S. HRG. 114–344 

ENERGY ACCOUNTABLITY AND REFORM 

LEGISLATION 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 9, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM LEGISLATION 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–281 2016

S. HRG. 114–344 

ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 9, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

KELLIE DONNELLY, Deputy Chief Counsel 

BRIANNE MILLER, Professional Staff Memeber 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SCOTT MCKEE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator of Alaska ....................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria. Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 23 

WITNESS 

Orr, Hon. Lynn, Under Secretary for Science and Energy, U.S. Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 62 

McAleer, Hon. Colleen, Commissioner, Port of Port Angeles, Port Angeles, 

Washington ........................................................................................................... 106 

Augustine, Norman, Board Member, Bipartisan Policy Council ......................... 114 

Harbert, Hon. Karen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for 

21st Century Energy ............................................................................................ 119 

Highley, Duane, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Cooperatives 

of Arkansas ........................................................................................................... 131 

Mills, Mark, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute ................................................. 137 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

ABB, Inc., et al 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 237 

Advanced Energy Management Alliance 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 239 

American Public Power Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 244 

American Rivers 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 255 

American Sportfishing Association, et al 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 257 

Augustine, Norman 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 114 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 116 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 197 

Boeing Company 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 258 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 23 

American Energy Innovation Council: A Business Plan for America’s 

Energy Future ............................................................................................... 25 

Cassidy, Hon. Bill 

New York Times article dated May 30, 2015 entitled ‘‘E.P.A. Proposal 

Will Put Bigger Trucks on a Fuel Diet’’ ...................................................... 148 

Colorado Oil & Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 262 

Coons, Hon. Chris 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 263 

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 268 

Domestic Energy Producers Alliance 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 272 

Dresser-Rand Corporation 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 274 

Page

IV 

Edison Electric Institute 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 279 

Energy Storage Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 288 

Harbert, Hon. Karen 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 119 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 121 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 200 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G. 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 294 

Health Physics Society 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 296 

Health Physics Society, Barbara Hamrick 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 298 

Highley, Duane 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 131 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 133 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 205 

Independent Petroleum Association of America 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 301 

Industrial Energy Consumers of America 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 305 

Louisiana Oil & Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 306 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 307 

McAleer, Hon. Colleen 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 106 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 109 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 192 

Mills, Mark 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 137 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 139 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 209 

Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District of California 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 332 

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 158 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

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

‘‘Rendering Vital Assistance: Allowing Oil Shipments to U.S. Allies’’ dated 

June 9, 2015 .................................................................................................. 3 

National Association of Manufacturers 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 336 

National Association of Royalty Owners 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 338 

National Mining Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 340 

National Stripper Well Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 343 

New Mexico Oil & Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 345 

North Dakota Petroleum Council 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 347 

Ohio Oil and Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 348 

Oil Industry 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 349 

Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 350 

Orr, Hon. Lynn 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 62 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 64 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 175 

Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 352 

Page

V 

Permian Basin Petroleum Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 353 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 355 

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 356 

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 362 

South Texas Energy & Economic Roundtable 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 364 

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 365 

SunEdison, Inc. 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 367 

Texas Alliance of Energy Producers 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 371 

Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 373 

Texas Oil & Gas Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 374 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 375 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 377 

Ute Indian Tribe 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 395 

Voith Turbo 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 418 

Western Governors’ Association 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 419 

The Wilderness Society

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 421 

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

committee’s website at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=8B5BD69E-E1ED-4440-A902-6A2B0CD24B1B 

(1) 

ENERGY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM 

LEGISLATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. I call to order the Energy Committee hearing this morning. Welcome to you all. We are here 

today to consider our fourth and final legislative hearing related to 

the broad energy bill that we have been assembling. 

When we first started this process some weeks ago we were not 

sure exactly how these hearings were going to go, but I am very 

pleased with the strong participation from our members, the generally collegial spirit that has marked our discussions and really 

the number of bills that we have been able to consider throughout 

this process. 

Counting the 42 different bills we are reviewing today, the Committee will have reviewed a total of 114 bills over the past several 

weeks. That is a significant accomplishment, and the work that 

went into it, I think, will provide us with a better understanding 

of the many ideas for our nation’s energy policy as we sit down to 

craft our larger bill. 

Our focus today is on a crucial area that does not always receive 

the attention that it deserves, and that is accountability and reform of our energy laws and programs. 

This is an authorizing committee, and we are responsible for conducting oversight of the Federal agencies within our jurisdiction. 

Since the last major energy bill was passed back in 2007, we have 

conducted numerous oversight hearings. Many of us have also discharged oversight responsibilities through initiatives within our 

own offices. In addition, a number of studies and reports on agency 

activities have been released from both the Federal Government 

and third party entities. 

Many of the bills included in this hearing reflect members’ hard 

work on oversight as well as our desire to ensure that Federal 

agencies are operating effectively, efficiently and with the highest 

degree of accountability. We will also be taking stock of our own 

actions here at the Committee in the coming weeks. In particular, 

2 

we will be evaluating the accumulation of authorizations, programs, studies, reports and other contributions to the U.S. code we 

have made over the course of the years. In many cases what made 

policy sense years ago has perhaps become outdated, been rendered 

duplicative or is serving to bury Federal agencies in requirements 

they cannot reasonably be expected to meet. Before all is said and 

done I intend to make sure that we fix those issues, and we will 

continue working closely with the agencies to be sure that we have 

done a good job. 

I think as far as all of the issues that we have taken up, the various policy aspects of this larger, broader energy bill, an area that, 

I believe, deserves very, very close attention is what we already 

have on the books, and is it doing that which we intended it to. 

So this opportunity for scrutiny and oversight is critically important. 

With a total of 42 bills, today’s hearing covers a wide range of 

topics. We are looking at things like addressing energy exports, 

permitting, our national labs, electric grid reliability, manufacturing and loan programs, just to mention a few of them. 

One topic of particular importance is the ability of the United 

States to export its oil. As the members of this Committee know, 

our nation is now the top oil producer in the world. Included in today’s hearing is a bipartisan bill that I have introduced to lift our 

outdated oil exports ban. Lifting the ban will bring an array of benefits to our nation, more jobs, more revenues, more production, 

more security and more diplomatic leverage on the international 

stage. You do not necessarily have to take my word for it, you can 

also look at the growing list of experts and studies that agree with 

this analysis. 

In support of this bill today, I am releasing a report that has 

been prepared by the Committee staff that is entitled, ‘‘Rendering 

Vital Assistance: Allowing Oil Shipments to U.S. Allies.’’ 

[The information referred follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95281.001
4 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95281.002
5 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95281.003
6 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95281.004
7 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95281.005
8 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95281.006
9 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95281.007
10 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95281.008
11 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95281.009
12 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95281.010
13 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95281.011
14 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95281.012
15 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95281.013
16 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95281.014
17 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95281.015
18 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95281.016
19 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95281.017
20 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95281.018
21 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95281.019
22 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95281.020
23 

I would recommend it to each of the Committee members here. 

As with the other white papers that we have released, it is imminently readable. It is factually stable and sound and really lays it 

out in a very clean and forthright measure. The report further develops an argument that I have been making that even while Congress works to remove the export ban, the Administration already 

has authority exclusively delegated to it, by Congress, to allow for 

greater oil exports. 

In addition to this opportunity to modernize our nation’s energy 

policies, we will spend time looking at interagency coordination on 

the so-called energy water nexus, protecting electric grid reliability 

during agency rulemakings, reforming the innovative, but at times 

mismanaged, loan programs at DOE, making sure our national 

labs are operating in the most effective manner, ensuring greater 

cooperation between the states and feds on energy development, as 

well as lowering energy costs in regions that face above average 

prices. 

We have a great panel before us this morning, with a great 

breadth of knowledge and experience to speak on these and many 

other topics. I thank you all for the time you have taken to be here 

with us this morning, and I am grateful for your input. With that, 

I will turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell. 

Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, Thank you for 

calling this hearing and gathering such a strong group of witnesses 

across a broad array of issues in the general categories of discussion of energy accountability and reform proposals. Accountability 

in energy markets starts with data, arming consumers and industry, policy makers, and regulators, with information about our energy systems and markets that help all of us make smart decisions. 

This is particularly important at this point in time when our energy systems are in major transition—as outlined by Secretary 

Moniz in the Quadrennial Energy Review. 

One of the legislative proposals before us today, S. 1420, the Energy Market Act of 2015, would boost the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) ability to collect data on energy traders and 

the kinds of entities engaged in both the physical and financial energy markets. It would establish the Office of Financial Market 

Analysis at EIA, along with an interagency working group on energy markets that would span the Department of Energy and 

FERC, along with regulators at the Securities Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading, and the Department of Treasury. 

I bring this up because there are some in the House that think 

‘‘reform’’ and ‘‘accountability’’ mean actually rolling back important 

consumer protections. This is particularly a concern because this 

Committee in a bipartisan fashion, crafted legislation in response 

to the Western energy crisis that we were able to implement. It has 

been good legislation and worked well for consumers and businesses in Washington, California, Nevada, and Oregon. 

24 

Last week, the head of the enforcement at FERC testified that 

current proposals pending in the House would hinder the agency’s 

effort to pursue market manipulation cases. Since the Committee 

led the effort to put this in place, a ban on market manipulation 

in 2005 in the Energy bill, FERC has returned almost $1 billion 

to consumers and the U.S. Treasury for market infractions and unjust profits. 

It would seem that the House proposal is more motivated to help 

Wall Street banks and their attorneys who have complained that 

FERC is being too tough on them. 

I find it ironic that at the same time our colleagues in the House 

cannot find their way forward to vote on reauthorizing the EXIM 

bank. The House is also now trying to undermine the appropriate 

actions of FERC and energy market regulators to protect consumers from market manipulation. 

So when we talk about accountability, I hope my colleagues will 

agree holding industry accountable to just and reasonable rates 

and markets free of manipulation is just what the American consumers want us to do. 

In our role as an authorizing committee, it is also our job to review existing Federal programs to assess, as my colleague said, 

what is working and not working, and whether the agencies within 

our purview have set the right priorities. 

Judging by the number of proposals before us today, it seems obvious that prioritizing innovation and investment in the kinds of 

technologies that will grow jobs and our economy is something we 

should be able to agree on. 

The American Energy Council, which I think we will hear about 

from Mr. Augustine, has suggested we ought to triple our current 

annual investment in energy-related research and technology. 

[The information refereed to follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95281.021
26 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95281.022
27 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95281.023
28 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95281.024
29 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95281.025
30 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95281.026
31 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95281.027
32 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95281.028
33 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95281.029
34 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95281.030
35 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95281.031
36 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95281.032
37 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95281.033
38 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95281.034
39 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95281.035
40 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95281.036
41 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95281.037
42 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95281.038
43 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95281.039
44 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95281.040
45 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95281.041
46 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95281.042
47 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95281.043
48 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95281.044
49 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95281.045
50 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95281.046
51 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95281.047
52 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95281.048
53 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95281.049
54 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95281.050
55 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95281.051
56 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95281.052
57 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95281.053
58 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95281.054
59 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95281.055
60 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95281.056
61 

That is because today the Federal commitment to energy research and development is less than one-half of one percent of what 

consumers in this nation spend every year in energy. U.S. research 

and development needs the proper investment in order to help us 

diversify our energy sources in the future and keep consumer costs 

down. 

We will hear from Mr. Augustine that China is expected to surpass us in research and development in the next five years and 

now the United States ranks 29th among developing nations with 

Federal research and development. So I hope, if we are holding 

ourselves accountable, we will look at how we compare to the rest 

of the world. 

The House recently passed a version of the America Competes 

Act that would actually cut ARPA–E funding research in half, so 

I do not think that is how we compete. In fact, one of my constituents, Bill Gates, and the CEO of Cummings Engineering, led a 

charge in 2010 to say that ARPA–E should actually be increased 

in a significant way if we are going to usher in the innovation and 

job growth that is going needed to advance our energy market. The 

Department of Energy needs to make sure that we are collaborating on a variety of issues with ARPA–E, and it seems to me that 

my colleagues in the House seem intent in rolling back the clock. 

One of top scientific advisor for President Roosevelt, who was a 

key figure in launching the Manhattan Project, said, ‘‘Advances in 

science when put to practical use mean more jobs, higher wages, 

and shorter hours ... but to achieve these objectives—to secure a 

high level of employment, to maintain a position of world leadership-the flow of new scientific knowledge must be both continuous 

and substantial.’’ I could not agree more. 

We have one of our witnesses here today from the Northwest, 

Commissioner Colleen McAleer, from the Port of Port Angeles. The 

Commissioner and her colleagues at the port are working on innovation in composite materials that help improve fuel efficiency 

whether you are talking about aerospace or you are talking about 

automobiles, and that market is expected to grow to $26 billion by 

next year. 

How the Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office 

and its laboratories who work with economic development and 

translate their scientific capabilities into real world economics 

value is something that we need to talk about today in helping us 

move our energy efforts forward. 

It is also important and very timely that we talk about our investment in cyber security. Last week we discovered over 4,000,000 

Federal employees’ personnel files were hacked. The breach only 

underscores the persistent and constantly evolving threat from 

cyber. So it is very important that we talk this morning about that 

particular issue, as it relates to the grid, because it is a target. The 

Department of Energy has an underappreciated role in addressing 

this threat and has piloted ways to engage industry in technology 

development, and information sharing on the security supply chain. 

