U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–443 2013

THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2013 

Serial No. 113–53 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

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

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

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

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

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

Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 62 

WITNESSES

Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ..................................... 10 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 73 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report entitled, ‘‘Proposed FY 14 Administration Cuts to Dept. of Energy 

Coal and Fossil Energy Research and Development Program,’’ the University of Illinois, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................................ 63 

Letter of March 26, 2013, from the Committee to the U.S. Department of 

Energy, submitted by Mr. Burgess ..................................................................... 65 

D.O.E. response ................................................................................................ 68 

Letter of April 25, 2013, from the Center for Strategic & International Studies 

to President Barack Obama, submitted by Mr. Kinzinger ............................... 70 

Chart entitled, ‘‘Fossil Energy R&D,’’ submitted by Mr. McKinley .................... 72 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY BUDGET 

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Scalise, Hall, 

Shimkus, Terry, Burgess, Latta, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, 

Kinzinger, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, 

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

Castor, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative Johnson. 

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

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Mike Bloomquist, 

General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt 

Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Alison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Annie Caputo, Professional Staff Member; 

Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy & Power; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Vincent Esposito, Fellow, Nuclear Programs; 

Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; Ben 

Lieberman, Counsel, Energy & Power; Nick Magallanes, Policy Coordinator, CMT; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/ 

Economy; Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member; Mary 

Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press 

Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; 

Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Jeff Baran, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Greg Dotson, 

Democratic Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Kristina 

Friedman, Democratic EPA Detailee; and Caitlin Haberman, 

Democratic Policy Analyst. 

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

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

morning. And today’s topic and hearing will be on the Department 

of Energy’s fiscal year 2014 budget. And, of course, this is the first 

opportunity that we have had to have our new Energy Secretary 

Ernest Moniz with us. 

2 

And, Mr. Secretary, we are delighted you are here. We know that 

you have a lot of experience at the Department of Energy having 

served there in the Clinton Administration. And I think all of us 

were quite impressed with the way you sailed through confirmation. I think the vote was 97 to 0. And that is quite a tribute to 

you, I would say. So congratulations on that confirmation. 

And I will recognize myself now for a 5-minute opening statement. 

Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Energy in 

my view has often taken a backseat to the Environmental Protection Agency and was all too willing to acquiesce to EPA’s agenda 

rather than affirmatively assert its own pro-energy agenda. Particularly, DOE allowed itself to become a part of the Administration’s—for lack of a better word—attack on fossil fuels when it 

should have been defending them as a core component of our energy future and a critical contributor to job creation, global competitiveness, and affordable energy prices. 

When I think about an anti-fossil fuel movement, frequently, I 

think about Europe and what has happened. Europe has placed so 

much emphasis on renewables and wind energy and solar, and 

when the natural gas prices started escalating in Europe, all of a 

sudden in Europe they are burning more and more coal now. And 

on the books they have plans to build 69 new coal-powered plants, 

60 gigawatts of new power. And so I think that it is important that 

we think about this instead of this Administration has moved—the 

budget reflects most of the money is being spent on renewable 

rather than the baseload energy needs. 

I will never forget then-Secretary of Energy Chu made the statement that coal is his worst nightmare. And I don’t think that we 

need a Department of Energy that sees this Nation’s growing abundance of natural gas and oil as a problem to be solved rather than 

an opportunity to be embraced. 

The Department of Energy in my view should not treat conventional energy and renewable energy as an either/or proposition 

where the Federal Government actively discourages conventional 

energy in order to create an artificial market for renewable energy. 

The President says himself that he is for ‘‘all of the above’’ and yet, 

frequently, in his Administration, that absolutely is not the case. 

We need a Department of Energy in my view open to all domestic energy sources that are economically competitive, be they conventional or renewable. ‘‘All of the above,’’ as I said, has supposedly 

been the President’s motto, but his policies have suggested otherwise. 

In fact, yesterday, I introduced legislation along with a Democratic Member that would repeal a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that would require that the Federal Government not use any fossil fuel for heating new or modified 

federal buildings by the year 2030. So our bill is in keeping with 

the President’s stated goal of using all of the above. And yet, that 

2007 Energy Independence and Security Act would phase out the 

use of fossil fuel in its entirety for any federal new building or 

modified building by the year 2030. 

I look forward to working with Secretary Moniz, and I believe 

that the proposed fiscal year 2014 DOE budget we will review 

3 

today, as I said, still reflects the mistakes of the recent past and 

is not a forward-looking proposal. 

For example, we see in this budget an outsized—and I know that 

the Secretary certainly was not there at the time—but we see an 

outsized request for the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which we all support, a nearly 

$1 billion increase. And when you look at these numbers, you have 

got batteries in electric vehicles receiving more money than any 

other entity, solar energy next, building technologies next, biomass 

next, and the conventional fuels are way down the list. And I don’t 

think there is anything that reflects an Administration’s overall 

goals better than its budget request. 

So I think the shale gas and oil revolution in America holds tremendous potential for energy affordability and security, for job creation, for export opportunities, and for strengthening America’s 

standing in the world, but it also poses implementation and innovation challenges for which DOE, in my view, can play an important role. DOE should be out in front of this revolution taking steps 

to facilitate its development and not creating obstacles to it. 

So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary. We certainly look forward to your testimony and your answers to our 

questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This morning’s hearing will focus on the proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget for the 

Department of Energy. But it is also this subcommittee’s introduction to the nation’s 

new Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz. Congratulations Dr. Moniz on your 

overwhelming victory in the Senate. Hopefully some of the legislation we will be 

considering this year will get that kind of vote. I am genuinely looking forward to 

working with you to help fashion an energy policy that benefits the American people. 

It is no secret that I have had my share of disagreements with the Obama administration and DOE over the past few years. Under this administration, DOE has 

often taken a back seat to the Environmental Protection Agency, and was all-toowilling to acquiesce to EPA’s anti-energy agenda rather than affirmatively assert its 

own pro-energy agenda. In particular, DOE allowed itself to become a part of the 

administration’s attack on fossil fuels when it should have been defending them as 

a core component of our energy future and a critical contributor to job creation, global competitiveness, and affordable energy prices. 

In my view, the last thing we need is a Secretary of Energy who says things like 

‘‘coal is my worst nightmare.’’ Nor do we need a secretary who sees this nation’s 

growing abundance of natural gas and oil as a problem to be solved rather than an 

opportunity to be embraced. And we certainly don’t need a secretary who treats conventional energy and renewable energy as an either/or proposition where the federal 

government actively discourages conventional energy in order to create an artificial 

market for renewable energy. We need a secretary open to all domestic energy 

sources that are economically competitive, be they conventional or renewable. All of 

the above has supposedly been the president’s motto, but his policies have suggested 

otherwise. 

Yesterday I introduced legislation to repeal a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring a 100 percent reduction of domestic energy 

sources such as coal and natural gas to be used in new and modified federal buildings by 2030. This bill would allow the government more access to diverse energy 

sources and more cost effective measures for building structures. It is a simple and 

sensible measure that reaffirms the administration’s so called ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy. 

Fortunately, I see a positive future ahead in working with Secretary Moniz, and 

not a moment too soon. But I also believe that the proposed FY 2014 DOE budget 

that we will review today still reflects the mistakes of the recent past and is not 

a forward-looking proposal. 

4 

For example, we see in this budget an outsized request for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a nearly $1 billion increase. The Obama DOE has 

wasted too much money on green energy pet projects that have failed, and we owe 

it to the taxpayers not to repeat those mistakes. In sharp contrast, conventional energy sources receive funding far below their actual contribution to the energy mix. 

It makes no sense to me that DOE’s applied energy budget devotes more to renewables than all other energy sources combined. 

And while the budget continues to throw money at things like electric car batteries and wind energy, it provides little for emerging issues like electric reliability 

and cybersecurity. It’s time to get serious about the energy challenges we face, and 

this misallocation of resources needs to be corrected. 

For example, the shale gas and oil revolution holds tremendous potential for energy affordability and security, for job creation, for export opportunities, and for 

strengthening America’s standing in the world. But it also poses implementation 

and innovation challenges for which DOE can play a role. DOE should be out in 

front of this revolution taking steps to facilitate it, but the proposed budget does 

not reflect this need. 

Overall, while we do not have an energy budget that reflects energy reality, we 

look forward to working with the new Energy Secretary who understands current 

energy realities and management priorities. 

# # # 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And, with that, at this time I like to recognize 

the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Rush, for a 5- 

minute opening statement. 

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

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

I want to thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here today to 

discuss DOE’s fiscal year 2014 budget, as well as the Agency’s 

overall energy agenda. 

Mr. Secretary, I believe you are heading one of the most important agencies in the Nation, as the field of energy will hold the 

keys to unlocking America’s creativity and innovative spirit while 

also taking our economy to another level and providing an abundance of rewarding jobs and rewarding careers. 

In fact, as I have stated many times before this subcommittee, 

the country that leads the world in advanced energy technology, 

energy production, and clean and renewable energy breakthroughs 

will also lead the global race for economic superiority, and it is imperative that our Nation remains in the forefront in each of these 

areas. 

I believe in an all-of-the-above agenda that encapsulates my five 

core principles: 1) safe and reliable and affordable energy for all 

Americans; 2) focus on STEM education and training; 3) jobs and 

economic opportunities for all segments of the American population; and 4) policies to address climate change; lastly, North 

American energy independence over the next few decades. 

With the emergence of the shale and natural gas finds, as well 

as the Obama Administration’s commitment to investing in new 

advancements in clean and renewable energy technology, I believe 

that it is possible to find the right balance between protecting the 

Nation’s earth, land, and water supply through sensible environmental regulations while at the same time ensuring that all Americans have the chance to share in the employment, the business, 

5 

and the economic opportunities that the energy industry will provide. 

Since my ascension as ranking member on the Energy and Power 

Subcommittee in 2011, I have held a series of discussions with top 

energy leaders in the oil, gas, and renewable energy and pipeline 

industry, and we finally began to make some headway in our efforts to ensure that minorities, that women, and that historically 

underrepresented groups are given a chance to fully participate in 

the lucrative and vastly expanding energy sector. 

Just 2 years ago when asking energy leaders about the levels of 

participation of these underrepresented groups, the most common 

response that I would receive undoubtedly would be sorry, Mr. 

Rush, we don’t have that information. We will get back to you. 

Today, I am holding serious discussions with top industry leaders 

on what they can do proactively to ensure that minorities and other 

groups are aggressively being recruited, aggressively being trained, 

and aggressively given the opportunities to participate in the energy field. Mr. Secretary, over the past year, my office has worked 

extensively with your agency, including your Office of Economic 

Impact and Diversity, and together, we are making great strides in 

our combined efforts to increase minority participation in all sectors of the energy field from increasing STEM education and training opportunities to assessing employment and business opportunities. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you. I look forward 

to working with your department in close collaboration to make 

sure that all Americans are afforded the opportunity to benefit 

wholly in the energy area. 

Mr. Secretary, I am delighted to have you before this subcommittee. I believe that your department will play a vital role in 

pushing America towards greater innovation, greater prosperity, 

and greater energy independence. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today, we do 

welcome the new Secretary, Secretary Moniz, to the Committee to 

receive his testimony on the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 

2014 budget. 

You know, it has been over 30 years since Congress enacted the 

Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. That was a different time, a time of dwindling oil and gas supplies, rising energy 

prices—we remember those gas lines—and overreliance on energy 

imports from unfriendly nations. In short, it was a time of energy 

scarcity and uncertainty. 

Fast-forward 3 decades and our energy landscape is dramatically 

different. We have entered a new era of energy abundance, providing a level of energy security and certainty that was simply unimaginable just a few years ago. 

6 

American ingenuity and innovative technologies have powered an 

incredible energy transition, turning the trends in domestic oil and 

natural gas production upside down. And according to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now the world’s leading producer of natural gas, and we have a chance—and I think we will— 

surpass Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by 2020. 

And while we should all support a diverse and balanced energy 

strategy, including renewables and energy efficiency, unfortunately, 

the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget for the Department of Energy ignores a number of new energy plans in the landscape. The 

President’s energy budget doubles-down on some failed policies of 

the last 4 years, continuing to risk taxpayer dollars on ‘‘green energy’’ programs that have proven costly, ineffective, and failed to 

deliver on the jobs that were promised. 

Notably, the President calls for $2.8 billion for the DOE’s Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 56 percent increase 

over prior years. The amount is nearly double the budgets of the 

Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity combined. 

Such a disparity in funding levels directly conflicts with the President’s stated commitment to an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy strategy. 

The President’s energy budget isn’t just about dollars and cents; 

it is about priorities for the country, and the priorities set forth in 

his budget are a little bit out of touch with today’s energy reality 

and present a stark contrast from the energy priorities being pursued by this committee. 

Our vision for the Nation’s energy future is a true, open, ‘‘all-ofthe-above’’ strategy that would promote greater production and use 

of our new energy abundance, facilitate private sector innovation to 

develop advanced energy technologies and manufacturing, and ensure that U.S. consumers indeed have a long-term supply of reliable and affordable energy. It should also include a global perspective on how North America’s abundant resources can be used to 

launch strategic international diplomacy and geopolitical stability 

around the world. 

To achieve those objectives, I believe that it is time to repurpose 

the Department of Energy to reflect the opportunities of today and 

meet the challenges of tomorrow, and I am very happy to see the 

Secretary’s testimony reflect these new ideas in both organizational 

changes, as well as the overall mission. 

Our transforming energy landscape requires a DOE for the 21st 

century. We need an agency that is ready to shed its culture of 

scarcity and instead embrace a mindset of abundance and opportunity. We need a department that will take full advantage of our 

newly discovered energy resources and capitalize on private sector 

expertise to modernize our energy systems, and that includes continued oversight regarding U.S. export policies that impede U.S. 

participation in international energy projects and commerce, not 

true just for LNG and coal but for nuclear suppliers, equipment, 

and renewables as well. 

Such a transition, if done properly, will spur dramatic economic 

growth, create thousands of good American jobs, make us significantly more energy secure, and in fact set the U.S. down a path 

of becoming a global energy superpower. 

7 

So, Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your appointment. We certainly look forward to working with you over the next couple of 

years to achieve our common objective. 

And I would yield the balance of my time to nobody. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today we welcome Secretary Moniz to the committee to receive his testimony on 

the Department of Energy’s FY 2014 budget. 

It has been over 30 years since Congress enacted the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. That was a different time—a time of dwindling oil and gas 

supplies, rising energy prices, and overreliance on energy imports from unfriendly 

nations. In short, it was a time of energy scarcity and uncertainty. Fastforward 

three decades and our energy landscape is dramatically different. We have entered 

a new era of energy abundance, providing a level of energy security and certainty 

that was simply unimaginable just a few years ago. 

American ingenuity and innovative technologies have powered an incredible energy transition, turning the trends in domestic oil and natural gas production upside 

down. According to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now the world’s 

leading producer of natural gas, and has a chance to surpass Saudi Arabia as the 

world’s largest oil producer by 2020. 

While we should all support a diverse and balanced energy strategy, including renewables and energy efficiency, unfortunately, the president’s FY 2014 budget for 

the Department of Energy ignores our new energy landscape. The president’s energy 

budget doubles-down on the failed policies of the last four years, continuing to risk 

taxpayer dollars on ‘‘green energy’’ programs that have proven costly, ineffective, 

and failed to deliver the jobs as promised. Notably, the president calls for $2.8 billion for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy—a 56 percent increase over prior years. This amount is nearly double the budgets of the Offices of 

Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity combined. Such a disparity in funding levels directly conflicts with the president’s stated commitment to an ‘‘all-of-theabove’’ energy strategy. 

The president’s energy budget isn’t just about dollars and cents; it’s about priorities for the country. And the priorities set forth in his budget are out of touch with 

today’s energy reality and present a stark contrast from the energy priorities being 

pursued by this committee. Our vision for the nation’s energy future is a true, open 

‘‘all-of-the-above’’ strategy that would promote greater production and use of our 

new energy abundance, facilitate private sector innovation to develop advanced energy technologies and manufacturing, and ensure U.S. consumers have a long-term 

supply of reliable and affordable energy. It should also include a global perspective 

on how North America’s abundant resources can be used to launch strategic international diplomacy and geopolitical stability around the world. 

To achieve these objectives, I believe it is time to repurpose the Department of 

Energy to reflect the opportunities of today and meet the challenges of tomorrow, 

and I am happy to see the secretary’s testimony reflect new ideas in both organizational changes and overall DOE mission. 

Our transforming energy landscape requires a Department of Energy for the 21st 

Century. We need an agency that is ready to shed its culture of scarcity and instead 

embrace a mindset of abundance and opportunity. We need a Department of Energy 

that will take full advantage of our newly discovered energy resources and capitalize 

on private sector expertise to modernize our energy systems. This includes continued oversight regarding U.S. export policies that impede U.S. participation in international energy projects and commerce. This is true not just for LNG and coal, but 

for nuclear suppliers, equipment, and renewables as well. Such a transition, if done 

properly, will spur dramatic economic growth, create thousands of good American 

jobs, make us significantly more energy secure, and set the United States down a 

path of becoming a global energy superpower. 

Secretary Moniz, once again, congratulations on your appointment and, on behalf 

of the entire Committee on Energy and Commerce, we look forward to working with 

you over the next several years to achieve our common objectives. 

# # # 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

8 

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

Waxman, the ranking member of the full committee, for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want 

to thank you for being here today. The Department of Energy will 

benefit from your expertise and leadership and we look forward to 

working with you as the Nation continues its transition to a clean 

energy economy. 

The Department has a host of challenging responsibilities—from 

cleaning up Cold War-era nuclear sites and maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile, to managing 17 national labs and operating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Running the Department of 

Energy is a big job and you have the experience to do it. But I 

want to tell you how I view your role. I look at your responsibilities 

through the lens of climate change. Climate change is the biggest 

energy challenge we face. There is no debate about the science. Climate change is happening now, it is caused by humans, and the 

impacts are real. 

The paramount responsibility of the Secretary of Energy is advancing the Nation’s response to this existential threat. 

For decades, experts have talked about the potential future impacts from climate change. They have warned that in the future we 

will face extreme heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, ocean 

acidification, and dramatic sea level rise. 

These are no longer future threats; they are happening today. 

Climate change is spawning extreme weather across the country 

from the Texas droughts to the Colorado wildfires to Superstorm 

Sandy. 

And as the impacts mount, the window for effective action to address climate change is closing. And just this week, the International Energy Agency warned that, unless the world acts to reduce carbon pollution before 2020, global temperatures could rise 

by more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit, which would ‘‘be a disaster for 

all countries.’’ IEA found that taking key actions now to reduce 

emissions could be done at no net economic cost, while delay would 

impose trillions of dollars in costs on society. 

Mr. Secretary, your job would be a lot easier with support from 

Congress, but don’t count on it. This committee, and the Republican-controlled House, has become one of the last remaining refuges of the flat-Earth society. We have the jurisdiction to do so 

much to protect future generations, yet we won’t even hold a hearing to learn from the scientists about their concerns about climate 

change. 

So you will have to act without us. President Obama got it exactly right in his State of the Union address when he said that if 

Congress did not act, he would. 

Some of the most important authorities are those in the Department of Energy. You need to act aggressively to strengthen energy 

efficiency standards for appliances and equipment. That will save 

consumers money while reducing energy use and carbon pollution. 

9 

You should implement the President’s proposal for a ‘‘Race to the 

Top’’ on energy efficiency and grid modernization to encourage 

States to voluntarily adopt forward-leaning policies. 

And you can invest in research and development and provide 

other support for promising clean energy and energy storage technologies. 

Mr. Secretary, you also can play an important role in educating 

Congress and the public about the threat of climate change and the 

urgent need for action. 

We are at a critical crossroads. We face great peril if we ignore 

the science and cling to the fuels of the past. Or we can listen to 

the scientists, invest in the clean energy technologies of the future, 

and lead the world in energy innovations. 

Mr. Secretary, I am confident you will help us choose the right 

path and I look forward to your testimony and to working with you 

on all the issues that you confront where we can be of help. I yield 

back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. The Department of Energy will 

benefit from your expertise and leadership, and we look forward to working with 

you as the nation continues its transition to a clean energy economy. 

The Department has a host of challenging responsibilities—from cleaning up Cold 

War era nuclear sites and maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile to managing 

17 national labs and operating the strategic petroleum reserve. Running the Department of Energy is a big job, and you have the experience to do it. 

But I want to tell you how I view your role. I look at your responsibilities through 

the lens of climate change. Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face. 

There is no debate about the science. Climate change is happening now, it is caused 

by humans, and the impacts are real. 

The paramount responsibility of the Secretary of Energy is advancing the nation’s 

response to this existential threat. 

For decades, experts have talked about the potential future impacts from climate 

change. They’ve warned that in the future we’ll face extreme heat waves, floods, 

droughts, wildfires, ocean acidification, and dramatic sea level rise. 

These are no longer future threats; they are happening today. Climate change is 

spawning extreme weather across the country, from the Texas droughts to the Colorado wildfires, to Superstorm Sandy. 

And as the impacts mount, the window for effective action to address climate 

change is closing. Just this week, the International Energy Agency warned that unless the world acts to reduce carbon pollution before 2020, global temperatures could 

rise by more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit, which would ‘‘be a disaster for all countries.’’ IEA found that taking key actions now to reduce emissions could be done at 

no net economic cost, while delay would impose trillions of dollars in costs on society. 

Mr. Secretary, your job would be a lot easier with support from Congress, but 

don’t count on it. This Committee—and the Republican-controlled House—has become one of the last remaining refuges of the flat earth society. We have the jurisdiction to do so much to protect future generations, yet we won’t even hold hearings 

to hear from the scientists. 

So you will have to act without us. President Obama got it exactly right in his 

State of the Union address when he said that if Congress did not act, he would. 

Some of the most important authorities are those in the Department of Energy. 

You need to act aggressively to strengthen energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment. That will save consumers money while reducing energy use 

and carbon pollution. 

You should implement the President’s proposal for a Race to the Top on energy 

efficiency and grid modernization to encourage states to voluntarily adopt forwardleaning policies. 

And you can invest in research and development and provide other support for 

promising clean energy and energy storage technologies. 

10 

Mr. Secretary, you also can play an important role in educating Congress and the 

public about the threat of climate change and the urgent need for action. 

We are at a critical crossroads. We face great peril if we ignore the science and 

cling to the fuels of the past. Or we can listen to the scientists, invest in the clean 

energy technologies of the future, and lead the world in energy innovation. 

Mr. Secretary, I am confident you will help us choose the right path and look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

That concludes the opening statements, so, Secretary Moniz, we 

will recognize you for 5 minutes for your opening statement and 

look forward to your testimony. And be sure and put the microphone on. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST J. MONIZ, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. So, Chairman Upton and Whitfield, 

Ranking Members Waxman and Rush, members of the committee, 

I thank you for this chance to appear before you today to lay out 

some of my priorities and vision for the next few years of the Department of Energy. It is my first opportunity to appear in the 

House as Secretary of Energy, and I look forward and hope to use 

these brief remarks to at least partially introduce myself to the 

committee as a basis for our work going forward. 

I have been working on energy science and security issues for 

most of my professional career, and I think it is known I served 

as DOE Under Secretary during the Clinton Administration after 

serving as associate director in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

Most of my professional career has been at MIT where I have 

been on the faculty since 1973, including serving as head of the Department of Physics and founding director of the MIT Energy Initiative in 2006. 

So today, I will lay out some of my vision for how the Department can be best positioned to address the pressing challenges before us and touch on some of the initiatives in the President’s fiscal 

year 2014 budget request for the Department of Energy. And I will 

organize some brief remarks around the DOE mission areas, starting with energy technology and policy. 

Since the President took office, it has been already said, in fact, 

by Chairman Upton, the global energy landscape has undergone a 

profound change. In the United States, oil and gas production has 

increased each year, while oil imports have fallen to a 20-year low. 

At the same time, renewable electricity generation has doubled and 

carbon emissions have fallen to the lowest level in United States 

in nearly 2 decades. But even with this increase in domestic oil and 

gas production, high gasoline prices impact American families and 

businesses every day and remind us that we are still too reliant on 

oil, and the risks of global climate change, as Mr. Waxman said, 

threaten the health, security, and prosperity of future generations. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request will help us double American energy productivity by 2030, save consumers and 

businesses money by saving energy, and support groundbreaking 

research innovation to leverage every domestic source of energy 

from hydrocarbons to nuclear to solar and wind, and other renewables as well like hydro and geothermal. 

11 

The President’s budget increases investments in DOE’s applied 

energy programs. Among these are the Energy Innovation Hubs 

which bring together top scientists and engineers pursuing gamechanging energy goals and also the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency for Energy, ARPA–E, supporting high-impact, early-stage 

technologies on the way to the marketplace. And I very strongly 

support both of those programs. 

I also served on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology, and 2 1⁄2 years ago, that group recommended a 

new approach to try and integrate various threads of energy policy, 

environment, security, economy specifically by launching an Administration-wide process termed the Quadrennial Energy Review, 

and I plan to work on that across the Administration but clearly 

also with input from the Congress, from the industry, from NGOs 

and others. This will build on the Quadrennial Technology Review 

carried out in the Department in 2011. And to do this work, I feel 

it is very important that we beef up our analytical capabilities as 

the underpinnings of a fruitful discussion with all of the stakeholders. 

In science, DOE science programs really are a key part of the 

backbone of basic research in the physical sciences in the United 

States. Earlier this month, I took my first trip as Secretary. I went 

to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Among other things, I saw Titan, the 

world’s fastest supercomputer. By pursuing the research that is 

necessary to enable and build the next generation of supercomputers, we can help ensure continued U.S. leadership in this area. 

But we certainly cannot be laid back about it. International competition, especially from China, is closing in quite rapidly. 

While I was at Oak Ridge, I also visited the first hub called Castle applying these large-scale computational tools to nuclear power 

reactors. It is producing product already, a virtual environment for 

reactors. 

The President’s budget also continues support for the Energy 

Frontier Research Centers, which have been, in my view, a great 

success at many universities and laboratories across the country. 

On nuclear security and environmental radiation I will be brief, 

although these are clearly pretty important missions for the Department. The President’s budget proposes, I think, a strong basis 

for transitioning to a smaller but always safe, secure, and reliable 

nuclear stockpile. It also strengthens the science, technology, and 

engineering base to maintain the safety and reliability over the 

long-term. 

Environmental remediation at the many sites involved in decades of nuclear weapons production during the Cold War remains 

a major mission for the Department. This is a legal and moral imperative, and the President’s budget proposal provides resources to 

clean up this legacy and continue the world’s largest environmental 

remediation effort in the Department. Next week, I will visit the 

Hanford site where we have some of our most difficult challenges 

in trying to reach eventual closure of all of these sites. 

Finally, improving the management and performance of the Department really is one of my top priorities as Secretary. I believe 

we need to do this to enable our pursuit of mission effectively. And 

I will just say I have identified now particularly four areas where 

12 

I would like to focus attention on improved management performance. One is better integration of our science and energy functions; 

second, elevating the focus through organizational change 

unimagined in performance as an enterprise-wide requirement; 

third, security. We need clear alliance of authority and responsibility and we will pursue that organizationally. And finally, I have 

already mentioned beefing up the analytical capacity in the Department and our laboratories as part of our analyzing policy. 

So in summary, the Department of Energy, I think, does have 

very significant responsibilities that bear on America’s economic, 

energy, environmental, and nuclear security future. I have appreciated the opportunity to collaborate with members of this committee and with other Members of Congress both in my previous 

tenure at DOE—some of you were here then—and in the years 

since, and I am committed to working with Congress in search for 

solutions to this country’s energy and nuclear security challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a longer statement for the 

record and I look forward to your observations, suggestions, and 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moniz follows:] 

13 


85443.001

Testimony of Secretary Ernest Moniz 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Power 

June 13,2013 

Chairmen Upton and Whitfield, Ranking Members Waxman and Rush, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to layout my vision for the 

Department of Energy. 

This is my first opportunity to appear before the House of Representatives as Secretary of 

Energy.and I look forward to introducing myself to the members of this Committee and to this 

chamber. I have had the opportunity to meet with several members of the Committee during my 

first three weeks on the job and I look forward to meeting with and working with this Committee 

in the coming weeks, months, and years. Indeed, I look forward to continuing my engagement 

with members of Congress from both parties and both chambers to constructively illuminate our 

perspectives on important national challenges and to seek solutions in a collaborative fashion. 

I am very pleased to be back at the Department of Energy (DOE), even if some have 

characterized my return as a "triumph of hope over experience." I served as DOE Under 

Secretary during the Clinton Administration, after working as Associate Director for Science of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. In fact, 

my experience at the Department was that we could indeed accomplish much and I do have hope 

and expectations for doing the same in collaboration with Congress. 

I have been working on energy, science, and security issues for most of my professional career. I 

served on the MIT faculty beginning in 1973, including as Head of the Department of Physics 

and as Director of the William H. Bates Linear Accelerator Center, a DOE facility operated by 

MIT. Since 2001, when I returned to MIT from DOE, my principal focus has been at the 

intersection of energy technology and policy, especially on research and education aimed at a 

future low-carbon economy. I was the Founding Director of the MIT Energy Initiative in 2006, a 

campus wide initiative that aligns well with President Obama's "all-of-the-above" approach to 

our energy future. 

The mission of the Department of Energy could not be more urgent or important. From our 

efforts to find affordable and clean sources of energy, to ensuring the security of our nuclear 

stockpile, to cleaning up the legacy of the Cold War - our work, which includes advancing the 

science that underpins these missions, is essential to our prosperity, environment, and security. 

