovation Council-a group often current and retired corporate leaders, including N01m 

Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Bill Gates-released a report outlining 

the importance of federal investment in cutting-edge energy research and development The 

group recommends increasing funding for ARPA-E three fold and increasing federal 

investment for advanced energy innovation to 16 billion dollars per year-two and a half 

times the total amount for energy research proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 2018 

budget. But the President's budget does the opposite of what the American Energy Innovation 

Council recommends. It significantly reduces public investment in research, including 

slashing energy research programs by 3.1 billion dollars and eliminating ARPA-E altogether. 

This will seriously hinder American competitiveness. We're in an international competition to 

unleash the next wave of technological innovation. Do you disagree with Mr. Augustine and 

Mr. Gates that we need to drastically increase investment in energy innovation and ARP A-E? 

A4. The President's Budget focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal role is 

strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence 

and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. The budget reflects an increased reliance on 

the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy 

technologies. Through careful prioritization and ensuring that funding goes to the most 

promising research, the DOE will continue to be a world-leading science and technology 

enterprise that generates the innovations that fulfill our mission of ensuring the nation's 

8 
37 

security and prosperity. I look forward to working with this committee and both houses of 

Congress on these important issues. 

9 
38 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MARTIN HEINRICH 

Ql. With respect to the status of the reorganization of DOE's structure, do you know yet what 

specific areas you and Under Secretary Dabbar will be responsible for? 

You noted you would be responsible for applied energy programs and Mr. Dab bar would 

have science. Will you be responsible for DOE's Environmental Management programs 

(EM) or will that be Mr. Dabbar' s? 

A 1. Since my testimony before the Committee, the Department announced its intent to realign 

the agency's organization structure. As the Under Secretary of Energy, I will be 

responsible for energy policy, applied energy technologies, ener1,ry security and 

reliability, and certain Department-wide management functions. 

Mr. Dabbar, the Under Secretary for Science, will be responsible for supporting 

innovation, basic scientific research, and environmental cleanup. 

The new organization chart for the Department can be found here: 

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/20 17112/f46/DOE-ORG-CHART -December-20 17.pdf 

Q2. As 1 see it, the Office of Science's Battery and Energy Storage Hub is a perfect example 

of an early-stage partnership that is making very substantial progress in advanced battery 

technology R&D. lam pleased the Senate's FY18 spending bill directs SC to review 

and renew the battery storage hub for 5 years. Have you had an opportunity to be briefed 

on the status of the JCESR energy storage hub and do you agree it is a prime example of 

a promising early-stage R&D partnership that can help DOE meet the nation's goals for 

energy independence and economic competitiveness? 

A2. Since my Senate confirmation, I have been working to set up many briefings on the 

Department's programs. I have not yet been briefed on the status of JCESR, but once I do 

receive a briefing, I look forward to continuing the conversation about DOE's advanced 

battery technology R&D with you and your staff. The nation's energy independence and 

economic competitiveness are important goals that l share. 

10 
39 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BILL CASSIDY 

Q I. What impact will increasing LNG exports have on the United States energy sector and 

the economy as a whole? 

Al. In several studies the Office of Fossil Energy has commissioned that examine the 

economic impact of LNG exports, the studies have shown that LNG exports provide 

positive economic benefits to the United States. The most recent export study, which 

examined the impacts of LNG exports from 12 to 20 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), 

was conducted in 2015 by Oxford Economics and Rice University (Rice-Oxford Study) 1 

The Rice-Oxford Study concluded that raising LNG exports from 12 billion cubic feet 

per day (Bcf/d) to 20 Bcf/d could raise GDP by up to $20 billion. The same study found 

in its Reference domestic case that, in the long run, U.S. GDP would be 0.03 percent 

higher on average with exports of20 Bcf/d ($7.7 billion annually in today's prices) over 

2026-2040 than in the 12 Bcf/d export case. The Rice-Oxford Study's result ofGDP 

gains is consistent with the results of one of the earlier LNG export studies conducted by 

the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on behalf of the Office of Fossil 

Energy in 20142 The EIA 2014 study found that GDP increases across all cases "range 

from 0.05% to 0.17% and generally increase with the amount of added LNG exports 

required to fulfill an export scenario for the applicable baseline." These amounts equal an 

annual net increase to GDP of$12 billion to $20 billion across the scenarios from the 

2014 EIA LNG Export Study. These increases are significant, and both the EIA and 

Rice-Oxford studies project higher levels of employment with increased LNG exports. 