I hope that we will be able to talk about research and development 

and efforts for enhanced grid security on today’s agenda. 

62 

So again, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the witnesses 

for being here today to talk about this broad subject area that we 

have before us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Let us begin with our witnesses. Welcome to each of you. We will 

have an opportunity for five minutes of testimony from each of you. 

Your full statements will be included as part of the record. Once 

you have all given your initial opening statements, we will move 

to the Committee members for questioning. 

This morning we have the Honorable Lynn Orr, who is the 

Under Secretary for Science and Energy at the U.S. Department of 

Energy. Next to him we have Ms. Colleen McAleer, who is Commissioner at Port of Port Angeles in Washington State. Mr. Norm Augustine has appeared before this Committee many times. Welcome, 

Mr. Augustine, as a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center. We 

also have the Honorable Karen Harbert, who is the President and 

CEO of the Institute for the 21st Century Energy. Mr. Duane 

Highley is the President, CEO and Chief Affordability Officer for 

the Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas, welcome. Finally, we have 

Mr. Mark Mills, who is Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute 

for Policy Research. Welcome to each of you. 

Deputy Secretary Orr, if you would like to start the panel off this 

morning, we welcome your comments. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN ORR, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

SCIENCE AND ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Dr. ORR. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of Energy 

regarding energy accountability and reform legislation. 

As I know you know, the United States energy landscape is undergoing a period of rapid transition. We’re now the largest combined producer of oil and gas in the world, and our oil imports are 

the lowest they’ve been in over 40 years. Natural gas use in power 

generation has significantly increased, and U.S. liquefied natural 

gas exports are scheduled to start within a year. Wind and solar 

power generation have grown dramatically, vehicles have reached 

historical levels of efficiency and ethanol is now ten percent of U.S. 

gasoline supply. 

While these dramatic changes have created enormous opportunities, they also pose a set of challenges and opportunities for energy 

policymakers, investors, non-governmental organizations and industry. These opportunities and challenges come in many forms. 

And addressing them will require action by many parties including 

Congress, the private sector and the public sector. And the need for 

action is urgent as the impacts of climate change threaten our 

economy, environment and national security. 

To work to combat these impacts, the Department of Energy is 

leading efforts to move to a low carbon future in support of the Administration’s all of the above approach to energy and climate action plan. The Department carries out this work by collaborating 

with some of the nation’s best innovators and businesses to support 

high impact applied research development and demonstration activities. This includes the experts at DOE’s 17 national laboratories 

63 

which carry out cutting edge research and development to advance 

the nation’s most complex challenges in science, energy, national 

security and environmental management. 

With Congress’ support the Department implements a range of 

strategies aimed at reducing U.S. reliance on oil, saving American 

families and businesses money, creating jobs and reducing pollution. In the last year we’ve seen some important accomplishments 

across the Department’s technology portfolio that highlight this all 

of the above approach. 

Let me just name a few. We’ve sequestered, geologically, ten million metric tons of CO2 through DOE-supported projects. We have 

two commercial-scale, cellulosic ethanol facilities supported by 

DOE grants or loan guarantees that have now begun operations. 

We’ve commissioned one of the world’s largest battery storage systems at the Tehachapi Wind Energy Storage Project, and we’ve 

successfully completed the first five-year program at the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, CASL, 

which continues to work toward design and licensing support of 

small modular nuclear reactors with advanced safety features. 

So as Under Secretary for Science and Energy, my job is to coordinate DOE’s scientific research efforts and our portfolio of applied energy research and development as we transition to a low 

carbon future. My office is working to enhance the productive links 

amongst the science and energy programs as we build and execute 

the Department’s research, development, demonstration and deployment activities. 

Now this is particularly important because fundamental science 

underpins absolutely everything we do in the energy sector, and 

the world of energy applications is rich with opportunity to put the 

science to work and also for energy applications to illuminate the 

opportunities for science that could have game changing impact. 

Senator Cantwell’s quote of Vannevar Bush resonated with me 

the investments we make in fundamental science will pay off in all 

kinds of ways that we don’t foresee exactly right now but are fundamental to our ability to compete in the global world that’s ahead 

of us. 

The Committee is taking on a yeoman charge of a broad range 

of 42 bills today, the majority of which have some kind of connection to the Department of Energy. I’d be happy to try to answer 

your questions to the extent that I can this morning. I appreciate 

the ongoing bipartisan efforts to address our nation’s energy challenges, and I look forward to working with the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Orr follows:] 

64 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95281.057
65 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95281.058
66 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95281.059
67 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95281.060
68 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95281.061
69 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95281.062
70 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95281.063
71 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95281.064
72 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95281.065
73 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95281.066
74 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95281.067
75 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95281.068
76 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95281.069
77 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95281.070
78 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95281.071
79 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95281.072
80 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95281.073
81 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95281.074
82 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95281.075
83 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95281.076
84 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95281.077
85 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95281.078
86 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95281.079
87 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95281.080
88 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95281.081
89 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95281.082
90 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95281.083
91 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95281.084
92 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95281.085
93 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95281.086
94 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95281.087
95 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95281.088
96 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95281.089
97 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95281.090
98 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95281.091
99 


Insert offset folio 92 here 95281.092
100 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95281.093
101 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95281.094
102 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95281.095
103 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95281.096
104 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95281.097
105 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95281.098
106 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Orr. 

Commissioner McAleer, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLEEN McALEER, COMMISSIONER, 

PORT OF PORT ANGELES, PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 

Ms. MCALEER. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and distinguished members of the Committee, good morning and thank you 

for allowing me to speak before you. 

My name is Colleen McAleer. I’m a combat veteran, mother of 

two boys, and a small business owner, but I offer my testimony 

today in my capacity as the Commissioner for the Port of Port Angeles. We are located in Clallam County in the northern portion of 

the state’s, Washington State’s, Olympic Peninsula. 

Today I will talk to you about the effort we’ve spearheaded, the 

Composite Recycling Technology Center, or CRTC, where industry, 

small business, academia and government converge to reduce energy use and costs and strengthen U.S. manufacturing. 

Carbon fibers replacing other materials in products that benefit from high strength to weight ratios. It’s a $26 billion global industry and growing. Light weight carbon fiber composites reduce the 

weight of a product, thus reducing the energy consumption; however, they are expensive to produce and do not deteriorate creating 

long term disposal issues. 

Twenty-seven million pounds end up in U.S. landfills each year, 

two million from Washington State alone. Our port is well on its 

way to providing a solution to this problem through a public/private partnership, the Composite Recycling Technology Center. 

Our port has headed an effort to recycle the production scrap of 

carbon fiber manufacturing processes, a first of its kind recycling 

center. Their research efforts in the U.S. and Europe address socalled end-of-life carbon fiber recycling, a more complex and energy 

intensive process, but we will first focus on the low hanging fruit 

of recycling and repurposing production scrap. 

Carbon fiber products already reduce energy consumption by reducing weight in industries from transportation to sporting goods. 

Recycling carbon fiber composites will drastically reduce the energy 

required for manufacturing them. The recycled carbon fiber composite in the CRTC approach will use only six percent of the energy 

required to produce the comparable virgin carbon fiber fabrics. 

In my rural, economically distressed county, we have several 

manufacturers that use advanced composites and are dealing with 

this very issue today. They make yachts, cutters, snowboards, aerospace parts and more. 

Also located in the county is the Pacific Northwest National 

Labs, Marine Science Lab. It has permitted in water facilities to 

test carbon fiber wave and tidal technologies. Last year our community was an integral part of the West Coast application for the 

$70 million, Department of Energy award for our Composites Institute. 

Our multi-state team lost the competition to Tennessee, but the 

program represented a compelling solution for industry and small 

business so we have carried on without the DOE funding on a 

smaller scale. 

107 

Our Port has received a preliminary award of $4 million from the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Washington State and Clallam County. 

In addition the Port has provided the space for the facility and committed $1.5 million in cash for its development and advanced 

manufacturing program in the works since 2012. The 25,000 

square foot facility will be a shared equipment center that serves 

four functions. It will accept uncured scrap carbon fiber and remake it into a useable form. It will manufacture and sell secondary 

repurposed products. It will serve as a workforce training space for 

local colleges. Most importantly, it will serve as an industrial scale, 

shared equipment space for entrepreneurs and universities. 

These functions will create a locally trained workforce, drive accelerated technology transfer with a national reach and deliver a 

significant economic impact to our struggling county. 

I sit on the Executive Board of our state’s Center of Excellence 

for Aerospace and Advanced Manufacturing. I often hear business 

owners say they can’t find employees with the needed skill sets. 

This Center of Excellence has aggressively coordinated with the 

state’s technical and community colleges to address this very issue. 

Washington State community colleges deliberately designed their 

curriculum to match the local employer’s requirements. In fact, colleges often buy equipment identical to that used by manufacturers 

in their facilities. Standardization through certification programs 

serve two constructive purposes. First it develops the certification 

programs employers need. Second, it enables employers to readily 

hire qualified workers. 

At the CRTC we have a parallel workforce training effort. Peninsula College is relocating their advanced manufacturing composites 

program and equipment to our facility. The CRTC will house the 

business innovators and their future workers. The CRTC will accelerate commercialization of technologies from the lab to the manufacturing floor. Small businesses will lease the CRTC lab space to 

develop proprietary products at our shared equipment center. They 

will also have access to CRTC material and process experts accelerating their development process. We believe the reduced costs 

and resident expertise will produce innovation and induce capital 

investments in carbon fiber technologies. 

Mervin Manufacturing, a local company with $13 million in annual exports, makes skis, skateboards and surfboards and several 

brands of snowboards from virgin carbon fiber. They intend to further innovate in the Center’s maker space in order to replace that 

virgin carbon fiber with recycled carbon fiber for their snowboard 

bindings, skateboards and surfboard fins. 

We currently have five major universities from three corners of 

the country that intend to send researchers and students to the 

Center. They intend to demonstrate and commercialize their technologies to the CRTC community. 

At Washington State University we intend to leverage the Composite Material Engineering Center. It has a 35-year history in 

commercializing composite wood products like the plastic lumber 

materials used in decking. We are finalizing an agreement with 

Washington State University to test the CRTC products for certification and the construction industry at their facility. 

108 

CRTC efforts will re-shore jobs back to the United States. As an 

example Batson Enterprises is a local, wholesale supplier of fishing 

rods. The current purchase component, composite and aluminum 

parts overseas in order to keep their overall costs competitive. By 

partnering with the CRTC for product development using our recycled carbon fiber, Batson Enterprises will be able to manufacture 

those components with higher quality materials that were formally 

cost prohibitive. 

The CRTC will be a small step in bringing back American manufacturing. We can’t and don’t want to compete with foreign countries on their labor costs. Recycled carbon fiber lowers material 

costs allowing companies to profit while paying a living wage. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. McAleer, you need to wrap up. 

Ms. MCALEER. I thank the Committee for considering this legislation supporting carbon fiber recycling, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. MCALEER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McAleer follows:] 

109 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95281.099
110 


Insert offset folio 100 here 95281.100
111 


Insert offset folio 101 here 95281.101
112 


Insert offset folio 102 here 95281.102
113 


Insert offset folio 103 here 95281.103
114 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Augustine? 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN AUGUSTINE, BOARD MEMBER, 

BIPARTISAN POLICY COUNCIL 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and 

Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak on a subject that I consider to be extremely important. 

By way of background I’m a member of the Board of Directors 

of the Bipartisan Policy Council, and I co-chair the American Energy Innovation Council. The latter consists of seven members, 

CEOs of major firms, not in the energy business but who are in the 

research and development businesses. And we’re very concerned 

about the lack of investment in America in energy research. 

The names of my colleagues are in the written statement and I 

will try to reflect our collective views, although today my remarks 

will, in fact, be my own. 

Energy research is obviously critical. It drives the economy to a 

large degree. It certainly has major environmental impacts. It impacts the world’s geopolitical situation, certainly including national 

security. 

We’ve had great examples of successes. Most recently one would 

have to think of the impact of the combination of 3D seismics and 

of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking which have had the effect, as I see it, of buying us time that we did not expect to have 

to be able to work on long term solutions. However, to find long 

term solutions we have to invest in energy R and D, and that 

raises the question of who shall invest? 

One obvious answer might be industry should invest in R and D 

since it’s one of the beneficiaries. When the Government cut back 

in overall R and D, their share from, well the Government’s share 

from two-thirds to one-third, industry increased its share from onethird to two-thirds. The problem is that industry will invest in D 

by and large, but not R, and there are several reasons for that. One 

is that research, R, tends to be very long term in terms of its payoff. Today the average shareholder owns their stock four months; 

when I first went into business that was eight years. It has an 

enormous impact in discounting the future payoffs when shareholders view new company’s investments. Furthermore in research 

the funder may not be the long term beneficiary of the results of 

that research because of the unpredictability of research. And finally, particularly in the energy area, there are major capital investments that firms hold and if the firms are not highly motivated 

to or take those investments and replace them with new equipment. 

Let me state openly that I’m not a fan of heavy Government involvement in the free enterprise system. On the other hand I do 

recognize that there are some things that the private sector can’t 

do, shouldn’t do or won’t do, and certainly energy R and D is one 

of them. 

As you heard earlier today however, the Government ranks 29th 

in the share of research conducted within a nation’s borders that’s 

funded by the Federal Government. We’ve dropped from first to 

tenth in R and D intensity overall. We’ve dropped from first to sevVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:15 Aug 26, 2016 Jkt 095281 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95281\B95281.TXT B95281
115 

enth at basic research in the world. China is about to pass us in 

both research intensity and value of research, and we spend more 

on potato chips in this country than we spend on clean energy research. 