Today, I will layout my vision for how the Department can be best positioned to address these 

challenges. Given the circumstances and scheduling of this hearing, my presentation is not that 

of a conventional budget hearing, but I will touch on some of the initiatives in the President's 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for DOE and their relationship to priorities for the next few 

years. I will organize my remarks by DOE mission area. 
14 


85443.002

Energy Technology and Policy 

As already noted, the President advocates an all-of-the-above energy strategy and I am very 

much in tune with this. As the President said when he announced my nomination, "we can 

produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, water, and 

climate." 

Since President Obama took office, the global energy landscape has undergone a profound 

change. In the United States, oil and gas production has increased each year, while oil imports 

have fallen to a 20 year low. At the same time, renewable electricity generation from wind, 

solar, and geothermal sources has doubled; and carbon emissions have fallen to the lowest level 

in the U.S. in nearly two decades. These changes have important implications for our economy, 

environment, and national security. Already we are seeing the effects of increased U.S. oil and 

natural gas production on global energy markets. 

Even with the increase in domestic oil and gas production and clean energy generation, there is 

more work to be done. High gasoline prices impact American families and businesses every day 

and remind us that we are still too reliant on oil as an energy source. As the President has 

emphasized, there is no quick fix to a challenge that has built up over decades, but the elements 

of a solution are in place - more efficient vehicles as supported by the President's CAFE 

standards; alternative fuels, such as potential increased use of natural gas and development of 

economic next generation biofuels; and vehicle electrification. This week, the Department 

released eGallon, which provides the "fuel cost" for electric vehicles compared to the gasoline 

price posted at the corner gas station; the national average cost of fueling a vehicle with 

electricity is the equivalent of about $1.14 a gallon compared to a similar vehicle that runs on 

gasoline. Together, these three advances - efficiency, alternative fuels, and electric vehicles -

will reduce fuel costs for American families. 

While we have made important progress in domestic production of fossil fuels and we are seeing 

progress in the small, but rapidly growing, electric vehicle market, we still need to support 

research into technological breakthroughs that will free us from the volatility of the oil market. 

An initiative in the FY 2014 President's Budget is a request for $2 billion over the next ten years, 

set aside from Federal oil and gas development revenue, to invest in a new Energy Security Trust 

that would provide a reliable stream of mandatory funding for R&D on cost-effective 

transportation alternatives that reduce our dependence on oil. The President's plan builds on an 

idea that has bipartisan support from energy experts, retired admirals and generals and CEOs of 

leading companies; it focuses on one goal: shifting America's cars and trucks off oil. 

The increase in domestic natural gas production over the past five years has helped contribute to 

market-led reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as well as an expansion of manufacturing and 

associated job opportunities. The increase in U.S. unconventional oil production, combined with 

increased vehicle efficiency and biofuels production will continue to reduce American oil 

imports and our trade deficit. 

2 
15 


85443.003

The increase in domestic natural gas production is expected to continue. This May, the Energy 

Department announced that it has conditionally authorized the second proposed facility - the 

Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island, Texas - to export domestically produced liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) to countries that do not have a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. 

And we will expeditiously work through the remaining applications, reviewing each one on a 

case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest. 

The risks of global climate change threaten the health, security, and prosperity of future 

generations. DOE must continue to support a robust R&D portfolio oflow-carbon options and 

key enablers: efficiency, renewable, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, energy storage, 

and smart and resilient grids. The President's FY 2014 Budget requests resources to invest in 

programs that support research, development, and deployment of the energy technologies of the 

future that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. These investments 

will help us double American energy productivity by 2030, double renewable electricity 

generation again by 2020, cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade, save consumers 

and businesses money by reducing energy use, and support groundbreaking research and 

innovation to safely and responsibly leverage every domestic source of energy. For example the 

Administration has already committed about $6 billion to CCCUS, and the forthcoming 

demonstration projects will be critical for coal utilization in a carbon constrained future. 

The President's Budget increases investments in DOE's applied energy programs. These 

investments include funding for programs designed to help meet the President's goals of 

investing in the next generation of renewable energy technologies, advanced vehicles and fuels, 

and energy efficiency measures that reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the industrial and 

building sectors. Among these efforts are the Department's successful SunShot Initiative, which 

aims to make solar energy cost-competitive with conventional sources of electrical energy, and 

cross-cutting initiatives such as the EY Everywhere Grand Challenge, which aims to reduce the 

overall cost of electric vehicles, and the Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative. The Clean 

Energy Manufacturing Initiative focuses on strengthening U.S. competitiveness through both 

improved manufacturing of clean energy products and increased manufacturing energy 

productivity more broadly. It will help enable U.S. companies to cut manufacturing costs, 

enhance the productivity of their investments and workforce, and reduce the life-cycle energy 

consumption of technologies. The first DOE operated National Additive Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute in Youngstown, Ohio focuses on additive manufacturing, often referred to as 

3D printing, and a solicitation is active for a new manufacturing institute focused on wide 

bandgap semiconductors for power electronics. 

To encourage increased energy efficiency and a modernized electricity grid, the Department's 

Race to the Top for Energy Efficiency & Grid Modernization will incentivize states, local 

governments, co-operatives, and tribes to implement effective policies to cut energy waste and 

modernize the grid. The President's Budget requests $200 million in one-time funding for 

technical assistance and performance-based awards after the policies are implemented and 

evaluated. 

The Race to the Top initiative is an important part of my larger focus on states, tribes, and local 

governments. States have been out in front with innovative policies that we want to support and, 

3 
16 


85443.004

as appropriate, replicate on a national scale when they prove effective. Different regions of our 

country have very different energy opportunities and needs, and we need to build from those to a 

national policy. In this vein, our national labs have unique capabilities and expertise to provide 

technical assistance to regional partners. I look forward to expanding our cooperation and 

collaboration with governments, tribal governments, and other partners across the country. 

We need to support cutting edge research across the board that will help create the clean energy 

economy oftomorrow. The President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget also requests continued support 

for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), to support high-impact energyrelated research projects with the potential to transform the energy sector. 

ARPA-E has invested in roughly 285 high-risk, high-reward research projects that, if successful, 

could create the foundation for entirely new industries. Seventeen of these projects, which 

received an initial investment from ARPA-E of approximately $70 million in total, have attracted 

over $450 million in publicly-announced private sector follow-on funding. ARPA-E funded 

companies and research teams have produced a battery that doubled the energy density of any 

previous design, successfully engineered microbes that use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make 

fuel for cars, and developed a one megawatt silicon carbide transistor the size of a fingernail. 

The Loan Programs Office at DOE has been a critical force supporting large-scale clean and 

renewable energy projects and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing here in America. 

Building on work of the previous administration, the Department of Energy has made a number 

of investments to support these innovative technologies. When you are talking about cuttingedge clean energy technologies, not every investment will succeed - but the latest indications 

show that the Energy Department's portfolio of more than 30 loan projects is delivering big 

results for the American economy. 

The portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and 

geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide every year - roughly equal to taking a million cars off the road. And just this month, 

Tesla Motors repaid the entire remaining balance on a $465 million loan from the Department of 

Energy, nine years earlier than required. 

An important part of the President's all-of-the-above approach is nuclear energy. Addressing the 

disposition of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is essential to the long-term 

viability of the industry. I was pleased to be part of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's 

Nuclear Future (BRC) and we submitted our findings to Congress and the White House. The 

BRC report recommended a consent based approach focused on the dual tracks of interim 

storage and geologic disposal capacity. The Administration has issued a strategy that embraces 

the core findings of the BRC, but the path forward requires Congressional action. I look forward 

to working with Congress on expeditiously implementing policies that ensure that our nation can 

continue to rely on carbon-free nuclear power. 

During my time at MIT, I had the pleasure of serving on President Obama's Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology (PCAST). At the end of 20 I 0, PCAST issued a report to the 

President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated 

4 
17 


85443.005

Federal Energy Policy. It specifically recommended an Administration-wide Quadrennial 

Energy Review (QER) with DOE in the executive secretariat role. 

The Quadrennial Technology Review of20 II was the first installment in the QER process. 

plan to build on this foundation by working with colleagues across the Administration, garnering 

strong input from the Congress and private sector stakeholders, and enhancing the Department's 

analytical and policy planning capabilities. 

Science 

DOE's science programs provide the technical underpinnings to accomplish the Department's 

missions and form part of the backbone of basic research in the physical sciences in the United 

States. The Department provides the national research community with unique research 

opportunities at major facilities for nuclear and particle physics, energy science, materials 

research and discovery, large-scale computation, and other disciplines. More than a hundred 

Nobel Prizes have resulted from DOE-associated research. 

Competing in the new energy economy will require us to harness the expertise of our scientists, 

engineers, and entrepreneurs. As the President said, "the world is shifting to an innovation 

economy, and nobody does innovation better than America." The President is committed to 

making investments in research and development that will grow our economy and enable 

America to remain competitive, and has requested significant resources to ensure America leads 

the world in the innovations of the future. The President believes in a robust scientific research 

infrastructure, strong support for research, and a buildup in human capacity. 

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) provide an important example of the Department's 

focus on supporting new and emerging research areas. These centers support scientists and 

engineers as they work to solve specific scientific problems to help unleash new clean energy 

technology development. Importantly, the EFRCs followed an outstanding process organized by 

the previous Administration, engaging about 1,500 scientists from across the country who 

identified key basic energy science challenges. So far, the EFRCs have generated some 3,400 

peer-reviewed papers, 60 invention disclosures, and 200 patents; and the Centers report 

numerous instances of technology transfer. In their three-plus years of existence, the EFRCs 

have achieved scientific breakthroughs in multiple areas, from solar power and batteries to new 

catalysts for refining petroleum and powering fuel cells. In FY 2014, we plan to hold an open recompetition to select new EFRCs and consider renewals of some existing EFRCs. This process is 

not reinventing the wheel but ensuring that our research dollars are supporting projects with the 

highest possible impact across the energy landscape. 

Earlier this month, I made my first trip as Secretary to Oak Ridge, Tennessee to visit the Oak 

Ridge National Lab (ORNL) and the Y-12 National Security Complex. During my visit, I toured 

the Spallation Neutron Source, a facility that is helping us better understand the properties of 

the advanced materials needed to harness and store energy, and which is just one example of the 

cutting edge facilities across our national labs that are critical for our economic competitiveness 

and our national security. 

5 
18 


85443.006

While at ORNL, I also had the opportunity to see Titan, the world's fastest supercomputer and 

Everest, a state-of the-art facility for data exploration and visualization. These tools are helping 

us with a variety of scientific solutions, such as better prediction of climate change today by 

modeling the climatic changes at the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, to improving the 

production ofbiofuels by visualizing how cellulosic plant materials are broken down into sugars. 

We have long been the global leaders in supercomputing and DOE and its predecessors have 

long been key drivers. In 1954 a group of researchers at ORNL created one of the world's first 

supercomputers built from vacuum tubes, transistors, and diodes. The Oak Ridge Automatic 

Computer and Logical Engine helped in the early research of nuclear physics and the biological 

effects of radiation. 

Currently, the U.S. has three of the five most powerful computers in the world, but our global 

competitors are not far behind. By pursuing the research necessary to enable and build the nextgeneration of supercomputers, exascale machines with 50-100 times more capability than the 

current generation, we can help ensure continued U.S. leadership in this important area. 

While I was at Oak Ridge, I also visited our Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light 

Water Reactors (CASL). CASL is the first of DOE's five existing Energy Innovation Hubs. 

Through the Hubs, we are bringing together our nation's top scientists and engineers to make 

game-changing progress in energy technologies. For example, CASL has released software that 

support simulating a virtual model of an operating physical reactor. I had the pleasure of serving 

as the first Chairman as CASL's Board of Directors and saw firsthand how the Hub was making 

a real difference on critical issues for nuclear power. The President's budget continues support 

for our Hubs and proposes a new Hub in electricity systems. 

Nuclear Security 

The President, beginning with his speech in Prague in 2009, has laid out a clear vision of nuclear 

security. This strategy includes step-by-step reductions in nuclear weapons, while ensuring the 

safety, security and effectiveness of our stockpile as long as we have nuclear weapons; 

strengthened efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; and measures to prevent nuclear 

terrorism. DOE has significant responsibilities spanning much of this agenda. 

Earlier this week the Department released its Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan, which 

lays out the Administration's plan to ensure that our nuclear arsenal remains an effective 

deterrent so long as we should need it. 

The President's Budget requests resources to strengthen our national security with investments in 

the Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as described in the 

Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of2010. This funding proposal is the result of 

an unprecedented cooperative analysis and planning process jointly conducted by NNSA and the 

Department of Defense. The Budget meets the goals of the NPR by funding cost increases for 

nuclear weapon life extension programs, such as upgrades to the W76 and B61 nuclear weapons; 

initiating new upgrades for the W78 and W88 nuclear weapons; improving or replacing aging 

facilities, such as the Uranium Processing Facility; adding funds for tritium production and 

6 
19 


85443.007

plutonium manufacturing and experimentation; and sustaining the existing stockpile by 

maintaining the underlying science, surveillance, and other support programs. 

This national security investment provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still 

safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile. It also strengthens the science, technology and 

engineering base of our enterprise. 

NNSA plays a vital role in achieving President Obama's other nuclear security objectives, 

including in the prevention of nuclear terrorism - and the grave and urgent threat it presents to 

our nation and the world. The Budget requests support for NNSA's efforts to detect, secure, and 

dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material around the world, helping the Department 

to fulfill its role in eompleting the President's four-year plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear 

materials worldwide. 

The Department of Energy's enterprise-wide intelligence and counter intelligence capability is 

also critical to our national defense and nuclear security. And I intend to make sure that these 

assets continue to sustain our national security. 

Environmental Remediation 

Environmental remediation at the many sites involved in decades of nuclear weapons production 

during the Cold War remains a major mission for the Department. This is a legal and moral 

imperative. DOE has made substantial progress in cleaning up this legacy waste but, as you 

know, the hardest challenges remain as long-term, expensive, complex projects in several states. 

The President's budget requests the resources necessary to support the environmental 

remediation effort, led by the Office of Environmental Management. I pledge to work with 

members of Congress, and the affected communities and other stakeholders openly and 

transparently as we confront the many challenges involved in remediation efforts. As part of that 

effort, I will renew the Department's emphasis on the management and performance of its major 

projects. 

One of our most challenging Environmental Management projects remains the Hanford Site in 

Washington. I have committed to a plan to address the serious issues at hand, and I look forward 

to visiting Hanford next week and determining the path forward on the project. 

Management and Performance 

The Department of Energy has a broad range of responsibilities that stretch across cutting edge 

science and technology programs, national security priorities, and complex environmental 

cleanup projects. Responsibility for taxpayers' money demands that we manage our resources in 

the most efficient manner possible. Improving the management and performance ofthe 

Department is one of my top priorities as Secretary. 

I have been carefully reviewing the organization and management practices within the 

Department and am working with my staff to develop options to reorganize. I see this as a 

7 
20 


85443.008

sustained effort for continuous improvement and I look forward to working with members of this 

committee and others in Congress and the Administration to elevate the focus on management 

and performance at DOE. 

As part of this process, I have identified several areas where I plan to make improvements: 

• To better support the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy, we need to improve 

the Department's systems approach to energy policy analysis. DOE has analysis 

capabilities housed in each major program area, but to strengthen our integrated policy 

assessment capability to provide the Secretary, the President, and the Congress with 

comprehensive assessments of key energy policy issues. I am considering plans to 

consolidate and strengthen policy and systems analysis, to make better use of existing 

resources. 

• A key factor in successful technology innovation programs is the ability to closely 

integrate and move quickly from basic science, to applied research, to technology 

demonstration. The Department has made important strides to foster communication 

between its science and energy programs, but we must do more organizationally to drive 

this process. I am considering ways to more closely integrate the management of science 

and energy programs to improve the dexterity and effectiveness of the innovation 

process. 

• The security breach at the Y -12 facility revealed unacceptable shortcomings in the 

Department's oversight of its security programs and systems. I plan to revamp the 

security oversight apparatus, including a stronger independent oversight function that will 

report directly to the Secretary. A culture of safety and environmental compliance go 

hand-in-hand with good security, and I believe that all of these functions should be given 

greater attention 

• We need to build consistency and accountability across the entire Department. The 

various mission support functions of DOE require greater day-to-day oversight, 

coordination and integration. J am considering means of strengthening the lines of 

authority and management of these functions. 

• Finally, I am examining the organization of the Office of the Secretary. I look forward to 

building councils of advisors that will provide enterprise-wide advice and analysis on 

issues ranging from cyber security to the management of the National Labs. I also plan to 

engage the Directors of the National Laboratories regarding the Department's mission 

and to appoint and work closely with the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Bringing 

together these measures to improve internal coordination and reaching out for expert 

outside advice will provide me with a broader base of information and analysis to make 

informed decisions. 

Conclnsion: 

8 
21 


85443.009

In summary, the Department of Energy has significant responsibilities that bear on America's 

economic, energy, environmental and nuclear security future, I have appreciated the opportunity 

to collaborate with members of this Committee and with other members of Congress both during 

my previous tenure at DOE and in the years since. I am committed to working with the Congress 

in a search for the solutions to the country's energy and nuclear security challenges. 

As President Obama has said, "Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in 

American energy. After years of talking about it, we're finally poised to control our own energy 

future." The investments included in the Administration's Energy Department budget request 

are vital to ensuring America's energy security and securing America's place as the world leader 

in the clean energy economy. 

Thank you, and now I am pleased to answer your questions. 

9 
22 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate 

your comments and look forward to working with you as you move 

forward at the Department of Energy. 

I think today’s opening statements reflected the divergent views 

here in the Congress about energy and its impact on economic 

growth and job promotion. And Mr. Waxman talks about climate 

change, and I know that he genuinely is concerned about that 

issue, as we all are. And I think one of the key issues that many 

of us that are elected to represent over 700,000 people each is our 

economy has been very sluggish. We are trying to promote economic growth, we are trying to create jobs, we are trying to increase revenues for the government so we can do more programs. 

And many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, as I said, 

are very sincere in their views, and they would like to see us go 

right down the road the European Union has gone down, and we 

know that the European Union has pursued a broad range of climate policies, including renewable energy subsidies for wind and 

solar power. They had a cap-and-trade system. But the results of 

this, it appears quite clearly, is not working. 

As I said, The Economist just a few months ago had a big article 

talking about ‘‘Europe’s energy policy delivers the worst of all possible worlds.’’ And their gas prices are so high, you have companies 

leaving Europe. They closed all their nuclear power plants in Germany. They were backing away from coal, and now, they are planning to build 69 new coal-powered plants in Europe. 

And then recently, we had this article in the New York Times, 

‘‘high-energy costs plaguing Europe.’’ And they talk specifically 

about how the head of the European power and carbon at the energy consulting firm in Paris said we embarked in Europe on a big 

transition to a low-carbon economy without taking into account the 

cost and without factoring in the competitive impact. 

And I know many of our friends on the side of the aisle view us 

as we are too far this way and we think they are too far that way, 

so we hope that you can help lead this country in a more balanced 

approach on energy. 

I am a fan of the Sierra Club in that it has done a lot of good 

things for America and protecting our environment, but when the 

president of the Sierra Club says we want to get to a place where 

we do not use any fossil fuels, and next week, the Sierra Club is 

going to be in Louisville, Kentucky; they are going to be demonstrating and protesting against the use of coal. And I don’t think 

anyone realistically can say that we can meet our electricity demands in this country and remain competitive without a strong fossil fuel presence. You can’t build enough windmills and solar panels to meet that need. 

And I talked to you soon after your confirmation and you are certainly not involved in it, but right across the line in Tennessee 

from my home State of Kentucky, Hemlock Corporation built a $1.4 

billion plant to make some component parts for solar panels, and 

they said it was going to be 2,500 new jobs. There was government 

stimulus money in the project, and they announced in January 

after they got up to 400 employees that they were going to close 

the plant down. They were never even going to open the planet. So 

now they are down to 20 employees. They built a $20 million railVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
23 

road line into that plant, and they are not going to move one product out of there. It is being closed down. 

So I think the challenge we face in this country is just having 

a balanced approach without someone saying, hey, we don’t need 

fossil fuels at all. I do believe what the President said. We need an 

all-of-the-above policy, but frequently, my view is that this Administration says one thing and does another in that arena. 

Now, I meant to ask you some questions. I don’t know how I got 

so worked up here, but one thing I would just ask you quickly on 

the Paducah plant. Hopefully, it is the Department of Energy’s policy to try to maintain the viability of that plant and protect the 

1,200 jobs there. Would you agree with that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We do agree with that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you are going to consider requests for proposals for expressions of interest to continue to operate the plant? 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. In fact, if I may, I can even reflect on 

a little history in terms of the history with the Portsmouth plant 

where USEC ceased operations there in 2000. And the plan, which 

I think is a good model going forward with Paducah, is that we go 

into cleanup. That prepares the way for decommissioning but on a 

parallel track we look for new business opportunities to use the 

site, the people at the site, the resources that the site. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. My time is expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, as I stated in my opening remarks, it is a huge 

priority for me to ensure that all Americans, especially those who 

have been historically underrepresented in the energy field, have 

access to the employment, business, and economic opportunities 

that this industry provides. 

I stated in my previous statement that I have had talks with various industry leaders on the issue of jobs from both the demand 

and the supply side, and they have spoke of and they are very concerned with the fact that up to half of the current energy workforce 

in some sense will need to be replaced due to retirements and attrition over the next 5 to 10 years. And in order to replace these energy workers, the industry leaders are beginning to recognize that 

minorities and other historically underrepresented groups will need 

to be called upon to help fill these jobs. So we must therefore be 

proactive in ensuring that future workers are being trained with 

the necessary skills. 

Are you, Mr. Secretary, confident in your capacity and your programmatic trust, are you confident that your department has the 

resources, including the budget and staff, the authority to effectively engage the minority communities and help them enter into 

all aspects of the energy sector by helping them, creating access 

through training, STEM education, jobs, and other business opportunities? 

Is there anything that your department needs from the Members 

of Congress to make sure they assist you in your pro-activity in 

terms of outreach to minorities? 

Secretary MONIZ. Congressman Rush, thank you for the question. 

I think you raise a really important issue. As you say, the energy 

industry, I think, is booming and I think it has every indication 

24 

that it will in the future from fossil fuel production to hopefully our 

leadership role in producing advanced technologies for the future. 

If you look at the demographics of our country and where they are 

heading, we will need to draw upon all of our people, women, minorities who have not yet played a sufficient role. So I think this 

is a place that I would really like to work with you on this. 

I might note that, recently, at the White House there was a focus 

on women in clean energy. Perhaps we could talk about doing some 

similar things with underrepresented minorities in that regard. I 

think we should focus on also what we do with small and minority 

businesses. We do have a program there. 

What I will do is I will go back and scrub where we are in terms 

of resources and authorities, and after I understand that, I would 

like to come back to you to discuss some specifics of what we might 

do. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, I look forward to our discussions and 

our working together. 

I would like to just ask you a question about the impact that sequestration—sequestration is harming our competitiveness. In the 

race to see which country will lead the clean energy economy, your 

department has an important role. The ARPA–E has had several 

major technological achievements and commercial successes. These 

technologies have affected over 450 million in follow-on investment 

from private sector after receiving just 70 million of initial investment from ARPA–E. How will the funding cuts due to sequestration effect the ARPA–E in its mission to continue its support of research and development for breakthrough technologies? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, clearly, the sequestration has had an impact. I believe the impact is about $1.9 billion across the Department, across all the missions. And, as of today, we are at about 

1,500 workers laid off or with substantial furloughs. This obviously 

is affecting our work. I want to thank the Congress for working 

with us in some reprogramming, which has ameliorated the impacts in various sites. But clearly, we cannot avoid those impacts. 

So it is everything from putting at risk milestones in some of our 

cleanup programs to diminished research capacity in programs like 

ARPA–E. 

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

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, welcome. You are no stranger to the Committee, and certainly in the past few years have been a very forthcoming witness and decent representative for the Administration. 

So with that, we look forward to working with you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Is ‘‘decent’’ praise? 

Mr. BARTON. Decent is good. Decent is good. There are other D 

words that I could use that are not good, but decent is good. 

In your immediate position at MIT, you were an author or co-author of the study entitled, ‘‘The Future of Natural Gas,’’ and it recommended that the U.S. should not erect barriers to natural gas 

imports or exports. I share that. 

You are now the Secretary of Energy, and as Secretary of Energy, you are going to have some decisionmaking authority on 

25 

whether to approve permits to export LNG to nations that do not 

have a Free Trade Agreement with this country. There is a rebuttable presumption in the law that the Department of Energy 

should authorize the permit unless they can find that it is not in 

the national interest. There is apparently a finding document, 

which, if it is public, I don’t know that it is public. Could you enlighten the Committee on the evaluation process you are using on 

these permits and also enlighten us as to whether you still agree 

with the study recommendation that the U.S. should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or exports? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Barton. And we have had 

many opportunities to talk before in the past. I should clarify one 

thing and then I will go directly to the answer. In terms of the 

study, I just want to emphasize that those statements were in 

somewhat different context in terms of they were addressing the 

potential for imports in about 25 years. 

But fundamentally, I think as the guidance, which you have stated, that there is a presumption of approving licenses unless there 

is something that would jeopardize the public interest, I think, reflects the kind of philosophy that you have just stated. So the question then becomes how do we judge the public interest? And there, 

I think there has been a whole set of criteria put forward as 

guides. They are not statutory but have been put forward by the 

Department, and certainly, these issues of balance of trade, of job 

creation, environmental considerations, energy security, domestic 

need, impacts on the economy are all part of that. 

Perhaps I can say what I am today. First of all, I am 3 

weeks—— 

Mr. BARTON. So far, you are doing a good answer at not answering the question. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am assuming that at some point in time there will 

be a pony in all of this that you are giving us, and we will get an 

answer. 

Secretary MONIZ. So I am 3 weeks and 2 days into the job. 

Mr. BARTON. You are learning quickly. 

Secretary MONIZ. And I have said that I have been reviewing assiduously the processes used to date and I am intending to move 

now expeditiously into evaluating the license applications. That 

will be done case-by-case, go right through them with the order, as 

has been stated by the Department in terms of the filing requirement. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Now, I want to make sure in the remaining 

minute, this study, this was when you were at MIT, ‘‘the U.S. 

should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or exports.’’ I am 

quoting that study correctly, correct? 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. So that we haven’t abused you there? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, no. 

Mr. BARTON. All right. You are now the Secretary of Energy. You 

have a different hat you have to wear. You did agree, though, that 

the presumption is that the project should be approved unless you 

believe it is not in the public interest. Now, I think you agreed with 

that statement? 

26 

Secretary MONIZ. That was—— 

Mr. BARTON. You agreed with that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. BARTON. And you just did say that you are going to look at 

these in an expeditious fashion, which, in my dictionary, means as 

quickly as possible. 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. So could you give us a time frame, the next 3 

months, the next 6 months? And I know you have got multiple 

projects, but would you be expecting to make some decisions in this 

calendar year? We don’t want another Keystone pipeline thing. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Thank you. Perfect timing, zero time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All right. Thank you. 

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

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, you can play an important role in educating Congress and the public about the threat of climate change and the urgent need for action. There is no debate about the science that indicates that climate change is happening now and it is caused by humans and the impacts are real. 

Mr. Secretary, you are an esteemed scientist. You were unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Can you take a moment and explain why it is important for us to act now to address climate 

change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, thank you, Mr. Waxman. 

Well, first of all, I certainly agree that it is indisputable that we 

are experiencing warming and that the pattern of consequences 

that has long been expected—in fact are appearing around us—are 

unfortunately typically at the higher end of the predicted ranges, 

whether it is melting ice, which is easily visible, to the issues I 

think that you raised earlier, be they storm intensities, droughts, 

wildfires. 

Now, clearly, this is a statistical result as opposed to something 

that applies to any one event, but the fact is the pattern is completely consistent with that expected prolonged time only, unfortunately, accelerating faster than we expected. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Does that mean we should do something now? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. And a key reason is that, in particular, especially carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas associated 

with energy supply, resides in the atmosphere for many, many centuries. So it is a cumulative impact, not something that we can just 

kind of turn on and off very easily. And we are building up an irreversible momentum. So prudence suggests that I think we need to 

start talking about how, within the all-of-the-above energy philosophy, we manage the transition to a low-carbon economy. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Our chairman and others have said that, look, U.S. 

carbon dioxide emissions are at their lowest level in 20 years. The 

implication is that no further action to address climate change is 

necessary. I don’t believe that is the case. What matters is not 

whether U.S. emissions have declined; it is whether we are on 

track to decline in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous climate change. 

27 

Mr. Secretary, are you aware of any reputable expert who believes we are currently on track to avoid dangerous climate 

change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly, the overwhelming preponderance—I mean nearly unanimous in the scientific community of relevance certainly expects that we are on a pathway to very negative 

consequences. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That is a mild way of putting it. Look, we are told 

that the market is working, that we are doing more than our share 

in the United States. The Europeans and others aren’t doing nearly 

as much. And I just wanted to cite for you some information that 

I think is worth noting. This was all in a letter dated March 11, 

2013, that Mr. Rush and I sent to Chairman Upton and Chairman 

Whitfield. 

We pointed out that the European Union is committed to reduce 

all greenhouse gas emissions from its member states by 20 percent 

by 2020 compared with 1990 levels and is on track to meet this target. The European Union has pledged to achieve even more reductions if the United States and other developed countries would 

agree to do more. 