Q2. Can you elaborate on the impacts increased access to United States LNG can have in 

Caribbean and Central American countries receiving the exp011s, specifically what their 

energy mix would look with the availability of more U.S. natural gas? 

A2. Many Caribbean and Central American countries are currently dependent on diesel 

and/or fuel oil for their generation needs which are challenging from both a cost and 

1 Rice University and Oxford Economics. "The Macroeconomic Impact oflncreasing U.S. LNG E"-ports." October 

2015. Available at: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/20151113 _macro _impact_of_Ing_exports_ O.pdf 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. 

Energy Markets," October 2014. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fc/pdf/lng.pdf. 

II 
40 

emissions perspective. The benefits to these countries by importing LNG from the 

United States is that the imports can provide a more reliable, cost-effective supply that 

also has emissions benefits over current energy sources. 

Q3. What environmental benefits can an increase in United States natural gas have on global 

emissions? 

A3. Exports of U.S. natural gas is expected to have an environmental benefit with regard to 

emissions due to the fact that in many scenarios U.S. gas will be used generate electric 

power that would have otherwise been generated by coal. The Office of Fossil Energy 

commissioned a study conducted by the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) in 

2014 to examine potential emissions from natural gas exported from the United States as 

LNG. The study, titled "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied 

Natural Gas from the United States" (May 29, 2014), analyzed lifecycle emissions of 

greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide (C02) and methane (CH4),associated 

with natural gas produced in the United States and exported as LNG to other countries for 

use in electric power generation. 

The study had two key conclusions; first, use of U.S. LNG exports to produce electricity 

in European and Asian markets will not increase GHG emissions on a life cycle 

perspective, when compared to regional coal extraction and consumption for power 

production. Second, there is an overlap between the ranges in the life cycle GHG 

emissions of U.S. LNG, regional alternative sources of LNG, and natural gas from Russia 

delivered to the European or Asian markets. Any differences are considered 

indeterminate due to the underlying uncertainty in the modeling data. Therefore, the life 

cycle GHG emissions among these sources of natural gas are considered similar, and no 

significant increase or decrease in net climate impact is anticipated from any of these 

three scenarios. 

Q4. What impact can an increase of natural gas exports to our southern neighbors have on 

facilitating increased renewable generation? 

A4. Imports of LNG can work in concert with the development of renewable generation in 

importing countries as the imported natural gas can provide reliable standby energy 

12 
41 

supply available immediately while renewable development is occurring. Imported LNG 

can also provide continued reliability to enhance solar or other renewable sources once 

they are developed. 

Q5. What do you believe would be the impact on the competiveness of U.S small scale LNG 

exporters, given the tight global market, if this legislation becomes law? 

AS. If S.l981 were to become a law, it would strengthen the impact of DOE's recent 

proposed rule, published this past September, (82 FR 41570; Sept. I, 2017), regarding 

small-scale exports. If S. 1981 were enacted, it would reduce re!,>t!latory burdens, provide 

additional certainty for small-scale natural gas exporters, and serve to enhance the 

competitive position of U.S. small scale exporters by reducing the amount of time and 

expense required to obtain an export permit. The improved regulatory environment 

offered by S. 1981 would also serve to attract more exporting companies into the market 

Q6. What is the feasibility of utilizing liquefied natural gas to increase the use ofrenewables 

in a microgrid? 

A6. Natural gas is a flexible and reliable fuel for power generation. Natural gas fired power 

generation can be quickly dispatched to meet increased electricity demand during peak 

times and to supplement supply when renewable generation is reduced. The integration 

of natural gas fired power generation with renewables would improve both the reliability 

and resilience of an integrated microgrid. 

Q7. Please provide a written update regarding the status of hurricane recovery efforts in the 

US VI and Puerto Rico. 