The national labs play a very critical role. They conduct high 

payoff, high risk research that industry is discouraged from undertaking. They conduct long term research. They can conduct very 

large, costly products that only Government can afford, and they 

also can supply major research equipment. But this research at the 

laboratories is of no value if it’s not translated to industry. And 

frankly, in my view, we do a very poor job today of translating that 

investment in the labs into industry. The DOE is taking major 

steps to try to improve this, but there are many impediments in 

the way that we need to remove. 

You, Madam Chairman, mentioned a number of bills before this 

Committee. It’s large indeed. I would just like to highlight two that 

I think are terribly important. One is the America Competes Act 

that, particularly the Senate version, that really underpins all we 

do in this area. The second is funding of ARPA–E. ARPA–E has 

been highly successful but it is, frankly, being starved. 

The bad news is that we’re under-investing in energy research. 

The good news is that we could triple what we invest in energy research and it would barely show in the overall Federal budget. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Augustine follows:] 

116 


Insert offset folio 104 here 95281.104
117 


Insert offset folio 105 here 95281.105
118 


Insert offset folio 106 here 95281.106
119 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Augustine. 

Ms. Harbert, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN HARBERT, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY 

ENERGY 

Ms. HARBERT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, 

members of the Committee for soliciting our input today. I applaud 

your efforts putting together a multi-title energy bill in today’s 

world which is very difficult, so we applaud your efforts. 

I can’t address, obviously, all 42 of the bills today. Let me highlight a few. I’ll start with the one that, I think, will have the most 

profound impact on our energy landscape which is lifting the ban 

on oil exports which is truly a relic of the 1970’s and the era of oil 

embargo and a very different energy landscape. 

In today’s era of energy abundance unconventional shale oil and 

gas is a tremendous economic stimulus and catalyst. Shale energy 

has already added 2.1 million jobs to our economy during the deepest, darkest points of our recession. It has stimulated a tremendous 

amount of revenue, and it is slated to add $1.6 trillion of Government revenue over the next ten years and to create an additional 

two million jobs by 2025. 

If, on top of that, we lift the oil export ban we would support an 

additional 400,000 jobs, grow GDP and increase Government revenue by an additional $1.3 trillion in the next 15 years while still 

ensuring that gasoline remains affordable to the American consumer. So it’s clearly an economic win, but it’s also a geopolitical 

win or wins, I might say. 

We will be importing oil. We will be importing less oil from countries that don’t share our values and are benefiting from our financial resources we send them to buy their oil. We have seen Russia 

and what it has done to the Ukraine. We have seen Russia’s stranglehold on the energy supply to Europe, and we can break that 

stranglehold by adding more molecules into the market. And of 

course, new stable supply from America, from a reliable supply of 

energy, will choke the opportunity from non-state actors to use energy to fund their operations. And we know that ISIS and ISIL is 

using oil to fund their operations, directly threatening our national 

security. So it’s a win/win/win, and the time to act is now. 

Of course, as you pointed out in your report this morning, the executive branch could act now while Congress is still debating this. 

Staying on production for a moment, we support the Protecting 

State Rights Act. Between 2009 and 2014 oil production grew less 

than 1 percent on Federal lands and yet is up 90 percent on State 

and private lands. 

BLM admits that it takes them 227 days to process an oil permit 

and yet in the states, it takes 30, so clearly the Federal process is 

less efficient than the states. So adding an unneeded layer of Federal permitting and regulatory process over the state process will 

be as dis-incentivizing investment on Federal lands, slow jobs and 

revenue growth. State primacy is important, and this legislation 

will preserve that. 

120 

We oppose the deficit reduction through Fair Oil Royalties Act 

because it’s an arbitrary proposal to change a law that Congress 

passed in 1995 to stimulate investment in frontier deep water 

leases when prices were low and exploration expensive. So predicating a company’s ability to enter new leases today on agreeing to 

higher prices for things they’ve already agreed to with the Government, ex post facto, violates the concept of sanctity of contracts and 

possibly even the Constitution. 

We do support the bill to make DOE the coordinator for clean 

coal projects. They’ve proven challenging, economically and 

engineeringly challenged; however, the regulatory obstacles are 

even more daunting requiring permits from every element of the 

Federal Government. Designating DOE as the lead agency makes 

sense that potentially we might get more of these projects built 

even in the face of massive challenges to the domestic coal industry. 

Regarding the Energy Loan Improvement Act, we greatly support returning the loan program to its original intent that Congress 

laid out in the Energy Policy Act and require applicants to have 

some skin in the game and pay the subsidy cost. That way we will 

ensure more bankable projects and avoid the problems of the 2009 

stimulus package which let people off the hook and we saw many 

companies go bankrupt. 

We also support the America Competes Act. 

We also support the Advanced Grid Storage Act with some 

changes. The intent to focus DOE funds on grid storage is a very 

important element of our electricity sector transformation, and 

DOE should be spending more time and attention in that area. Yet 

we would like to not see the Davis-Bacon provisions included. 

Lastly, without the work force to lead America’s 21st century 

economy, we will not succeed. We have a growing skills gap and 

are facing the great shift change where 50 percent of energy professionals today can retire in the next ten years. So we support efforts 

like Senate bill 1422 which will make collaboration between industry, academic institutions, State governments, a priority to grow 

our energy workforce and focus on STEM skills. 

I will especially note the Department of Veterans’ Affairs efforts 

to put veterans into the workforce as a model we should likely 

emulate. 

So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harbert follows:] 

121 


Insert offset folio 107 here 95281.107
122 


Insert offset folio 108 here 95281.108
123 


Insert offset folio 109 here 95281.109
124 


Insert offset folio 110 here 95281.110
125 


Insert offset folio 111 here 95281.111
126 


Insert offset folio 112 here 95281.112
127 


Insert offset folio 113 here 95281.113
128 


Insert offset folio 114 here 95281.114
129 


Insert offset folio 115 here 95281.115
130 


Insert offset folio 116 here 95281.116
131 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Harbert. 

Mr. Highley, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DUANE HIGHLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES OF ARKANSAS 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Good morning. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and all members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

I serve as President and CEO of Arkansas Electric Cooperative, a 

non-profit, power supply system which serves 17 retail distribution 

systems, who in turn, serve about one million Arkansans. And I report to a democratically-elected board representing the customers 

that we serve. 

The Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas are members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, NRECA, which is a 

service organization of over 900, not-for-profit electric utilities serving 42 million Americans in 47 states. Collectively electric cooperatives account for 11 percent of all electric energy served in the 

United States that serve about 75 percent of the land mass of the 

United States in selling that 11 percent of the electric energy. 

Electric cooperatives are governed by our member owners, and 

we reflect the values of our membership. I answer to our owners 

to justify every expense. Our mission is to keep their power reliable 

and affordable and to do that in a way that’s responsible to the environment and the communities we serve because we reflect their 

values of stewardship for the land. 

Today I’d like to offer testimony on behalf of Arkansas Electric 

Cooperatives and NRECA focusing on two bills. 

First, Senate 1068 titled CyberSecurity Emergency Authority. 

We agree that when the Government has knowledge of an imminent threat to the bulk power system the Secretary of Energy 

should have authority to order action to avert or mitigate. I serve 

as co-chair of the Electric Subsector Coordinating Council which 

serves as the principle policy liaison between leadership and industry and our Government counterparts at DOE, DHS, FERC, FBI 

and others. NRECA agrees with your proposal for the Government 

to engage with the ESCC and the owners and operators of the system to the extent possible prior to taking action. By working together and sharing threat information we have been able to improve reliability and resiliency of the grid. We believe that the cost 

recovery provision of S. 1068 is unnecessary and duplicates current 

provisions of the Federal Power Act, namely Sections 205 and 206 

of the act which allows FERC to determine just and reasonable 

rates. 

While we do not oppose those that use cost-based rates having 

the ability to recover costs for their actions that might be taken 

under this bill, we do not support those that use market-based 

rates to have the same ability. Market-based entities recover higher revenues during periods of scarcity while cost-based entities do 

not. Those entities that chose to pursue higher market-based revenues also agreed to bear the many risks that go along with that 

decision. 

132 

Moving to Senate 1221 titled Bulk Power System Reliability Impact Statement. I’m glad to see this bill requiring Federal agencies 

to effectively look before they leap and reach out to experts for 

feedback on proposed regulations. The electric grid is the most complex machine created by man, and it has taken decades to develop 

the levels of reliability and affordability that we now take for 

granted. 

This bill requires experts on the operation of the bulk power system to provide feedback on proposed Federal regulations that may 

impact reliability and affordability. As currently written this bill 

proposes to use reliability coordinators under the Electric Reliability Organization to create the required reliability impact Statements. However, it would be more appropriate to conduct those reports within NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. 

In 2007, FERC approved mandatory national reliability standards for administration by NERC. NERC has the subject matter experts on staff with an overview of the entire North American power 

supply system, and they have created the standard setting system 

and independent governance and established process for stakeholder input across all sectors which makes NERC uniquely qualified to analyze reliability impacts and issue reports such as their 

seasonal, annual and long term reports or their special assessment 

of the clean power plan. We welcome collaboration with NERC to 

inform agencies of the impact of their proposed regulations. 

I’d like to add a comment on the Department of Energy emergency orders. In some instances to protect reliability DOE must 

issue a must run emergency order to a generator. This requires the 

generator to run even though it may not be economic for it to run. 

Many cooperatives are not subject to FERC jurisdiction under Section 202 of the Federal Power Act. However, they comply voluntarily with these emergency orders to preserve grid reliability. In 

some instances complying with a ‘‘must run’’ order may cause a 

generator to violate environmental laws or regulations resulting in 

exposure to third-party lawsuits or agency penalties. 

S. 1222, the Continuity of Electric Capacity Resources Act, contemplates establishing liability protection for these actions. We 

would like to work with the Committee to ensure that both voluntary and mandatory compliance with an emergency order is protected. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Highley follows:] 

133 


Insert offset folio 117 here 95281.117
134 


Insert offset folio 118 here 95281.118
135 


Insert offset folio 119 here 95281.119
136 


Insert offset folio 120 here 95281.120
137 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Highley. 

Mr. Mills, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MILLS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. MILLS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for the 

invitation to testify before you and your Committee. And I, like all 

the panel members here, commend the Promethean effort to take 

on so much legislation. 

I’d like to reinforce the comments you made in your opening remarks about the fact that so much of what we’re dealing with is 

outdated and give some context to four classes of legislation that 

are being considered specifically the regulation of the oil and gas 

industry, particularly the shale oil and gas industry, the regulation 

to control and constraint on exports, the importance of grid reliability and cyber security as they are interrelated and also the 

vital importance of long term R and D. 

The fact is that it would make as much sense as a context for 

Congress in 1985 when the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

was amended, it would have made as much sense for Congress 

today to think and stay mired in the facts that they had in 1985 

as it would have been for Congress in 1985 to forge legislation 

based on the facts of 1955 which, of course, would make no sense. 

Let me highlight how profound the changes are in the landscape 

that we’re dealing with. I mean, it’s unremarkable to note how 

much the non-energy landscape has changed in the last 30 years. 

Thirty years ago President Reagan has just begun his second 

term as President. The Soviet Union was still extant. The Internet 

was still almost a decade in the future and Apple was a small public company. It was only four years old, and the word cyberspace 

had just been invented the year before by a science fiction writer. 

So the words cyber security were not even in the political lexicon. 

We have changed the law to policies that have evolved from 

these profound alterations in the landscape of the economy and 

technology of America, but it’s remarkable how little policies have 

changed on the energy domains despite profound changes in the 

energy landscape. 

My fellow panelists have outlined and you, Chairman Murkowski 

and the members, all know how much the United States has 

changed its energy landscape. I think we still fail to fully appreciate how different the world really is. 

It’s not just that the United States is no longer the world’s largest, fastest-growing energy consumer. We don’t even talk in terms 

of, which we did in 1985, peak oil and the idea of the imminent 

end of the very availability of oil and gas. We now have debates 

about whether we should export oil and gas. That, by itself, illustrates how profound the change has been in the energy landscape. 

Let me add one other feature of the energy landscape that typically gets ignored. Thirty years ago the information part of our 

economy was very small. In today’s GDP the information part of 

our economy, that’s everything from data centers to digital movies 

to manufacturing software and microprocessors, that part of our 

economy now is 300 percent bigger than the transportation part of 

our GDP. This is a profound change. It’s the part of our economy 

138 

that’s utterly and totally dependent on electricity. This makes the 

grid reliability and the inherent stability and affordability of electricity more important today than any time in history. 

So in general we live in a world that has, compared to 1985 when 

we forged, sort of, the anchoring legislation that we deal with 

today, there’s two billion more people in the world. The world’s 

economy is about $30 trillion bigger than then, and we consume 30 

million more barrels of oil per day than we did in 1985. 

Let me summarize, sort of, very quickly four implications of this 

profoundly different landscape. 

The first, of course, relates to the psychology of legislation that 

was anchored in ideas of dependency and oil disappearing. We now 

no longer have to think in those terms. We can now begin to think 

in terms of influence. We should be forging policies with respect to 

oil and gas in how we can influence the world in positive ways, and 

this has direct relevance to legislation that inhibits or bans the export of natural gas and hydrocarbons. 