The President pledged, when he was in Copenhagen in 2009, we 

are going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent 

below 2005 levels by 2020. This is equivalent to a reduction of just 

3 percent compared to 1990 levels. Several European countries outside the European Union have made more ambitious pledges than 

the U.S. Do you think we are the best in the world in reducing 

these emissions? You would think that recent carbon dioxide emission reductions in the U.S. is due to the marketplace. Now, it is 

certainly due to the fact that we are in a recession. It is due to the 

fact that we have more renewables. It is due to the fact that natural gas is playing a better role and that we are promoting renewable energy. Is that happening because of the marketplace or U.S. 

laws and policies? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, as you have said, I mean, it is 

a mixture of drivers. Certainly, the large increase in gas use for the 

electricity sector has been a market-driven approach, but of course 

policies at the state and federal level have stimulated this, for example, this doubling of renewables only in the last 4 years, which 

is a major, major, major advance. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And we need more policies to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. Do you agree? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we need more technology and more policy to move towards the low-carbon economy. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Louisiana, vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Scalise, for 5 

minutes. 

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

this hearing. 

And, Mr. Secretary, welcome to our committee. Thank you for 

coming to testify before us and talk about some of the issues that 

we work on here in the Energy Subcommittee. 

28 

I know over the years a lot of us have been pushing for a true 

all-of-the-above energy strategy to open up more areas that are 

right now blocked for exploration in America to try to green-light 

projects like the Keystone pipeline so that we can bring in more energy from a trusted partner and friend like Canada that gives us 

less reliance on some of these Middle Eastern countries who don’t 

like us, help our trade imbalance, and just many other things that 

are needed to expedite the process of producing American energy, 

keeping agencies like EPA from trying to interfere with the hydraulic fracturing process that has been so successful and opened 

up so many of these shale plays across the country that are not 

only creating a lot of American energy but a lot of jobs, really a 

bright spot in our economy. 

Your predecessor in this position had made comments over the 

years that we should have gas prices at the levels of Europe and 

really pushed for an energy policy that, I think, the President 

shared that actually has led to making less American energy, made 

it harder for us to open up areas and do more exploration in America. 

I am curious to see what your overall strategy is on energy in 

general but also specifically things like gas prices as families still 

pay over $3 a gallon right now, and with the summer approaching, 

likely to be paying higher. Do you have a plan to try to lower gas 

prices, to try to increase American energy, to try to keep the Federal Government from making it even harder to produce in this 

country than it is right now and create those jobs? If I can just 

throw that out to you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Quite a few questions in there, thank you. 

So, first, again, I very much subscribe to the President’s all-ofthe-above strategy and I think—— 

Mr. SCALISE. We disagree with the President’s definition of ‘‘all 

of the above.’’ It seems to be more focused on above and nothing 

below, which is not all of the above. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I mean, with all due respect, I would have 

to say, the ground truth is, as we all know, that oil production is 

up dramatically. In fact, we had a little—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And, I mean, I have actually had a conversation 

with the President about this because he says that a lot. He says 

oil production, energy production, has never been higher under his 

Administration. When I pointed out to him in fact on federal lands 

it is actually dramatically down; on private lands it is up. And so 

in the areas where the President has no control it is up, but in the 

areas where he has had control, it has been down in many cases 

because of his policies. 

So I do think it is disingenuous for the Administration to go out 

and say, you know, and the President himself to say since I have 

been President, energy production has never been higher, when in 

fact his policies on federal lands have actually reduced production. 

And that is a fact that the Energy Department has actually confirmed. 

And so, as you say that, you can say it because it is an accurate 

statement across the board to say it is higher, but on federal lands, 

energy production is down in many cases because of the AdminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
29 

tration’s policies. And that is why we disagree with this connotation of all of the above. 

I mean, you can’t be for all of the above when you are saying no 

to Keystone, when you are making it harder to actually explore on 

federal lands for American energy. And so I hope you understand 

that distinction. 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I understand. I was trying to address it. I 

think the reality is it is a question of what choices are made by 

private companies where they want to go to drill. There are many 

leases—this is a Department of Interior issue—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Not Department of Energy, but 

there are many leases going unused on federal lands. The fact is 

the industry is moving hard and producing more oil, moving hard 

and producing more gas. There are some infrastructure issues 

which will involve both state and federal permitting, but, I mean, 

the ground truth is we are producing more oil. We are producing 

more gas. We are—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But do you recognize that where we are producing 

more gas is primarily on private land and on federal land, production is lower? 

Secretary MONIZ. These are facts but all I was saying is—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But as Secretary of Energy, though, would you encourage a change in that policy where we can actually open up 

some of those federal lands that are right now closed? I mean so 

many areas of our federal lands across the country are closed to 

production where you have got very rich reserves. You know, we 

have been trying to get the Administration to be an all-of-the-above 

administration and open some of that up. Would you be open to 

kind of promoting that as Secretary of Energy where you have a 

bully pulpit to push for that kind of increase in production on federal lands where it is down? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, we both understand that is a Department of Interior responsibility—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Right, but I mean you are the Secretary of Energy. 

And you have the President’s ear on energy issues in general. 

Secretary MONIZ. In terms of where I am is, A) supporting the 

idea that the country pursues what we call ‘‘all of the above.’’ That 

is, we will continue to produce more oil, decrease our exports, help 

our balanced trade. The Department of Energy will be supporting 

that certainly in trying to advanced technologies for environmentally sound production. We want to work with our other sister 

agencies like DOI and EPA in terms of getting better data. There 

are issues such as methane emissions and beneficial reuse by the 

companies. I had a meeting this morning in fact which was very, 

very interesting in that regard. 

So I think we are totally supportive of this vision of pushing all 

of the above. 

Mr. SCALISE. I look forward to working with you on that and—— 

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

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. I know that we will have more of this. 

I know I am out of time. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, I am sorry. 

30 

Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that. I know we will have more of this 

conversation in the future but thanks for coming—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. I would be happy to discuss that. 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. And I think congratulations on getting 

this new position. I look forward to working with you. 

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

California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming today. It is a good thing 

to get to know you a little bit. I haven’t been on the committee long 

enough to see your testimony before, so I appreciate your coming 

forward. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to talk a little bit about fracking. We are 

going to be producing a lot of natural gas and oil using that technique, and that may be beneficial, but there is a significant risk in 

my opinion of natural gas escaping into the environment, which is 

a strong greenhouse gas, and potential for groundwater contamination, which is very important in California and many Western 

States. 

I see a budget request of $17 million for research into the safety 

of fracking. Do you think that is going to be a sufficient amount 

to help guide us through this boom in the fracking that we are 

going to be seeing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, of course, the $17 million request I think 

is very important for getting engaged in this but of course there is 

a lot of work as well going on through industry. There is work 

going on in a cost-shared way using the Royalty Trust Fund. So I 

think the DOE component and also Interior and EPA, so the DOE 

component is one part. I think a key will be for us to make sure 

that we are kind of integrating what we support with that of what 

other agencies and the private sector are doing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, good. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. And I would just add the methane emissions 

that you alluded to is something we clearly need to get our arms 

around. Currently, the estimate is that about 2 1⁄2 percent of total 

greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is CO2 equivalent 

of methane emissions in fossil fuel production, so it is about 2 1⁄2

percent, but the data are not very good, number one. 

And, number two, we believe there are many opportunities to 

capture and beneficially use that methane in the production. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. To change the subject a little bit, 

what do you think are the biggest barriers to financing clean energy projects today? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, there are lots. I think one issue is—well, 

turning it around, how can one mobilize a lot of private capital that 

is kind of on the sidelines today to come in in terms of clean energy 

and clean energy projects? This is something that I have brought 

in some new people. We are trying to analyze these issues. 

But I will give you as an example it is very difficult to, say, in 

the renewable space, say distributed solar, we have a lot of small 

projects. You have nothing like what I would call the standard contracts as you have in the mortgage business, and therefore, it is 

very difficult to aggregate them and be able to get access to the 

31 

kinds of capital markets that one can in other parts of the energy 

industry. So these are the things we need to discuss, I think. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And you are going to be aggressively moving to 

find the solution? 

Secretary MONIZ. And, as part of this Quadrennial Energy Review, we will be working with Treasury and OMB and others trying to see what are the right mechanisms to stimulate private capital coming into these markets more strongly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, I understand that the DOE has a 

stated goal of wind energy producing 20 percent of our electricity 

by the year 2020. Is that a realistic goal? Can we make that goal? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is the President’s goal. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Can we make that goal? 

Secretary MONIZ. We are going to try. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So part of the barriers are financial barriers? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. I would have to check this, but I think we 

are about halfway there so we have to pick up the pace, and moving private capital in would be important. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And then moving on to electric vehicles, what 

are our barriers in terms of getting electric vehicles accepted in the 

marketplace? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, electric vehicles clearly have a lot of 

promise. In fact, the Tesla was—of course, it is an expensive vehicle, but Tesla was rated by Consumer Reports as the best car they 

ever tested, not in that year, but ever. I mean I think often what 

we forget is electric vehicles are very high-performance vehicles. 

Now, clearly, the biggest barrier right now is getting the cost of 

the batteries down because if you want to have a long range on 

electric drive, you are talking today a battery that, you know, is literally in the tens of thousands of dollars. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And there is some promising technology in the 

DOE in that area? 

Secretary MONIZ. And so there has been about a 40 percent drop 

in net cost in the last few years. We have got to keep driving down. 

The goal is to get to $100 to $200 per kilowatt of storage. Today, 

we are in the 5, $600 range. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

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

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Waxman has made a statement that, as I understood 

it, climate change is caused by people, and I like to agree with him 

sometimes, but the closest I can get to that is it punishes people. 

It punishes taxpayers. It punishes taxpayers to the extent of $34 

billion and we haven’t gotten anything yet, nothing that alludes to 

getting the benefit of the money that the taxpayers have had to 

pay out. I don’t think you disagree with that, do you? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am sorry, Mr. Hall, if you could clarify the 

question. I didn’t quite understand it. I apologize. 

Mr. HALL. It wasn’t a question. It was a statement. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. HALL. That Mr. Waxman said climate change caused by people—and the Sierra Club, and I am certainly not a fan of the Sierra 

Club; I want that to go on the record. I think they are an enemy 

32 

of anybody that is 18 years old or older that needs a job or is looking for a job. But climate change has cost the taxpayers $33 to $34 

to $35 billion so far and we have gotten very little out of that. How 

can you disagree with that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, the—— 

Mr. HALL. And what have we got out of it? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am sorry? Oh, OK. So, well, I would say, first 

of all, as we said before, the United States, among industrialized 

countries, is unique in having decreased our CO2 emissions; but 

secondly, I think we have laid the foundation for a new technology 

enterprise in this country. 

Mr. HALL. You laid the foundation that nobody is following. Russia is not, Mexico is not, India is not; no one is helping us. They 

want us to clean the world. You are not recommending that, are 

you? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I would be happy if we are—— 

Mr. HALL. If we could, I would be happy, too. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Of exporting technologies to those 

countries. 

Mr. HALL. Let me get to my real questions. New York Times earlier this year related the power shortages in New England and 

noted the importance to the region of being able to import power 

from the Indian Point nuclear facility quoting one individual as 

saying, ‘‘without Indian Point, New England would have been 

toast.’’ The situation in New England was due to an overdependence on gas. Would you agree this reflects why it is important to 

have fuel diversity? 

Secretary MONIZ. Definitely. 

Mr. HALL. All right. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. And in your view do nuclear facilities play a critical 

role in ensuring the reliability of the grid? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, clearly, nuclear power is 20 percent of 

our electricity today, and it is carbon-free. 

Mr. HALL. And did you know that, Mr. Secretary, during your 

confirmation hearing, you promised to review what is out there before approving any additional LNG export applications? And I 

think Mr. Barton got into that a little bit. Let me ask you a little 

bit more. Can you update the Committee on the progress? 

Secretary MONIZ. It has gone very well. Frankly, tomorrow, I 

have perhaps the key summary meeting on the review and also we 

have had the EIA look at how developments in the markets in the 

last few years might influence this, but I think, as I said to Mr. 

Barton, we are getting pretty much ready to start evaluating the 

dockets on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. HALL. At an event in Palo Alto this last week, President 

Obama reportedly said, ‘‘we believe in a light touch when it comes 

to regulations.’’ Would you characterize EPA’s wave of rules affecting the energy sector during the President’s first term as a light 

touch? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, again, I am at the Department of Energy. We are not doing those regulations. I look forward to working 

with the EPA as appropriate in terms of providing analytical basis, 

technical advice, but it is clearly their—— 

33 

Mr. HALL. And you should. You have a tough job. For one, it has 

been working on energy science and security issues for most of your 

professional life, served on the MIT faculty beginning in 1973, included as head of the Department of Physics. You were the founding director of MIT Energy Initiative in 2006. That seems like that 

knowledge that you have gleaned there and that you have departed 

makes it pretty tough for you to agree with the person that appointed you? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, I completely agree with the President 

in terms of, again, all-of-the-above energy approach, and I think 

the facts on the ground support—— 

Mr. HALL. Would you characterize EPA’s wave of rules affecting 

the energy sector during the President’s first term as a light touch? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, I think the EPA is statutorily—— 

Mr. HALL. And you agree with that, the way the EPA has handled their business? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is not for me to judge. 

Mr. HALL. But I will just ask you one last question. 

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

Mr. HALL. In that case, I will yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Thank you. 

At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from California, Mrs. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And congratulations on your confirmation, Secretary Moniz, and 

thank you for your testimony. 

The Department of Energy has been doing great work in recent 

years, particularly in the development of renewable technologies. 

Basic research is obviously critical to developing these technologies 

and I know you understand this coming from MIT. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget clearly prioritizes this research, and 

I commend the Administration for making a firm commitment to 

this critical work even in these tough fiscal times. I am fortunate 

to have to world-class research institutions in my district—Cal Poly 

San Luis Obispo and UC–Santa Barbara—that have benefited from 

DOE funding. 

For example, UCSB is one of DOE’s Frontier Energy Research 

Centers and has produced numerous local spinoff companies. Just 

earlier this year, a Cal Poly research team received a DOE grant 

to further advance its research in reusing the wastewater used in 

the production of algae-based biofuels. This research project could 

produce technologies that could save Californians hundreds of millions of dollars in water recycling costs each year. These research 

dollars are creating tangible economic benefits in my district, and 

I am sure there is quite a similar impact at other universities 

throughout the Nation with their surrounding communities. 

Could you elaborate briefly on this? I want to ask you a couple 

more questions as well, but what are some other examples of DOE 

research dollars being turned into tangible benefits for taxpayers? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you for the question. 

Well, those are two outstanding institutions, and as you say, actually our great research universities across this country are really 

engines of innovation, particularly when they are embedded in a 

34 

broader system of investors, et cetera. So if one just looks at 

ARPA–E as an example—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. We are getting close to about 300 

projects, which have been funded, and you take a subset of less 

than 20, you have a multiplier of like a factor of five in terms of 

private capital coming in to follow those investments. That is just 

one example of this multiplier effect. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Let me try another topic. I know you probably have 

several other examples you could cite immediately, but meeting our 

renewable energy needs is going to require more than just research. So many great ideas are developed in the lab that never 

make it into the marketplace due to a lack of investment. The biggest issue I hear from these energy innovators in my district is the 

difficulty they have in bridging what they call the valley of death. 

What is DOE doing, if you are doing anything at all, to address 

this problem and help move more technologies out of the lab in the 

research institution out into that marketplace? 

Secretary MONIZ. I might just add that many, many of them 

would say there are actually two valleys of death. They have to get 

through both of them to scale in the market. But I think in particular at the Department I would highlight three programs there. 

One is ARPA–E, as I already mentioned, which I think is developing a strong track record of getting things into the economy. Another, which I think will take a little bit more time to judge, but 

the Energy Innovation Hubs, these are structured so that they can 

work on a specific problem but anywhere across the innovation 

chain as it makes sense for that problem to move out into the marketplace. 

In California, there is one on Sunlight to Fuels, for example. And 

of course a third has been the loan programs, for example, which 

started in the last administration, came to this administration and 

have helped move some of the world’s largest concentrated solar 

plant, for example, in California is about to have first light. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. I do want to get one further question out 

on a solar technology. There are so many roofs and parking lots 

and homes, businesses, nonprofits, government buildings that are 

perfect for solar, yet go unused because the owners can’t afford the 

high cost of installation. I faced this same challenge when I wanted 

to do something in my own private home in Santa Barbara. 

Thankfully, my county, Santa Barbara County, has a program 

that they call emPowerSBC in Santa Barbara County. It helps secure low-cost financing and rebates for homeowners that want to 

install solar and other energy-efficient programs. These programs 

are not very common yet. Is there anything you are doing to encourage the development of programs like emPowerSBC help make 

small- and medium-scale solar more widely available? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, part of that, as I alluded to earlier in 

terms of looking at how to move private capital off the sidelines—— 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Is that I think we need to find 

ways of better aggregating small projects into ways with uniform 

35 

contracting that can attract, you know, market capital into the 

game. That is one point. 

A second point is what I did not mention earlier but I have emphasized in the Department that one of the kind of shifts in philosophy a little bit that I want to emphasize is much more work with 

States. I think States have been a center of innovation in advancing energy. One of the issues, however, is we have enormous variability and so we could not do one-size-fits-all. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we need to work with the States and 

then build up from the States to a more national. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Time is expired. 

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

Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

The Administration’s proposed budget cuts 46 million from the 

Office of Energy’s carbon storage research line. This is down from 

107 million it was funded at last year. This program funds research 

at the Carbon Sequestration Project in Decatur, Illinois, which is 

already halfway to injecting a million metric tons of carbon. The 

University of Illinois, as a part of the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, has great concern that these cuts will leave the 

research incomplete, compromising the 3-year monitoring phase 

demonstrating the project’s safety and viability. 

I have a letter here from the University of Illinois that goes into 

greater detail on the project, its progress and success to date, as 

well as recommendations for moving forward, and I would ask, Mr. 

Chairman, for unanimous consent for the letter to be submitted for 

the record. 

And for you, Mr. Secretary, I will provide you with a copy of that 

letter directed to you and your staff for review and consideration. 

So if I could do that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. And then to my favorite topic, Mr. Secretary, as 

you are aware, the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia has 

a pending case before with regard to whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must review the Yucca Mountain repository license application mandated in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If the 

court orders the NRC to resume the license review, will you honor 

the court’s decision and support the NRC process? 

Secretary MONIZ. We will follow the law, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Good answer. I wish we were following it now. 

That is the problem. This past April, Assistant Secretary Peter 

Lyons testified before the House Energy and Waters Appropriations Subcommittee that DOE currently has 18.5 million from nuclear waste fund carryover that are unspent from prior appropriations. Is that your understanding? 

Secretary MONIZ. Sir, I will have to explore that. I am not aware 

of that specific number. 

36 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is a similar question that I asked before so I 

think your staff should be pretty well in agreement with that. So 

if you would get back to us if that is the case. 

Secretary MONIZ. It appears to be correct, I think. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Good. Good answer. If the Court rules and you find 

that DOE has insufficient funding to fully support the license review process, will you commit to prepare and submit a supplemental budget request this fiscal year if needed? Now, remember, 

the court has ruled that they have to finish the study. You have 

got some money available. If you are going to comply with the law, 

if you need additional funds, would you then let us know what that 

would be? 

Secretary MONIZ. I presume that would be the path forward. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will take that as a yes, thank you. Are you aware 

of any technical or scientific issues that would prevent Yucca 

Mountain from being a safe repository? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the answer to that question really 

would come out from a detailed look. To be straightforward, I am 

on the record many, many years ago as pointing out that there are 

some issues in terms of, to be mildly technical about it, it is an oxidizing environment, and one would probably prefer a chemically reducing—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, and that is the importance of the final report 

which will make a judgment of whether it is safe for a million 

years or not and that is what we await and hopefully the court—— 

Secretary MONIZ. And obviously, that is what I said. That is an 

NRC decision ultimately to be taken, but there is that little scientific factoid. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. DOE’s document strategies for management and 

disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 

issued on January 11 of this year and dictates legislation is needed 

to deploy that strategy. Why hasn’t the Administration sent legislation to Congress yet? 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe the Administration’s position is that 

it will be working with the Congress to develop it, and I might say 

that I have personally been working with some Senators on their 

draft and I would be happy to work with Members in this chamber. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would suggest, since we have a bicameral legislation, a legislative body, and there are two chambers that might be 

helpful if you would have ideas of how to move forward, that you 

would come and talk to us. 

Secretary MONIZ. If I was asked to come and join the discussion, 

I would be most delighted to accept an invitation here as well. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I will 

yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congratulations, Secretary Moniz, on your appointment and confirmation. You will bring a fresh perspective to the Department, so 

good luck to you. I look forward to working with you. 

I want to bring to your attention an important issue relating to 

the economic well-being of our country, particularly jobs in AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
37 

ican shipping, our ports and related businesses. It involves the 

Jones Act and the excessive numbers of waivers that the Administration and the Department of Energy have granted to that important federal law. 

Mr. Secretary, the Jones Act requires that cargo that is shipped 

between U.S. ports, domestic ports be transported on American 

vessels. The law is vital to our Nation’s economic and national security because it supports the core maritime industries of our country, American shipbuilding and American jobs. 

In 2011 when the Administration tapped the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve and a few other times, the Administration agreed to almost 50 waivers of the Jones Act. This is more than all in American history combined, and it was excessive. The law says that in 

order to grant a waiver, there must be a national security emergency and domestic carriers must not be available. They must be 

unavailable. 

At that time, that was the time of the Libyan conflict and I guess 

the powers that be decided that it was more important to get that 

oil delivered. But it was an excessively high number of waivers. It 

took jobs from American maritime industries, American cargo vessels. The work went instead to foreign shippers, and I just think 

this is very poor public policy, particularly at a time when we had 

a high unemployment rate. The only ones that really benefited at 

that time were the oil speculators and foreign-owned oil companies 

and foreign shippers. 

So I wanted to ask you at the outset of your service, can you assure me that you and the Department will stand by American 

workers and American businesses, support the Jones Acts and the 

related American jobs and U.S. maritime industries and look very 

skeptically upon further waiver requests? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, certainly supporting American jobs is obviously one of our key objectives. And so we are totally committed 

to that. On this particular issue, I was not aware of these particular waivers, but I can assure you that to the extent to which 

I am involved in that discussion—and I am not entirely sure at the 

moment—that we clearly will follow the law and the guidance in 

terms of only emergency waivers of the Jones Act. 

Ms. CASTOR. I appreciate that. And I thought that might be the 

case and just wanted to bring that to your attention at the outset 

of your services, Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. CASTOR. On another topic, as we look at all of the various 

sources of energy, the power of America, it seems like the one big 

area that is out there that is clean, that would save consumers 

money, is in energy efficiency. And I don’t think that we have done 

enough to unlock the power of consumers to implement smart technology to be able to pick up their smartphones and change the 

thermostats to do things on set clock stops on table. I think that 

technology is changing quickly and I think there is significant energy savings. 

It seems like the entire business model for electric utilities is 

outdated now, and we should be looking at incentives for them to 

promote conservation to a greater extent. What are your priorities? 

38 

What do you see in the future? What do you think the Congress 

should be focused on to move in that direction? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. First of all, I think immediately 

after I was sworn in, within 2 hours I was speaking at an efficiency 

meeting, which was symbolic in a certain sense of the very high 

priority. This will be a major focus area. For the Department, there 

are several threads and I would be happy to come and discuss this 

in more detail. 

Of course, one is that the Department does have compliance with 

efficiency standards responsibilities. Frankly, we need to accelerate 

getting a number of those out, which are in various stages of review in the Department and in OMB. 

Number two, I think we need to really advance the enablers, and 

I think you already alluded to it, particularly the integration of information technology, smart grids, controls, sensors, consumer 

choice. So that is second. 

And third, I would say this is very much in the line of the emphasis I want to give to working with States because, for example, 

you mentioned utilities and we need to talk about the utility of the 

future, which is not the same thing as the future of the utility because there may be very many different services involved in the 

utility of the future. But the regulatory structures are very different in different States, and so the programs again cannot be a 

one-size-fits-all. But I think we need to work with the States in 

providing assistance in moving in a direction that you outlined. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to our humble little committee, appreciate you being here today, look forward to lively exchanges with 

you during your tenure. 

This year in December will mark the 60th anniversary of when 

President Eisenhower went before the United Nations and gave his 

very famous ‘‘Atoms for Peace’’ speech. The United States Congress 

the following year took up that concept and passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and declared that we should use atomic energy to 

make the maximum contribution to the general welfare. One of the 

purposes of the Act was to provide for ‘‘a program of international 

cooperation to promote the common defense and security and to 

make available to cooperative nations the benefits of peaceful applications of atomic energy as widely as expanding technology and the 

considerations for the common defense will permit.’’ 

So in light of the challenges that we have in developing domestic 

nuclear energy, would you agree that nuclear exports can help 

maintain a sustainable commercial nuclear infrastructure in the 

United States? 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly, and in addition, support our nonproliferation aims. 

Mr. BURGESS. Correct, which was part of the intent of President 

Eisenhower’s appearance at the United Nations that day. So as a 

committee, can we look forward to you working with us to explore 

and examine ways to increase the United States’ competitiveness 

in the nuclear trade? 

39 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, indeed. And I might add also if I may, sir, 

that Deputy Secretary Poneman has also been very, very committed to this same issue. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. One element of the atomic energy mission involves the Department’s role in the export of nuclear technology. Probably preceding your tenure by just a little bit in March, 

the Committee wrote the Department of Energy for detailed information concerning how the Department implements its nuclear 

technology export reviews. The response from the Department was 

received last week, probably was not adequate, and I think your 

staff is aware of the Committee’s feelings on that. 

So as a committee, can we count on you providing a more robust 

response to our requests on this important issue? 

Secretary MONIZ. I will certainly look into that and get back to 

you, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. I have copies of our original letter and the response, and, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to enter 

these into the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Without objection. 

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

Mr. BURGESS. We will make them available to you before you 

leave today. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. And then one important benefit of increased 

United States nuclear exports is to ensure that the United States’ 

know-how on safety and security is implemented worldwide. Will 

you help us by taking a close look at the Department’s and the National Nuclear Security Agency’s current activity regarding export 

controls to ensure the process continues to work for the benefit of 

the United States? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would be happy to work with you on that. It 

is an important issue, yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I thank you for your responses to those questions. 

I had a question on the actual line item of the budget that we 

received. I guess it was referred to as the highlights. And under 

the section dealing with fossil energy—I apologize for not having 

turned to it earlier so I would have the page number for you—but 

you look down the line. All the numbers are negative in the—oops, 

sorry. That is renewable energy. Let’s just skip ahead, shall we? 

Fossil energy, page 33, if you look at the line items, they are fiscal year 2014 versus fiscal year 2012. For fiscal year 2014 all of the 

numbers are negative and substantially negative, and yet the total 

fossil research energy and development is reported to be plus $83 

million. I guess the line item that confuses me on that page is the 

line that says ‘‘adjustments’’ about halfway in the page under total 

fossil energy, last line item that is entered and there is a line that 

says ‘‘adjustments.’’ Can you tell me what ‘‘adjustments’’ is referring to? Or, if not, can you possibly get back to us and let us know 

what that represents? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think I had better get back to you on that and 

not give an incorrect answer. So we will do that promptly. I do 

want to note that, of course, in addition to what is here, there was 

several billion dollars already put in to the currently going Carbon 

40 

Capture Utilization and Sequestration Demonstration project. So 

that is not captured here in this budget. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. And just to note, I appreciate your comments on the fracking issue, the fact that it can be done environmentally in a safe manner. The United States should be the leader 

in developing that technology, and indeed, we should be exporters 

of that technology to other places in the world. And I thank you 

for that. 

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

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, congratulations. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. It is great to have you here before the Subcommittee. 

I represent a district in New York in the capital region of New 

York, which has incorporated much wind opportunity into the 

State’s supply of energy. Can you give us an overview of what the 

Department of Energy is doing to spur the ongoing development of 

advanced wind energy? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, there are obviously two major directions. 

One is on the technology side. There is, for example, a focus on 

helping simulate the technology for effective use of lower wind 

speeds, which would greatly increase the deployment possibilities. 

And another one is to basically try to drive down the cost of offshore wind, which where, of course, you have a great resource but 

it is a difficult environment to work in. So that is on the technology 

side. 

And the other dimension I would say is some of the loan and assistance projects have helped deploy substantial amounts of wind 

and solar. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And I have had legislation that will deal 

with efficiency in terms of wind turbines and their assembly, how 

they are manufactured, how they are placed in order to get the 

maximum for the investment. 

Not only are we using more and more wind power, I am told we 

are building more of it right here in the U.S. The wind components 

such as turbines and towers, blades, gears are increasingly being 

built by United States’ manufacturers. My understanding is that 

the percentage of wind components that are domestically manufactured has doubled from 35 percent in 2005 to 70 percent today. Do 

you find that accurate? 

Secretary MONIZ. I don’t know the precise numbers but I do 

know the trend is in that way. And by the way, in addition, wind 

I believe was the largest capacity addition over the last year in the 

American system. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And is DOE’s wind program on target to reduce 

the average cost of utility-scale onshore wind power to around 5 

cents a kilowatt hour by, I believe it was the year 2020? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I think. Of course, it depends upon the location, et cetera, but in good wind locations the costs are dropping 

dramatically. Five cents is a very reasonable expectation. Of 

course, there is the other issue up sometimes those good wind locaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
41 

tions are far away from the load center and we have to solve the 

transmission problem. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. And what about the interconnect systems, too, 

because I am told that much of the capacity for wind—especially 

wind, perhaps solar—but we have interconnect situations that are 

still of major concern? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, you mean in terms of the transmission? 