A7. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) continues to support restoration and recovery 

efforts related to Hurricanes Maria and Irma in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(USVI). DOE Emergency Support Function #12 Energy (ESF-12) responders were 

deployed to Puerto Rico in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) until the week of February 19 and DOE continues to provide ESF #12 support to 

FEMA as needed. DOE ESF #12 responders deployed to the USVI demobilized on 

January 12 and a team from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

completed a deployment to perform assessments ofUSVI electricity infrastructure. A 

13 
42 

team of 25 available personnel and 10 line-trucks from DOE's Western Area Power 

Administration (WAPA) went to St. Thomas to provide mutual aid, through a DOE 

mission assignment from FEMA and at no cost to WAPA's rate payers, to restore the 

transmission system on the island. The WAPAcrews completed work on the transmission 

system and finished work on November 29. 

DOE also relied upon subject matter experts from several Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMAs) to provide technical assistance to the U.S. Am1y Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) for restoration planning on Puerto Rico and had a person deployed 

to assist FEMA with ESF-15- External Affairs. In addition to DOE's deployments of 

personnel, there are also DOE personnel who volunteered for the FEMA Surge Capacity 

Force. 

Finally, Secretary Perry, Deputy Secretary Brouillette, and Under Secretary Menezes 

have all visited Puerto Rico and the USVI, and Assistant Secretary Bruce Walker spent 

two weeks in Puerto Rico to help coordinate electricity restoration efforts between 

FEMA, USACE, the Puetto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREP A), and industry. 

Throughout the deployment of personnel tor Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate, 

the DOE Energy Response Organization has been activated at DOE Headquarters 

providing support to deployed personnel, FEMA, and other Federal partners as well as 

coordinating with industry. Personnel were also deployed to the Region IV and VI 

Coordination Centers and State Operations Centers in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, 

and Louisiana for hurricanes as well as California in support of wildfires. 

DOE is also supporting implementation of the National Disaster Recovery Framework 

(NDRF) and serves as a primary agency for Infrastructure Systems on the Recovery 

Support Function Leadership Group (RSFLG). The RSFLG meets regularly to coordinate 

cross-cutting recovery issues specifically related to Puerto Rico and the US VI. DOE 

briefed the RSFLG on the One Vision Plan at its most recent Under Secretaries level 

meeting on January 9, 2018. The One Vision Action Plan for Power Restoration for 

Puerto Rico integrates plans and materials from multiple resources (New York Power 

Authority; Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority; Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, 

14 
43 

and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA); Governor's plan; and others) into a unified 

solution set. The draft Plan-due Febmmy 5, 2018, a11d to be released April 30, 2018-

will incorporate resilient measures, and will be utilized in the Puerto Rico Recovery Pla11. 

DOE also sent personnel to Puert.o Rico through a FEMA Mission Assignment 

specifically to address recovery-related concerns there and work with other RSF partners 

to focus on a resilient recovery. 

On Puerto Rico, as of February 21, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority reports that 

84.5 percent of normal peak load and 85.6 percent of customers (1,261,513 of 

1.47 million) have been restored and all 78 municipalities are at least partially energized 

or have an energized facility. As of February 21, approximately 92 percent of substations 

have been restored, and there were 4,896 line workers and associated personnel 

supporting the restoration efforts. USACE, as the coordinating agency for ESF-3- Public 

Works and Engineering, received a mission assignment from FEMA to lead the Federal 

role in repairing the hurrica11e-damaged electrical power grid in support of the 

Government of Puerto Rico. US ACE has partnered with PREP A, DOE, and FEMA to 

restore safe and reliable power to the people of Puerto Rico. USACE has awm·ded several 

major contracts to assist with the restoration efforts covering the crews and equipment to 

work on the transmission and distribution lines that need repairs, and for generators to 

stabilize the power grid, such as those installed in Palo Seco. US ACE has also worked 

with PREPA to identify the materials and equipment needed for the restoration effort, 

which have been procured through the Defense Logistics Agency. US ACE utilized the 

U.S. Navy's USNS Brittin Roll-On-Roll-Off Cargo Ship to transport these materials and 

equipment between Charleston, South Carolina and the Puerto Rico. In addition to the 

US ACE restoration efforts, DOE and FEMA have worked closely with industry, through 

the Electricity Sub-Sector Coordinating Council, to facilitate mutual assistance and 

additional subject matter experts from utilities across the country. 