Second, the issue of grid reliability, I think, is of utter and critical importance, particularly not just because the United States is 

more electrified than it’s ever been in history, but also because of 

the integration of information technologies, the internet of things 

and the very foundational merging of the cyber infrastructure with 

our energy infrastructure. I would say that cyber security on the 

grid is a profoundly and critical social issue. 

Lastly, I would like to reinforce Mr. Augustine’s observations 

about the vital importance of basic research. I am a big fan, like 

Mr. Augustine, of the increase of Federal support for basic research. I am also am not a fan of increased involvement of the Federal Government in industrial projects. 

In fact, I would suggest and like to reinforce the critical importance of basic research and having the Government step in where 

the private sector does not want to and cannot in many cases. And 

I believe we could find the money by simply reallocating the Government spending of money on capital projects that are better left 

to the private sector and spending the money at both the national 

labs and in universities on basic research. 

With that, I’ll end my remarks, and I thank you very much for 

the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:] 

139 


Insert offset folio 121 here 95281.121
140 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mills. I appreciate your comments at the end, because in my view you have summarized exactly why this Committee needs to take on this Promethean task, 

as you have described it. I think we forget just working in the dayto-day how outdated our policies are in the energy sector. While 

this is a big task for us to do a larger, broader bill that is more 

all encompassing, the reason it needs to happen is because it is so 

outdated. 

As outdated as it is to us, it is the policymakers who are holding 

back the opportunities—whether it is for job creation that Ms. 

Harbert talks about or whether it is our opportunities to influence 

around the globe. We need to be the one to take up the heavy burden and the work and make it happen, so I appreciate your very 

articulate summary. 

I am going to start with you because you mentioned the opportunities within a changing policy to make sure that we are moving 

forward with the research and development that will lead to the infrastructure and the technologies of the future. Is there a linkage 

between allowing exports whether oil or gas or both and sending 

the right signals to build new infrastructure, to get that moving? 

Because a big part of what we are dealing with is how do you then 

translate that into the financing, like loan programs, or is there a 

linkage there between oil exports, gas exports and advancing infrastructure? 

Mr. MILLS. Well the short answer, Madam Chairman, is of 

course there is. The production of oil and gas is geographically specific, of course, but the infrastructure needed to transport and move 

oil and gas to global markets covers many more of the states of the 

Union and the access to the global markets for a product will profoundly stimulate long-term and short-term investment. 

I think that if the United States took the posture of saying to the 

world that we are reorienting our foundational energy policy toward selling to the world, not being insular, not becoming independent, but becoming a player on the world stage, this would 

stimulate profound reactions in the private sector. And if we did 

not constrain the private market’s ability to invest based on market 

access to buyers around the world, we would see incredible increase 

in the building of pipelines and ports. 

Obviously all the regular regulations pertaining to how you can 

build these from an environmental perspective would pertain, but 

those are not constraints compared to the banning of the ability of 

the private market to function and invest capital to sell to world 

markets. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Harbert, it has been suggested to me that the reason that 

I would support lifting the oil export ban is because I come from 

a producing state, and I think many forget that actually there is 

an exemption that currently allows Alaska to export our oil. In fact 

earlier in the month of May we moved about 975,000 barrels to 

South Korea. So that is not necessarily my pitch. I think it is because, I know it is because this is an outdated policy that needs 

to be revamped. Can you give me your assessment as to why lifting 

the oil export ban actually helps those states that do not produce 

oil? What is the benefit to them? 

141 

Ms. HARBERT. Sure. I mean, if we lift this oil export ban it does 

allow all 48 states to be in the business. If you are a producing 

state, you benefit in one way. But 30 percent of these jobs, the 

400,000 jobs that I mentioned, are in the supply chain and that 

does not mean that they are located in Texas or Oklahoma. In fact, 

the state that has the most to gain from this is the State of Illinois 

because they will be resident to more of supply and service industry to servicing the export industry. So it truly means that every 

state has an equity in getting this done and benefiting from the 

jobs, the revenue and the investments. 

You know, as long as we can export and we keep energy affordable here at home it has a secondary effect as well as more people 

invest here because we have affordable energy. And the Gulf of 

Mexico is a huge beneficiary of that as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to reserve other questions for the 

next round because I have a lot to talk about, but I know that we 

have good participation amongst our colleagues here this morning. 

We are going to skip Senator Cantwell until she comes back and 

go to Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Augustine, welcome back. Your testimony emphasizes the 

critical role for the Federal Government in energy research. You 

note the important role played in your testimony in hydro-fracking 

technology, and I think the history of the Federal Government’s involvement in hydro-fracking is very telling. 

The Eastern Gas Shales Project was an initiative that the Federal Government began back in 1976 before hydro-fracking was 

even a mature industry. That initiative included dozens of pilot 

demonstration projects for test drilling and fracturing methods. 

This was instrumental in the development of the commercial extraction of natural gas from shale which previously that had just 

been not economically feasible. 

Another tool that is used in fracking, micro seismic imaging, was 

originally developed by the Sandia National Laboratory in New 

Mexico, a Federal energy laboratory. 

Thank you for emphasizing it and having emphasized it the last 

time you testified. It is why it is so important that we invest in 

game-changing technologies including energy storage which will 

allow us to incorporate more renewables. It will give utility customers more control over their energy use. It will help them keep 

the lights on in case of a grid outage. 

I have introduced the Advancing Grid Storage Act which will 

dedicate R and D funding so our scientists and engineers can have 

the resources they need to innovate and bring down the costs of 

these technologies. My bill also provides technical assistance and 

loans to those who want to deploy energy storage systems. 

Mr. Augustine, can you give us some of your recommendations 

as to what this Committee can do to support the development and 

deployment of more reliable, efficient and cost effective energy 

technologies including those, things like energy storage? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Senator, thank you for the question. 

I would certainly go back and cite the very points you make 

where the Federal Government has and can and should, in my 

view, support the early phase research that is high risk such as 

142 

was done in hydraulic fracking the companies just didn’t do. And 

so the Federal Government, I think, deserves a great deal of credit 

for taking on those kinds of tasks. 

When it comes to energy storage I could think of very few areas 

where a breakthrough would be more significant than in energy 

storage. Energy storage limits us today in terms of the efficiency 

of the grid, automotive electrification, even mobile pocket devices. 

Energy storage is really on a critical path, and the gains we’ve 

made have been disappointing to be very candid. Disappointing in 

part because it’s a tough problem in chemistry and physics. Disappointing in part because we just haven’t invested in that area. 

So I think the first thing we need to do is to increase our investment. 

Secondly, we need to have much better connections between the 

research labs, the government labs and industry where candidly we 

don’t do a good job today. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Orr, can you talk about how research at our national labs 

has contributed to the development of advanced energy storage systems? 

Dr. ORR. Senator, thanks for that question. 

It’s an opportunity for me to point out that we have quite a lot 

going on in the energy storage area. Perhaps the most visible is the 

Joint Center for Energy Storage Research at Argonne Lab. It’s a 

collaboration of both university and lab folks working on the chemistries that are beyond lithium ions to make batteries have higher 

energy density and good power delivery and lower weight and addressing the kinds of safety problems. So it’s a big center, one of 

our energy hubs. 

We have a variety of energy frontier research centers. These are 

funded out of the Office of Science, and they really focus on the 

fundamentals of chemistry, electro chemistry, in particular, nano 

structure materials, understanding the fundamentals of material 

properties that will go into making better batteries. So providing 

the underpinning there. On the applied side we have work in our 

Vehicle Technology Office that works on batteries for applications 

in vehicles, and then we have quite a lot of work in our Office of 

Electricity that’s aimed at the grid storage kinds of settings. 

What’s so interesting about the energy storage area is that it applies on a variety of scales from the cell phone up to the grid, on 

a variety of time scales from the short term variations from a wind 

turbine to the day/night variations or even to the winter/summer 

kinds of variations. And it can be a very important contributor to 

a stable grid in operating with lots of intermittent distributed generation in the future. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I am very cognizant I am through my time, but 

I just want to emphasize that if you think about what a game 

changer fracking has been and how much of that came out of the 

Federal Government research and know what a game changer storage is going to be that we would be really negligent if we did not 

invest in storage. 

Thank you. 

143 

The CHAIRMAN. Who would have thought storage could be so exciting? It really is. 

Senator FRANKEN. You want to know how excited I am? 

The CHAIRMAN. I can hear it in your voice. 

Senator FRANKEN. Oh, thank you. [Laughter.] Because otherwise 

I was going to take up more time. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. We can see the excitement too, just so you 

know, we can see it. 

Senator FRANKEN. For those listening on the radio. [Laughter.] 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for hosting this 

hearing today and thanks to the witnesses for your time today. 

I wanted to follow up, Mr. Augustine, a little bit with one of your 

comments in response to a question and talking about working 

with the private sector, research development. 

Senator Alexander and I and others on this Committee and beyond are working on reauthorization of the America Competes legislation. His focus, of course, is on energy. In Colorado we are very 

proud of the work at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

is pursuing and undertaking. 

The legislation, though, that represents his efforts on energy represent the legislation that we will be moving through the Commerce Committee, through NIST and NASA and other programs on 

research and development that will drive the energy sector, that 

will drive economic opportunity, that will drive this real, new 

invigoration of research across this country. 

Could you talk about what would happen if we fail to reauthorize 

some of these major research and development type of programs? 

What would happen at DOE? What it would mean for the future 

of this country, energy future, and what it would mean domestically and globally? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Well the impact would be immense, and you 

mentioned Senator Alexander’s contribution. It was he who really 

caused the Gathering Storm study to be established that led to the 

creation of ARPA–E and much of the research that’s being funded 

in DOE today. 

When one looks at the impact of not continuing this kind of support currently the impact on the economy, on jobs, is currently immense, and the impact on national security. The fact that we no 

longer are so dependent upon a cartel of nations for much of our 

energy. 

In fact, geopolitically most of the traffic through the Hormuz 

Straits are going to go from West to East now, rather than East 

to West which places a whole different view on the national security implications. 

So I think everything from jobs, to the broad economy, to, of 

course, the provision of energy itself on the natural environment. 

These are all considerations that your question impacts profoundly. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Orr, I do not know if you would like to add to that at all? 

Dr. ORR. I would just endorse everything that Mr. Augustine 

said that our ability to deliver scientific research is well supported 

in the Senate version of the America Competes Act, and we are certain that we can put to work in a good way the additional support 

144 

for science. That underpins everything. And the innovative approach that ARPA–E has brought to challenging ourselves to do, to 

think of out of the box ways to solve game changing energy problems. Those are all things that can contribute in a very big way 

to the future of the country. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. Ms. Harbert, a question for you. 

Colorado is in the leading edge of regulations when it comes to 

oil and gas development. It continues to make sure that we are responsibly enacting policies to protect the environment while also allowing our economy to thrive with the production of abundant and 

affordable energy. 

Last week we had the EPA’s Draft Report that confirmed hydraulic fracturing has not impacted our drinking water resources. 

We also have a BLM rule that is moving forward, and we had the 

BLM testifying before this Committee. They could not cite a single 

incident that led to the BLM rule even though we have states like 

Colorado that are putting their, kind of, stringent regulations forward. 

We talked a little bit about the variance process before this Committee. It is important to Colorado since that is the mechanism the 

BLM is going to choose to address duplication in a state like Colorado where efforts are being undertaken by the state as well as the 

BLM to regulate hydraulic fracturing. 

About 3 weeks ago, I understand, Colorado had its first meeting 

with the BLM to discuss the memorandum of understanding and 

the variance process. What we have been told is that BLM is still 

waiting for guidance and a template to the variance request from 

Washington and then there is little chance that the state could 

have a variance in place by June 24th when the BLM regulations 

are going to go into effect. 

What does this mean for industry and production and during this 

variance request processing, that period as we wait for Washington’s guidance and the ultimate approval variance? 

Ms. HARBERT. Well, thank you, Senator Gardner for that question, and let me say that states have been leading on this effort 

and you have some of the best environmental permitting regulations in the country in Colorado. And there are some of your neighbors who do as well. And we should recognize that. 

The Federal process by BLM’s own statistics is not as good as 

yours. So adding an inferior process on top of a superior process 

doesn’t sound like good policy or good regulation. In talking with 

BLM and looking at their regulatory process and looking at the actual regulation, we entered into the record the fundamental question of why do we need this? They were supposed to actually answer that in the final regulation, and they did not. 

So it is clear that this is ultimately going to end up at the courts 

because they have not justified why this process is needed. And in 

the interim they’re going to leave states like Colorado and investors 

in limbo not knowing what rules to follow which is not good for 

Coloradans. It’s not good for the industry, and it’s not good for continued production. So they’re introducing a whole other level of uncertainty that is needless and unjustified. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

145 

Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair for holding this 

hearing, and I certainly look forward to working with you and my 

colleagues on crafting bipartisan energy legislation. 

I had thought I would take a couple of minutes to speak briefly 

about a few of the bills on today’s agenda that I hope to see, hope 

will have broad support, and I think should be considered by the 

Committee. 

The first is S. 1407, the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act sponsored by Senators Heller, Tester, Risch, and myself. 

This bill would direct the BLM to identify areas that are ideal for 

wind and solar development, places with a high potential for development and low conflicts, with sensitive wildlife habitat, water resources and other land uses. It directs the revenues from the royalties on renewable energy projects to permit processing costs, habitat projects and to the states and counties where these solar and 

wind projects would be located. The bill has a very long history of 

bipartisan support, and I certainly thank the Committee for including it on the agenda. 