Mr. TONKO. The transmission or the actual technology that needs 

to be perhaps better developed or more high-tech in nature. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am not certain of that, sir, but what is 

an issue potentially is, for example, if you have remote, high-quality wind farms, you might want to go to high voltage direct current 

lines, and for that, technology in terms of the power electronics is 

very important because—— 

Mr. TONKO. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. With D.C. it is the ends that kill 

you. 

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. Now, you somewhat alluded to this, Mr. 

Secretary, in that there are some barriers out there, long distances 

by which to get wind over to the source that is required. What is 

the Department doing to address those barriers to widespread wind 

development? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, on the technology side a key issue 

is large-scale storage. And, for example, the Department supports 

some very interesting work in terms of efficient compressed air 

storage. So if we can have storage that meets the scale of intermittent resources, then you have the opportunity to dispatch it and 

you solve that problem. In the nearer term, until these costs come 

down, I think we have a lot more to do, and NREL in particular 

is looking at the integration of natural gas in renewables. That is 

another way to balance the load-serving function. 

Mr. TONKO. In terms of the storage issue, what are the best 

hopes there for the development of battery types that will store incremental type powers? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, it is not only batteries. I mean, in fact, 

today, if you are in the right place, for example, in the TVA service 

territory, they have some very good pumped hydro as a way of storage. In general, hydro is a very good way of balancing renewables. 

There are more far-out things. ARPA–E funded a so-called liquid 

metal battery, a whole different architecture. There is compressed 

air. There are flywheels. So all of these technologies are being 

pushed. A lot of them are materials problems. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

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

Terry, from the State of Nebraska. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moniz, I appreciate 

you being here. You have an impressive re`sume ́ and you are doing 

a good job today. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRY. I have focused on natural gas as an energy transportation fuel, and I appreciated your comment in your written statement that domestic natural gas production over the past 5 years 

has helped contribute to market-led reductions in carbon dioxide 

42 

emissions, as well as the expansion of manufacturing and associated jobs. We have actually held a hearing that I chair in the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee especially in the 

steel industry the importance of natural gas. And Ed and I are 

going to be doing, I think, next week in other manufacturing areas 

as a combined hearing. So I appreciate your comments and support, particularly for the manufacturing. 

But my questions are going to focus more on the transportation 

side. Would the same hold true if more semis and straight trucks 

and large fleets were to change from diesel or gasoline to natural 

gas? Would we see reductions in CO2 emissions? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. So if we convert gas to liquid fuels, typically, we do not see a reduction. But if we directly use the gas, then 

we can—— 

Mr. TERRY. So you are saying compressed versus liquid would 

have a benefit? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, liquefied natural gas is fine. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. 

Secretary MONIZ. No, but I mean the other direction is to convert 

gas to a liquid fuel to convert it to a liquid fuel. That does not give 

typically any clear benefit. 

Mr. TERRY. Doesn’t it? 

Secretary MONIZ. But CNG or LNG—— 

Mr. TERRY. It would. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Would benefit as long as methane 

leakage is controlled. 

Mr. TERRY. At the pump side or at the side of production as you 

had mentioned with talking about with McNerney? 

Secretary MONIZ. If you use LNG for your Class A truck, you are 

going to have some boil-off, and so the question is how you control 

for safety reasons. And so the question is it is a quantitative issue. 

Mr. TERRY. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. But the potential is there to save carbon. 

Mr. TERRY. That is part of our intent, as well as not importing 

OPEC fuel or oil. So it then concerns me a little bit when I see this 

$17 million set aside for natural gas technologies, and we have 

$356 million in batteries and electric vehicles—is actually 575 million. So there seems to be a real disparity, a gap between natural 

gas technologies and battery technologies, electric vehicles. So the 

first thing that pops into my mind is that is DOE implementing the 

Sierra Club’s Beyond Natural Gas campaign in any way? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, sir. I think the point is that the research 

funding is for technologies of tomorrow. I think in terms of natural 

gas vehicles, you know, the technology is largely here. There is research also in ARPA–E, I believe, in terms of getting new materials 

for better storage tanks so that you can put more in because—— 

Mr. TERRY. So there is DOE funding on the tank side? 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Mr. TERRY. And is that part of the 17 million? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think that may be in ARPA–E but I will get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. I would appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. I will clarify that for you and for me. 

43 

Mr. TERRY. So from the cynical side when we see such a gap between the funding, we are assuming that there is a legitimate, logical conclusion that there is not much interest in natural gas. 

Secretary MONIZ. I think the issues are, for example, if you take 

the LNG trucks, the Class A trucks, and there are trucks out there 

now using LNG. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. In many ways, the issue is the OEMs to try to 

get the capital cost difference. A Class A truck capital cost—— 

Mr. TERRY. Oh, no, I am well aware of the cost and that is one 

of the barriers is—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, and then it is the infrastructure. 

Mr. TERRY. And that is coming despite our best efforts. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, the open road use is very difficult, but I 

think the market is going to be station-to-station. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, and I have so many other questions on that, but 

in the last 8 seconds, have you formed a position on Keystone pipeline in regard to your position from DOE? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is a Department of State decision—— 

Mr. TERRY. Well, other agencies have input and DOE will be one 

of them. 

Secretary MONIZ. We will make input certainly in technical analysis but the decision is in Secretary Kerry’s hands. 

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

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. I think for my colleague from Nebraska I think the 

Secretary has enough on his plate to pick a fight, but I appreciate 

you. 

And congratulations, Mr. Secretary, again. And I know we have 

met before. And in Texas they would say you know where I come 

from, but you know the area I represent, and I appreciate and look 

forward to working with you. 

I would ask you some questions about LNG exports but our Natural Gas Caucus is actually holding a briefing now with Chris 

Smith, a bipartisan briefing, so I think that will handle a lot of the 

questions I have. 

Let me talk about something that has come up over the years. 

Carbon capture and storage is consistently discussed in context 

that it is used possibly as carbon control technology under EPA 

rules on utilities and refiners. The problem is it is still too expensive commercially to be used, and I ask DOE this question every 

budget hearing so I could continue to monitor the progress. Can 

you please describe current DOE CCS activities? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Well, we have about a half-dozen now 

major projects going forward, some are power plants, some are industrial facilities, for example, a large ethanol plant of Archer Daniels Midland plant. And I think the majority of them actually also 

is what is called CCUS—utilization and sequestration—specifically 

using it for enhanced oil recovery. 

So today, I think a story not well known is that today we are 

using about 60 million tons per year of CO2 to produce 300,000 barrels a day of oil from enhanced recovery, and a Department of EnVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
44 

ergy study a few years ago estimated that could go up by a factor 

of 10. So 3 million barrels a day is getting pretty serious. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. And to do that—— 

Mr. GREEN. That is two more than we would ever get from Keystone pipeline. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. And to do that we would need to use CO2

from power plants or industrial facilities. There is not enough natural CO2 for that scale. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. And is there any idea when CCS may be commercially viable? I know these plants wouldn’t be there where they 

are now without the assistance of the Department of Energy. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. I think this is the case where government funding is the only way to get to the demonstration phase. 

The goal is to demonstrate it at the level where the regulatory requirements can be settled such that the private sector knows what 

the game is. But, of course, that will only come as well when carbon emissions are being limited and/or we have enough use of the 

CO2 like enhanced oil recovery or other applications. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. OK. I am a strong supporter of smart grid technology and I noticed that the Administration is recommending a 

37.9 percent decrease in smart grid funding. Is that because we are 

moving these activities elsewhere or are they truly reducing the activities for smart grid? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, our intention is to increase the focus on 

smart grids, so I will clarify, Mr. Green, that budget issue for you. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In the President’s budget for fiscal year 2014, 

the budget request for ARPA–E is 379 million, an increase of 38 

percent above enacted levels. He mentioned one of the strategic 

areas that funding will go toward is providing greater reliability 

and security in delivery of electricity. Electric reliability is a priority of mine and I am wondering if you could elaborate on some 

of the projects or what projects are going on within the space? 

Secretary MONIZ. There is a whole bunch of projects; some of 

them are very much in the technology development area. I mentioned earlier power electronics. That is a new focus area which is 

a critical component of that. Another different cut on it is of course 

cyber security. You can’t forget cyber security very long when you 

are talking about the grid and the smart grid—— 

Mr. GREEN. And reliability. I understand. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that is a huge focus. Another area is the 

proposed race to the top, which is for both energy efficiency and 

grids. We are—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. I only have about 19 seconds. Do you have flexibility with current revenue funds for that race to the top? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, that is a proposal to the Congress in the 

fiscal year 2014 budget. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. But you don’t have the current funds? You can’t 

put current funds toward this and this would not happen without 

those additional funds? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

45 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for being with us today. 

It is good to have you before us. 

And I think you have heard a wide range of questions from members on both sides of the aisle. And, if I could, maybe just to kind 

of reiterate a little bit here, just kind of give you a background. 

I think that we talk a lot about all-of-the-above energy policy, 

and I know it was in 2008 that Republicans put forward our plan 

for an all-of-the-above energy policy, and that is really going 

through, you know, everything that we have today you have been 

hearing from nuclear to clean coal to oil to natural gas to hydro 

and all of the alternatives. We want to make sure that those are 

being used. 

And at the same time, I look at my district. I represent a manufacturing district with 60,000 jobs. I also represent the largest ag 

district in the State of Ohio. And so it comes down to we use a lot 

of energy in my neck of the woods. And so when we use energy, 

we talk about baseload capacity because when those factories are 

running three shifts a day, they have got to make sure that they 

have that energy straight through the day. And at the same time, 

to get that energy, we have to make sure that we have that ability. 

On the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal we had the report showing that we have about a million barrels more of oil being 

produced in this country every day, which is very, very important 

because again we want to get our reliance off of foreign countries. 

And I think the last number I saw we were importing about 43 

percent of the oil that we are using every day into the country. 

So, when you look at what is happening out there and it is great 

that what we are doing in production here in the United States, 

and I think that Dr. Burgess had asked a little bit about it, but 

really what has really helped us get there is on the whole the 

means that we are using to bring this oil and natural gas up. And 

it is a known technology which is fracking. 

And there are reports from several weeks back of OPEC countries that some of them are getting into a panic and they are saying it is all because of fracking that is going on in the United 

States that is bringing up our ability to bring up this oil and to 

really get this into the United States market. Can I just ask you 

again, what is your stand on fracking? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am not sure it is a stand, but what my 

view is that, as we have said, that I would say all of the environmental issues that have arisen I believe are manageable. I think 

we know what to do. They may be challenging in some cases but 

we know what to do; the issue is doing it. And there, of course, has 

not been—we have had obviously incidents. 

As an example, the biggest problem in terms of the number of 

incidents has been, frankly, just poor well completion, bad cement 

jobs. You know, again, you would know what to do in principle but 

you just have got to have best practices done all the time. Another 

example which is slightly more challenging to address but again I 

think we know what to do is methane emissions. 

Now, we are moving more than half I believe now of the frack 

jobs are so-called green completions where the methane is captured 

and is for economic benefit. In fact, if I may just add one more, just 

46 

this morning I was speaking with someone from a company where 

it is interesting. They are capturing the methane in the frack job 

not using 30,000 horsepower diesel engines anymore to drive the 

hydraulic fracturing but using gas-fired engines. And that then in 

turn is greatly improving air quality issues by displacing the diesels. So I think there are solutions there; we just have to make 

sure we are using them. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. In my last 40 seconds here, another issue that 

is a real concern out there is on cyber security. And I know I have 

had several events in my district on cyber security, and it is a big 

issue out there. But one of the questions is that, when we are looking at really protecting the grid out there, can you justify right now 

when I am looking at your budget numbers here that the cyber security for the electric grid would be only about 38 million is what 

your department is asking for? And shouldn’t there be more dollars 

out there to make sure that the grid is protected? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the cyber security activity in the budget 

actually appears in many different places in the Department, and 

I have pulled together a council bringing together the various entities. So the Office of Electricity has a cyber security budget. The 

Office of Intelligence; the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, has a big program on cyber security. And I am forgetting one. Oh, and the CIO of course is heavily involved. 

So what we are trying to do is to make sure we bring all of these 

assets together to look at everything from grid reliability and resilience to frankly protecting our own national security secrets. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I recognize Ms. Matsui of California 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Moniz, for joining us today. And I congratulate you on your new position. 

I appreciate the Department of Energy’s continued commitment 

to clean energy technology, energy efficiency, and the reduction of 

carbon emissions. 

The American manufacturing sector has an essential role when 

it comes to U.S. competitiveness. It accounts for 12 percent of GDP, 

70 percent of private sector R&D investment, and 60 percent of exports. And the manufacturing sector added a half-a-million jobs in 

the past 3 years. The President has emphasized the importance of 

investing in American manufacturing to build on this momentum. 

My district of Sacramento boasts nearly 14,000 clean energy, 

clean technology jobs and more than 230 clean technology firms. I 

am keenly interested in advancing our clean energy manufacturing 

sector and have introduced legislation that would assist these companies in exporting these products abroad, thus allowing them to 

create jobs and better compete in the global market. 

Mr. Secretary, the Energy Department’s Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative is focused on improving the manufacturing of 

clean energy products and increasing manufacturing energy productivity more broadly. Why is this initiative important and what 

benefits are we going to see? 

47 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the initiative is important, frankly, for the reasons that you have already stated, that this is the 

way of getting the next cutting-edge technologies moved into the 

manufacturing environment in this country so we can capture 

those immediate jobs. But then, we should not forget the spillover 

in the sense of capturing important parts of the supply chain, that 

supply chains like to go together, and so you have a multiplier effect. 

The project in Youngstown, Ohio, for example, on the 3–D manufacturing—or additive manufacturing sometimes it is called—is a 

good example. This is a technology that is already penetrating the 

manufacturing sphere but it is only just kind of a toe in the water. 

So that is a place where we have got to put that into our manufacturing environment quite solidly. The next one will be on some 

semiconductors. That is out there right now. 

So again, I think we really need to think about in the end we 

need to capture the high-margin parts of the supply chains of clean 

technologies. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. This market is going to be worth trillions of 

dollars in the next decade. What needs to happen for the United 

States to lead in this market? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think much of this will happen in the 

private sector, but I think the Federal Government does have a 

role, as we just described. This is a good example in the manufacturing initiative. But I would go back to what may be even more 

important and that is developing our human capital. I mean this 

is absolutely essential and, in fact, one of the things that I would 

like to perhaps at some point—and I think about it more—talk 

with members of this committee and others in the Congress is I 

think at the Department of Energy we should maybe think about 

doing traineeships that focus right in on the key parts of energy 

technologies, energy activities where perhaps we are not producing 

enough young people, and to go back to Congressman Rush’s point 

in making sure we are drawing upon the entire range of our 

human capital. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Well, that is good. 

First of all, I want to talk a little bit about ARPA–E. Can you 

tell us about the work ARPA–E is doing to invest in potentially 

breakthrough technologies and attract private capital support to 

the development of these technologies? 

Secretary MONIZ. ARPA–E is, I think, was a wonderful initiative. 

And I really credit Secretary Chu for pushing that both before he 

was Secretary in a report of the National Academy and then as 

Secretary. I think ARPA–E, in many ways, I think it is the face 

of innovation for the Department of Energy. It does business in a 

different way. It is targeting specific areas. 

For example, going forward, there will be a much bigger focus on 

advanced transportation options coming forward and soliciting 

ideas that sometimes are a little bit out there, pretty risky. I think, 

you know, we will have to judge ultimately 7 years down the road 

whether these technologies scale up to be major marketplace players. But every indicator is extremely encouraging, certainly, lots of 

lots of patents, disclosures, startup companies coming out of it. 

48 

I will note we shouldn’t forget I think if you go back to the very 

first request for proposals or concept papers, there were more than 

3,000 concept papers put in for 37 awards. I do not think we are 

tapping our full capacity to innovate in this country. We need to 

do more of it. 

Ms. MATSUI. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time, recognize Mr. McKinley from West Virginia for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, earlier in the remarks, Chairman Whitfield noted 

about your predecessor and his aversion to fossil fuels, very clear, 

and he made that throughout the 4 years he was there making 

that clear with that. It manifested itself in the budget with increasing money is being spent on renewable energy sources, on R&D, 

but it decreased in fossil energy R&D. So I have got a chart that 

shows that what happened in the time preceding his administration and then in the last; you see the direction we have gone and 

in fossil fuel research. 

So I am just concerned with that, not only the direction but also 

because I found that I am trying to reconcile the information that 

your office up here only had provided from your predecessor, and 

that was over the $421 million, as indicated there at the end. It 

says that is a 24.8 percent increase. Mr. Secretary, just saying so 

doesn’t mean it, so I am trying to understand if your office would 

get back to me to explain why they think that is a 24 percent increase when in reality you can see that it is a fairly significant decrease in funding for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

I am sure that Mr. Doyle, Murphy, and all of those of us that have 

an interest in those facilities that we don’t see that money cut any 

further. 

So my point here with this a little bit is that during your Senate 

confirmation there were statements to that effect and newspaper 

articles how you are supporting the CCS research and R&D, and 

I applaud you for that because we need to have that. I am a little 

concerned whether you will be able to carry that out if we continue 

to have a lessening amount of money in R&D with NETL. 

So the question that I would ask is do you support or are you 

supporting the President’s proposed decrease in funding for NETL 

or will you make an effort to alter or work with us to alter it so 

that we can get that money back up to a more reasonable level? 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, I think there is again—I think not 

shown on this graph is the $3 plus billion of Recovery Act funding 

that has already been put out there for the CCS projects. So that 

is—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. This all came from the Congressional Research 

Service. 

Secretary MONIZ. But I think that is separate. But I think we 

need to look at the whole picture. The other thing—and I just don’t 

know from this picture—NETL also receives $12 1⁄2 million a year 

for research from the Royalty Trust Fund. Now, I think the bottom 

line is, however, frankly, back in 1999 we were part of forming 

NETL from the previous FETC—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

49 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. And I think that NETL is our lead 

laboratory for fossil energy research—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. And I have worked with—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If I could—and I appreciate you—we are going 

to have more of a discussion, but there were some other remarks 

earlier, and I want to maybe parse the words a little bit. You said 

that it is indisputable that there is global temperature change. I 

don’t know too many of us who disagree that there has been some 

global temperature change, but my question, do you agree with 

Congressman Waxman that it is primarily manmade? Or is it natural and cyclical? 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe in my view there is no question that 

a major component is anthropogenic. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Interesting. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that comes from—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is that from a consensus? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is practically—I would say 98 percent of scientists involved in this area—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. You are aware of the petition process has 32,000 

scientists and physicists who have disagreed that it is manmade? 

Secretary MONIZ. But sir—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. They say it is contributing. I think it would be 

irresponsible to say we don’t contribute, but is it primarily—— 

Secretary MONIZ. If I may say, and I would be happy to come and 

have a long discussion, but a few facts that, first of all, the rise in 

CO2 emissions in the last half-century is clearly tracked to our 

global increased energy use. Secondly, I know how to count. I can 

count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion, and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the 

atmosphere. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let me just close with saying in terms of consensus, I think consensus has a place in politics but consensus 

doesn’t have a place in science. 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, sir, I just want to clarify. My—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I yield back my time. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Judgment is based on numbers on 

data and not on the consensus. And I would be really delighted if 

we could have a discussion. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If we could have that, I would like to do it. 

Thank you very much. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

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

The chair recognizes the member from Virgin Islands, Ms. 

Christensen, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Secretary Moniz, and thank you for your testimony 

and we look forward to working with you to implement your and 

the President’s agenda for the Department and the country. 

Some of my questions have been answered. I had some questions 

around weatherization because it is such an important program. It 

has helped low-income families for over 30 years now. And in 2012 

the funding was at a historic low but the President’s request for 

2014 really aims to ensure that the program can continue proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
50 

viding these important services. And that would be especially important for every place in the United States but in my district 

where we face energy costs of over five times the national average. 

You talked a bit about including job training. Is that included in 

the President’s budgetary increase or is that something that you 

are looking forward to doing? Because I think that is very important as well as, you know—— 

Secretary MONIZ. This traineeship idea is one that I would like 

to start to work to develop. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. And in determining the funding that 

goes to the States and the territories—I represent the Virgin Islands, so I am a territory—you generally have a formula, but is the 

funding level ever influenced by need or is it just a straight formula? And you may not know that at this point. 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe that at the moment we are locked into 

kind of a formula, but as you said, also in the weatherization case, 

what was—— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It is the weatherization I am talking about. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, in weatherization it is absolutely critical 

if a Continuing Resolution would have that funded at 70 million. 

It got so low because of the Recovery Act funding but it has to now 

come back up. And the request is for 184 in fiscal year 2014. At 

70 million we could not sustain the program nationally. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. And I am asking because we have a letter into your office requesting an increase even just for a couple of 

years because of our high energy costs. 

And then the other question I had has to do with solar programs, 

and as you have said already, DOE is conducting a range of research development and demonstration and deployment activities 

for renewable sources, and could you tell us about the SunShot Initiative? Did you speak about that already? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, no, I have not. So the SunShot Initiative 

we feel very good about in terms of where it is going. It is about 

driving down the cost of solar, and it is happening. The solar costs 

have dropped incredibly. Solar module cost is now somewhere 

around $1 per watt, and it wasn’t long ago that that was $2.50. So 

we are getting into a very interesting area. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. You have a very ambitious goal of dropping 

to 6 cents per kilowatt by the end of the decade. You think you are 

on track for that? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we are on the technology. Then the 

question is to get that, there will be a lot of requirements as well 

in terms of local regulations, how you install systems because installation costs are now getting to be larger than the solar technology cost itself. 

And I might say, you know, in Germany, for example, their installation costs are about 40 percent of our costs through some uniform standards. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have been interested in OTEC for quite a 

while. Is the Department investing in research of that particular 

technology, the ocean thermal—— 

Secretary MONIZ. To be honest, I am not sure where the Department stands right now on that program. 

51 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have not noticed or seen anywhere where 

there is a lot of activity but, you know, for a place like ours, small 

islands surrounded by ocean—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. Some deep water that can accommodate it, it would just seem like a renewable energy that we 

ought to pursue. And, you know, I hope that in your tenure you 

will take a look at it. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. I will. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. KINZINGER. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. The Department of Energy is fortunate to have somebody with your technical and scientific expertise. Personally, I am excited to see the direction you 

take regarding nuclear policy considering your background. As we 

are all aware, your time is short in office but the course that you 

take now has the potential to steer the Department for years and 

decades to come. I hope you choose nuclear policy as one of your 

priorities. 

I am concerned with the current direction of our nuclear energy 

policy as nuclear is a reliable and clean source of massive amounts 

of energy both domestically and through the world. In fact, in Illinois 50 percent of our energy is from nuclear. With our infrastructure and experience, the U.S. should be the leader in the realm of 

nuclear know-how and operation, but our current nuclear energy 

strategy is unstructured and without clear goals. This lack of direction leaves our scientists and labs vulnerable when appropriators 

are looking for areas to cut. 

With the closure of a number of nuclear plants in just the past 

few months alone, I am afraid the U.S. is going to see a vacuum 

of nuclear energy experts in the very near future, and as those individuals and their knowledge are snatched up by foreign competitors, there is no getting them back. 

An effective nuclear energy policy should look to use the best resources available to us in order to lead the world in this area. In 

your written testimony, you mentioned that our national labs have 

unique capabilities and expertise to provide technical assistance. I 

was happy to read this, as I also believe that our national labs 

such as Argonne National Lab in my home State of Illinois can 

play a key role in devising an enhanced nuclear energy security 

strategy. Collaborative partnerships among our national laboratories to develop such a strategy are going to be key to U.S. nuclear 

energy leadership in the future, and I hope that you will look towards developing the unique capabilities of those labs as you look 

to improve innovation and effectiveness of the Department of Energy’s energy programs. 

Just a few questions: A number of DOE national labs, Idaho, 

Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Argonne—have begun talks with one 

another in order to gain full advantage of their collective expertise 

in nuclear energy. Do you have any plans or what are your plans 

to help with this collaborative process moving forward in order to 

get the most of what each of them has to offer? 

52 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. First, more generally than nuclear 

energy specifically, I have met already with all the lab directors. 

We met down in Oak Ridge actually in my first week in office basically. And so I am working with them to engage the laboratory 

leadership much more what I would call in a strategic partnership 

for the Department as to where we are going. The phrase I would 

use is if you want people there on the landing, you should have 

them there on the takeoff. And so we are working to try to talk 

about what are the strategic technology directions that we are 

going. 

Among those is clearly nuclear, and you have named to the labs 

that are leading it. Actually, others; Los Alamos also contributes, 

but clearly, Idaho and Argonne historically and Oak Ridge were 

probably the three largest. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And what are your goals for the growth of nuclear energy overall and how do you believe the budget put forward 

by your agency can successfully accomplish all of those goals? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think in my view the way I have always 

looked at it is our job is to make sure the marketplace in the end 

has the choices that it needs. Among those choices should be nuclear power. I think now there are several issues. I mean one is, 

as you know—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I have got a couple more so I will just cut you 

off if that is OK. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, sure. Sure, sure. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. We have done high-level comparisons with this 

Administration’s budget proposal for the Office of Nuclear Energy. 

What we found is a decline since 2010 of actually almost 28 percent. What is a little more striking is that during that time DOE 

moved some additional line items into the nuclear energy budget 

that seem to mask even a sharper decline. Given the environmental benefits of nuclear energy and its contribution to energy security do you think such a decline is appropriate or could it cause 

any problems? And will you commit to examine this apparent decline knowing that you are new in this position and respond to this 

committee with a full explanation of it? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would be happy to, and I have spoken with 

Pete Lyons. I am committed to maintaining a healthy nuclear energy program. SMRs are an important direction, for example. Also, 

we should note there is the commitment at least made on the very, 

very large loan guarantee to help stimulate the construction of reactors in Georgia. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Wonderful. Thank you and I yield back. 

And the chair recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome back for your inaugural visit in a different capacity, but we are happy you are here and we look forward 

to working with you. I just want to get some clarity to some of the 

remarks that my friend Mr. McKinley made on CCS. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget request for research related to CCS is 376.6 million, which is a decrease of 23 percent 

below the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. Now, I heard you make 

mention of stimulus money, some $3 billion, and I am curious. That 

53 

is back in, what, 2009? How much of that $3 billion has yet to be 

spent or is currently being—you know, is that $3 billion gone? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, it is not. I can’t give you the exact number. 

I can get it later on. But in some cases much of the funding has 

been expended. As an example, the industrial project which I believe is in Illinois is well along. On the other hand, another project 

in Illinois actually, I think the FutureGen, is still in the second 

phase prior to the major construction, and they are, to be honest— 

and it is well known that we need to pick up the pace in order to 

have those funds expended prior to the end date for recovery funds. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I would be curious to see how much still exists 

in the 3 billion. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. DOYLE. The other thing I am just curious about when you 

look at the subprograms within CCS, in the carbon capture part of 

this subprogram there is an increase of 62 percent in that budget 

from fiscal year 2013, but in the storage subprogram, that has been 

decreased, almost been cut in half. I am just curious why the increase in the money is going into capture and then a decrease in 

funding on the storage end? What is all of that? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think the reason is that—I think I like to just 

think about it as these two fundamental problems. One is we need 

to demonstrate the storage with substantial injections over an extended period of time. That is what those recovery-funded projects 

are going to do using conventional capture technology. But for 

power plants in the long-term, the big cost driver is the capture 

technology. So the research is looking at the cost reduction of new 

capture technologies while the big demonstration projects will address the storage side. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, over the past 10 years, my colleagues and I have 

been championing efforts to support the development and commercialization of fuel cell technologies to promote our U.S. energy independence. And in particular, I am deeply committed to promoting 

the success of the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance, SECA, 

under your fossil energy section. 

SECA is a successful partnership, as you know, between the government, academia, industry, and the national labs in developing 

solid oxide fuel cells that are capable of cleanly and efficiently utilizing our domestic energy resources, most notably natural gas, in 

the coming years. In fact, SECA has met or exceeded every benchmark that has been set for it by Congress and the DOE. 

Now, you have spoken of the importance of natural gas as a 

bridge to a cleaner energy future. Solid oxide fuel cells such as 

those under development in SECA are the cleanest, most efficient 

way to use natural gas, as well as a range of domestic energy 

sources. So in light of your support for natural gas, what are your 

plans for ensuring the continued success of the SECA program to 

ensure we develop technologies that make the most efficient use of 

that fuel? 

Secretary MONIZ. To be honest, I will have to go and look at that 

in detail, but I can make a few comments because I have not been 

briefed on this to be honest in the last 3 weeks. But one, I do know 

that certain costs have come down, perhaps partly through SECA, 

54 

I mean, 35 percent kind of cost reductions in the last few years. 

And secondly, I think also solid oxide fuel cells could be very interesting for combining power applications because of their higher 

temperatures. So I will look into that and get back to you on the 

specifics. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wish you well and I look 

forward to working with you. I yield back. 

Secretary MONIZ. I do as well. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Sorry. I was thinking about something else there 

for a moment. Your comments are so insightful that it makes me 

think about other things. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Olson of Texas, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. 

And welcome to Secretary Moniz. Congratulations on your nomination by the President to be the 13th Secretary of Energy and by 

being confirmed by the Senate with an impressive 97-to-nothing 

vote. 

Mr. Secretary, my home State of Texas is the fastest-growing 

State in the Union. Texans want to sustain that growth and they 

know that one of our challenges is reliable power being available. 

Federal and state regulators agree that we could see a crisis on our 

grid if we have another hot summer like the August 2011. 