In the USVI, as of January 31, the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VTWAPA) 

reported that 51,473 customers (93 percent of total customers and 99 percent of 

customers currently eligible to receive power) have had electrical power restored. 

VTWAPAalso began a No Customer Left Behind campaign aimed at reconnecting all 

15 
44 

customers who can be restored to the electric grid and who may have been bypassed 

during the initial phase of restorations. As ofJanuary 31, following the completion of 

DOE's ESF #12 mission in the USVI and given VlWAPA's progress, DOE has 

discontinued regular updates on the restorations efforts but remains available to support if 

needed. DOE and FEMA have worked with industry to facilitate mutual assistance, 

including crews and equipment from the Northeast Public Power Association and 

VlWAPA has retained two off-island contractors to support the restoration efforts. 

16 
45 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STRANGE 

Q 1. As you know, there is a 110 megawatt energy storage facility in my home state. The 

PowerSouth facility has been operating since 1991 in Mcintosh, Alabama, and is one of 

the world's two functioning compressed air energy storage facilities. This is a large 

facility, on the scale of many pumped hydro facilities, and it was developed to provide 

flexibility in meeting the load in our region. This type of facility adds value to traditional 

baseload power in Alabama, like large nuclear plants. 

Qla. Can you speak to the ways that these bills will help the Department develop energy 

storage technologies that can be paired with traditional energy generation facilities like 

nuclear? 

A I a. Both Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) and Pumped Hydro Storage (PHS) were 

originally developed to help baseload nuclear generation load follow electrical demand. 

Existing systems, like the PowerSouth facility, have proven to be a highly effective 

resource for the region. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) 

recently held an Energy Storage workshop with Southern Research in Birmingham, AL 

that provided utility and industry stakeholders across the country a comprehensive 

overview of the operations and benefits of the Mcintosh facility. 

OE has also technically supported the potential siting of new CAES facilities, but the 

unique geographic requirements of both CAES and PHS can be challenging for new 

developments. More recently, the OE Energy Storage program has supported small 

modular CAES demonstrations, as well as investigations of underwater CAES (funded 

through a Small Business Innovation Research award) and modular PHS systems, that are 

independent from the local geography. 

Ultimately, these systems, along with long duration flow batteries, have the potential to 

be economically paired with nuclear, natural gas, coal, and other generation sources to 

improve system efficiency and load-following capability. 

17 
46 

Q2. We know that the energy system will continue to adopt more distributed energy 

resources, including intermittent renewables, but the future may also have nextgeneration energy generation sources, like small hydro, distributed natural gas fuel cells, 

and micro-nuclear reactors. I already discussed Alabama's experience with large-scale 

compressed air energy storage, but what about small scale compressed air energy 

storage7 

A2. OE has supported previous demonstrations of small modular CAES technology. OE 

supported a 1.5 MW modular isothermal CAES with SustainX. While the system showed 

the ability to achieve efficiencies greater than 60 percent, the cost of the specialized 

compression equipment prohibited further commercial development. R&D efforts 

focused on reducing the cost of this highly specialized equipment will help make modular 

CAES and PHS economically viable for smaller power output systems. 

Q2a. What about flow batteries or thennal storage7 

A2a. Flow batteries are a viable, longer duration alternative to the lithium-ion based battery 

storage systems being deployed today. With continued R&D, flow batteries could 

economically provide storage durations currently seen in large scale CAES and PHS. 

OE's early stage R&D efforts in vanadium redox flow batteries enabled the technology to 

overcome several technical barriers limiting commercialization and has been licensed to 

eight companies. 

One of these licensees, UniEnergy Technologies (UET), was started in 2012 and employs 

more than 60 people at its facility, north of Seattle, Washington. These flow battery 

systems have achieved cost parity with lithium-ion technology enabling the company to 

secure orders for more than 390 megawatt-hours of commercial systems in the U.S. and 

abroad. These systems are typically rated for a four-hour discharge and future DOE OE 

R&D efforts on the lower cost chemistries could make even longer duration flow systems 

economically viable. 