The second bill is S. 1434 which promotes the development of energy storage, something that I am the primary sponsor of and I 

have been working with Senator King on as a co-sponsor. We have 

heard a lot about energy storage today, but it is a rapidly developing field with the potential to really dramatically impact the operation of both intermittent and conventional power generation as 

well as the way that the transmission system and even local distribution are managed. I think as the cost of storage has declined 

we are going to continue to see the deployment on both sides of the 

meter, grow increasingly rapidly. I know a number of my colleagues share my interest in storage, and there are several related 

bills on today’s agenda. My hope would be that the Committee will 

include a very strong storage provision that promotes the large 

scale development of this important technology. 

S. 1422, the Energy Workforce for the 21st Century Act, is a bill 

that I introduced with Senator Booker. The bill is a companion to 

the bipartisan effort led by Congressman Bobby Rush in the House. 

In addition to expected base line growth in employment, nearly 

half of skilled technicians, utility line workers and engineers in the 

energy industry may retire and need to be replaced in the next ten 

years due to the aging out of the workforce. Now these two factors 

will open the door to millions of future well paying STEM jobs. S. 

1422 directs DOE to establish a program to improve education and 

training for energy workers, and the bill is aimed at aligning future 

energy workforce needs and increasing the participation of women 

and minorities throughout the energy sector. 

I think I would like to turn now to DOE’s national laboratories 

and specifically to technology transfer. An issue that is particularly 

important to my state but touches many of our colleague’s states 

as well. I am pleased that Mr. Augustine from the Bipartisan Policy Center is here as a witness today. He certainly has very broad 

experience in both the public and private sectors and interest in innovative technologies. I think my colleagues know he is currently 

a member of the Commission to review the effectiveness of all of 

DOE’s national labs. One of the topics the Commission is considVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:15 Aug 26, 2016 Jkt 095281 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95281\B95281.TXT B95281
146 

ering is tech transfer and partnering with industry as one important part of the overall mission of the national labs, and I think 

I will end with a question. 

Mr. Augustine, I know your Commission’s work is not complete, 

but I would love to hear your perspective on what you view as 

some of the challenges that you cited in your testimony and some 

of your conversation related to commercializing innovative technologies and the difficulties that small businesses have in particular with engaging with the national labs on those issues? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. First of all let me comment on how important this is because we invest, I think, something like $15 billion in the 

national labs every year some to carry out basic missions, but others to support things that would have to be implemented in industry. So what we get out of that $15 billion or a share of it depends 

on how well we translate new knowledge into the business community. 

There are many inhibitors today to answer your question that 

particularly affect small business. Small business, by and large, 

doesn’t have the resources to know what’s going on at 17 different 

national labs. And it’s partly, I think, the burden of the labs to help 

those small businesses know what’s going on at the labs. Second, 

the process of setting up joint efforts between business and the labs 

is very bureaucratic. I talk to people in small businesses who just 

throw up their hands and say, we give up. It is just too hard. We’ll 

try it by ourselves. Then there are just broader matters that have 

to deal with both big companies and small companies. The best 

way to translate knowledge, technology, in my experience, has been 

to move people back and forth in and out of the government, into 

universities, into the labs. And well meaning conflict of interest 

laws today make it extremely difficult to do that. So those are just 

a few of the examples that I would cite. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cassidy? 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me first speak to Senate bill 1181, the Energy Technologies 

Access and Accountability Act, which I am introducing and which 

is somewhat similar to Senator Stabenow’s Senate bill 1449 which 

modifies the definition of a vehicle under the Advanced Technology 

Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVMP) to include commercial 

trucks in the case of both our bills and in the case of mine, United 

States flag vessels. 

Now this allows, obviously, energy transportation to be converted 

to natural gas. It is my understanding that until March of this year 

the ATVMP had not issued a new loan for four years, and many 

have begun to question the usefulness of the program. This bill 

would modify the program to include commercial trucking and maritime vessel manufacturing where investment in new fuel type vehicles are needed the most and where the technology and implementation of these vehicles stands ready. 

As one example, here is the New York Times article about EPA 

requiring 18-wheelers to run more fuel efficiently. Obviously natural gas would be a more fuel efficient way, so this is a meeting 

of a lot of factors that could really jump start. 

147 

[The information referred to follows:] 

148 


Insert offset folio 122 here 95281.122
149 


Insert offset folio 123 here 95281.123
150 


Insert offset folio 124 here 95281.124
151 


Insert offset folio 125 here 95281.125
152 


Insert offset folio 126 here 95281.126
153 

So with that kind of statement, Mr. Orr, the program has not 

issued any new loans in four years. Under its current parameters 

is there enough interest to completely disperse the remaining $16 

billion in loan authority? 

Dr. ORR. Thanks, Senator, for that question. 

You know that we did issue a loan associated with aluminum 

sheet, high strength, low weight aluminum for vehicle applications 

this year. The loan program’s office is actually not in my part of 

DOE, but and I’m sort of—so I’m a bit of an external watcher. I 

don’t have a window on the projects that are in review now, but 

I’d be happy to look into that and work with your office. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now do you feel qualified to comment if there 

is potential for the trucking industry and the maritime industry if 

more loans were made available? Is there potential for us to help 

them jump start, moving to a more fuel efficient standard or type 

of engine and would this loan program be beneficial in that regard? 

Dr. ORR. So I’d say in a variety of ways vehicle efficiency for 

trucks is actually a quite important area. 

We do have a super truck, one program, in our Vehicle Technologies Office aimed at increasing fuel efficiency by 50 percent in 

trucks. And in fact the work that was done under that program actually exceeded the goal by quite a bit. There was one manufacturer that got to 115 percent. So that’s kind of a doubling from five 

to ten miles per gallon in a big truck, and we’re just embarking 

now on a super truck two program that will enhance that further. 

Senator CASSIDY. You get more BTU per carbon from natural gas 

than you do from oil or diesel or from oil, so it sounds like you 

think there is still upside in terms of how we can improve the efficiencies of these vehicles. 

Dr. ORR. I do. Yes, I do. 

Thank you. 

Senator CASSIDY. And is there potential? Of course, I have a bias, 

but do you agree that if these loan programs are made available 

it would facilitate the development of these higher standards? 

Dr. ORR. I think the loan programs can contribute. Those tend 

to come a bit at the later stage after the research part of it is farther along. 

Senator CASSIDY. Natural gas engines are actually somewhat developed. I mean, the city buses in DC, I think, work on compressed 

or on liquefied natural gas. 

Dr. ORR. There are plenty that work on compressed natural gas. 

Frequently that’s done for air quality kinds of reasons. The overall 

efficiencies in the engines are roughly the same, but there’s an opportunity for both research and then, of course, the deployment 

side as well. 

Senator CASSIDY. I see. 

Finally, what has the DOE been doing to create the infrastructure because when you speak about other countries having compressed natural gas vehicles and also having an infrastructure to 

fill up the tank whereas we do not, is DOE doing anything to facilitate that infrastructure development? 

Dr. ORR. There has been work that has gone into, mostly it’s 

been in, kind of, fleet applications, again, largely for air quality 

154 

reasons. And to be honest, I’m not sure how much we’re doing in 

that area right now. But I can certainly follow up with your staff. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay, thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Orr and Ms. McAleer, if I could continue. 

Mr. Orr, I mentioned both cyber security and this issue of carbon 

fiber. Obviously carbon fiber is very important from an energy perspective because it is a lighter weight material, so both the auto 

and aero industries are scoring big victories in the marketplace by 

utilizing carbon fiber. 

So the question becomes what else can DOE do to help with research and development and how to transition this material into 

other uses? What other opportunities are available? How big is that 

opportunity? 

On cyber security, obviously, this past week’s events are very jarring. I think DOE’s role is somewhat underplayed, and I believe 

DOE has a major role in helping us. 

In 2011, we had the Grid Cybersecurity Act before this Committee. We actually reported it out of Committee a couple years 

ago, but it did not pass the full Senate. The bill’s focus was on 

hardening our grid and making sure that we are doing everything 

to protect our nation’s energy infrastructure. So on those research 

and development issues what do you think we need to do? 

Dr. ORR. Well certainly the idea of light weighting and carbon 

fiber materials is a very important component of our Vehicle Technologies Office. One of the principle ways you can increase the efficiency of vehicle transport is to provide the same strength but with 

a lighter weight materials. So we have an active program in that 

area, and we’re very interested in pursuing it going forward. 

On the cyber security area, we take our responsibility in this 

area quite seriously. And it goes well beyond the grid, but it certainly is very important for the grid. You might be aware that in 

the last few years at the Department we have put together a series 

of cross cutting research efforts that are meant to attack big, hard 

problems with all the expertise that we have available within the 

agency—one of those is the cyber security area. 

So we are very much interested in fulfilling our responsibility 

there. This is an area where the national labs really have very 

deep and appropriate expertise for us to apply to a problem of national interest. 

Senator CHAIRMAN. Do we have that appropriately funded? 

Dr. ORR. Well, we have requested quite significant support for 

our cyber security effort in the FY’16 budget, and we’re looking forward to pursuing it with all the strength we can. 

Senator CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. McAleer, your challenge is looking at the scalability, right? 

What are some of the R and D issues for scaling up the industry 

to make it more economic? 

Ms. MCALEER. Yes, Senator Cantwell. 

We have found that working first and foremost with carbon fiber 

prepared materials is the low hanging fruit, and we can move forward in accepting those materials and then creating products. 

However, the end of life issues with carbon fiber products is much 

155 

more complex. But even just working with the carbon fiber pre-impregnated material scraps is a challenge in that it comes in all 

sorts of different formats, sometimes it’s in a pristine format and 

other times it’s a wad of waste. 

And so in order to really fulfill the full potential of this very valuable, high value material, we need to educate the manufacturers 

so that when they create their manufacturing floor spaces that 

they will also consider how do they take advantage of the scrap 

material that they’re creating so that it can be put into a more productive use. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well it is amazing that we have to sit here. 

I mean, we really are ushering in a new era of carbon fiber just 

as we speak, and there are so many applications for this material, 

everything from bridges to aerospace. 

At the same time we really do need to usher in this era of recycling research, because we know it is going to be a highly used material. Figuring out how to increase the value of carbon fiber by recycling is critical. My understanding of the process is heating up 

the material then allows us to reuse it in other ways, so I certainly 

hope we can get some answers from DOE on this. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MCALEER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Alexander? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I want to congratulate Chairman Murkowski on her effort to incorporate such a wide range of legislation in the bill and thank her 

for this hearing. 

I also would like to point out the leadership of Senator Gardner 

who is a newer member of the Senate, but who is taking an active 

interest in America Competes along with Senators Murkowski, 

Cantwell, Coons, Feinstein, Heinrich and me. We are all very interested in that legislation, and I want to talk about that in just a 

minute. 

Mr. Augustine, Senator Murkowski has in her bill, I believe, because I am co-sponsoring it, a provision that says the Congress 

should wait until after the Commission on national labs has finished its work and then the Department should make a report to 

us about what it recommends we do. Do you think it is a wise idea 

to wait until after the Commission has completed its report before 

we take any action to reform the laboratories? 

Mr. AUGUSTINE. Senator, I think that there are some things that 

one would not need to wait to do that are fairly evident, so I would 

not make a blanket statement that one ought to wait on everything. But I do think that our Commission is putting forth a great 

deal of effort. We visited all the labs. We’re very near to completing 

our work, so I think for many of the issues it probably is worth 

waiting that brief period of time. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. I have seen how valuable the work you 

did was on America Competes years ago, and you basically gave us 

a plan that was recommended by a number of reputable people. It 

was a big help to Democrats and Republicans here because we 

could follow your blueprints. 

156 

I, for one, think what we should do is wait until we see your report, and then I look forward to working with Senator Murkowski 

and Senator Cantwell and others to deal with that. 

Dr. Orr, Senator Bingaman sent me to Japan when I was a new 

Senator to take a look at Japan’s computer. I flew all the way to 

Yokohama and did that, but there was not much to see, just a big 

box. But it got me involved in exascale computing, and ever since 

one area of agreement between the Congress and the Administration has been the priority on exascale computers. Now we have 

some big computers already today. What can we do with exascale 

computing that we cannot do with computers that we have today 

and why is it important that we fund them properly? 

Dr. ORR. Senator Alexander, that’s a question that we’ve thought 

a lot about and one that, I think, is very important. We certainly 

appreciate all your leadership over the years in helping us maintain the United States’ lead in high performance computing. 

The Department of Energy has really contributed a lot at various 

stages when we really needed an advance in capabilities. The ability to replace weapons testing with very high performance computing really led to an advance in computing capability, but then 

that spread across the entire scientific base. 

The exascale computing initiative is the next version of that. It 

will let us simulate the properties, the materials, to do materials 

by design, to do processes at very detailed scientific scales in a way 

that we can’t do now because the problems are too hard. They’re 

important for the detectors in all the basic science facilities. It’s 

really important across the whole fundamental scientific base. 

So we’re, as you know, investing in the next round toward 

exascale. I just had a chance to participate in the announcement 

about the CORAL computing effort that involves Oak Ridge and 

Argonne. We’re well on the way, and if we have the support we will 

maintain U.S. leadership. If we don’t do that, then the competing 

work in China and elsewhere will take over the lead. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

I want to use my last 20 seconds simply to once again congratulate Mr. Augustine and his team for keeping our eye on the ball 

about the importance of energy research that Senator Franken 

mentioned. 