One of the most significant areas of fossil fuel research in the 

DOE’s budget is carbon capture and sequestration. And since I 

gathered this information on sequestration at MIT.edu, I assume 

you are aware of a DOE-supported—I guess you would call it— 

CCUS project at the W.A. Parish power plant outside of Needville, 

Texas, in my district. The goal of this project is to decrease CO2

emissions by 90 percent with appropriate reductions in SOx, NOx, and mercury emissions. The captured CO2 will be used for enhanced oil recovery operations in nearby old oil fields. 

DOE issued its final EIS on March 15 of this year with the finding of negligible to minor environmental impacts. The W.A. Parish 

plant is leading the CCUS research but they will tell you, like you 

said here, CCUS is not ready for prime time. 

Well, let me step back. CCUS is not realistic for many power 

plants. We are unique because we are so close to a former oil field. 

Unfortunately, EPA is not waiting for DOE to do the research and 

the proposed regulations that essentially mandate the use of 

unproven CCUS technologies on any new coal-fired power plant. 

My State needs power but the EPA is effectively banning a major 

source of new generation by requiring unproven technology in our 

power plants. In a sense, W.A. Parish has committed to invest $163 

million in this project. Will you commit to work with them to see 

that their unique circumstances for CCUS are economically viable 

from a market perspective? 

Secretary MONIZ. I should be happy to be briefed by them and 

to discuss with them, yes. 

Mr. OLSON. And help them get EPA out of the way? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think that we will have to see what the 

situation is. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. I appreciate your commitment. 

55 

And as you know, another tool you have to help my home State 

avoid blackouts is Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. Under 

Section 202(c) DOE has the authority to order a power plant to run 

during an emergency even if that would cause a brief violation of 

environmental laws. 

Unfortunately, EPA environmental groups have usurped DOE’s 

202(c) of authority by bringing lawsuits which have resulted with 

power plant owners paying fines for complying with DOE regulations and orders. Two weeks ago, the House passed my bill, H.R. 

271 to prevent this regulatory trap. The last Congress it was favorably discussed by the FERC commissioners and your predecessor 

Secretary Chu. 

The Senate has yet to take up the bill, so I am going to go Texan 

and shoot straight. Do you support my bill, H.R. 271? 

Secretary MONIZ. Sir, I will have to study it first but it sounds 

like an issue I should get up to speed on. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

And finally, your department has some critical decisions ahead 

of it on LNG exports. My support for LNG exports comes from a 

strong belief in free markets and my State’s booming energy production. But most importantly, LNG exports can sustain our national security, strengthen it, by developing relationships with 

countries that are important to the United States of America. 

One of those countries is India. There is a vibrant Indo-American 

community in my district. Our relationship with India is key and 

our Indian allies can either buy gas from us or by gas from nations 

like Iran. 

My first question—and I am running out of time here—is do you 

support energy exports? Yes or no? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I will be evaluating the export applications on a case-by-case basis expeditiously. I might also add I 

will be in India in two weeks. 

Mr. OLSON. Great. Great. Bring this up. They will bring it up 

with you; I can guarantee you. I am out of my time. Thank you. 

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

recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Following up on LNG, multiple studies of LNG exports have pointed 

out that the U.S. projects are in a race to meet worldwide demand 

for LNG with international projects all around the world. Do you 

agree the delays in the DOE permitting process are putting U.S. 

export projects at a disadvantage compared to competing projects 

in the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I am not sure I characterized delays. I 

mean I am starting my own process now—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, sir. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Expeditiously, but I do want to 

point out the pitfalls of litigation, et cetera, are there so we have 

to do it right. So I want to be very, very systematic, transparent, 

and march through these as expeditiously as I can. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I would also be remiss being a representative 

from Virginia—even though I am a long way from the shore—that 

Virginia believes that we have a lot of natural gas offshore, and we 

would love to be able to get to that and any oil that might be out 

56 

there as well. And that has been the policy of at least the House 

of Delegates in Virginia since 2004 when I was there and has been 

the policy of the State as a whole, I think, for about the last 45 

years. But if you could expedite that, that would be great. We are 

ready to get started. 

Secretary MONIZ. It is not in my lane. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I understand. I will tell you that it is interesting 

when you study all of these issues and you look at the environment 

and you look at ways and problems and things that we have to 

move forward on. And it is one of those things that I have always 

loved is that in the 1890s the major cities of the world, particularly 

northeastern United States and some others, were very concerned 

about the environmental problem that they were having with dealing with the dead horses. And through technology, we were able to 

move forward without having that problem. They worried about 

having to deal with manure as high as 30-story buildings and the 

environmental impact of not being able to get the decaying horse 

carcasses out of the streets in a timely fashion when the population 

rose and they were looking at projections out to 1930 and 1950. 

That being said, you were, I believe, the cochairman of a group 

at MIT that did a report in 2007 on the future of coal. And while 

there are a number of difficulties that people look at with coal, 

there is also some really interesting technological advances that 

are moving forward. And so I would ask why, when we look at the 

budget, do we not see more money being spent on looking at some 

of these technological advances that have come forward? 

And I would point to a number of things. One of the things that 

was mentioned there is chemical looping and that was mentioned 

in that report. And now, it appears that an Ohio State University 

professor, whose first name I am not familiar with how to pronounce but his last name is easy, I think, Fan, has come up with 

a way to use coal. Obviously, it is in the preliminary stages but to 

burn or to get the energy out of coal with virtually no pollutants. 

A little coal ash leftover is about it. And he is now taking that or 

they are taking that to Alabama and DOE has some money in that. 

But I am wondering why, when we look at reports—and I am 

looking at one of the charts that we were provided, budget for Applied Energy, I am wondering why we don’t have more money 

going into projects like that to see if we can’t make this technologically feasible since we are in fact in the United States, the 

kings of coal throughout the world? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I will repeat but not go into detail 

there is of course the huge amount of money sitting there in advancing the CCS projects, some of which are also advancing the 

technologies along the lines you are saying. For example, one of the 

projects is a so-called oxy combustion project as opposed to a conventional boiler, et cetera. The chemical looping, very interesting. 

As was already said, we do have an increased focus on carbon 

capture technologies and also advanced materials, very important 

for—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I think that means that we can count on you to 

embrace, develop, and ensure the success of these types of programs for transformational coal technologies. All right. And I just 

have a few seconds left but I would ask that you continue to work 

57 

in those directions and do fund I believe it is the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory that has been working with the Ohio State 

project even though they have got $5 million. It was 15 years in 

the development. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But I do have to say when I look at this chart and 

I see, you know, biomass and bio refineries ahead of coal, I am disturbed by that because I really believe that with our great resource 

out there of coal that finding a way to make everybody happy and 

burning it and giving jobs back to the 9th District that had been 

stripped away over the last few years is extremely important, and 

I would encourage you to continue to pursue that and count on me 

in any way that I can be helpful in moving those projects forward. 

Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I don’t know. You may need 

a little more time to answer this question; I am not sure yet. But 

one of the issues that I hope that you would be able to address is 

the building of transmission lines to help get power to and from 

rural areas. My district in Colorado is the size of the State of South 

Carolina. In fact, it is a little bit bigger than the State of South 

Carolina. And there have been significant issues with the building 

of transmission lines on federal lands. Are you aware, and if so, 

what is your view of the Interagency Rapid Response Team which 

is housed in your agency? 

Secretary MONIZ. You are right; I will have to get back to you 

on that. 

Mr. GARDNER. All right. So I would like to ask a series of questions—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. GARDNER [continuing]. If you don’t mind on the Interagency 

Rapid Response Team and just perhaps get some examples of successes they have had, some measurements that you are using to 

define or determine success. And perhaps if you could get back 

with us on specific results of the RRT’s efforts to this point so far 

and a discussion of the process the RRT uses, recommendations for 

improving its effectiveness, and plans for how to implement those 

recommendations going forward. It is very important, I think, to 

the development of renewable energy in Colorado and opportunities 

that we have on federal lands and resources. 

In your testimony you cited that the President’s budget increased 

investment for Department of Energy efficiency measures. You also 

state that you are instituting energy efficiency measures that reduce energy use in federal agencies and the industrial and building 

sectors. I was interested in your Department’s promotion of energy 

savings performance contracts. As you know, the President wrote 

a memorandum to federal departments and agencies on improving 

energy efficiency in our federal building inventory December 2011. 

It is a program where private companies take the risk on the upVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:51 Jan 15, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-53 CHRIS
58 

grading of federal buildings at no cost to the taxpayer. Can you 

provide an update of the use of ESPCs by the Department of Energy? And you can get back to us if you would like. 

Secretary MONIZ. Sure. And I can’t note also now, well, first of 

all, that I am a big fan of ESPCs. Number two, right now, the commitments are approaching $600 million against the $2 billion target. 

Mr. GARDNER. The overall target, right? 

Secretary MONIZ. The overall target. And I have to admit the end 

of this year is going to be pretty tight but I think that the pipeline 

that is in there will hit the $2 billion target in maybe a year or 

two later. 

Mr. GARDNER. And I just would like to note that one of my colleagues on this committee, Peter Welch from Vermont, and I are 

going to be working on legislation that will encourage even more 

utilization of ESPCs and hope that we could work together on the 

use of ESPCs. 

Secretary MONIZ. In general in the whole efficiency agenda is one 

I would love to work with you on. 

Mr. GARDNER. Very good. And are you consulting the President 

on the Keystone XL pipeline? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I am not. 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you think you should be consulting with the 

President as Department of Energy Secretary? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the Department is prepared, of 

course, to provide technical analysis. Of course, the EPA is involved 

in terms of the environmental statements. And then Secretary 

Kerry, I think, is the lead—— 

Mr. GARDNER. But so far you haven’t consulted with the White 

House or the Department of State on the Keystone pipeline? 

Secretary MONIZ. To date I have personally not. Of course, Secretary Chu may have. 

Mr. GARDNER. And what is your opinion of the Keystone XL pipeline? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think that it is a decision for Secretary Kerry. 

Mr. GARDNER. Well, what would your advice be to Secretary 

Kerry? 

Secretary MONIZ. To evaluate all the factors in the public interest. 

Mr. GARDNER. Very good. So no answers on that. That is quite 

all right for the time being. 

The Americans against Fracking opposed your nomination. 

Secretary MONIZ. Say that again? 

Mr. GARDNER. Americans against Fracking opposed your nomination because you had stated earlier today your position on fracking. 

Would you agree with both previous Administrator Lisa Jackson, 

as well as Governor Hickenlooper in Colorado, who have said that 

they are not aware of any proven case where the fracking itself has 

affected water? 

Secretary MONIZ. That is true to my knowledge as well. 

Mr. GARDNER. And what did you say or your response to Americans against Fracking in your support of hydraulic fracturing? 

What did you respond to them? 

59 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, actually, I did not respond. I have a public record in terms of what I think. I have repeated that here today 

and that remains my position. Manageable, challenging, must be 

managed. 

Mr. GARDNER. You know, city did a report talking about energy 

independence, North American energy independence is a real possibility of the American energy renaissance in this Nation. Can we 

get to energy independence and continue the energy renaissance in 

this country without hydraulic fracturing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that is a difficult question. I mean I think 

certainly given all of our assets, particularly in North America, 

there really is a chance that we could be that independent. It 

doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be exporting and importing but—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Right, but can we do it without—— 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. And have as many BTUs as we 

do—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Can we do it without hydraulic fracturing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, today, obviously, it is a huge contributor 

for both oil and gas. So—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So the answer is no, we could not do it without—— 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I have a harder time seeing it clearly without that. But, you know, we are going to be moving, I think, increasingly to alternative technologies as well, so I can’t rule it out. 

But clearly, if you look at—— 

Mr. GARDNER. But hydraulic fracturing is a critical part of our 

energy—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Today, it is absolutely critical. Sure, we would 

not have the increased oil and gas production without it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman time is expired. At this time I 

will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important committee and for allowing me to participate. 

And, Mr. Secretary, congratulations to you for your appointment 

and confirmation to what I believe is one of the most important 

Cabinet positions in the Nation right now. 

As you may know, my colleague from Ohio, Tim Ryan, and I 

have formed a bipartisan LNG Export Working Group along with 

six Republicans and Democrats. It is a bipartisan group. And a 

number of them are on this committee and have already participated in this hearing today. I am going to stay on a subject that 

is familiar, LNG exports for a minute or two. 

You know, we did not expect you to be sworn into your new job 

and start approving pending applications to export to non-Free 

Trade Agreement countries overnight. Many in Congress, however, 

believe that the time for review has passed. You have commented 

just a few minutes ago in your questions that, I think if I understood you right, you said you couldn’t comment on the delays or 

what the delays were. But I can tell you that almost all of the applications have been pending for over 100 days, and at least one 

of them has been pending for almost 800 days. The studies have 

been done. 

60 

So my question to you—and I appreciate and I am encouraged 

that you have said you are going to be expeditiously evaluating and 

planning to take action through the remainder of this year, but 

there is quite a bit of time left in this year and there are a lot of 

applications out there. So when will you and the Department start 

making decisions on what have been languishing for the better part 

of 2 years? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, as I have said, sir, you know, I have had 

to get my head around it, as you have acknowledged. We are getting, I think, very close to the time. We are going to start evaluating those dockets. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would encourage you—and I am sure you 

have heard this before, let the market drive this. Our private sector 

oil and gas folks, they will make the right decisions given that all 

of the evaluations have been done. Let’s open this up and let the 

market drive it and create the jobs that are going to come with it. 

Do you foresee in the evaluation process the Department of Energy working through the application list in a different order than 

in which they were submitted or filed to take into account which 

projects may be more viable than others to build? And if so, what 

factors might the Department look at in determining that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, no, sir. I think we are going to stay with 

the order. I think to start injecting new subjective judgments I 

think would just kind of confuse the situation and open up some 

more criticism and possible intervention so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Wow. Well, I like that answer. You are one of the 

first in this Administration to avoid picking winners and losers 

here in Washington. I think that is commendable. I would again 

urge you to consider let’s just get these approved and let’s let the 

market drive it. 

Let me move to another subject now. I would like to switch gears 

a little bit, a subject that one of our colleagues mentioned earlier, 

and talk about an issue that is important not only to my constituents but to our country, and that is the issue of making sure that 

America has an indigenous and solely U.S.-owned enriched uranium producer. 

Since the Department and USEC were not able to come to an 

agreement to keep the Paducah plant operating, once the Department’s current inventory is depleted, the government is left without a continued source of enriched uranium for national security 

purposes. Given this serious situation, I commend the Department 

for conducting a 2-year, $350 million cost-shared RD&D program 

to demonstrate reliability of the U.S. centrifuge project at the 

Piketon facility. This program has been very successful to date, 

constructing over 120 centrifuge machines and associated plant 

systems on budget and on schedule to demonstrate reliability of the 

technology. 

At the same time, the Federal Government is investing about 

230 million through the end of the current fiscal year in this 

RD&D program and has taken title to the centrifuge machines and 

the support facilities. The balance of the 48 million of federal costshare funding is needed to complete this critical RD&D effort by 

year’s end. And while we in Congress will continue to have the 

funding included in any appropriations bills, given the critical role 

61 

that this program has for national security and the fact that the 

government is heavily invested in its outcome, can you tell me how 

you are going to or what your plans are to find the balance of the 

48 million needed to complete by December 31 if the Senate and 

the House are not able to come to resolution on an Energy and 

Water Appropriations bill? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we are going to have to have the discussion with the Congress in the funding. I very much want to see 

that demonstration completed because I think that is a critical decision point for the path forward. And it would be, if successful, as 

you say, our only indigenous American technology. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly. Well, you know the history that we 

have had with working with the Senate to try and get financial 

bills—whether they be budgets or appropriations bills—passed. So 

have you and the Department begun thinking about how we will 

come up with that 48 million in funding? 

Secretary MONIZ. I don’t have a plan for that yet but we will 

have to address it as we see how progress comes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. And that, I 

think, completes the questions. 

I have one additional question, Secretary Moniz, and I don’t 

know if Bobby does or not, but we have heard a lot about carbon 

capture and sequestration research and funding for that research 

at the Department of Energy, and I was glad to hear you earlier— 

or someone—not say sequestration but say utilization because we 

hope that there will be technologies out there to use CO2 instead 

of storing it, maybe use it commercially in some way. 

And so as Secretary of Energy, do you feel like you have the authority, the ability to direct money into research for carbon capture 

and utilization rather than sequestration? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes. I think we certainly have the authorities to do that, and I think ARPA–E has some ideas in terms 

of novel utilization techniques. But the other one is a discussion, 

I think, with industry, et cetera. It is not an R&D issue as such, 

but if the utilization through enhanced oil recovery is to scale-up, 

we have a big infrastructure issue to look at—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Probably as a public-private partnership. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But even in addition to enhanced oil recovery, 

other types of utilization. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, other things, building materials, et cetera, 

yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right, right. And then my final comment would 

be I would urge you once again to use all of the speed that you all 

have available to you on your request for proposal for the economic 

development at the Paducah plant. 

Secretary MONIZ. I should have mentioned earlier—I forgot— 

that, as you know, we have several proposals in and we will be 

evaluating those, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Rush? 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, I was a little disturbed earlier when 

the fine gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, would not allow 

62 

you to complete your answers. So there were a lot of questions. It 

was quite interesting. I am sure you have some additional comments that you wanted to make regarding Mr. Scalise’s questions 

that he was asking you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think we made our points in the discussion, so thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. You know, the drilling on federal lands as opposed to nonfederal lands, I think that that was a pretty interesting line of questioning, and I wanted to hear what your real answers were to that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I mean I think my answer was what I am 

saying, that I think that the industry is, you know, it is going out 

there pretty hard in terms of this increased production. There is a 

lot of infrastructure to do, et cetera. Frankly, there are limits to 

the number of rigs, and there are a number of leases on federal 

lands that are not being used. So I think the issue is to keep your 

eye on the ball, that oil production, gas production is going up. It 

is going up at a pretty rapid pace in fact. And so I think that is—— 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Secretary Moniz, thank you for being with us 

today. We appreciate your patience and you answered all of our 

questions. We look forward to working with you as we move forward, and thank you once again. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And this hearing is adjourned. 

Secretary MONIZ. And all the members, thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Moniz, thank you for joining us today. I look forward to working with 

you on energy policy over the next few years. 

Overall, I am satisfied with the President’s FY14 budget for the Department of 

Energy. I am particularly interested in the budgeting for alternative transportation 

fuels. I commend you and the President for proposing a $2 billion set aside for an 

Energy Security Trust, as well as other investments in alternative fuels and energy 

efficiency. 

I will soon be re-introducing the Open Fuels Standard Act with my colleague from 

Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I have done so for the past several years. I believe that 

this legislation will help drive domestic production of all types of alternative fuels, 

while greatly decreasing our reliance on foreign oil from hostile regimes. This has 

also been the goal of my Oil and National Security Caucus, which has focused on 

ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while making the U.S. energy independent. 

63 


85443.010

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

PROPOSED FY 14 ADMINISTRATION CUTS TO 

Dept. of Energy Coal and Fossil Energy Research and Development Program 

The University of Illinois is concerned with the Administrations proposed cut to the Department of 

Energy's Coal and Fossil Energy Research and Development program. The Administration's FY 14 

recommended level proposes to cut $46 million out of the $107 FY 13 CR level from the Office of Fossil 

Energy's Carbon Storage Research line. 

A robust Fossil Energy program at DOE will ensure our nation's domestic energy, economic and 

environmental goals are achieved while we expand our use of coal, our nation's most abundant natural 

resource. Globally the U.S. has approximately one-third of the world's total recoverable coal reserves. 

In the U.S., coal accounts for 93% of the proven fossil energy reserves and currently supplies 42% of 

total U.S. electricity generation. And because coal is predicted to remain affordable, reliable and will be 

used in an increasingly clean manner, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects coal to 

continue to provide over 35% of our nation's electricity through 2040. Given the extent of this 

important domestic energy resource, investing in technologies for the future is critical. 

The University of Illinois is a member of the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) 

which is one of seven national research partnerships working to find a balance between our growing 

energy needs and dealing with carbon dioxide created in energy production and industrial processes. At 

the Carbon Sequestration Project in Decatur Illinois and the MGSC have been leader in researching best 

practices in capturing and storing carbon dioxide safely underground in natural geological formations. 

The MGSC is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory via the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program and by a cost share agreement 

with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Office of Coal Development, 

through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute. 

The Carbon Storage project in Decatur is halfway through its injection period with 1.5+ years remaining 

to inject the 1 million metric ton injection target. When we reach 1 million tons at the end of 2014, we 

are to then carry out three years of post-injection environmental monitoring (to end 2017). Completion 

of injection and the post-injection monitoring are most at risk by this proposed cut because DOE may 

not have adequate funds going forward among the six regional research projects to carry our Decatur 

project as currently planned. 

The University is concerned about the clear risk that the work that has been done in Phase III efforts in 

Decatur since 2007 will be cut severely short and the funding will be moved over to carbon capture 

before carbon storage completes the research effort that was defined as essential by the Department 

and Congress at the start of the project. The severity of this proposed cut almost certainly ensures that 

the research outcomes will be incomplete and the final three years of demonstrating the safety and 

viability of the project might be compromised. 

The University recommends funding the Department's Fossil Energy program at the FY 2013 House 

recommended level of $554 million and provide funding for the coal research and development 

program at the FY 2013 recommended level of $384 million (the coal RD&D program is a subprogram of 

the Fossil Energy program at DOE). 
64 


85443.011

BENEFITS OF COAL RESEARCH ON THE UNIVERISTY OF ILLINOIS AND CENTRAL ILLINOIS 

Benefits to University of Illinois 

Total project funding for Illinois Basin - Decatur Project since 2007 through 2017 is about $74.7 million. 

Remaining funding, from now through Fall 2017 is approximately $23.8 million, which is received from 

the Coal and Fossil Energy Research and Development program budget line. 

Full-time jobs supported at University of Illinois = 10 

Fractions of jobs supported at University of Illinois = 4 

Schlumberger Carbon Services Company based in Champaign = 3 

Benefits in Decatur 

Full-time jobs 100% supported at ADM = 5 

Ancillarv Benefits 

Spin-off funding received and in place at University of Illinois = $15.2 million for related research 

projects dependent on data, rock materials, socio-economic analyses, and geophysical surveys from the 

Illinois Basin - Decatur Project 

Ancillary Jobs directly created = 2 

Summary ofthe Administration's FY2014 Dept. of Enerqv Coal R&D Budqet Request 

FYll FY12 FY13 Req FY13 CR FY14 Req 

C02 Capture R&D $59M $69M $60M $64M $1l2M' 

C02 Storage R&D $121M $1l5M $95M $107M $61M 

Advanced Energy Sys $169M $100M $55M $92M $48M 

Crosscutting Research $41M $49M $30M $46M $21M 

NETl Coal R&D "No Funds $35M $35M $33M $35M 

Total $390M $368M $276M $341M $276M 

'Includes $25M for prize for best Gas/CCS technology (details on this not available) 

"$35M for NETl Coal R&D provided under the Program Direction budget line 
65 


85443.012

FRED UPTON, M!CHIGAN 

CHA!RMAN 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORN!A 

RANKING MEMBER 

(;(lngrt~S (If tbt Wnittb ~tattS 

~au~e at l\tprt~entatibe5 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFfiCE BUlLOING 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515--<3115 

The Honorable Steven Chu 

Secretary of Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Dear Secretary Chu: 

1202)225--2927 

(202l22&-3641 

March 26. 2013 

Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce is commencing oversight of U.S. implementation of 

nuclear export control policies. We seek to examine how current policies and Administration 

efforts affect opportunities for enhancing or expanding U.S. manufacturing and competitiveness, 

both for strengthening domestic job growth and for the benefit of U.S. influence over 

international nuclear safety and nuclear security. 

We understand that, for the first time in 2S years, the Department of Energy (DOE) is 

revising the Federal regulations that apply to civilian nuclear exports, 10 CF.R. 810 (part 810). 

These revisions may substantially change the scope and requirements for approval of exports of 

nuclear technology and services, with direct implications for U.S. nuclear-related commerce. To 

assist us in evaluating the impact of new U.S. nuclear export control regulations and DOE's 

implementation of these regulations, we request information relating to the regulatory process, 

reviews. and decision-making concerning nuclear export licenses, as implemented through the 

National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA). 

Accordingly, we request a briefing for Committee staff on the Part 810 review process and 

decision-making by April 12. 2013. During this briefing, we ask that DOE officials be prepared to 

describe in detail how DOE is implementing each of the requirements of section 57b oftbe 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and 10 CFR 810. In addition, we ask that you provide the requested 

documeuts and written responses to the following questions by April 12, 2013: 

I. Please provide a list of the 25 most recent Part 810 export license decisions. Foreach 

license request. please identify the date the license request was filed; the dates each 

Federal agency reviewing the license request began and completed its review; the date 
66 


85443.013

Letter to the Honorable Steven Chu 

Page 2 

the license request was either approved or denied; and the date the license applicant was 

infonned of this decision. 

2. Please describe how DOE evaluates Part 810 export license requests, including the 

criteria used to detennine acceptability; how DOE works with other Federal agencies, 

including the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and State and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, to complete their portions of the review; and how and when DOE apprises 

Part 810 export license applicants about the status of their applications. 

3. Does DOE measure and track its perfonnance in reviewing Part 810 license requests? If 

so, please provide the results of all perfonnance assessments conducted over the past five 

years. 

a. Has DOE benchmarked its process and perfonnance against other countries involved 

with nuclear technology exports, such as France or Russia? If so, please provide 

copies of all such assessments. 

b. Has DOE benchmarked its process and perfonnance against Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) export license reviews pursuant to 10 CFR Part 11 O? If so, 

please provide copies of any such assessments. 

4. Describe any overlaps that may exist between the DOE Part 810 review process and the 

NRC Part 110 process and whether the agencies undertake measures to avoid overlapping 

or duplicative processes. 

5. DOE's September 7. 2011 proposed revisions to Part 810 list the countries eligible for 

general authorization. 

a. Please describe the basis for creating a general authorization list and the criteria for 

inclusion of specific countries on this list. 

b. Did the State Department provide guidance on the inclusion of countries on this list? 

If yes, please provide copies of all such guidance. 

c. Has there been any analysis of the potential impact on future exports of nuclear 

technologies and services to countries that are not on this proposed general 

authorization list? If yes, please provide such analyses. 

6. Please provide a copy of the economic impact analysis(es) prepared for DOE's 

September 7.2011 proposed revision of Part 810. 

7. Describe any changes being considered to the current DOE process that are focused on 

enhancing the U.S. role to compete for international commercial opportunities. 

8. As commercial nuclear power continues to increase globally and with the United States 

currently having the largest operating fleet of nuclear power reactors, there may be 

circumstances in which nuclear operations and safety practices outside the United States 

may be advanced through foreign visits to U.S. nuclear facilities. Please explain whether 

there are procedures in place to facilitate such foreign visits. 
67 


85443.014

Letter to the Honorable Steven Chu 

Page 3 

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Peter Spencer with the 

Majority Committee staff'at (202) 225-2927. 

Chairman Emeritus 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Chairman 

John Shimkus 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
68 


85443.015

Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

WashIngton, DC 20585 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

June 4, 2013 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Upton: 

Thank you for yOlt\' letter of March 26, 2013, requesting information on the 

Department of Energy's export licensing process regulated under 10 CFR Part 

810 (Part 810) and the ongoing llliemaking to revise that regulation. 

Part 810 regulates the export of unclassified nuclear technology and assistance by 

persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to facilitate international 

commerce while at the same time protecting against the spread of nuclear 

technologies and materia! that would be contrary to the nonproliferation and other 

national security interests of the United States. Part 810 implements section 57 b. 

(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which provides that it shall be 

unlawful for any person to directly 01' indirectly engage or participate in the 

development or production of special nuclear material outside the United States 

without a determination by the Secretary of Energy. made with the concurrence of 

the Depat1ment of State and consultations with the Departments of Defense and 

Commerce and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that such activity will not be 

inimical to the interest of the United States. 

As you know, Part 810 has not been comprehensively updated since 1986. 

Considering changes in the nuclear technology'market since that last revision, in 

September 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and 

sought public input on potential changes to the regulation. DOE also held an 

infOlmational webinar on the proposed rule. In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received numerous public comments. DOE has carefully considered the public 

comments and willl'espond to those comments in a sllpplementalnotice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), which is currently under review at the Office of 

Management and Budget. The SNOPR will also provide another opportunity for 

public comment. 

Please let us know if your staff wishes to discuss the SNOPR once DOE publishes 

it. In the meantime, we would be happy to brief yom staff on other aspects of the 

Part 810 program. 

* Prinlod with soy Ink on .. cycled paper 
69 


85443.016

Thank you again for the inquiry abo'l.lt the Part 810 process and the rulemaking. 

Should you or your staff have any questions or need further assistance, please call 

me or please contact Mr. Clarence T. Bishop, Associate Administrator for 

External Affairs at (202) 586-7332. 

cc: The Honorable Hemy A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

The Honorable Diana DeGette, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
70 


85443.017

CSIS I CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & 

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

President Barack Obama 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW 

Washington, D,c' 20500 

Dear Mr. President; 

April 25, 2013 

We write to underscore the importance of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, and to 

caution against the adoption of policies that could inadvertently weaken the ability of the United States to 

continue to provide intemationalleadership on this critically important issue, 

For more than half a century, the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent nuclear weapons 

proliferation has been the "atoms for peace" fonnula. With very few exceptions, the countries of the 

world have accepted this fonnula. Countries that enter into it commit not to pursue nuclear weapons, and 

in exchange are guaranteed support for their right to develop civil nuclear power and other peaceful uses 

of atomic energy, and submit to international supervision. 