Energy storage technologies based on PHS, CAES, flywheels, and batteries all have bidirectional capability, meaning they can take or deliver electricity into the power grid 

directly, enabling their utilization for many different applications. Other technologies like 

thermal energy storage have been demonstrated to be an effective way of shifting large 

18 
47 

electrical loads away from periods of peak demand. The University of Alabama, with 

support from OE, successfully demonstrated the feasibility of chilled water aquifer 

storage. While these technologies are highly feasible today, they are limited in their 

ability to impart electricity back into the grid when needed, thus limiting their applicable 

use cases. 

Q2b. How will these bills help the Department work to develop next-generation energy storage 

technologies other than traditional electrochemical batteries? 

A2b. To enable greater deployment of energy storage to improve the resiliency, efficiency, and 

reliability of the U.S. power grid, a suite of energy storage technologies will be needed to 

meet the unique physical and economic challenges facing the more than 3,000 utilities, 

cooperatives, and municipalities around the country. The OE Energy Storage program is 

actively engaged in working with industry stakeholders to understand the regional 

technical and economic drivers for energy storage and to identify the key technical 

challenges that must be overcome to enable a portfolio of next generation storage 

technologies. 

19 
48 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DAINES 

Ql. Hydroelectric power is a pillar of Montana's energy production. Despite Montana already 

producing over one third of our electricity from hydroelectlic darns, I believe we can 

continue to grow this important industry. That is why I continue to champion its 

production and why I have introduced legislation to pennit projects in Montana. Do you 

believe that S. 1336 will have an impact on incentivizing the many non-hydroelectlic 

darns in Montana to be converted into energy producing dams? 

Al. The Department of Energy (DOE) agrees that hydropower has significant capabilities to 

support economic competitiveness and electlicity system reliability. Hydropower 

provides low-cost generation that can both serve as baseload and provide ancillary 

services such as frequency control that contribute to grid reliability and resiliency. Over 

the past four years, DOE has awarded $890K from the Hydropower Production Incentive 

to fi.md three Montana hydropower projects that have converted non-powered darns to 

functioning hydropower projects. In fact, one of those projects utilized an existing dam 

built in the late 1800s. The power produced from the project is sold to the local utility to 

benefit the citizens of Granite County. Utilizing existing infrastructure, like non-power 

dams, for the development of additional hydropower generation can help ensure the 

Nation's electlic grid remains stable and reliable now and in the future. It appears S. 

1336 incentivizes both future hydropower generation and efficiency upgrades at many of 

the Nation's 80,000 non-powered dams, including in Montana. 

Q2. Liquefied Natural Gas continues to play an increasing role in US and world energy 

production. It is impo!1ant that the United States continues to provide for cun·ent demand 

and remains prepared for future increases. I applaud the DOE for their recent work in 

expediting the approval process for small-scale LNG expo!1s. Similarly, S. 1981 seeks to 

make the process of small-scale LNG exports quicker in order to meet future demand. Do 

you believe that S. 1981 is a positive step forward in increasing US exports of LNG? 

A2. While the market will ultimately determine how much natural gas gets expo!1ed, reducing 

the reb>ulatory bamers for companies wishing to pal1icipate in the expo!1 market is a key 

to developing that market. DOE's recent proposed rule on small scale natural gas exports 

maintained that natural gas applications would be considered in the public interest and 

therefore granted where two conditions were met. The two conditions were: 1) an 

application to export up to 0.14 billion cubic feet per day (or 51.1 billion cubic feet per 

20 
49 

year) and 2) an application that qualified for a Categorical Exclusion under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (N'EPA). S, 1981 takes DOE's proposed rule a step further in 

that any application that meets the first criterion-below the 0.14 billion cubic feet 

threshold-shall be deemed in the public interest and granted without modification or 

delay, \vithout the need for DOE to conduct an environmental review under NEPA 

21 
50 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KING 

Ql. Senator Cassidy's billS. 1981 exempts small exports from needing to meet the public 

interest threshold. What is tbe current timeframe for making these public interest 

determinations? What is the average time it takes to make a public interest 

determination? Is there a backlog or delay in making these determinations? 