The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences recommended a four percent increase each year on the route toward 

doubling energy research. Now that is over 20 years, but at least 

it does double it over that period of time. 

The legislation by Senators Murkowski, Cantwell, Gardner, 

Coons, Feinstein, Heinrich and I would authorize that. I want us 

to think back ten years ago what we had, I think, nearly 35 Republicans and 35 Democrats and legislation that was introduced by the 

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader to begin America Competes. 

I am delighted with that kind of leadership from the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member of our Committee and all of the effort by 

the other Senators, and I am glad to see that you are still chugging 

along and urging us to do what we ought to do about energy research. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

157 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chair, to you and our 

Ranking Member. We have a lot of great opportunities, I think, 

working together on this. I want to echo Senator Alexander and 

what so many of you have said about energy research. It needs to 

be a top, top priority. 

Mr. Augustine, thank you and thanks to all of you on the Committee and Mr. Orr as well. 

There are two bills I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention, one specifically on research and one that would focus on 

how we take what we learn through research and actually apply 

it which is really important in terms of leveraging jobs and manufacturing in America. 

One is the Building Better Trucks Act, S. 1449. I was just outside the Committee room plotting and planning with Senator Cassidy on how we might bring together his bill and mine that are 

very similar in terms of expanding the opportunity to focus the advanced vehicle loan program on medium and heavy duty trucks 

where we know the energy efficiency is and real opportunities 

there for jobs as well. Then also S. 1408 which is a bill that I have 

put forward a number of times that has actually come out of the 

Committee in the past and is now being introduced by my colleague, Senator Peters, from Michigan joined by Senator Alexander 

and myself, that deals with research. 

Before proceeding I would like to ask that a letter that we will 

be delivering be put in the record, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, 

from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association supporting both these bills. 

Senator Cantwell [presiding]: Without objection. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

158 


Insert offset folio 127 here 95281.127
159 


Insert offset folio 128 here 95281.128
160 

Senator STABENOW. The Building Better Trucks Act would basically build on what we did in 2007. Under the previous Administration I authored what has been now dubbed the ATVM Program 

that would create opportunities for loans to upgrade, expand and 

create manufacturing in the United States for advanced fuel efficiency vehicles. It was important as we were increasing CAF standards to make sure that the building of those new vehicles was in 

the United States, not overseas. In fact, we have brought jobs back 

to the United States as a result of that program. So the question 

is now as we go forward and look at the need to do the same, not 

just for small vehicles, but medium and heavy duty vehicles, how 

do we take that same approach for trucks? 

The Building Better Trucks Act would do two things. It would 

allow manufacturers of medium and heavy duty vehicles and their 

components to qualify for loans. As we know right now trucks on 

the roads account for seven percent of vehicle traffic and they consume 25 percent of our fuel. So when we can tackle energy efficiency around larger vehicles that is a very smart thing to do on 

a lot of different fronts. The second thing is we would clarify that 

suppliers can also qualify for the program. As has been said already by members of the panel, we have a situation where there 

are actually more jobs in the supply chain than in actual assembly 

whether it is automobiles, trucks, or any other kind of manufacturing capacity. It is the supply chain, and we want to make sure 

that we are supporting the supply chain as well. We have 700,000 

people nationwide, everywhere from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, all 

over the country, working as a result of focusing on the supply 

chain. 

Madam Chair, in the past the ATVM, I know, including from myself, has had some criticism that it was not working as well as it 

should. I want to thank Secretary Moniz for addressing those 

issues. We now have reports that are much, much more positive 

from GAO and so on. In fact, the good news is that in March the 

Department issued a loan to Alcoa to upgrade and expand its Tennessee aluminum mill to produce specialized aluminum used to reduce weight and improve fuel economy in a number of different 

cars and trucks including, I have to say, the Ford F150 truck which 

they are now taking 700 pounds of steel out of weight and using 

aluminum which is very exciting. The ATVM program is a very important part of that. Madam Chair, I really want to work with you 

on this. Senator Cassidy and I are very interested in working together and working with you on how we could use this program to 

expand what we need to do around large vehicles. 

Finally, I would just say that the Vehicle Innovation Act authorizes R and D efforts through the DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office 

and is very much, again, involved and focused on our medium and 

heavy duty, commercial trucks, and how we can come together to 

support new research and development on technologies that will 

have a very big bang for the buck in terms of efficiency of larger 

vehicles. It is an area that really needs to be focused on, and I am 

looking forward, Madam Chair, to working with you as we move 

forward on the energy bill that will address a lot of different energy 

efficiency issues. 

161 

Thank you. 

The Chairman [presiding]: Thank you, Senator Stabenow. 

Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking 

Member Cantwell, and thanks for having this hearing on this most 

important piece of legislation. 

I certainly support your efforts here on examining a series of 

bills that foster a far more robust, all of the above energy strategy, 

developing a more diversified portfolio from an energy viewpoint 

for the U.S. 

In my home State of Montana coal is an important piece of that 

energy mix. It powers over half of our electricity. It generates thousands of jobs. It generates over $100 million a year in tax revenues 

that helps our infrastructure, helps fund our schools, our teachers. 

Though these are all good paying jobs, the tax revenue and affordable electricity seemed to be under threat under this current Administration. I think the legislation like Senate bill 1221, the Bulk 

Power System Reliability Impact Statement Act, is critical to ensure Federal agencies are accountable for their actions and the impacts that Federal actions have on affordable electricity reliability. 

Moreover I am also glad the Committee is considering Senate bill 

15, offered by Senator Hatch, and the other measures that prohibit 

duplicitous and unnecessary Federal regulations on energy development on Federal lands and allow the states to lead. 

I also commend Senator Murkowski and others on this Committee for taking the lead and strengthening global dependence on 

American made energy by facilitating energy exports. 

I would also like to voice my support for the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act as well. In addition to the wealth 

of conventional fuels, Montana has immense potential for wind, for 

solar, for biomass, for geothermal energy development. This bill 

would facilitate that production while ensuring a firm partnership 

between states as well as supporting conservation. 

My first question is for Mr. Highley. Mr. Highley, why is it important for Federal agencies to look before they leap in promulgating regulations for the energy sector? It is actually two questions. That would be the first one. The second is can you provide 

some examples of Federal agencies and Federal actions where the 

public would have been better served if these agencies had deliberated on the impact on grid reliability in a meaningful fashion 

prior to issuing the regulations? 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Well, thank you for the question. 

And why it’s important to look before you leap is because the 

electric grid is the most complex machine yet created by man. It 

didn’t get created overnight. It took decades and decades to get it 

built to the level it is. 

Every device on the grid has to operate in exact synchronism 

with every other device, and changes to that should not be made 

lightly. It’s possible for a well-meaning regulatory body to come up 

with something that sounds like a great idea but that jeopardizes 

reliability and the integrity of the grid. So that’s the reason for 

asking for this expert level review prior to issuing the regulations. 

Now I’ve seen it on the state level where well-meaning regulators 

have had a new idea on how to regulate the grid and issued regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:15 Aug 26, 2016 Jkt 095281 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95281\B95281.TXT B95281
162 

tions that cause us to have to go back and change the rules. I can’t 

give you a lengthy list, but I’m sure we could provide you with one 

to your office. 

One that comes to mind currently is the Clean Power Plan and 

the impacts that could occur with the rapid loss of generation in 

2020 based on some of the timelines in the proposed rule. When 

we see the final rule, if those timelines are still there, we are greatly concerned about reliability impacts. Having that feedback from 

people who know how the grid works would be very helpful in 

crafting those kinds of regulations. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Highley. 

Mr. Mills, there are places like developing countries in Asia that 

do not have access to electricity and sources of energy production 

generated from Federal and Indian lands like in my home State of 

Montana that have the potential to meet this rising global energy 

demand. I believe U.S. coal represents about 12 percent of the 

world’s demand, so 88 percent comes from other sources. 

Energy produced from the Powder River Basin coal is cleaner 

than other types of coal as well as creating good paying, American 

jobs, creating sources of revenue in places where it is needed most 

on Indian Reservations. So my question is do you think it is important that American coal which is developed in a cleaner and more 

environmentally sound fashion than other types of coal be prepared 

to meet international demands for energy? 

Mr. MILLS. Well Senator, that’s a terrific question and one that 

most people I’ve encountered don’t like the answer to. The answer 

is yes, it’s critically important. 

The world has nearly a billion people who don’t have access to 

electricity, and they want cheap electricity. There are many ways 

to make electricity but the cheapest way, globally, on average, is 

using burning coal. 

In fact something on the order of 75 percent all the net increase 

in electricity supply in the last two decades has come from coal, 

and it will continue to come from coal according to every forecast, 

the majority of the supply to the world for new electricity. 

The United States has an opportunity to participate in that market both for economic benefit but, as you say, I think very correctly, 

since the world will use coal and will use more of it, we can provide 

it in the most environmentally benign and safe fashion and benefit 

ourselves and our allies and friends around the world. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Mills. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King? 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First I want to complement the Vice Chair, how she so felicitously worked the phrase, ‘‘One of my constituents, Bill Gates’’ into 

her opening statement. [Laughter.] One of my constituents, Stephen King, would appreciate the way you did that. [Laughter.] This 

hearing has been a valentine to research. All of us have talked 

about how important it is and everything else. I want to point out 

that the sequester will hit the research budget of the Department 

of Energy. 

There is a fantasy around here that we are fixing the sequester 

by dealing with it in the Defense budget with the overseas contingency money which is a trick wrapped up in a gimmick borrowed 

163 

from future generations of Americans and we do not need to worry 

about the sequester otherwise. It is going to take direct aim at exactly what all of you have said is one of the crucial priorities of this 

country. That is not a question. That is just a statement. But I 

think some of our colleagues think, okay, we fixed the sequester because we have got this gimmick in the Defense bill, but now it is 

okay everywhere else. 

Well, everywhere else includes the exact programs that we are 

talking about today. I think that is an important point for this 

Congress to understand that there is a real problem in national security with leaving the sequester in place. Not only energy research 

but little items like the FBI or the border patrol are also affected 

by the sequester. So that is just sort of a general observation. 

Mr. Highley, cyber security. We are going to have a serious cyber 

attack. The next Pearl Harbor is going to be cyber. Would not one 

way to defend against that in your industry be to air gap your system control, your system control computers, isolate them physically 

from the rest of the system? I do not care if people hack your 

emails, but I do care if they hack your grid control. Is that an option? We have got to do something. Defense is not going to work. 

Mr. HIGHLEY. In fact, we are already seeing Pearl Harbor, and 

we are already under attack in the electric sector. That is why 

through NERC we have the mandatory and enforceable standards 

for cyber security that are ordered by FERC and promulgated by 

NERC, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, that 

we have to adhere to. 

We’re currently coming into CIP Version 5, Cyber Security 

Standards, Version 5, and going to Version 7 we can already see 

that coming. It does require us to—— 

Senator KING. But whatever—— 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Have air gaps, as you’ve discussed for control systems. 

Senator KING. But we have Einstein three which was supposed 

to protect OPM, and they got hacked last week. 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Yeah. 

Senator KING. I do not believe you are ever going to be able to 

protect yourself fully by defensive cyber technology. 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Agreed. We can never be 100 percent protected. I 

would say that, so far, we have never seen a loss of electric service 

because of a cyber attack. With that said, we practice defense in 

depth in the utility industries. So we have redundancy, redundancy, redundancy, and it’s been proven throughout the years in 

terms of physical attacks and physical forces of nature we’ll practice that same defense in depth on the cyber side. 

Senator KING. Well, I just think that is an area, I mean, we keep 

getting these warning shots. 

Mr. HIGHLEY. Yes. 

Senator KING. Movie studios, they are all serious, but when it is 

the gas pipeline system or the electric grid or the finance system, 

how long is it going to take until we understand the significance? 

Mr. HIGHLEY. We see it not as a matter of if, but when, and we 

want to be in close working relationship with the Government. I 

serve as co-chair on the Electric Subsector Coordinating Council 

164 

and that’s another means we have of sharing information at the 

highest level of government on these—— 

Senator KING. I would point out that if we have greater distribution of distributed energy, that is customers making their own energy and interacting with the grid, that in itself would be a national security plus. You are nodding. Would you say yes? 

Mr. HIGHLEY. I agree, yes. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Ms. Harbert, quick question. You have testified about the advantages of exporting oil and how it is going to stimulate investment. 

I am honestly a little confused about that because there is a world 

price for oil. If the price for oil is the same everywhere why does 

exporting, is it the difference between Brent and WTI? That is 

about $4 this morning. Is that what we are talking about here that 

is going to stimulate all of this investment? Otherwise, if you sell 

a commodity for $5 and it is going to be $5 in the future what difference does it make where you are selling it? 

Ms. HARBERT. Well, I think it’s important to know that, I mean, 

obviously when you get back to basic economics, more supply will 

bring down the price. And we will see the world oil market price, 

not only its increase, but the volatility be reduced by American 

supply on the market. 

And the infrastructure investment that I’m talking about is to be 

able to move all of this natural gas and oil around our country. 

We’re going to have to build a lot of infrastructure, and those are 

good paying jobs. It’s good investment, good property taxes, and 

good state property taxes. 