The Atoms for Peace fannula has been very successful. Access to commercial nuclear 

technology was not seen as a threat to the nuclear nonproliferation regime, but rather as a sign of the 

health of that regime and an essential means for implementing it. One of our nation's most powerful tools 

for guaranteeing that the countries acquiring this tecMology continue to use it exclusively for peaceful 

purposes is to ensure that the U.S. commercial nuclear industry continues to playa leading role in the 

international civil nuclear marketplace, Here the news is not encouraging, 

'While the United States and one or two other countries had a near~monopoJy on civil nuclear 

technology in the 19505, today the list of countries actively competing in the international civil nuclear 

marketplace includes Russia, France, Canada, Great Britain, Gennany, the Netherlands, Japan and South 

Korea. And it is likely soon that China and India will become active participants in the international 

nuclear marketplace. According to a November 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 

on nuclear commerce, the U.S. share of global exports of "nuclear reactors, major components and 

equipment, and minor reactor parts" fell from 11 percent to just 7 percent between 1994 and 2008. The 

U.S, share of global exports of nuclear fuel fell from 29 percent to just 1 0 percent over mat same period 

of time. 

This decline in U.S. market share translates to substantially diminished U.S. influence in such 

areas as. nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear safety, As a result, the United States is in an increasingly 

weak: position to unilaterally impose onerous requirements on potential buyers of civil nuclear 

technology, simp1y because buyers have so many alternatives to U,S. sources of supply. It follows that, 

in order to restore its nonproliferation influence around the globe, the United States Government must 

find ways to strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. nuclear industry, and avoid policies that threaten 

to further weaken it. 

We therefore urge that, as part of your export control refonn initiative, streamlining of the 

process for licensing civil nuclear exports be made a top priority. We know that there are experts who 
71 


85443.018

President Obama 

April 25, 2013 

Page 2. 

argue that we should make access to American nuclear technology even more restrictive in the future. 

This would have the unintended effect offurther diminishing America's competitiveness in the global 

nuclear marketplace. America's ability to lcad the global nuclear nonproliferation regime will diminish 

steadily as America abandons the field. 

Consistent with the Atoms for Peace poticy framework, America restricts the right of other 

countries to buy from American nuclear suppliers unless those countries agreed to stringent security 

procedures and conditions (the so-called 123 process). Historically we have managed this process on a 

sensible case-by-case basis, Ifwe adopt a much more restrictive approach, we will not prevent counmes 

from acquiring nuclear technology, but instead will encourage nations to turn to suppliers that do not 

impose difficult standards. The non-proliferation regime is weakened in that circumstance, 

We share your Administration' s concern about the risks associated with the potential spread of 

sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies such as enrichment and reprocessing. But as our nation seeks to 

reduce these risks, we must be careful not to diminish America's influence in the international civil 

nuclear marketplace. America's nuclear industry exports are shrinking, and this is bad for nonproliferation policy. 

The U.S. Government must recognize that the U.S. civil nuclear industry is one ofits most 

powerful tools for advancing its nuclear nonproliferation agenda. It is critical to adopt policies that will 

strengthen that tool. Weakening it will merely cede foreign markets to other suppliers less concerned 

about nonproliferation than the United States. 

Senator William S. Cohen 

Former Secretary of Defense 

Dr. James Schlesinger 

Sincerely, 

Former Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defense 

and Director, CIA 

Admiral Michael Mullen 

Former Chainnan, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Dr. John Hamre 

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense 

a~4,4 .. .,~~-

General Brent Scowcroft Fm;:F Ad.= General Jrunes Jones 

Former National Security Adviser 

Senator Pete Dornenici 

Fonner Chairman Senate Budget 

Committec 

Ms. Susan Eisenhower 

Chainnan Emeritus, Eisenhower 

Institute 
72 


85443.019
73 


85443.020
74 


85443.021

The llonorable Ed Whitfield 

Chainnan 

December J. 2013 

Subcommittee OIl Energy ami Power 

Comminee OIl Energy and Commerce 

U. S. IIouse of Rcprcscntativcs 

Washington. DC 20SIS 

Dear :VIr. Chairman: 

On Junc 13.2013. Secretary Emest Moniz testified regarding "The Fiscal Year 

2014 U.S. Department of Encrgy Budget." 

Enclosed arc the answers to 49 questions thaI were submittcd by Rcpresenlatiycs Upton: 

Barton: Shimkus; Lana; Olson: McKinlcy: Gardner; Griffith: Engcl; and you to complete 

the hearing record. 

If\\'c can be offurthcr assistance. please havc your stalrcontact our 

Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Lillian Owen, at (202) 586-2031. 

Enclosures 

~;l Christopher E. Dayis 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Congressional Affairs 

Congressional and In(crgovcI1um:nlal Affairs 

cc: The llonorablc Bobby I .. Rush. Ranking Member 
75 


85443.022

QU:ST10:-\ I RO'v1 CHAIR\lA:-\ \VlllTFIELD 

Q I, I understand that the administration has been elleolll11ging agencies 10 advance their 

usc of Energy S11\'ing5 l'cr!i.mnance COlllrac!s to improw! the energy et1icicney of 

Federal buildings and to reduce energy consumption. However. I also understand lhal 

ouly 16 companies can compete Ii)]' these contracts lmder the current indefinite 

Delivery Indetinitc Quality (lDIQ) thm was established to provide a stream-lined 

bidding process for qualified companies, Fmlller, of these 16 qualified cOll1panies, less 

than 8 actively pursue programs \\"ithin fcdcrul 5pm;c. There arc other qualilied Energy 

Sen'ice Companies (ESCO) who wish to participate. but they cannot because the IDrQ 

is closed, 

What is DOE doing 10 ensure that all qualified [SCOs ean participate on ESPC 

projects so that the federal gon!mment can utilize energy savings techniqucs 10 reduce 

taxpayer dollars on Federal energy costs? 

1\ I. QlIaliiied ESCOs can participate in performance contracts lhrollgh a number of 

different outlets. They include: 

I) DOE Qualified List - Agencies can enler into [SPCs outside of the lDIQ. '111esc [Spes arc 

done through an open solicitation and arc onet1rcl~1Ted to as "site specific ESPCs," In order 

to enter into all ESPC. a company must be included on the DOE Qualified Contractors List. 

Companies can submit their Clualitications to DOl' and. once quulilicd. arc eligible to bid on 

sit<: specific ESPCs, There arc cllrremly appro:-;imalely 100 companies on this list that arc 

eligible 10 compete for these projects. The list is ayuilable on the Federal Energy 

:v1unagemellt Program (FE:VU') website at 

2) General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule g4. SI)'! 246-5~ This GSA vchicle is 

currently open and accepting applications from ESCOs that arc interested in implementing 

ESPC E~ABL[ projects that foclis on smaller. targeted li::deral facilities. There arc 

approximately 11 companies that have been awarded S1:-\ 246-53 along with another 8 that 

have submilled applications, 
76 


85443.023

3) Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC) Participating Utilities - The UESC program offers 

another opportunity where ESCOs can support projects by serving as sub-contractors to a 

local utility company. 

4) DOE IDIQ and Huntsville IDIQ - Both DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

administer IDIQ contracts with a number of companies that implement performance contracts 

at both civilian and defense facilities. Although those contracts are currently closed, there are 

sub-contracting opportunities available for other firms interested in participating in these 

projects. 

As part of a request for information (RFI) published in April in the Federal Register, DOE 

asked for comments on structuring an ESPC IDIQ contract so that new contractors may be 

added during the life of the contract. DOE will consider these comments regarding 

opportunities for improvement and ways to enhanced usability and flexibility at the next point 

at which the IDIQ contract is competed. 

2 
77 


85443.024

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q2: During the President's fIrst term, thousands of pages of new regulations were 

issued by EPA affecting the production, supply, distribution or use of energy. 

These rules collectively cost tens of billions of dollars and effectively set national 

energy policy. Will you commit that under your watch DOE will independently 

review EPA's proposed rules to assess the impacts on the energy reliability or 

costs to consumers? 

A2: The Department of Energy (DOE) recognizes the significance of regulations 

affecting the energy sector. In previous years, DOE has engaged in the 

interagency review process and, where appropriate, conducted analyses of the 

impacts of proposed rules affecting the energy sector. I intend to continue this 

practice. 

3 
78 


85443.025

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q3(a): What role do you see DOE taking to ensure federal regulatory policies do 

not lead to higher electricity prices for businesses and consumers? 

A3(a): A regulatory impact analysis that includes an assessment of electricity 

price impacts is typically conducted for proposed federal regulations that 

significantly impact the electricity system. The Department of Energy 

reviews proposed rules through the interagency comment process led by 

the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the 

Department of Energy is available to provide technical assistance, where 

appropriate, to ensure the best possible outcomes for potential rules that 

impact the energy system. 

Q3(b): Would you say this is an urgent issue, given the state of the power sector 

today? 

A3(b): The power sector is currently being affected by several factors, including 

the availability of inexpensive natural gas. DOE will continue to review 

potential regulations with respect to their impact on the energy sector, 

including on energy consumers, through the interagency comment process. 

4 
79 


85443.026

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q4. One of DOE's statutory duties under the DOE Organization Act is to "promote 

the interest of consumers through the provision of an adequate and reliable supply 

of energy at the lowest reasonable cost," 

Q4(a): As Secretary of Energy, are you concerned about the impact of EPA rules on 

electricity rates and gas prices for consumers? 

A4(a): DOE recognizes the importance of promoting the interests of consumers. DOE 

reviews proposed rules from other agencies through the interagency comment 

process. The regulatory impact analyses accompanying such proposals often 

include an analysis of costs and benefits. 

Q4(b): If you have cost concerns, will you raise them with EPA? 

A4(b): The Department is currently working with EPA and will continue working with 

EPA to address any issues that may arise in the implementation of its recent rules 

and in the promulgation of its future rules. Through this on-going coordination, 

we will raise such concerns with EPA when appropriate. 

5 
80 


85443.027

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q5(a): What is your understanding of the President' second tenn climate agenda 

as it relates to DOE? 

AS(a): On June 25, the President gave a speech announcing a comprehensive plan 

to address climate change. TIris plan includes a number of federal 

commitments, some of which involve DOE. Examples of activities in 

which DOE is involved include spurring investment in advanced fossil 

energy via loan guarantee authority, instituting a federal Quadrennial 

Energy Review, developing and deploying advanced transportation 

technologies, and establishing a new goal for energy efficiency standards, 

among others. DOE may support other federal activities in relevant areas. 

Q5(b): As Energy Secretary, have you been consulted about EPA's planned 

greenhouse gas regulations for power plants? 

A5(b): Before the Secretary was confinned, the Environmental Protection Agency began 

its greenhouse gas rulemaking process for new power plants, and the Department 

of Energy participated in the interagency review of the proposed rule issued in 

2012. The Department of Energy was also engaged in the development of the 

President's Climate Action Plan, which was released in June of 2013 and called 

on EPA to develop regulations of greenhouse gases for existing power plants 

under the Clean Air Act. 

Q5(b )(i): What is your understanding of the Administration' s plans for regulating 

greenhouse gas emissions from new or existing power plants? 

6 
81 


85443.028

A5(b)(i): On June 25, the President gave a speech announcing a comprehensive 

plan to address climate change. Following this speech, the Administration 

released a Climate Action Plan and a Presidential Memorandum outlining 

a timeframe for EPA to issue flexible standards for greenhouse gas 

emissions from new and existing power plants under section 11 t of the 

Clean Air Act. In addition, both potential rules are listed in the recent 

update to the Unified Agenda published by OMB. 

Q5(b )(ii): Should DOE have a significant role in the development of any EPA 

rules affecting power plants given the impacts such rules would have on 

national energy policy? 

AS(b)(ii): DOE will review proposed rules through the interagency comment 

process led by the White House Office of Management and Budget. DOE 

may also provide technical assistance in the development and 

implementation of such rules, where appropriate. 

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q6. Do you believe renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal can 

completely replace traditional sources of energy like coal, nuclear, and hydropower? If 

so, would such a transition come with an increase in energy prices? 

7 
82 


85443.029

A6. The Department of Energy (DOE) supports the President's all-of-the-above energy 

strategy. President Obarna's goal is to generate 80 percent of our electricity from a 

diverse set of clean energy sources - including renewable energy sources like wind, 

solar, biomass, and hydropower; nuclear power; efficient natural gas; and clean coal -

by 2035. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has established 

goals for its technology development programs to make renewable electricity market 

competitive without subsidies. 

8 
83 


85443.030

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q7. Under your leadership, will DOE facilitate the continued use of coal as part of your 

national energy plan? If so. how? 

A 7. Today, coal accoWlts for about 20% of the total energy consumption in the United 

States, and fuels about 40% of our electricity generation. Although no new coal fired 

power plants are being proposed in the U.S., coal will continue to be an important part of 

our energy strategy. 

The coal power industry has a history of responding to environmental challenges. Sulfur 

dioxide. particulate matter. and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal fired power plants 

have all declined over the past 30 years. while total coal consumption and electricity 

generation have increased. This trend was driven by strict environmental regulations and 

new emissions control technologies to reduce pollution. 

The development of carbon capture and storage is continuing this trend. and will allow 

coal to generate electricity with a corresponding decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. 

We see coal as a key component of our energy strategy now and into the future. 

9 
84 


85443.031

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q8. In addition to CCS technologies, what is your position on advanced coal combustion 

technologies, such as ultra-supercritical coal combustion and advanced ultrasupercritical coal combustion technologies? Will DOE be supporting these types of 

highly efficient, low-emitting technologies in addition to CCS? If so, how? 

A8. Advanced ultra-supercritical steam cycles are anticipated to be more efficient, exhibit 

improved environmental performance compared with today's conventional plants using 

less advanced steam conditions, and may reduce the cost of CCS due to their increased 

efficiency. The Office of Fossil Energy is supporting materials research and 

development for operation at steam pressures up to 5,500 pounds per square inch, and 

temperatures approaching 1,400 Fahrenheit, as well as support for steam turbine 

materials that can operate in this range of steam conditions. We are partnered with 

several U.S. technology suppliers in these activities. 

10 
85 


85443.032

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q9. During your continnation hearing, you indicated support for additional research into 

beneficial uses for C02, rather than just sequestration. The President's budget 

requests approximately $276 million for carbon capture and storage research. If 

Congress provides this funding, how much do you intend to allocate for research 

into beneficial uses of C02? 

A9. The FY2014 budget requests $500,000 for beneficial uses of C02, such as conversion 

to chemicals, plastics, building materials, and curing for cement. While these 

technologies show potential, they are in the early stages of development and must be 

proven in laboratory-scale tests before potentially transitioning to larger scales. While 

beneficial use of C02 presents options for commercialization of carbon capture 

technologies, the scale of emissions reductions necessary to address climate change 

necessitate that the focus of carbon storage research and development remain on large 

geologic reservoirs. 

11 
86 


85443.033

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q I O. The budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is almost 

double the budgets for the Offices of Nuclear, Fossil Energy, and Electricity combined. 

a) Wouldn't you agree that the Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity have 

critical roles to play in shaping future U.S. energy policy? 

The Department's Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Electricity Delivery and Energy 

Reliability have vital roles to play in shaping future U.S. energy policy. Funding for these offices 

is requested to support critical investments to advance technologies related to the reliable, 

efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use of fossil fuels, the safety and reliability of 

new and existing nuclear reactors, and a secure and dependable electric grid to deliver an 

increasingly diverse energy mix. 

b) The EERE budget request is a 55.9% increase from the FY 2013 EERE budget request. How 

does this reflect the President's "all-of·the-above" energy strategy? 

The requested increase for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

supports the President's aggressive goals of reducing the energy intensity of American industry, 

enhancing energy security and reliability by reducing net oil imports by half by 2020, and 

doubling electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020. EERE funding provides critical 

investments in sustainable transportation, renewable energy generation, and energy efficiency to 

innovate our way to a clean energy future and provide consumers with choices to reduce energy 

costs and save energy. Through this budget, EERE is positioned to achieve these goals by 

developing and accelerating the adoption of a new generation of energy technologies that are 

clean, safe, efficient, and cost effective. EERE supports high.impact applied research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) in the fields of sustainable 

transportation, renewable electricity, and energy efficiency in homes, buildings, and factories. 

EERE funds RDD&D at some of America's most innovative businesses and research institutions 

12 
87 


85443.034

with the explicit goal of making clean energy technologies directly cost-competitive, without 

subsidies, with the energy technologies we use today. 

c) Under your leadership, how do you plan to ensure that future budgets do a better job of 

allocating funds to the various offices more equitably, rather than concentrating the vast 

majority of taxpayer dollars within the Office ofEERE? 

The Department's applied energy budget request is formulated to provide the greatest impact in 

targeted areas of the energy sector. The fiscal year 2014 request supports an energy strategy that 

will enhance economic growth. create jobs through American innovation, save consumers money 

by cutting energy costs to families and business, enhance energy security by reducing the nation'S 

dependence on oil. and promote health and safety by mitigating the impact of energy production 

on air quality and our climate. The request supports an a11-of-the-above approach to develop 

every source of American energy in safe and responsible way. 

13 
88 


85443.035

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Ql t. Before an LNG export tenninal is pennitted to trade with a non-free trade country, 

DOE must certify that the exports are in the public interest. Section 3A of the 

Natural Gas Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a proposed export project is 

in the public interest. In other words, DOE must grant the application unless 

interveners show that the project is not consistent with the public interest. 

a. Who within DOE will be making the final decision on the pending 

LNG export projects? 

AlIa. Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act states that "[N]o person shall export any 

natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a 

foreign country without first having secured an order of the [Secretary of Energy] 

authorizing it to do so." (15 U.s.C. § 717b). The Secretary's authority was established by 

the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7172, which transferred 

jurisdiction over import and export authorizations from the Federal Power Commission to 

the Secretary of Energy. This authority is delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil 

Energy pursuant to Redelegation Order No. 00-002.04E (Apr. 29, 2011). The Secretary 

will ultimately make the fmal decision on the pending LNG export applications. 

b. Acting Assistant Secretary of fossil Energy, Christopher Smith, testified 

before Congress on the wide range of public interest criteria considered by 

DOE. Please share with the Committee the guidance document that DOE is 

currently using to conduct the public interest analysis. We are interested in 

the document describing DOE policy regarding "criteria weighting." 

Altb. A wide range of criteria are considered as part of DOE's public interest review 

process. DOE identifies the criteria considered as part of DOE's public interest review 

process in each Federal Register Notice of Application. Each order includes a discussion 

of the public interest criteria considered by the Department. These criteria are not 

statutory but rather have been developed over several decades and supplemented and 

14 
89 


85443.036

refined by subsequent agency adjudication. It is important to emphasize, however, that 

these criteria are not exclusive. Other issues raised by commenters and/or interveners or 

DOE that are relevant to a proceeding may be considered as well. DOE does not have a 

document describing "criteria weighting". 

c. Are there any plans to codify the guidance? 

Allc. DOE identifies the criteria considered as part of DOE's public interest review 

process in the orders addressing applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement 

countries. These criteria are not exclusive, since other issues raised by commenters 

and/or interveners or DOE that are relevant to a particular proceeding may be considered 

as well. There are no plans to codify the criteria employed in reviewing these 

applications. 

d. How will one decision -- either a rejection or approval of a project -- impact the 

review process for subsequent applications? 

Alld. DOE reviews each application to export LNG to non-free trade agreement 

countries on a case-by-case basis on its own merits. As part of that review, DOEIFE 

assesses the cumulative impacts of each succeeding request for export authorization on 

the public interest, with due regard to the effect on domestic natural gas supply and 

demand fundamentals. Therefore, the approval of any single export application is 

considered, collectively. in the review process for subsequent applications. 

15 
90 


85443.037

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN WHITFIELD 

Q 12. This budget raises questions about the Administration's energy priorities. 

a) Please justifY requesting IS times more on batteries and electric cars ($575M) than on 

cybersecurity for the electric grid ($38M). 

The transportation sector accounts for two-thirds of U.S. petroleum use, with on-road vehicles 

responsible for 8oolo of that amount. We continue to send nearly $1 billion a day overseas to satisfY 

our demand for oil. The requested funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy's Vehicle Technologies Program supports critical investments in advanced transportation 

technologies that reduce petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, while meeting or 

exceeding vehicle performance and cost expectations. These technologies include cost-effective 

batteries, higher performance electric drive systems, advanced combustion engines, superior fuels 

and lubricants, and lightweight materials. Research into these areas will improve the nation's energy 

security and strengthen our economic competitiveness in the global clean energy race. 

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's Cyber Security for Energy Delivery 

Systems program is also a critical to the United States' energy future. The request for fiscal year 2014 

supports expanded efforts to improve cybersecurity technologies and capabilities for control systems 

used in critical energy infrastructure, improve situational awareness, and develop operational 

capabilities in the energy sector. Innovative solutions in these areas will maintain a reliable and 

resilient energy infrastructure, which is vital to our nation's economy, human health and safety, and 

national security. 

b) Please justifY requesting 9 times more on wind energy ($ 144M) than on energy infrastructure 

security and restoration ($16M). 

Wind power has tremendous potential as a domestic U.S. energy resource that can contribute to a 

diverse, clean, inexhaustible U.S. energy portfolio. There are 90 quads of U.S. land-based wind 

16 
91 


85443.038

potential and 50 quads of U.S. offshore wind potential, which, when combined, represent the 

potential for more than 10 times the total current U.S. delivered electricity consumption. The Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Wind Energy Program supports investments that will 

tap into this potential and increase efficiency of the wind power sector. The program invests in highrisk, transformative technology innovations that industry does not address, provides a national testing 

platform, drives improvements in permitting, and generates methodologies and data to address 

market barriers and grid integration. 

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's Infrastructure Security and Energy 

Restoration Program is another critical piece of the overall energy strategy to ensure a clean and 

reliable energy future for the nation. The requested funding for fiscal year 2014 supports vital work in 

the areas of emergency preparedness and response; physical and cyber system assurance; and data 

analysis and situational awareness. In recognition of the demands on the nation's energy 

infrastructure precipitated by Hurricane Sandy and other disasters, the Department is also requesting 

funding for an Operational Energy and Resilience program to provide continuous monitoring of the 

status of the nationals critical energy infrastructure and a robust, state-of-the-art ability to asess, 

visualize and synthesize data to support a more focused, regionally-based rapid response to threats 

and hazards. 

c) Please justifY requesting 17 times more on building efficiency ($300M) than on developing new natural gas technologies ($17M). 

In the United States, homes and commercial buildings consume 40% of the nation'S total energy, 

with an annual bill of more than $400 billion. This translates into more than 70% of the electrical 

energy consumed in the U.S. These energy bills can be cost-effectively reduced by 20-50% or 

more through energy efficient technologies and techniques. The Office of Energy Efficiency and 

17 
92 


85443.039

Renewable Energy's Building Technologies Program supports technologies, systems, and 

practices that will foster economic prosperity, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and save 

American families and business money. The budget request for fiscal year 2014 supports the 

long-term goal of reducing building-related energy use by 50% by 2030. 

The Office of Fossil Energy's Natural Gas Technologies program will focus research and 

development to understanding and minimize the potential environmental, health, and safety 

impacts of shale gas development. Through an interagency research effort with the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Department ofInterior's U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Department seeks to bring its technical expertise to ensure that hydraulic fracturing for naturaJ 

gas development is conducted in a manner that is environmentally sound and protective of human 

health and safety. The program also intends to conduct laboratory andlor field-based research 

focused on increasing public understanding of methane hydrates in gas-hydrate-bearing areas. 

d) The DOE budget priorities do not seem to be aligned with current and future U.S. energy 

needs and opportunities. Under your leadership, how do you plan to ensure that future 

budgets are better aligned with the nation's energy needs and priorities? 

As stated earlier, the Department's applied energy budget request is formulated to provide the 

greatest impact in targeted areas of the energy sector. The request continues to support an all-ofthe-above approach to develop every source of American energy in safe and responsible way. 

18 
93 


85443.040

QUESTION FROM REPRESENT A TlVE UPTON 

Q 1. The increase in domestic gas production and unconventional oil promises to 

transform America's energy future from one of perceived scarcity to one of 

abundance. What do you see as DOE's role in ensuring this future comes to pass? 

a. What role do you see for DOE in finding new and more efficient ways to produce 

fossil energy -oil, gas, coal -and to use it for the benefit of American prosperity 

over the next 50 years? 

Al a. DOE will continue to focus its efforts and that of its National Laboratories on 

assessing and mitigating risk, and improving enviroMlental sustainability and safety 

through the development of key technologies for oil and gas exploration and production 

activities. 

Qlb. You testified about shifting America's cars and trucks offoi! entirely. How do you 

reconcile this effort with ensuring the United States takes advantage of its abundant 

energy resources? Do you see the U.S. turning away from some of its resources? 

Alb. DOE supports the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy, including his focus on 

continuing to expand responsible oil and gas development, increasing the fuel economy of the 

vehicles we drive which will save families money at the pump, supporting renewable energy 

sources, and investing in infrastructure and research and development, all of which playa 

central role in increasing our nation's energy security. As the renewable and alternative fuels 

and energy efficiency measures and technologies are deployed at costs comparable to current 

end uses of traditional fuels, especially in the transportation sector, the balance of energy 

consumption will shift away from oil. This shift will provide both economic and energy 

security benefits to the nation, and traditional domestic energy resources will continue to play 

an important role in both these outcomes. 

Qlc. What future do you see for coal in this nation, and what do you believe DOE's role should be 

to enhance this abWldant resource? 

19 
94 


85443.041

Alc. DOE's role in clean coal research and development is to advance technologies 

related to the reliable, efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound use of fossil fuels. 

To this end, our research and development is primarily focused on carbon capture and 

storage, a technology that can permanently reduce carbon dioxide emissions from utility 

and industrial processes which generate carbon dioxide, through the use of fossil fuels 

including coal. 

20 
95 


85443.042

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q2. The U.S. is currently the world's largest producer of natural gas and has a chance to 

surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020. Under your 

leadership, how will DOE facilitate this energy transition and take full advantage of 

the nation's new energy abundance? 

A2. The transition will be made more efficient through the efforts DOE is making to 

assess and mitigate risk, and develop technology for increased safety and 

environmental sustainability. 

21 
96 


85443.043

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q3. You note in your testimony that you are reviewing DOE organization and 

management practices to develop options to improve how the Department performs 

its missions. 

a. Would you briefly elaborate on potential changes that may improve how the 

Department tackles its most pressing management challenges, such as 

environmental cleanup? 

b. Would you work with this Committee as you undergo this effort? And will you 

commit to DOE appearing before the Committee in the near future to outline in 

more detail your management changes? 

A3a-3b. The reorganization consolidates the primary mission and operational support 

functions of the Department within the office of the Under Secretary for 

Management and Performance, and also includes the Office of Environmental 

Management and Office of Legacy Management as part of its structure and functions. 

The purpose of this consolidation is to elevate the Department's focus on and 

attention to these important functions. This office will have full-time oversight of the 

operational functions of the following offices: 

Office of Management and Administration (MA) 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (HC) 

Office of the ChiefInformation Officer (CIO)i 

Office of Economic Impact and Diversity (ED) 

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) 

Office of Environmental Management (EM) 

Office of Legacy Management (LM) 

Moving the Office of Environmental Management under the purview of the Under 

Secretary for Management and Performance brings the Department's strongest 

project management capabilities, resident within the Office of Acquisition and 

Project Management, directly to bear on one of the Department's most vexing yet 

I The CHCO and CIO would continue to have direct access to the Secretary so that they can 

provide broad policy advice and other functions, as specified by statute or regulation. 

22 
97 


85443.044

vital challenges: cleaning up nuclear waste that is a legacy byproduct of the Cold 

War. These DOE sites include Hanford, WA, Savannah River, SC, and Paducah, KY. 

This reorganization will enable the new Under Secretary for Management and 

Performance to utilize a more concentrated level of resources and to apply better 

managerial discipline to address project management issues in this critical area. 

Reforms initiated over the past several years have begun to bear fruit. The GAO has 

narrowed the scope of its high-risk designation for DOE's contract administration 

and project management to major capital asset projects - those costing more than 

$750 million. Efforts are now under way to address the serious challenges 

confronting several major construction projects. In addition, the Secretary has 

approved the formation of a new working group, representing offices across the 

Department, including NNSA, to continue on efforts to improve performance in this 

area. 

In addition, transferring the Offices of Environmental Management and Legacy 

Management from the Undersecretary for Nuclear Security will allow this 

undersecretary to focus exclusively on NNSA's forward-looking missionsincluding stewardship of our nation's nuclear stockpile and advancing the President's 

nuclear security agenda - while entrusting the Environmental Management mission 

to an organization devoted to solving management challenges. 

These organizational changes will enhance the Department's ability to carry out its 

responsibilities to the President and to the Congress, while improving our financial 

23 
98 


85443.045

stewardship at a time of tight fiscal constraints. Reducing the cost of doing business 

within the Department will enable us to allocate more resources toward our mission 

objectives in national security, science, clean energy, and environmental stewardship. 

24 
99 


85443.046

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q4: How do you plan to improve integration of energy and science programs, as you 

reference in you testimony? 

A4: I believe that it is important to integrate our energy and science programs in order 

to move quickly from basic science, to applied research, to technology 

demonstration. The Department has made important strides to foster 

communication and collaboration between its science and energy programs during 

the past few years-the Energy Innovation Hubs program, which pulls together 

senior managers from across the Department, is just one example. However, I 

believe that we can do more organizationally to advance this process, and I am 

considering ways to more closely integrate the management of science and energy 

programs to improve the dexterity and effectiveness of the innovation process. 

25 
100 


85443.047

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q5. How do you plan to address safety and security challenges across the DOE complex? 