A l. The duration of review for natural gas export applications that require a public interest 

review varies significantly, from months to years, depending on several factors, including 

the environmental footprint of the export facility. In instances where an application 

includes exports from a facility that has only been proposed, the review can take up to a 

year or more depending on the level of environmental review required. CmTently, 

proposed exports from small-scale export facilities are subject to the same public interest 

review, including a notice of application and an environmental review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Department of Energy (DOE) does not currently 

have a backlog of small-scale export applications that are ready for final action, meaning 

they have completed any required environmental review under NEPA. S. 1981, if 

enacted, would likely save several months of review by DOE for small-scale applications 

compared to DOE's current process. 

Q2. Is there a mechanism in place at the Department of Energy to ensure that one principal 

company isn't able to have multiple subsidiaries get approval for multiple small LNG 

exports asS. 1981 would allow? 

A2. DOE has structured its export authorizations such that the exports are tied to specific 

facilities and the export volumes authorized are subject to the export capacity of those 

facilities. If S.l981 were to become a law, DOE would include guidance language in its 

natural gas import and export regulations in l 0 CFR 590 that would prohibit exports in 

excess of the capacity of approved export facilities. This guidance would serve to 

prevent multiple entities from gaining additive authorizations beyond the capacity of 

approved export facilities. 

22 
51 

STATEMENT 

60 1 New jersey Ave NW · Sufte 660 · Washington, D.C., 20001 · 202/682- 1 700 · 

www.hydro.org 

For Immediate Release 

Media Contact: LeRoy Coleman 

(202) 750-8405 · LeRoy@hydro.org 

NHA Calls for Passage of the RIVER Act to Grow Hydropower 

Washington, D.C. (December 5, 2017)- The following is a statement from Linda Church Ciocd, Executive 

Director of the National Hydropower Association, on the introduction of the Reliable Investment in Vital Energy 

Reauthorization Act (S.1336). 

"As an industry, we applaud U.S. Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) for introducing the Reliable Investment in Vital 

Energy Reauthorization Act (S.1336) to spur the growth of new hydropower projects and incentivize 

reinvestment in upgrades. Attracting investment for hydropower projects is one of the biggest challenges we 

face as an industry. The Hydropower Production Incentive Program, within the U.S. Department of Energy, 

supports new project development on an existing non-powered dam or conduit. Unfortunately, this program 

has been allowed to expire and new projects will not be eligible to participate in the program. Hydropower has 

immense growth potential, and passing this bill will ensure we can provide more dean, renewable energy to 

communities throughout the country." 

### 
52 

1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2250, Arlington, VA 22209 

Senator Cory Gardner 

Subcommittee Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Senate Committee on Energy & 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

December 4, 2017 

Dear Chairman Gardner and Ranking Member Manchin: 

" 

Senator Joe Manchin III 

Subcommittee Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Senate Committee on Energy & 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the bipartisan 

legislation S. 2030, the ~·ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act" that is scheduled to be 

discussed at your legislative subcommittee hearing this week. 

RILA is the trade association of the world's largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members 

include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for 

more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, miHions of American jobs, and more than 100,000 stores, 

manufacturing facilities, and distribution centers domestically and abroad. 

S. 2030, introduced by Senators Thorn Tillis (R-NC) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) seeks to align two 

Department of Energy (DOE) regulation dates on efficiency requirements for ceiling fans. Under the 

current enforcement structure, the ceiling fan light bulb implementation date is January 2019 and the 

ceiling fan motor date is 2020. These misaligned dates will create a significant problem for merchants of 

all sizes, including supply chain lead times, purchase orders, work schedules and other operations that 

require strategic planning. This legislation solves the issue with a commonsense change to streamline the 

enforcement date of both regulations to January 2020. 

As Congress considers several pivotal legislative issues during the month of Decemberj RILA encourages 

the subcommittee to expedite the passage of S. 2030 in the coming weeks. There is also companion 

legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3477, that is moving through the legislative process. It is 

important this issue be resolved before the end of the calendar year to provide continuity to the broad 

array of supply chains. This simple correction will help American consumers from incurring any 

additional costs when purchasing a ceiling fan-a market of roughly $1.8 billion, with 15 million units 

sold annually. 

Thank you for the subcommittee's consideration on this important matter and Rli,A will continue to work 

with both legislative chambers to resolve this issue in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please 

contact Austen Jensen at austenJensen@rHa.org or 703-600-2033. 

tz;. AustenJe~ Vice President, Government Affairs 

0 

-