Senator KING. I understand that, but I do not understand what 

the incentive is to export oil if you get $62 for it this morning in 

Europe and you get $62 in Galveston. What? 

Ms. HARBERT. Well we want to produce it and we want to sell 

it. Right now we’re running out of storage and we’re running out 

of opportunity to sell it here because our refining capacity is set up 

to refine the heavy oils that we have been importing for so long. 

We’re producing the light, sweet stuff that other refineries around 

the world are set up to accept. 

Senator KING. So it is a question of refining capacity and, in effect, customers here in the U.S.? 

Ms. HARBERT. And if we aren’t allowed to sell that and people 

stop producing it has two effects. We will import more from Venezuela, from other places, and we will see our own production slow 

down and prices go up. 

Senator KING. Fine. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. A perfect segway for me to sell my latest white 

paper, ‘‘Rendering Vital Assistance, Allowing Oil Shipments to U.S. 

Allies.’’ It speaks very directly to some of the questions that you 

have raised, Senator King. So I will make sure all members of the 

Committee have our latest, greatest edition. 

Senator KING. I always try to set up the Chair. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. It is so appreciated. 

Did you say you are related to Stephen King or was that just? 

[Laughter.] 

165 

Senator KING. I keep saying I am trying to get him to adopt me. 

I said I will not even have to change my monogram, but so far it 

has not worked. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. 

Deputy Secretary Orr, let me ask you about some of the financing opportunities, the loan opportunities, through the Department 

of Energy. 

In Alaska we have several different loan and investment programs that are designed to help facilitate renewable energy and energy efficiency programs throughout the state. We have the Alaska 

Energy Authority, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export 

Authority as well as the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, that 

again, are designed to help build out renewable energy projects and 

get so many of our small villages off of diesel. Many of these 

projects are really just so very small that it is difficult to take advantage of DOE’s loan programs. 

Has DOE considered whether state entities, like the financing institutions that I have just named, whether it is AEA or ADA, could 

be a recipient of DOE loan guarantees as an aggregator of qualifying projects? Because right now we just do not fit. It does not 

work for us. Is this something that we could look to, to work with 

DOE to help better facilitate some of these programs for smaller 

communities? It is not just Alaska, it is other areas as well. 

Dr. ORR. Certainly you raise a very good question, Senator, and 

that is how we address the needs of isolated communities whether 

they’re in the far North or on islands or well, you have some of 

those as well. So it truly is an important area and one that we take 

seriously. 

I hasten to point out that I’m not in charge of the Loan Programs 

Office, but I understand from them that there’s no prohibition for 

state or local or tribal entities to participate in the program. So I 

believe it would be possible for the state, for example, to make a 

proposal to the Loan Programs Office. How that would get evaluated, I’m not really sure. But, it, I think, it’s not prohibitive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it might be something that we want to look 

at just to make sure that, again, there are no obstacles built into 

the law that would prohibit that. 

Another area that we are looking at is oftentimes, in order to be 

eligible for many of these programs, there is a distinction between 

innovative technology and commercial technology. The commercial 

technology is different there, but again, you may have proven technology that works everywhere else in America but in a remote, isolated, small village, it is really cutting edge or innovative. I want 

to look to see if there are obstacles in the law, particularly in Section 1703, that perhaps would allow for greater opportunities there 

for us. 

I want to talk quickly about the regulatory side and what we 

have with the overlap between State and Federal. As I mentioned 

in my opening comments, I think that this is one area where we 

have very good intentions here in the Congress in terms of putting 

on regulations or some level of oversight, but we have not seen how 

many things we have smothered underneath it that now, even 

though we know where we want to go with it, we are inhibited 

from doing. 

166 

Alaska is a pretty good example of what we have been doing to 

produce oil over the decades. We have not only produced more than 

17,000,000,000 barrels of oil but the collection of royalties that we 

have done over the years. Excuse me, only 29.1 million barrels 

have been Federal, everything else that we have done has been 

state, state lands, state production, and therefore state regulation. 

But when we turn to the Federal lands our BLM lands or any 

other agency, they have their own rules. They have their own 

measure for production, and they have their own accounting for 

royalties, for inspecting, meters and operations. 

In many cases the State laws are clearly superior to the Federal 

laws, and yet, what we have is this duplication of effort, a redundancy that really does not insure greater protection to the taxpayer. All it does is create a more complicated and complex operating environment. 

So I have introduced a bill, Senate bill 1230, that would require 

the Secretary of Interior, after getting a request from a governor, 

to direct the BLM or the Federal land managers to enter into an 

agreement with the State to create a consistent operating environment. This is not about going around environmental standards in 

any way shape or form, but it is looking to leverage our Federal 

and State resources and improve the investment climate on our 

Federal lands. We are not looking to reduce standards, but what 

we are hoping is that the State programs that have proven themselves to be sufficient to fulfill the oversight and the enforcement 

responsibilities of the BLM, that they can effectively lead. 

So I would like to ask you, Mr. Mills, or you, Ms. Harbert. In 

terms of inconsistent and duplicative regulations between State 

and Federal jurisdictions and the impact that they then have on investment, I think you heard Senator Gardner mention it as related 

to the fracking in places like Colorado. What can we be doing to, 

again, insure that we have good standards in place because that is 

what we want but an assurance that we do not have an overlap 

and a duplicative process that does not contribute to better value? 

Mr. Mills? 

Mr. MILLS. Well, Madam Chairman, that’s a critical issue. In my 

work with small businesses and right now in my capacity as an advisor to venture funds and doing a lot of venture capital I interact 

with a lot of small businesses, and what I find is that those businesses are the ones who will tell you quickly the single biggest 

problem they face in expanding their business. It’s not taxation. It’s 

not finding skilled employees. It’s regulations. 

And in the oil and gas business and the shale business it’s populated by thousands of small and midsized enterprises, so the friction that’s created is very real. It’s very expensive and it slows development, and yet we have the evidence of how big an impact it 

is. There’s a lot of shale on Federal land. We know how much the 

shale oil and gas production has not increased on Federal land and 

how much it has increased on State lands. It is a very simple metric not because the shale doesn’t exist, but because you’re comparing, as my colleagues have pointed out, permits that take days 

and weeks to permits that take years. 

If you’re a small business employing 20 people, you can’t wait 

and pay for their salaries for a permit that takes a year. You will 

167 

go where the permit takes 40 days. No one in that business community is looking to avoid the permitting requirements. They just 

want them to be clear and expeditious. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think this is where the great frustration is. It 

is not as if the states are not doing a good job, in fact, in many 

cases states are doing an exemplary job of regulating. Somehow or 

other we have gotten to the point where unless it is regulated by 

the Feds it is just not good. I am not quite sure how we got there, 

but I want to change that dynamic. I think the states have done 

good jobs, continue to do good jobs and I think that we need to recognize that. Yet so many of our policies say unless it is Federal 

oversight on top of what the states are doing we cannot trust you. 

We have got to get away from this lack of trust of what our states 

have been doing. 

Senator Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank all of 

you for your expert testimonies. 

I come from the State of West Virginia, as you know, and we 

have a challenge right now as I think the Government is in denial 

that they need the products that we produce. I really believe that. 

So what I am going to ask is very simply, the EIA Department 

of Energy, as you know, basically says that well the next what, 30 

plus years through 2040 or 25 years, that we are going to be using 

fossil fuels and about 65 percent of the makeup of our energy mix 

is going to be from fossil fuels. 

Is there anyone here, just very quickly a yes or no, that does not 

agree with that? Do you not believe that we are going to be using 

natural gas, coal and oil for at least the next 25 years in order to 

basically fuel the grid and keep the lights on, if you will? Is there 

anyone that does not agree with that? Is there anyone that believes 

that we can do it with a new energy source or through renewables 

by eliminating all fossil? So all of you are in agreement that we are 

going to have to use fossil? 

Okay, then I would say that if that is the case and there is no 

new energy source, I keep thinking commercial hydrogen. Wouldn’t 

that be wonderful? Commercial hot water vapor? I would be all in 

if they had it, but they do not. 

I am living in the real world right now, and West Virginia is getting absolutely plummeted by the overreach of this Administration. 

I cannot explain it. We are not going to be able to provide the reliable energy you have always received from our little state, and 

most of the East Coast will be shut down if little West Virginia 

quits producing. People do not know that. 

We are trying to make it. We have wind and solar. We are trying 

everything, but we know that a majority of that is coming from our 

coal, and it is so in doubt now because of the uncertainty. 

Mr. Orr, I will go to you. $8 billion since 2008 has been sitting 

on the Department of Energy’s table in EIA for clean coal technology. None of it has gone out. Would you not think something is 

wrong when the private sector will not step up to use this money 

to find the new technology because they just do not have faith that 

this Government really wants them to find anything? 

Dr. ORR. So, Senator, thanks for the question. 

168 

The program that you’re talking about is a solicitation for loan 

guarantees associated with fossil energy that are tests of new and 

innovative approaches to using fossil energy but with an effort to 

make it cleaner and with lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

Again, that’s in the Loan Programs Office which is actually not 

in the part that I look after, but I do talk to the folks there and 

I understand from them that they’re pleased at the response to the 

solicitation. These are big complicated projects. 

Senator MANCHIN. We are looking in, sir, I did not mean to cut 

you short. We are looking into it also and they might be pleased 

with it, but no one has stepped to the table yet. The way it is structured, there is an awful lot of capital at risk. If you looked at energy stocks, they have gone down to basically junk stock, if you 

looked at them recently. So you have no confidence, basically. Financial institutions are shutting down everything. 

This Government has not stepped forward, this Administration, 

and said oh, wait a minute, I cannot replace 34, 35, 36 percent of 

the energy that coal produces, right? I don’t have it. Yet we are 

decimating it. You are not going to be able to produce it, and you 

have got FERC taking low cost. They do not take reliability into 

consideration anymore. It is all low cost generation, so they are 

going to the lowest cost. Ask any utility company today, any CO, 

‘‘Are you satisfied with your portfolio?’’ They will all say ‘‘No, I’m 

not.’’ 

We are not diversified enough. We have got our eggs in one basket. We are going to get smacked hard, and the country is going 

to be in jeopardy, but for some reason there is a blind eye to all 

of this. 

I will say that Secretary Moniz has been more receptive than 

anybody. This is not Democratic. I am a Democrat and this is a 

Democratic Administration. This is not Democrat and Republican. 

It is just common sense. If there is a fuel already ready to go, let 

me know. But I cannot get anybody to step up. 

We have got NETL, the National Energy Technology Lab. If we 

could partner up with NETL and we had our research institutions 

with the private sector involved to push in and was able to restructure how that money went out, we would get you some answers. 

I will give you an example. We do fracking. You know now in 

West Virginia we have some of the largest plays of shale gas, and 

we have more to come. We have got a lot of hydrocarbons coming 

out, propane, ethylene, but we are only recovering five percent, five 

percent. That is 95 percent left in the ground. Yet we have no research going on that basically would allow us to do enhanced recovery other than oil. All we are using, basically, is CO2. So we cannot 

offset the cost of knowing the collection on these utilities that could 

basically sell that get enhanced gas recovery or hydrocarbons that 

would pay for it and make it financially feasible. Nobody cares 

about that. They are afraid they are going to find an answer. Well, 

it would be different. You are going to use it for 25 more years, 

why not work with us? 

I do not know if anyone, Mr. Augustine, all of you, Mr. Mills, I 

know you are there and you are watching it happen. It is just a 

shame. 

169 

I am on a rampant here, but I am going to keep going. I see that 

basically there is eight billion tons of coal being burnt in the world. 

If you quit burning every lump of coal in America today there 

would still be seven billion tons being burned, more than ever in 

the history of the world. 

There is going to be 1,200 new coal-fired plants in the world built 

in the next four to five years, and I will guarantee you where they 

are being built there is not going to be oversight that they put all 

the new technology on, 450 or 500 will be built in India, 350, 400 

in China. It goes on and on. Yet we are worried about the climate. 

I am worried about the climate. I am not a denier. I think seven 

billion people have contributed, and we have a responsibility. But 

we are not doing anything, basically, to curtail to our trading policies that they should use the technology that we have already developed. In 20 years we have taken out more pollution in America 

than ever in history of particulates, SOX and NOX, you know. Now 

with MERC we have MATS. 

We can do those things, but the carbon capture sequestration 

and using it because of the energy it takes to pull it off of the clear 

stream is just about broke, and it will break financially, the energy 

markets, to where they know it is infeasible. 

So when they make the statement, ‘‘Go ahead and build it, we’ll 

break you.’’ Look at the Kemper plan that Southern Company did, 

$2 billion over, maybe even more than $2 billion over, on cost overrun. They cannot afford to commercialize that program. No one will 

step forward and do it. 

So this is the frustration I see. I come from West Virginia and 

they look at me and say, ‘‘Oh, he doesn’t care about the climate.’’ 

I am as much an environmentalist as anybody sitting here. I want 

clean air, and I want clean water, as clean as I feasibly can make 

it. But I also have to have a job and work in this environment. 

We just need help from people with you all with the expertise. 

It is not one size fits all. When commercial hydrogen comes on 

board, sign me up. West Virginia will figure out a way to make it. 

Until then, use me the best you can. 

Does anybody want to comment on all that tirade that I just— 

I am just so frustrated, but I want to find out if there is a way the 

Department of Energy will work with us? Mr. Mills, you observe 

a lot and you might want to say something, comment on this? 