AS. Safety and security are my top priorities and I have made this clear to our DOE 

Federal and contractor managers. It is imperative that the entire DOE community 

understand that safety and security are integral to the mission of DOE and that it is our 

responsibility to our people and to the communities thai surround our facilities to 

maintain the highest standards of excellence in these areas. The Department will 

continue to seek ways to strengthen our safety and security performance and clarify 

lines of authority, particularly in managing our security responsibilities. 

26 
101 


85443.048

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q6. You note that you will work with the Administration to produce a Quadrennial Energy 

Review. My understanding is this review is modeled on the Defense Department's 

legislatively-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review, which sets a long-term course 

for DOD as it assesses the threats and challenges the nation faces. 

a. Why is this review critical to DOE's mission? 

A6a. The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America's security and 

prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through 

transformative science and technology solutions. Innovation and new sources of 

domestic energy supply are transforming the nation's energy marketplace, 

creating economic opportunities at the same time they raise environmental 

challenges. To ensure that federal energy policy meets our economic, 

environmental, and security goals in this changing landscape, the Administration 

will conduct a Quadrennial Energy Review ~hich will be led by the White House 

Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy, supported 

by a Secretariat established at the Department of Energy, and involving the robust 

engagement of federal agencies and outside stakeholders. This first-ever review 

will focus on infrastructure challenges, and will identify the threats, risks, and 

opportunities for U.S. energy and climate security, enabling the federal 

government to translate policy goals into a set of analytically based, clearly 

articulated, sequenced and integrated actions, and proposed investments over a 

four-year planning horizon. 

27 
102 


85443.049

b. To the extent the defense review is guided by the fundamental policy of 

providing for the common defense of Americans, do you see the purpose of 

the energy review as providing for American prosperity and energy security? 

A6b. American prosperity and energy and environmental security are at the core of the 

Department's missions and are a fundamental concern of the QER. 

c. What is the time frame? 

A6c. The Department should know more about the time frame in the coming months. 

d. Will you work with this Committee to ensure this review is focuses 

appropriately? 

A6d. The Committee is welcome to contribute comments on and during the review and 

will be briefed when appropriate. 

28 
103 


85443.050

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q7. Part of DOE's core mission involves defense programs and national security, but those 

programs should be performed within the overall framework of civilian control and 

development of nuclear technology, under the Atomic Energy Act. 

a. There has been pressure over the past few years to place DOE's NNSA programs 

within the Department of Defense, separate them as an independent agency, or 

otherwise silo them from DOE's core mission. How do you ensure that defense 

programs and other important security missions are performed within the 

framework of DOE's broad mission? 

b. What can you do to increase the translation of important physics and other national 

weapons research to civilian benefit? 

A7. The legislative history of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act reveals that a prominent 

theme of the organizational placement of the program was that the science was 

not segregable into solely militarY, naval, or civil pursuits. The multidisciplinary 

range reflected in the Department's suite of National Laboratories - - including 

the three weapons laboratories - - reflects this reality. 

The Department's capabilities formed in order to meet atomic energy defense 

missions have aided many civil pursuits. Beginning in the mid-I 980s, the 

Department's extensive supercomputing capacity, developed for the weapons 

program, prompted Congress to fund the Department as the early lead in the 

Human Genome Project which ultimately led to the mapping of the complex 

human genome sequence. Commercial civil developments prompted or aided by 

the capacities and expertise of the weapons laboratories include chip-scale atomic 

clocks (to enhance GPS performance), radiation detection from fast-moving 

vehicles, simple hand-held biohazard detectors, and small and disposable forensic 

explosive detectors. 

29 
104 


85443.051

In addition, one of the weapons laboratories has developed, with EPA, opensource software for prompt detection of drinking water contamination that is used 

by several large utilities, and has developed with the University of New Mexico a 

promising enhanced-efficiency membrane for use in reverse-osmosis water 

desalinization. 

The Department employs several tools to apply the results of scientific research 

devoted initially to "weapons research" to society at large. These include direct 

appropriations where the capabilities of the weapons research laboratories are 

directed to civil projects. The statutory recognition of technology transfer as a 

Departmental mission under the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer 

Act of 1989 (granting National Laboratory directors significant authority to retain 

and license intellectual property), complemented by DOE IP policies, are tools 

designed to provide necessary incentives and partnership opportunities that 

encourage commercial application of the fruits of the scientific and technical 

research of the DOE National Laboratories, including the weapons laboratories. 

30 
105 


85443.052

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q8. How do you, as Energy Secretary, most effectively manage the diverse missions of the 

Department in a way that protects taxpayer funds and ensures safety and security 

across the complex? 

A8. To manage effectively we must set clear mission goals; establish unambiguous 

requirements and expectations for cost controls and safety/security performance; 

closely monitor performance; and hold our managers and contractors accountable for 

delivering mission outcomes in a safe and secure manner across the complex. While 

the missions of the Department are diverse, the principles of effective management 

can and should be applied to all. 

31 
106 


85443.053

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE UPTON 

Q9. Over the past year, there have been serious security shortcomings identified at the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and DOE, underscored by the 

breakdown at the Y-12 site in Tennessee. 

a. Would you elaborate on what you think is necessary to restore accountability 

and strong oversight of the nation's nuclear weapons facilities? 

b. What is necessary to ensure the national weapons labs operate with a 

. consistent safety and security culture? 

A9. The several reviews conducted by or for the Department in the aftennath of the Y-12 

incident (Inspector General review, the General Finan review, the report by the 

Department's Independent Oversight office, and the assessments of the "Three Wise 

Men") collectively provide a thorough analysis of the security and management 

deficiencies of the Department and the beginnings of a roadmap for actions by DOE. 

While the Department continues to consider aspects of its approach to strengthening 

security. our approach unquestionably includes clarifying and simplifying lines of 

authority and accountability. It also includes strengthening and improving our line 

management oversight and contractor assurance processes for nuclear security, and 

ensuring rigorous and comprehensive Departmental Independent Oversight of nuclear 

security and other high consequence activities, such as nuclear safety. 

The Department places a high priority on the strength of the safety culture and security 

culture at all DOE sites, and within our federal workforce. We fonnally emphasize 

the importance of culture in the Department's nuclear safety and integrated safety 

management policies. We have undertaken a systematic approach to assess our 

organizational culture, with primary emphasis on nuclear safety culture, across the 

Department, utilizing a framework endorsed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

32 
107 


85443.054

We have taken steps to further increase knowledge and awareness of this topic 

throughout the workforce, including providing tailored training to federal and 

contractor managers. This initiative will require sustained effort over a long period of 

time, and our goal is to fully realize a safety and security culture such that the 

organizational values and behaviors modeled by our leaders, and internalized by our 

workforce, serve to make safe and secure performance of work the overriding priority. 

Further, we seek to consistently demonstrate an environment in which employees are 

encouraged and are willing to raise safety and security concerns to their own 

management and to DOE without fear of retaliation. 

33 
108 


85443.055

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

By passing Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of2005 (EP Act), Congress directed the 

U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support a program to improve domestic energy 

production, protect the environment and increase U.S. jobs. The program has established 

a successful track record of public, private and academic cooperation-with oversight from 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and a Federal Advisory Committee. 

Since 2006, the EP Act Section 999 program has been managed by the Research 

Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) -- a consortium of over 160 

organizations of leading researchers and experts in industry and academia. 

Q 1. Please describe how the Section 999 program has worked as intended to improve 

technology and environmental safeguards related to energy production. 

A 1. The program has facilitated public-private research partnership that has developed 

technologies and best practices for oil spill prevention offshore and environmental 

protection onshore. 

34 
109 


85443.056

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q2. Which areas of program administration do you believe need improvement? 

A2. The President's Budget has consistently proposed repeal of Section 999 of the 

Energy policy Act of2005 since FY2007. The FY2014 Annual Plan will detail 

remaining program activities prior to the statutory sunset of program authorities. 

3S 
110 


85443.057

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE BARTON 

Q3. Program participants have expressed concerns that DOE has failed to award Section 

999 program funding in a timely manner. I understand these delays have resulted in 

lost opportunities for much needed field testing and R&D projects. 

a. Please describe the role DOE Office of Fossil Energy will play in 

implementing Sec. 999. 

A3a. The Secretary of Energy has ultimate responsibility for, and oversight of, all aspects 

of the program. DOE is responsible for planning the annual solicitations, managing the 

Program Consortium, RPSEA, and two Federal Advisory Committees and all their 

meetings, approval of all solicitations and selections, and evaluating the quality of 

technology transfer efforts. Currently, all DOE actions are up to date, and no actions are 

pending. The President's Budget has consistently proposed repeal of Section 999 of the 

Energy policy Act of 2005 since FY2007. The FY2014 Annual Plan will detail 

remaining program activities prior to the statutory sunset of program authorities. 

b. What administrative changes will you make to improve 

implementation of Sec. 999 and ensure timely decision-making? 

A3b. An important administrative change is having NETL provide more hands on 

support for RPSEA in their execution of the government procurement regulations and 

contract negotiation. This change has already been implemented. On three occasions 

during 2012, NETL sent a team to Houston to assist RPSEA with their backlog of 

awards. The President's Budget has consistently proposed repeal of Section 999 of the 

Energy policy Act of 2005 since FY2007. The FY2014 Annual Plan will detail 

remaining program activities prior to the statutory sunset of program authorities. 

36 
111 


85443.058

QUESTION FROM REPRESENT A TIVE SHIMKUS 

1. A New York Times article earlier this year relating to power shortages in New 

England noted the importance to the region of being able to import power from 

the Indian Point nuclear facility, quoting one individual as saying: "Without 

Indian Point, New England would have been toast. 

Ql(a): This situation in New England was due to an overdependence on gas. Would you 

agree this reflects why it is important to have fuel diversity? 

At(a): The New England situation illustrates the importance of developing and 

implementing regional-scale plans to ensure the adequacy, diversity and 

flexibility of the region's generation supplies. 

Ql(b): In your view, do nuclear facilities playa critical role in ensuring the reliability of 

the grid? 

AI(b): In general, yes. Local conditions will be important, however, with the result that 

some nuclear facilities are likely to be more important for regional reliability than 

others. In fact, the siting and operation of all types of generation is important for 

reliability at both the local and regional levels. 

Ql(c): Do you agree that if our country wants to continue to have affordable, reliable 

electricity, federal policies should support fuel diversity? 

AI(c): Fuel Diversity is important to address several issues, including reliability and 

affordability. However, regulators have to find an appropriate balance between 

these objectives and costs to consumers. 

37 
112 


85443.059

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS 

Q2. In your testimony, you refer to doubling the use of renewable electricity 

generation by 2020. Do you have any goals for the growth of nuclear energy? 

A2. I am committed to maintaining nuclear energy as part of the President's "all-ofthe-above" strategy. Nuclear power currently provides 20 percent of our 

electricity generation and over 60 percent of our carbon emission free electricity. I 

believe work in areas such as small modular reactors, modeling and simulation, 

accident tolerant fuels, nuclear loan guarantees, and potential solutions to the 

back-end of the fuel cycle will help ensure nuclear power continues to be part of 

the nation's energy mix. 

38 
113 


85443.060

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS 

Q3. DOE's core mission derives from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in which 

Congress established the policy of promoting the civilian development and 

control of nuclear energy towards "promot[ing] world peace, improv[ing] human 

welfare, increas[ing] the standard of living, and strengthen[ing] free competition 

in private enterprise, and promoting world peace." 

a. Do you see this as an important element of DOE's current mission? 

b. If so, what will you do to invigorate this mission at the agency? 

A3. Yes, I do see the work on civil nuclear energy as an important part of DOE's 

mission. The President's FY 2014 Budget requests $735.46 M for the Office of 

Nuclear Energy. As mentioned above, I believe efforts in areas such as SMRs, 

fuel cycle R&D, and modeling and simulation all contribute to that important 

mission. 

39 
114 


85443.061

()l TST10:\ FR()\! RFI'R1SF'\T,\TIYl SI11\IKl'S 

(.1-1. Federally sponsor..:d research at l\rg'onnc labs tdb \is that \'Chicle componenb nIl I'kx 

Fuel \'chidc;; (FFVs) and (iasolinc: n:hicles arc mostly identical. Sn b'l;;..:d on I)()F 

fUl1lkJ sdentit!.: r.:p,)ns, nhlS\ ey.:r: \chicle on th" f<"lclloday ,,1f) aln:ady tt$C or 

c(\uld be C,\lwcrteJ to FX:" \\ilh the ach'<lncemenl ,,1' El',\ certified \.:chnoJogies. 

llom;vc:r. 1)( )E's Ch:,lll <. 'ities SPOllSorS a program Ilwt discourages n l l1ycrting 

existing' \'chicks even \\jlh EPA ccnitil'd t.:chno!oi!Y claiming that ethanol is bad l(Jr 

\'chich::s. fuel is [0(\ '::\(1el1,j\,,:. and cnmcrsion canllot b.: done e'COIlOm!Ca!!y j)()F 

daims l1h'S! .:\'cry llle'l linc and cnginc L(\mpoll(:nl must he 111(1dili..:,1 while EP:\ has 

concluch:d these changes arl' not IKe',led, 

a. We baye [;,,(;11 \")rking' \'11 kgislati\)1l Il)[ bknd\.T pumps and making higher 

cOI1~cntrations "I' ethanol ;l\ailahk <.',g" E 15. 1'20, 1':;0 in support nfthe Fn\.'rgy 

In(kpendl'l1ec :\<.:1. What do.::s) our OWll r"scarch show l\:garding <:thanol 

compatibility with \ chides on the wad toda~ '; Whal is tllc materi;1! compatihilit\ 

isslIe you have n'ulld with modern H'hicles? 

:\4a, DOl: pron1PiCs the dC'\d"p111Cm and u,,' \lfal!cm:llin: fucb, including ethanol. which 

call rednc'c [' ,S, dcpcnd('ll(:c on pClwkl1l11 in tll(: tran'l't>rtatioll sector, Recent Dote 

research on ethanol blends focused <)11 dcte'rmining the effects tlf' 1~'I:" and E20 ( I ,,\";\ 

and 20"(\ ethanol. rcsp(:di\ dyJ ()11 \~likk ~ystcm~, Ihi~ rcscardl included ,Oll1\.: 

materials cllI11patibility wsting but I\as 1101 imcnded to be a comprehensivc evaluation 

of all ethunol blends \\ ith all \'chicle's ill all dri\'ing ((ll1dilions, The results did IH\t 

identify Sil!llilica11l i%\16 "itll 1: 1 ". and ultimate!) m.TC instrttmcntal in forming Ihe' 

basis n,r the EPA dc'ci>il)11 that allolls the sak ()f 1.'15 I"l' vchicks model ycar 2()()1 

f~w Plastic. Fla~,tonk'iric. and ~vil'tailic 

('\( Eth;Hh)l-hkndcd Ga~n1int,':' (\L!) 

·10 
115 


85443.062

llo\\..:,'cr. the n;suhs die! indkat..: a range or s..:nsiti,i!\ to incre,ls,;d kwb or cthanol. 

Though t"nellinc:s arc gelll.'rally alcl,hol-[olcnmt in modern y..:hicks. therc arc other 

The,.: .:omponcnts include injectors ami fuel pumps, \'alves and \ake scals. and. 

,:omCliillCS. pIston nngs, 

The DcpJrtme-nt ,-'0i1Hni:'::'1{);ied ~m 

incn.:m.:nwl COS! ufln:tkin:..: I:rv~ 

dut: to till.! use (if "'pl.'cia} n; .. tteriab. lHlp 

-11 
116 


85443.063

()UFSTjO~ 11W\1 Rl:PRI,SISIATI\T SI!I\IKLS 

Q:" I'm troubled with the \I iddy held misconccption that our nation's \\:hicIcs \'(lukl b.: 

damaged by (hc lise (If any ethanol bc.:ausc or the hcli<:f lh,ll fud lincs and gask.:ts \111 

FFVs arc' sOlllehow spedal ami dilTcr.:1ll from ~asolilw "chick" I'm nOI aware of 'I!l~' 

.::-;a1111'k: \\ l1.:rc ethanol hi!;; cr.:ated c(!rrllsiu!1 in modern ".:hides sin.:" the 

imrodut:ljon of E 10 and 1':));;, 

t\, What material compatihility issues has DOr: found on \'chicles produced sinc.: tbe 

introduction of E I 0 and (lIlDll'! 

:\5a. i\utol11ohik manllfactHrers adaph:d their n:hklc production In be compatihk with E I!) 

\\'hen it \\as inlTodu<:<:d in lll(: 13t(: 1970s, As such. yirtll:dly all \'cbicks on the road 

today arc cOll1patibk \\ illl c'li1anoll,lcnd, up to E I 0, (lBDll W(\5 introduced \Iith thL' 

adoptitlll of the Ticr l! emissions standards Ibr light-clut,'" ,'chick, in the 2004modd 

ycar. :\11 whick,; "quipped with OB!)!I are compatihle- with EHI, 

It is il1lportant to n')\l~. hom.:",:r. that then: are sensiti\'ities 10 highcr ethanol kvds. 

ethanol blends did not ielell1il)' signilkallt issues \vith 1'15. and ultimatciy was 

instrumental in forming the hasi:; 1,,1' the EPA deci,;i, '11 that all<\\\$ the sale of E 15 l"l' 

I'chicks in model year 2001 and 111'\\\:1', h,r highcr-k\'c1 bknds. although rud lines 

are generally alcohol-lnh:rant in m,\,krn vchicks. therc arc other e0l11p011C1115 thaI may 

require' upgr:lding, Jl'pc'nding on the: blend lel'C!' These (oJ1lp,)!lel\!s include injcctNs 

:Jnd fuel pumps. vaIn:s and valw SC:llS. and. sOlm.'timcs. piston rings.j 

~ Tl11.: D.:partmcnt I.'()mmis::-ion::d an 

InCI't!ll'H;tHaf cO:.--t of mah.ing 1"1, v~ 

due [(1 :hc US;;" \)( :-.p,,'cial HlaterL'!.i:-, 

((rom ASU RL'H:tl:"sancc') in 20m; In t'~thn:He !ht: 

,\ la1'k~" 
117 


85443.064

h. lIa\'oe ytlU identified any "pecitic P,lr\S ,>11 pnpular I'c·hick, many ",:hick" p!\',hKcd on 

Ill.: I;Ht 15 years that arc 1]!1[ c<lmpmibk II ith gasolin-: hlended 1\ itll ethanol. If so. how 

many or thesc' \'chic:k, an: 0111h, wad today'.' 

;\5b. The materials that mallufacturers u:;c j('r sl'ccific parts vary widd;; by manuJ11cturcr 

and ti'c'lllcntl: chal1~!c·. AUIOll1obik manut~lctur\TS adaptcd thcir \'ehick pwducti(ll1 to 

be compatihk \1 ilh r II) II hC:ll it \\;b intwduced inlhc blC 1970s .. \s a rc:;ull. 

llighcr hkn,j,;. such :,s E85. do [,'quirc somc modi [icaliolls. Fle\;ibk fuel \'chicle,; 

(FFVs}·~·lhosc: built sl'ecitkall;. to ltoe blends dup to F85~·h:l\\: upgraded metal and 

gasket material:< to ;tYtiid cllrrosi,m and ,,!h~r is,t1~s as:.;ocimc:d with higher <:thanol 

other compPllents that require uPtcradintc 1\11' usc in FFVs. Thc.'c COI11!1c1I1ClllS include 

;\ccording ttl the Energy Information Administration, there an: more than 8 millj!Jll 

rFVs on the road today." 

'" The Department commissioned ~m cnginc1,.:ring Ohm) ASG Hcnaiss.ancc) in 2008 to L'stimalc tlw 

increment.al ('ost nftnaklrHZ FFYs trl·latht.: hi c""\OI"J(I,,:!1 

~u(': to th0 use of special m~atcria!s. 
118 


85443.065

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS 

Q6. Is DOE aware of any car manufacturers using fuel line materials that are compatible 

with E I 0 but not compatible with higher concentrations of ethanol? If so, has there 

been any scientific research done to confirm your findings? 

A6. DOE is not aware of vehicle manufacturers using fuel line materials that are 

compatible with EIO but incompatible with higher concentrations of ethanol. Fuel 

lines in modem vehicles are essentially all alcohol-tolerant. There are other 

components, however, that must be upgraded for use in flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) 

. that use higher concentrations of ethanol (E85). These components include injectors 

and fuel pumps, valves and valve seats, and, sometimes, piston rings. Manufacturers 

consider specific material formulations proprietary, and as such, the Department does 

not have specific information about the materials that individual manufacturers use, 

although it is known that these materials vary widely and frequently change. 

44 
119 


85443.066

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS 

Q7. DOE publishes guidance and tools for consumer and fleet managers on ESS fuel 

economy and other fuels. The guidance would lead consumers to believe that using 

ESS will only result in more cost to them as the guidance unfairly punishes ethanol. 

For example, a "2S% loss in fuel economy". Does DOE have any support for this 

guidance with consumer fuels? 

A 7. To accelerate deployment of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), the Department 

provides technical and scientific information related to all alternative fuels recognized 

by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, including ESS. The Department provides this 

information to fleets, businesses, and the general public through its on-line Alternative 

Fuels Data Center (AFDC)7 and Transportation Energy Data Book, as well as 

FuelEconomy.gov (a joint effort with EPA).8 

The energy content ofESS is SI,600 Btu/gallon, compared to 115,400 Btu/gallon for 

conventional gasoline (approximately 29010 less than gasoline).9 This difference in 

energy content results in a similar reduction in fuel economy when comparing flexible 

fuel vehicles using ES5 and conventional vehicles using gasoline. 

, Alternative Fuels Data Center fuels page: hnp:/lwww.afdc.energy.gov/fuelsl 

• FuelE<:onomy.gov find-and-compare feature for E8S vehicles: 

hnp:llwww.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action .. alts&path=3&year...2OI3&vtype=E8S&srchtyp= 

rearAfv&rowLimit=IO&pagenO" 1 

Transportation Energy Data Book: http://cta.oml.gov/dataldownload31.shtml 

45 
120 


85443.067

Ql TSll():\ IIW:--I REPRLSI~:\ I.\IIVI SllI\lKt'S 

Q~L EP1\ has eenitkd Compressed :\ulllrai (ius (C\:(j) and E!l5 cOllvcrsi<.lll h:chnologks 

yet DOE consumer awarcness pro!lfams (lilly support and promotc C:\( i conn:rsion 

technology, 

informali,\!1 related to all allernmi\,' lilds by the- En~q.;y Policy :\':101' 

199:::. This illi.:Judcs information relatL'd In c(1ll\'ening \'chides to Opl'rate tlllllutural 

gas, propan", dcctri.:ity and ethanol. DOE provides this information to fleds, 

businesses. and the gL'lKral public thrLlugh its ,.n-line .\Iwrnati\'c Fuds Data Center 

tAFDe).I" 

In addition. DOE cnlbbol'ates \\)th 1]'1\ to exdlang" inf(lI'll)mion rdatcd to \'chicle 

conversion h:dll1"jngies and systems that ha\\.' bet:n t.:sled and ;:<!rtiJied as tomplianl 

with EPA emissions l'L'guhniol1s. \Yith 10 FFV tOl1\ersions. it is impol'lant ttl 

not\! the Col1n\\' in;;: 

.. According to the l:.s. Energy Information :\dminislratiol1. there arc mon: than 8 

millillll llexib!" ruel \'chides (FF\'s) 011 t' ,So roads It.,lay 11 in addition, many FF\' 

mod.:!s arc' :\\'ailabk dir\"clly I'rom \11'igillal .:quirmc:nt l11lll1ul'a"mrc:rs at n(' additil'nal 

cost o\,er )lasolinc' \c:hit:!es. As such. Ct\nsmner imerest in and ,kmand I'm FFV 

conn.:rsiol1s !la, be','ll \ L'ry limilt:d. 

J 1\ 
121 


85443.068

~ontrul syst':ll1. 

• Tn darc:, EI'.\ has \:"nili<:,l Pllly ill') \'chidc l'l:Jtl~lrnls 1(\[, FFY COl1lcfsion. comp:m:d 

to lllore: than six humln:d Ii II' C:, ( ; l'l'll\·e:rsi(\l1. I.' 

b. What is DOE', e:xpcric:l1u: ill co,;t. I'Crl~lrnl:l!Ke. cmissi"ilS. and available 

inlj'astructure with 111.:s.: two altcrnali\'c fll.:l ())llions'? 

the dUly cyclc and dl'i\('r', habits. In its 1:"lUmiIIlH:lll 10 prmid" technical infol'mali(lll 

rdalctito all alternati\c fuels rccognized hy the iCnc:rgy Policy .-\C[ or 1992. the 

Dcpanmcl1l has ck\'dnpcd and maillluins a num!l,T of hl,)is. including ":OSI cakulat,'rs. 

rClf determining the h ltal cost or ownc:rsbip as wdl ;)s anllual fuel COS! Illf cOlll\:l11ion;!1 

as weI! as alwnJutive rllcl I chicks 

data an.: <)\'ailahle onlinl! through the DcpartrnC!lt'~ :\itcrnaliyc Flids Data C'c'l1h.:r and 

Transportation Energy Data Book. as \VeIl as j·uc:IEcolltll11y.gO\· (a joint activity \\ith 

as well as ge!1t'ral emissions trend" li11' \chicks using these fuels. Pcrronnance and 

(aijpipt' cmissions inl'lfI11atio!1 I,ll' spccitlc n:hicl<.: make's and mudds is availahle "ll 

Fucll:conomy .go\'. 

-----------~ 

47 
122 


85443.069

\.'\pril 2(13) 

I:-;FRASTRllCTl'RE 

I'ERHHUIA:-\n: 

EXI'f.RlE:-;CE 

E85 

... latil\th 

,\" )1~Z)ii(:<.',;i)ie 

dini:r~nc~ in 

,chick 

perf'-'rHllmCC \\ hen 

F~:: is lbCd. 

Lower Clh.'rgj 

,"lIklH tbn 

ga!1ollll~~ resulting 

in tt:wt.:t' mik~ pt:r 

gallnl1, \k.'IS 

current l'mi~~itlJ1~ 

. ~,,,·gl~~!il~~!~: .. 

• Altanatiye Fud Prkil1!, Report: 

• ArDe Fueling Station Loc:lIpr: 

• Ychiclc-"pL'ciJk PerlimmH1ce alld 1,':missiollS inl(lnll:1tion: 

o Ychidc-spccilic seard1: 

o Fthanoi rdi:rcllces: 

o :-\atural (ias rc!i:rcnccs: 

C:-\G 

':::Sluivalc:rll 

12::6 n:fudlIlg 

n:gnrd h'" Ixn\ \"'r. 

acCCkrali(1ll. and 

lTubing spcl:d. V~'hicle 

fang~' is gt::l1(:ra!l:. 

reduced. Meets CUIWI11 

I:mis::.iPl1s rL'~Hlatipn:;. 

,\8c, The reck-raj !1ecl has n[\t ,:xpL'riclh:.:d a ned j"f cOl1\cning existing n:hicks 111 nm (In 
123 


85443.070

the major vehicle manufacturers, Over time, the manufacturers have increased the 

number of flex-fuel models available in many of the vehicle classes prevalent in the 

Federal fleet. Between FY 2005 and FY 2012, the number of flex-fuel vehicles in the 

Federal fleet has increased by 111 percent. (Source: 

http://federalfleets.energy.gov/performance_data.) 

49 
124 


85443.071

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS 

Q9. GSA reports to Congress show only 3% of the fuel purchases by the Federal 

Government is E85 while almost 113 of the fleet are flex fuel capable; no one is using 

· the fuel in the Federal fieet. What has DOE done to work with agencies such as 

USDA, DOJ, Armed Forces, and Post Office to ensure they are utilizing fuel for these 

flex fuel capable vehicles? What progress has been made? 

A9. The Federal fleet has increased its E85 use to 12.2 million gasoline gallon equivalents 

· (GGE) in FY 2012 from 3.1 million GGE in FY 2005, an increase of298 percent. The 

increase in E85 use has outpaced the growth in Federal flex-fuel vehicles, which 

increased by 111 percent over the same time period. (Source: 

http://federalfleets.energy.gov/perforrnance_ data.) 

At the start ofFY 2012, the Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP) began providing Federal agencies with a Web-based dashboard that 

utilizes fuel transaction data for GSA-leased vehicles to provide monthly tracking of 

· fuel consumption by each component fleet within an agency. The dashboard also 

tracks each fleet's missed opportunities to use E85 instead of gasoline when E85 was 

available nearby. Fourteen agencies are currently using the dashboard to increase their 

E85 use and reduce gasoline consumption. 

50 
125 


85443.072

()t 'ISIIO:\ lRO\! REPRISF:\T\ lI\T SI !l\ltTS 

()l(), Those same (;SA reports show us that \Vh..:n the Fetkral Government d(leS purchase 

ethanol fuds they pny too much wasting tax payer dollars, Fleets spent (ncr 

S4,OOigallol1 Oil ex:; while nmionalmarkd prices \\cre bdow S:U)(), 

,\lOa, The units for 1"\1.:1 consumption in GS,\'s F.:deral FI<:.'I Report 11h\\lgh 1](1\ 

altcrnati\'c ('lids sn thallh.:y can be compar"d with gasoline on an ener)!Y'"quiYalcncy 

basis. A gallon or E~5 has approximately 2tJ percent less energy content than a gallon 

()f gasoline: c<lJj\crting gallons of ER5 into (,(iF ()i' FS5 takes into (KWtlnt thi" 

that the cost of ES5 1\) the h:(kral 11e(:1 \\as mer $4 per (,GF of EXS and less than $3 

per gallon of EX5, 

At the stan of FY ~!ll~. the DeparllllCIlt pfFncrttY', Federal Energy \IJnageflll:nt 

Program n+::X1P, hegan proyiding Fe'deml with a \\' cb·basccl dashboard that 

utiliz..:s fuel tram;acth'!1 data for GS:\·iI:ased v('hicles to pnwidc llllmthl, tracking of 

fuel conSlmlpl1<m by each comptJm:nt ill'c! within an agcncy. The dashboard abo 

tracks .:ath ll.:l't's miss\.'d opportunities to llse EX5 instead of gasoline \\hen i:X5 was 

GSAs FY 20 II Fedc'r;d Flee1 Report can he: Illlllld at 

51 
126 


85443.073

b \\hlt ell' you hc'ii.:w is t;(liltributing til th~ higher than ;t\.:rage price being paid hy 

fcderallh:ds fur 1·:,,5 co:<ting tll.: taxpayers a premium (\\~r marh'! costs'.' 

A lOb. The unils for fllel cOllsumption in eiSA's Fetinal Fleet Report, though not specificd. 

ar~ ga:<olin.:: gallon .::qllivakms {(it ,I'). A (i( il: is a Ulli! uf Illcasurcmcnl used tur 

ahcmati,c fut'ls that 111(': can k 

basis. A gallon oCU;5 has approximately 29 percent less energy content than a gallon 

diflcn:ncc in t'!1(Tgy content. The data in US.\', Fl' 2011 Feclcral Flct'l Rtpor1 "jw\\' 

that tht CllS\ of Ell:' to the Federallb:t was <l\ cr $-+ pcr GGF ()f Ell5 and It's> than S~ 

per gallon 01'1:115. 

CiSX" FY 2011 h:deral Fleet RCj11,rt can be !<)lInu at 
127 


85443.074

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE LATTA 

Q I. Advances in innovative technologies have played a major role in unlocking the vast 

oil and gas energy resources that have contributed to our new energy renaissance. 

a. In your role as Secretary of Energy, how will you facilitate the private 

sector's ability to maximize our resource abundance through advanced 

technologies? 

Ala. America's abundant unconventional oil and natural gas resources are critical 

components of our Nation's energy portfolio. Their development enhances 

America's energy security and economy. The Department's work in this area has 

focused on developing technologies and best practices to address safety and 

environmental issues associated with hydraulic fracturing. Currently, FE's work 

includes unconventional resource characterization, developing technologies for 

mitigating impacts associated with unconventional gas development, and the 

treatment and handling of produced water. In addition, DOE is pursuing a range of 

research activities to support an integrated environmental risk assessment 

associated with unconventional resource development. This assessment integrates 

evaluations of risks to water and air quality, as well as issues related to induced 

seismicity. 

The program is also evaluating methane hydrates. The program intends to conduct 

laboratory andlor field-based research focused on increasing public understanding 

of methane hydrates in gas-hydrate-bearing areas. These public sector-led efforts 

wilJ be designed to evaluate the occurrence, nature, and behavior of naturallyoccurring gas hydrates and the reSUlting resource, hazard, and environmental 

implications. 

53 
128 


85443.075

b. Under your leadership, will DOE support the use of traditional energy 

resources -such as fossil fuels and nuclear energy - in advanced and 

innovative ways? How so? 

Alb. The DOE works to achieve the President's goals to develop America's innovative 

competitive edge through strategic investments in our Nation'S clean energy research 

development and demonstrations (RD&D). We are investing in only the key 

enabling technologies that are on critical paths and that show the highest potential 

impacts on achieving the program goals and benefits in the timeframe needed for 

deployment. 

The development of innovative oil and gas technologies is being focused on ensuring 

that the Federal Government's understanding of the risks associated with oil and gas 

development keeps pace with advancements in production technology and 

developing technologies to mitigate these risks. Our current research focus is on 

safe and environmentally sustainable development of unconventional natural gas. 

In the traditional energy source of nuclear energy, DOE is conducting research on 

advanced fuels that would be more tolerant of extreme conditions. In partnership 

with industrY and universities, we are currently looking at a range of concepts in 

innovative coatings, claddings, and fuel designs that improve safety, as well as 

emission free energy production. DOE will also conduct research to address 

questions related to advanced nuclear energy technologies, , such as fuels and 

materials for higb temperature gas reactors . DOE also conducts R&D for reactor 

technologies that can be used in remote locations with only infrequent refueling. 

54 
129 


85443.076

Today, coal accounts for about 20% of the total energy consumption in the United 

States, and fuels about 40% of our electricity generation. Although no new coal 

fired power plants are being proposed in the U.S., coal will continue to be an 

important part of our energy strategy. 

The coal power industry has a history of responding to environmental challenges. 

Sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal fired 

power plants have all declined over the past 30 years, while total coal consumption 

and electricity generation have increased. This trend was driven by strict 

environmental regulations and new emissions control technologies to reduce 

pollution. 

The development of carbon capture and storage is continuing this trend, and will 

allow coal to generate electricity with a corresponding decrease in carbon dioxide 

emissions. We see coal as a key component of our energy strategy now and into the 

future. In addition we anticipate the application of carbon, capture and storage 

technology to natural gas fired electricity generation at a future time in order to meet 

the long term environmental goals for the country. 

55 
130 


85443.077

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE LATTA 

Q2. Does DOE's all of the above approach to energy include coal? Will this require the 

use of carbon, capture and storage (CCS) technology? When do you expect CCS 

technology to be commercially available and economically viable? Is it fair to the 

coal industry to advocate an energy policy approach that requires technology not 

yet economically feasible to use? 

A2. DOE supports the President's all-of-the-above energy strategy, including his focus 

on continuing to expand responsible oil and gas development, increasing the fuel 

economy of the vehicles we drive which will save families money at the pump, 

supporting renewable energy sources, and investing in infrastructure and research and 

development, all of which playa central role in increasing our nation's energy security. 

Research and development of advanced fossil energy technologies, including carbon 

capture and storage, are part ofthis strategy. While there are no insurmountable 

technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent carbon capture 

and storage (CCS) from playing a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, early CCS 

projects face economic challenges related to climate policy uncertainty, first-of-a-kind 

technology risks and the current high cost of CCS relative to other technologies. 

CCS continues to be a critically important component in a portfolio of low-carbon energy 

technologies that will be needed to address global climate change mitigation. DOE is 

actively investing in the research, development, and demonstration of advanced CCS 

technologies to enable CCS deployment as rapidly as possible. 

56 
131 


85443.078

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON 

1: Our Committee had a hearing earlier this year in which we heard from a broad 

range of electricity providers. They all testified that fuel diversity in the nation's 

electricity sector is important for ensuring low cost, reliable electricity. 

Ql(a): Do you agree that fuel diversity is important to keeping electricity prices low? 

Al(a): Fuel diversity is important for a number of reasons. Diversity enhances 

reliability, and it also gives grid operators a broader range of options for dealing 

with unanticipated conditions. However, diversity itself comes at a cost, and in 

some situations achieving diversity goals could put upward pressures on retail 

electricity rates. 

Q I (b): Do you agree that fuel diversity is important for reliable electric service? 

Al(b): Yes. However, fuel diversity is only one contributing factor in maintaining 

reliable service. Several other factors are also significant contributors to 

reliability, e.g., vegetation management, grid operation, and system resource 

scheduling and planning (generation, transmission, distribution, and demandside). 

Ql(c): Do you agree that fuel diversity is important for keeping the lights on and 

restoring electricity quickly during major weather events or natural 

disasters? 

AI(c): Yes, but bear in mind that a region with diverse fuel options can still be impacted 

by weather or other natural disasters. Regardless of the source of electricity. a 

generator must still be connected to the consumer through the grid (both 

57 
132 


85443.079

transmission and distribution); and the grid is often the focal point of restoration 

efforts following such an outage. 

58 
133 


85443.080

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON 

2: California has been pursuing its own climate policies, including a cap-and-trade 

program and renewable energy mandates. Concerns have been raised about 

electricity reliability because the state's growing reliance on wind and solar and a 

shrinking number of conventional plants. These concerns have increased due to 

the unexpected announced closure of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. 

Q2(a): While California regulators have said they don't anticipate blackouts this summer, 

do you have concerns about electricity reliability in that state? 

Al(a): California's regulators and utilities have pursued a multi-option strategy for 

dealing with the challenges raised by the absence of San Onofre's capacity. 

While major events could still cause reliability problems in California, situational 

awareness of grid conditions and careful planning to prepare for and respond to 

potential reliability events help reduce the likelihood of such events. 

Q2(b): Do you have any concerns about potential cost increases for Californians as they 

are mandated to use more and more renewable power? 

Q2(b): We have entered a period which is extremely challenging for utility regulators. 

They have to fmd an appropriate balance among several fundamental electricityrelated goals, including the adoption of clean energy. Other goals include 

reliability, supply diversity, physical and cyber security, two-way flows of energy 

and information, and, of course, the cost of electricity to consumers. 

59 
134 


85443.081

QUESTION FROM REPRESENT A TIVE OLSON 

Q3. Especially in competitive markets, several planned new full-scale nuclear plants 

around the country have run into some economic trouble and have been cancelled 

or put on hold. However, there are a number of companies working on novel new 

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors that could be more economically viable. One of 

the companies working on SMRs - NuScaie - is actually partnered with Fluor, a 

finn headquartered in my district. I know that DOE has an ongoing grant 

program for SMR, but I would just like to hear your thoughts on this technology 

and really, how your budget reflects the future of nuclear power. 

A3. The Department is embracing the concept of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as 

an opportunity to provide the country with an alternative source of clean, safe, 

and affordable nuclear power. The Department views SMRs as a potential 

replacement that can provide clean nuclear power for certain aging fossil plants to 

help meet the Nation's greenhouse gas reduction goals. There are many other 

features and advantages expected of SMRs: 

Passive safety designs that would allow the reactors to withstand and 

respond to severe accidents with little or no operator action; 

Modular construction techniques that could improve cost and schedules; 

Flexibility to add units to increase output in response to incremental 

demand growth; 

Flexibility in siting at locations with remote grids and lower power 

requirements; and, 

- Potentially lower cooling water requirements with less environmental 

impact. 

The Department's SMR Licensing Technical Support program was initiated to 

assist in accelerating the commercialization and deployment of the safest and 

most mature SMR designs by supporting certification and licensing of these units. 

60 
135 


85443.082

The program will support cost-shared design and engineering work for at least 

two SMR technologies within the program's total budget of $452 M over six 

years. This funding will support the development of SMR designs that would 

eventually compete for the nuclear market share. 

61 
136 


85443.083

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE MCKINLEY 

Q 1. Last year EPA proposed greenhouse gas standards for new power plants that would 

effectively ban new coal plants in the U.S. by requiring that they install carbon 

capture and storage (CCS) technology that is not commercially available. 

a. Do you agree that coal has for decades played a critical role in 

providing affordable, reliable electricity in the U.S.? 

A I a. Coal has provided a low cost, domestic source of energy to provide between 40% 

and 50% of our electricity production. We anticipate that coal will continue to provide 

low-cost base load electricity while meeting all environmental standards. 

QIb. Do you support EPA's proposal to ban construction of any new coal plants 

in the U.S. for the foreseeable future? 

Al b. The draft proposal for regulation of certain new fossil fuel fired power 

plants under section 11 I (b) of the Clean Air Act does not ban construction 

of new coal plants. 

62 
137 


85443.084

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE MCKINLEY 

2. Over 41,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation have been scheduled to shut 

down due to EPA rules. 

Q2a. Did DOE anticipate that so much capacity would be retiring the very near 

term? 

A2a. A number of coal fired power plants have recently announced plans to 

retire due to a combination of factors, including low natural gas prices and 

low demand growth. Both the 2012 and 2013 versions of the Energy 

Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook Reference Case, 

which account for such factors, project that roughly 49 OW of coal-fired 

power plants would retire by 2020. 

Q2b. Are you concerned about the potential impacts on grid reliability? 

A2b. It is the Department of Energy's (DOE) responsibility to be concerned about grid 

reliability regardless of the source of any impacts. That said, DOE, FERC and 

EPA have been engaging with industry which is working hard to minimize any 

potential reliability impacts from EPA's energy sector rules. Through this 

coordinated effort, the agencies have been jointly working with the transmission 

operators and planners to ensure that any potential issues are raised and addressed 

as early and efficiently as possible. At the same time, one must remember that 

although the odds on reliability events can be reduced, preventing such events 

altogether is not feasible. 

Q2c. Are you coordinating with FERC and EPA to ensure that no outages occur? 

63 
138 


85443.085

A2c. The Department is coordinating with EPA and FERC to monitor and address any 

potential reliability impacts. For example, the agencies have been holding joint 

discussions with the nation's regional transmission operators/independent system 

operators (RTOsIISOs) for updates on their respective monitoring and assessment 

activities as well as any updates from generators in their region as they implement 

the recently finalized EPA rules (e.g., Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule). 

Through these dialogues, the agencies are also seeking early insights the 

RTOsiISOs have on potential reliability problems in their respective footprints 

and any mitigation efforts planned. We are also, through publicly available 

information, monitoring the announcement of power plant retirements and the 

status of power plants expecting to retrofit. The Department is committed to 

identifYing and resolving any anticipated reliability impacts associated with 

EPA's energy sector rules. 

64 
139 


85443.086

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER 

Q 1. As Secretary of Energy, will you encourage the Administration to open up new 

areas to domestic production as a part of national energy plan to capitalize on our 

nation's newly discovered oil and gas abundance? 

AI. DOE supports the President's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy where we pursue 

more domestic energy production while sti11 protecting the environment and 

addressing climate risks. This strategy calls for continuing to expand responsible 

oil and gas development, increasing the fuel economy of the vehicles we drive 

which will save families money at the pump, supporting renewable energy 

sources, and investing in infrastructure and research and development, all of 

which playa central role in increasing our nation's energy security. As part of 

this plan the Administration will consider opening up new areas for development 

if those areas can be developed safely while protecting the environment. 

65 
140 


85443.087

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE GRIFFITH 

Q1. The DOE FY 2014 Budget provides $276 million for coal R&D programs, a 23% 

reduction from FY 2012. 

a. Based on DOE's current projections, what is a realistic date by which CCS 

could be developed and deployed on a commercial scale? 

Ala. DOE is actively investing in the research, development, and demonstration of 

advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies to enable CCS 

deployment as rapidly as possible. The first suite of full scale CCS demonstration 

projects, using the best currently available carbon capture technologies, will start 

operation over the next five years. While there are no insurmountable 

technological, legal, institutional, regulatory or other barriers that prevent CCS from 

playing a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, early commercial CCS 

projects face economic challenges related to climate policy uncertainty, first-of-akind technology risks, and the current high cost of CCS relative to other 

technologies. 

CCS continues to be a critically important component in a portfolio of low-carbon 

energy technologies that will be needed to address global climate change mitigation. 

Many global climate models suggest that CCS will need to be widely deployed by 

2050 to meet current climate mitigation targets. 

b. In your view, is CCS currently a workable option on a large commercial 

scale? 

i. If yes, what facilities demonstrate that? 

66 
141 


85443.088

Albi. Although several carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies already exist 

in different industries and applications, they have not yet been demonstrated 

successfully on a mediumlhirge electric power plant. The expected first power plant 

to do so is Southern Company's 582 MWe (net) Plant Ratcliffe in Kemper County, 

Mississippi. The plant is scheduled to commence commercial operations in 2014 

with over 65% of its C02 (3 million tons of C02 per year) captured, compressed and 

transported by pipeline to mature oilfields for long-term storage via Enhanced Oil 

Recovery (EOR.) 

Other types of industrial facilities provide some indications of the commercial 

workability ofCCS. In December 2012, Air Products began CCS operations at an 

oil refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Air Products' CCS facility is capturing 

approximately 925,000 tons of C02 per year, for EOR. There are several more CCS 

examples within the oil & natural gas processing industry, both domestically and 

internationally. These include Statoil's Sleipner CCS project in Norway 

(approximately I million tons of C02 annually, since 1996); Exxon's natural gas 

facility in Labarge, Wyoming (4 million tons annually since 2008; 6 million tons 

annually since 201 0); SP's natural gas field at In Salah in Algeria (3.8 million tons 

of CO2 injected between 2004 and 2011); etc. 

Also, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) has been capturing 300,000 tons/year of C02 

since 2011 at a biofuels plant in Decatur, Illinois, and successfully storing that C02 

in the Mt. Simon sandstone formation. Expansion activities are under way at 

67 
142 


85443.089

Decatur, and ADM expects to increase its CCS activities to 900,000 tons annually 

later this year. 

In addition, Dakota Gasification has been capturing approximately 3 million tons of 

C02 annually since 2000, from its Great Plains lignite gasification facility near 

Beulah, North Dakota. and sending the C02 205 miles north to the Weybum and 

Midale EOR fields in Saskatchewan. Although the Great Plains facility is not an 

electric power plant, it provides a good representation of commercial scale CCS at a 

large coal gasification facility. 

In the electric sector, specifically for existing coal-fired power plants, Southern 

Company is currently demonstrating post-combustion CCS at a 25 MWe scale on 

Alabama Power's Plant Barry near Mobile, Alabama. That is presently the largest 

post-combustion CCS facility operating at a coal-fired power plant. 

b. In your view, is CCS currently a workable option on a large commercial 

scale? 

ii. Of those facilities, which is the most promising in your view? 

Albii. The eight major CCS demonstrations that DOE's Office of Fossil Energy is 

co-funding with industry certainly rank among the most promising CCS facilities, 

both nation-wide and world-wide. 

• Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifier; Southern Company Services; 

Kemper County, Mississippi; -$3B est. total plant cost, $270M DOE share (9%); 

68 
143 


85443.090

Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (lGCC); 3,000,000 tons ofC02/year to 

EOR. 

• Texas Clean Energy Project; Summit Texas Clean Energy LLC ; Penwell, Ector 

County, Texas; $1.73B total est. cost, $450M DOE share (26%); 

IGCC/polygeneration (baseloaded); 2,200,000 tons of C02/year to EOR. 

• Hydrogen Energy California (HECA) Project; Hydrogen Energy California LLC 

(a project company owned by SCS Energy); Bakersfield, Kern County, 

California; $5B total est. cost, DOE share $408M (8%); IGCC/polygeneration 

(load following); 2,570,000 tons ofC02/year to EOR. 

• W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture & Sequestration Project; NRG 

Energy; Thompsons, Texas; $775M total est. cost, DOE share $167M (22%); 

post-combustion capture at an existing coal-fired power plant; 1,400,000 tons of 

CO2/year to EOR. 

• FutureGen 2.0; FutureGen Alliance, Meredosia, Morgan County, Illinois; $1.77B 

total est. cost, DOE share $1.05B (66%); oxy-combustion repowering; 1,000,000 

tons of C02/year to saline storage. 

• Demonstration of C02 Capture and Sequestration of Steam Methane Reforming 

Process Gas Used for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production; Air Products & 

Chemicals; Port Arthur, Texas; $431M total est. cost, DOE share $284M (66% 

CO2 from steam methane reforming for hydrogen manufacture at an oil refinery; 

925,000 tons of C02/year to EOR. 

• C02 Capture from Biofuels Production and Storage into the Mt. Simon 

Sandstone; Archer Daniels Midland; Decatur, Illinois; $208M total est. cost, DOE 

69 
144 


85443.091

share $141M (68%); C02 capture from an ethanol plant; 900,000 tons of 

C02/year to saline storage. 

• Lake Charles Carbon Capture & Sequestration Project; Leucadia Energy LLC; 

Lake Charles, Louisiana; $436M total est. cost, DOE share $261M (60%); C02 

capture from a petroleum coke-to-methanol gasification facility; 4,500,000 tons of 

C02/year. 

The Air Products project at Port Arthur is already in operation. Two more, the 

Southern Company and ADM projects, are both under construction and slated to 

begin operations within the next 10 months. Taken together, these eight projects 

comprise the world's leading demonstration program for lSI-generation CCS 

technologies, with a diverse portfolio of IGCC, oxy-combustion, post-combustion, 

and industrial CCS processes. At DOE's Office of Fossil Energy, we are researching 

and developing 2nd_ and 3td-generation technologies that have a lot of potential for 

bringing down CCS costs in the medium- and long-terms. 

70 
145 


85443.092

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE GRIFFITH 

Q2. Given the strict new regulations coming out of EPA that effectively prevent the 

construction of any new coal plants, what is DOE doing (outside ofCCS research) 

to ensure that coal will remain a part of the US energy portfolio? 

A2. Outside of research and development, and as part of President Obama's Climate 

Action Plan, the U.S. Department of Energy announced a draft loan guarantee 

solicitation for innovative and advanced fossil energy projects and facilities that 

substantially reduce greenhouse gas and other air pollution. The draft solicitation will 

be open for comments from industry, stakeholders, and the public. 

The solicitation will support new or significantly improved advanced fossil energy 

projects and facilities - such as advanced resource development, carbon capture, lowcarbon power systems, and efficiency improvements - that reduce emissions of 

carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gas pollution. The Energy 

Department will make available up to $8 billion in loan guarantee authority through 

this solicitation. 

71 
146 


85443.093

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE GRIFFITH 

Q3. If the upcoming tests on Coal-Direct Chemical Looping at the National Carbon 

Capture Center in Wilsonville, Alabama are successful, what plans does DOE have 

to support additional testing on a larger scale and/or what plans does DOE have to 

help facilitate applying this technology on a commercial scale at a power plant? 

A3. In FY2012, a solicitation was issued by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory Advanced Combustion Program seeking proposals for research and 

development on both pressurized oxycombustion and chemical looping systems. 

Three chemica1100ping projects have completed a I-year detailed systems and 

technology gap analysis on their specific technologies (including the coal direct 

chemical looping technology tested at the National Carhon Capture Center). The 

results of these analyses are being used to select the most promising technologies 

for further development and scale up to large-pilot scale. These projects will 

develop and test novel process components to prepare them for potential application 

into a fully integrated commercial scale system. 

72 
147 


85443.094

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE ENGEL 

Q 1. Mr. Moniz, in your testimony you mentioned electric vehicles. Can you expand on 

what other types of alternative fuels you foresee being developed and funded through 

the Energy Security Trust? 

AI. The President's FY2014 budget request proposes to invest $2 billion of Federal oil 

and gas development revenue over ten years in a new Energy Security Trust. This 

Trust would provide a reliable stream of mandatory funding for research and 

development to lower the cost and improve the performance of transportation 

alternatives that reduce our dependence on oil-specifically, technologies that will 

allow us to power our cars and trucks using electricity, homegrown biofuels, 

renewable hydrogen, and domestically-produced natural gas. 

73 
148 


85443.095

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE ENGEL 

You also spoke of the recent release of eGailon. which as you mentioned would give 

the "fuel cost" equivalent for operating an electric vehicle. I think this a positive 

development. Educating people regarding alternative fuels and their relative costs 

helps bring people and our country towards large scale usage of alternative fuels. 

Q2. Is the department going to release similar cost comparisons for other types of fuels, 

such as methanol or ethanol? 

A2. The Department has developed and maintains a number of tools, including cost 

calculators, to help fleets and consumers understand the relative benefits of different 

alternative fuels and choose the fuel that best meets their needs. In addition to 

eGailon, tools include the Department's Alternative Fuels Data Center vehicle cost 

calculator, which calculates the total cost of ownership as well as emissions for 

different makes and models of conventional, advanced technology, and alternative fuel 

vehicles such as those that use ethanol. 13 In addition, the Department, together with 

EPA, provides the fueleconomy.gov web site, which allows users to find and compare 

conventional and alternative fuel vehicles and calculate annual fuel cost. 14 

" AFDC Vehicle Cost Calculator: bnp:llwww.afdc.energy.gov/calc/ 

14 bnp:/Iwww.fueleconomy.gov/feglalternatives.shtml 

74 
149 


85443.096

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE ENGEL 

In your testimony you spoke about the decreases in carbon emissions due to the large 

increase in natural gas production, specifically from hydraulic fracturing. While the drop 

in carbon emissions is a positive sign, fracking brings with it other concerns. 

Q3. Can you address what, ifany, steps the Department of Energy is taking to deal with 

environmental concerns that are a result of fracking, such as methane leaks and 

groundwater contamination? 

A3. In response to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), the onshore portion 

of the Section 999 research program was refocused to address the risks associated 

with shale gas production including protection of air quality and groundwater. The 

DOE then led an effort to implement a specific recommendation from the SEAB 

which was to coordinate the efforts of relevant Federal agencies. A tri-agency 

research plan is still under development. The work to date to develop the plan has 

been very helpful in both coordinating the research efforts of the three agencies and 

developing the President's FY 2014 Budget Request. The Department's work in this 

area has focused on developing technologies and best practices to address safety and 

environmental issues associated with hydraulic fracturing. 

75 
150 


85443.097

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE ENGEL 

Q4. Can you comment on what steps the Department is taking to make nuclear power 

as safe as possible? 

A4. The Department's Office of Nuclear Energy is developing and executing 

programs that are focused on improving the safety, security, efficiency and 

overall economics of a broad spectrum of nuclear power systems through a 

variety of activities. In the wake of the Fukushima accidents in Japan, the 

Department recognizes the value of reactor designs that can continue to provide 

safety functions under extreme conditions. One of the Department's priorities in 

nuclear power development is our support of small modular reactors (SMR). A 

key driver for the Department's interest in SMRs is the potential for safety 

improvements in nuclear power operations afforded by these technologies over 

the existing fleet of large reactors. Currently proposed light water-based SMR 

designs include passive reactor safety and protection features that not only could 

help to avoid severe accident conditions, but also could help mitigate the 

consequences of an accident without requirement for operator involvement for 

extended periods. These features are expected to include, but are not limited to: 

- Deep underground siting to provide protection from natural and man-made 

threats. 

- Compact, integral pressure boundary to avoid the possibility for large loss 

of coolant accidents. 

Large gravity-fed tanks to provide post-accident cooling capability that 

can function without offsite power. 

76 
151 


85443.098

Containments that mitigate the release of fission products in the case of 

severe accidents. 

Large passive ultimate heat sinks that can dissipate reactor decay heat for 

days after an accident. 

From a longer-term perspective, the Department is also conducting research 

projects aimed at more advanced small modular reactor concepts that are 

projected to have high potential for improving the safety, security and efficiency 

of nuclear power. 

77 
152 


85443.099

Member Requests for the Record 

The Honorable Michael C. Burgess 

The Department of Energy's FY 2014 Congressional Budget Request Highlights shows that after 

"adjustments," the request for the Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development is increased by 

$83.5 million. Please explain what "adjustments" refers to. 

A: In the FY 2012 Appropriations Act, Congress rescinded $187 million from the Fossil Energy 

R&D budget, reflected in the "adjustments" row of the budget request. The adjustment listed in 

the FY 2014 column of the budget request represents the proposed use $8.7 million in prioryear unobligated balances. 

The Honorable lee Terry 

Q: During the hearing, you mentioned that the Department is conducting research regarding new 

materials for natural gas vehicle storage tanks to increase capacity. Which office is conducting this 

research, and how much money has been allocated for it? 

A: (Please see Insert 1 sent to Chairman Whitfield on September 26, 2013) 

The Honorable Cory Gardner 

Please provide an update on the use of ESPCs by the Department of Energy. 

A: (Please see Insert 3 sent to Chairman Whitfield on September 26, 2013) 

The Honorable Gene Green 

The Administration is recommending a 37.9 percent decrease in smart grid funding. Is that because we 

are moving these activities elsewhere or are they truly reducing the activities for smart grid? 

A: Modernizing the grid is a crucial part of the Department of Energy's mission. While the 

specific Smart Grid program funding line shows a decrease in the FY 2014 request, the Office of 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's (DE) proposed Electricity Systems Hub and increases 

to other programs that also support grid modernization concepts and strategies. Moreover, the 

request continues to build upon the $4.5 billion invested by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which significantly accelerated the development and 

deployment of smart grid technologies. The FY 2014 request for the Smart Grid program 

supports an increased emphasis on microgrids, which are localized grids that have the ability to 

operate autonomously from the traditional electric grid in an emergency outage. Microgrids can 

enhance the reliability, resiliency, and fast recovery of the distribution system. 
153 

Æ 


85443.100

The Honorable Michael F. Doyle 

Q: In light of your support for natural gas, what are your plans for ensuring the continued success of the 

SECA program to ensure we develop technologies that make the most efficient use of that fuel? 

A: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) established the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) 

in 1999 to develop low-cost, environmentally-friendly high temperature (-800 'C) solid oxide 

fuel cell (SOFe) technology. 

At the time of its founding, SECA was part of the natural gas program, with an emphasis on 

distributed generation applications. The SECA approach was mass customization of a common 

module that could address diverse markets - stationary power generation, military applications, 

and the transportation sector (e.g., auxiliary power units for Class 8 trucks). 

Later, the SECA program transitioned into NETl's Strategic Center for Coal, with an emphasis on 

coal-fueled central station generation with carbon capture. OMB targets were established for 

stack and system cost to be met in 2010 at an assumed high volume production rate; these 

targets, along with performance metrics, were met on-time by the Industry Teams. 

The Program has shown significant progress towards commercialization; stack cost has been 

reduced by a factor often to $175/kw, stack size increased by a factor of twenty-five, and the 

rate at which cells degrade has been reduced by a factor of 10 to <1.0% per 1,000 hours. It has 

developed technology that is fuel flexible and, as such, is directly applicable to near-term 

deployment in MWe-class natural gas-fueled distributed generation (DG) applications that will 

establish the technology foundation for longer-term central power stations, both natural gas 

and coal. The Program will continue to address tethnical (performance, reliability, durability, 

and high-volume manufacturing) and cost issues with the goal of widespread acceptance of the 

technology for commercial use.