Mr. MILLS. Well I would just first use that old expression, second 

the emotion on your eloquent defense of hydrocarbons, fossil fuels. 

But there’s interesting irony here. We’ve talked about how the 

Department of Energy was involved in the basic research in shale, 

hydraulic fracturing in the early days in basic research and seismic 

imaging. What we’ve learned in the shale industry is any of the 

shale players will tell you, is that the morphology of the shales are 

very complex. 

And the reason we only extract five percent, maybe ten percent 

at best in many cases, is that it’s a very complicated environment 

which is another way of saying it is amenable to basic research. 

The one place the Department of Energy could play a role is in the 

underlying science and modeling using exascale computers and 

petaflop computers to figure out what is going on so we can extract 

170 

the other 95 percent, and if we did that in a few years we’d double 

American production again and really change the world. 

Dr. ORR. I agree that there are very interesting research questions involving, for example, the flow in shales. And I’ll say that 

we would be happy to work with your office and you as we think 

about how to demonstrate and employ CCS and other technologies 

that will help. 

Senator MANCHIN. Secretary Moniz has offered to come to West 

Virginia, and he will be the first official in that type of environmental realm, if you will, that has been willing to come and sit 

down and be on the front line. 

Now they have flown to China, and they fly all over the world. 

West Virginia sometimes might be too difficult for a four or five 

hour drive to get there, but we are working on that because they 

need to see the front line of defense. 

Our little state works its tail off. They are trying, but boy, I will 

tell you, the uncertainty right now. At this point in time it would 

be hard for me to say that we are going to be able to produce the 

energy that you all sitting right here depend on every day from my 

little state. 

Dr. ORR. Well I would say that I have been to West Virginia and 

I would be more than happy to come back. Maybe I will tag along 

with the Secretary when he comes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Why don’t you come with him when he comes? 

Dr. ORR. I would. 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there anyone else who would like to chime 

in on this? 

Gang, let me tell you we are all in this together. That is all I 

can tell you. We are in this together, and we are going to find a 

solution for it, and it is not one size fits all. If there is nothing else 

right now that this country demands it is affordable, reliable and 

dependable energy. We are not going to have it if we go down the 

path we are going right now in the grid system. It is not capable 

of diversifying itself quick enough to do it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am so sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, Senator Manchin. I think many of us feel 

your pain. Having been one who has accepted the invitation to visit 

your state and see all that you do, I know and I understand. I 

know what you are capable of and I know the pride that the people 

of West Virginia have in producing something that this country 

needs. So thank you and thank you for your advocacy. 

Another coal producer, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for holding today’s hearing. I am encouraged that the 

Committee is actually looking to increase transparency and accountability at the Department of Energy. 

We need transparency and accountability, especially with respect 

to the Department of Energy’s management of the public stockpile 

of excess uranium. Since 2009 the Department has repeatedly violated its own written policy and the Federal law when managing 

the public’s excess uranium. As a result the Department of Energy 

has failed to obtain a fair return on this uranium for American taxpayers. 

171 

For example, the Government Accountability Office found that 

the Department of Energy’s transfers of excess uranium in 2012 

may have cost taxpayers up to $195 million. Now the Department 

of Energy’s mismanagement has also contributed to volatility in 

the uranium market and has led to job losses in states like my 

home State of Wyoming. In April we learned that employment 

among U.S. uranium producers fell by 32 percent between 2013 

and 2014. Employment among U.S. uranium producers is now at 

the lowest level since 2006. 

Now there is a third reason why we need transparency and accountability with respect to the Department of Energy’s management of excess uranium, specifically, the decision by two principle 

beneficiaries of the Department of Energy’s excess uranium to hire 

Daniel Poneman, former Deputy Secretary of Energy. I am referring to the Traxis Group which appointed Mr. Poneman to its 

Board of Directors in December of 2014, and Centrus Energy Corporation, formerly known as USEC, which appointed Mr. Poneman 

as President and CEO in March of this year. 

I am deeply troubled by the decision of these private companies 

to hire Mr. Poneman. Mr. Poneman led the Department of Energy 

when the agency violated Federal law with respect to excess uranium transactions which benefited specifically these two companies. 

Last month I, along with Senators Markey, Cornyn and Heinrich 

introduced S. 1428. Madam Chairman, you talk about a bipartisan 

group, that is it. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Excess Uranium Transparency and Accountability Act. This bipartisan bill would require the Department 

of Energy to maximize the value of the public stockpile of excess 

uranium. Our bill would also require that DOE give the American 

public a say in how it will manage this excess uranium. Finally the 

bill would codify the Department of Energy’s recent announcement 

that it will not transfer more than 2,100 metric tons of uranium 

in calendar year 2016 and thereafter. 

These are common sense reforms that will help the Department 

fulfill its legal obligations going forward. These reforms will ensure 

the Department manages our excess uranium on behalf of the 

American public, not two private corporations which the Department of Energy favors. So I encourage all Committee members to 

support the bill. 

I do have a question for Dr. Orr, specifically. My bill would require the Department of Energy to make decisions related to the 

management of the public’s excess uranium inventory through the 

rulemaking process. The rulemaking process would require the Department to be responsive to the public’s comments about the excess uranium inventory. Do you think it is reasonable for Congress 

to require the Department of Energy to give the American public 

a say in how the Department manages our stockpiles of excess uranium? 

Dr. ORR. Senator, thanks for the question. 

As you know I’m pretty new to this process so I just have had 

an opportunity to observe the end part of it as we made, as the 

Secretary made the determination this year. And as I know you 

172 

know, it’s a balancing act with the capturing value for the taxpayers of the uranium, the excess uranium that we hold and at the 

same time not doing damage to the markets. 

This last time around we did offer a big opportunity for public 

comment, and we really do appreciate all the comments that were 

made on all sides of the issue. It really is an important part of that 

balancing act. And we look forward to doing that in the future, 

kind of, regardless of whether we do it with a change in the rules. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, yes, thank you, but the Department of 

Energy is not making its decision through the rulemaking process. 

Isn’t that correct? 

Dr. ORR. As I understand it it is not a formal rulemaking process, but we did engage in a process that was essentially parallel 

that very much attempted to do exactly the same kind of thing. 

Senator BARRASSO. So it is not really required that DOE be responsive to public comment, but I think it is reasonable. Let us say 

it is not an unreasonable request or requirement. I would like to 

see the Department support it. 

Dr. ORR. Yeah. If you look at what we did this last time around 

I think you can see that we thought that was a reasonable way to 

take into account public comment and to balance the various interests. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

I have a laundry list of other measures that relate to some of the 

specific bills that I have introduced. I think you are aware that I 

have been working on an energy water nexus bill for some time. 

Again, an area that, I think, oftentimes we do not stop to think 

about. But you cannot have the energy we need unless we have 

water, and we cannot have the water unless we have energy. So 

making sure that we are paying attention to the connection to the 

nexus is important to me. 

We have had good conversation here in Committee today about 

the need to do more when it comes to advancing our research and 

building out these technologies. The R and D side, making sure 

that we are doing what government is best suited to do. I am a big 

believer in ARPA–E and what it can do. 

I am looking forward to working with Senator Alexander and 

Senator Cantwell and others on the America Competes Act. Again, 

I join Senator Alexander in thanking you, Mr. Augustine, for your 

leadership in that area. I think it is key for us. 

I have a bill that would allow for a prize bill to again give that 

encouragement to those imagineers that are out there that can 

really help us find some of these solutions that move us forward 

rather than the fix for today but that might lock us into that. 

I think we have had some good discussion on cyber security 

today. Although I will say that in my state and in many of the 

rural parts of the country, you have utilities that are municipally 

owned or cooperatives that are very small, and they look to what 

may be coming their way in terms of ways that they can provide 

for a level of protection or resiliency when it comes to cyber. It is 

extraordinarily daunting in terms of where those resources might 

be and how they can actually get things to scale if you are a small 

173 

and, again, a remote utility that is not connected to others. So 

some of these challenges, again, as we work to build out legislation 

that will move us forward, are part of the challenge in front of us. 

I am pleased that we have had some good discussion and an opportunity to hear from you all on the importance, the significance, 

of utilizing our energy resources as assets, as an opportunity to 

again move from this mind set of energy scarcity to how we operate, how we move as a nation where we have energy abundance. 

Not just on the fossil fuel side, but how that abundance can also 

translate to our renewable energy future. Making sure that we put 

the right signals in place and again, developing policies that are 

helpful rather than duplicative, redundant or costly. 

So we have a big task in front of us, our Promethean task. I 

think we need to rename this. I am glad you didn’t refer to Sisyphus. [Laughter.] Although sometimes I feel like that is what we 

are doing is pushing that rock up the hill. That may, in fact, be 

where we are, but, you know, you don’t know until you try. 

Again, this is an area that is so long overdue in terms of needed 

reform. Know that this Committee is going to continue to work aggressively to build policies that are not Reagan era, that are not 

taking us back in time, but really allow us to move into the future. 

I thank you for the time that you have given the Committee this 

morning, for your thoughts and your reflections. I would ask that 

if you have additional comments on any of the matters that have 

been raised today, feel free to provide those to the Committee as 

we will be working to assemble broader legislation in the weeks 

ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(174) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

175 


Insert offset folio 130 here 95281.130
176 


Insert offset folio 131 here 95281.131
177 


Insert offset folio 132 here 95281.132
178 


Insert offset folio 133 here 95281.133
179 


Insert offset folio 134 here 95281.134
180 


Insert offset folio 135 here 95281.135
181 


Insert offset folio 136 here 95281.136
182 


Insert offset folio 137 here 95281.137
183 


Insert offset folio 138 here 95281.138
184 


Insert offset folio 139 here 95281.139
185 


Insert offset folio 140 here 95281.140
186 


Insert offset folio 141 here 95281.141
187 


Insert offset folio 142 here 95281.142
188 


Insert offset folio 143 here 95281.143
189 


Insert offset folio 144 here 95281.144
190 


Insert offset folio 145 here 95281.145
191 


Insert offset folio 146 here 95281.146
192 


Insert offset folio 147 here 95281.147
193 


Insert offset folio 148 here 95281.148
194 


Insert offset folio 149 here 95281.149
195 


Insert offset folio 150 here 95281.150
196 


Insert offset folio 151 here 95281.151
197 


Insert offset folio 152 here 95281.152
198 


Insert offset folio 153 here 95281.153
199 


Insert offset folio 154 here 95281.154
200 


Insert offset folio 155 here 95281.155
201 


Insert offset folio 156 here 95281.156
202 


Insert offset folio 157 here 95281.157
203 


Insert offset folio 158 here 95281.158
204 


Insert offset folio 159 here 95281.159
205 


Insert offset folio 161 here 95281.161
206 


Insert offset folio 162 here 95281.162
207 


Insert offset folio 163 here 95281.163
208 


Insert offset folio 164 here 95281.164
209 


Insert offset folio 165 here 95281.165
210 


Insert offset folio 166 here 95281.166
211 


Insert offset folio 167 here 95281.167
212 


Insert offset folio 168 here 95281.168
213 


Insert offset folio 169 here 95281.169
214 


Insert offset folio 170 here 95281.170
215 


Insert offset folio 171 here 95281.171
216 


Insert offset folio 172 here 95281.172
217 


Insert offset folio 173 here 95281.173
218 


Insert offset folio 174 here 95281.174
219 


Insert offset folio 175 here 95281.175
220 


Insert offset folio 176 here 95281.176
221 


Insert offset folio 177 here 95281.177
222 


Insert offset folio 178 here 95281.178
223 


Insert offset folio 179 here 95281.179
224 


Insert offset folio 180 here 95281.180
225 


Insert offset folio 181 here 95281.181
226 


Insert offset folio 182 here 95281.182
227 


Insert offset folio 183 here 95281.183
228 


Insert offset folio 184 here 95281.184
229 


Insert offset folio 185 here 95281.185
230 


Insert offset folio 186 here 95281.186
231 


Insert offset folio 187 here 95281.187
232 


Insert offset folio 188 here 95281.188
233 


Insert offset folio 189 here 95281.189
234 


Insert offset folio 190 here 95281.190
235 


Insert offset folio 191 here 95281.191
236 


Insert offset folio 192 here 95281.192
237 


Insert offset folio 193 here 95281.193
238 


Insert offset folio 194 here 95281.194
239 


Insert offset folio 195 here 95281.195
240 


Insert offset folio 196 here 95281.196
241 


Insert offset folio 197 here 95281.197
242 


Insert offset folio 198 here 95281.198
243 


Insert offset folio 199 here 95281.199
244 


Insert offset folio 200 here 95281.200
245 


Insert offset folio 201 here 95281.201
246 


Insert offset folio 202 here 95281.202
247 


Insert offset folio 203 here 95281.203
248 


Insert offset folio 204 here 95281.204
249 


Insert offset folio 205 here 95281.205
250 


Insert offset folio 206 here 95281.206
251 


Insert offset folio 207 here 95281.207
252 


Insert offset folio 208 here 95281.208
253 


Insert offset folio 209 here 95281.209
254 


Insert offset folio 210 here 95281.210
255 


Insert offset folio 211 here 95281.211
256 


Insert offset folio 212 here 95281.212
257 


Insert offset folio 213 here 95281.213
258 


Insert offset folio 214 here 95281.214
259 


Insert offset folio 215 here 95281.215
260 


Insert offset folio 216 here 95281.216
261 


Insert offset folio 217 here 95281.217
262 


Insert offset folio 218 here 95281.218
263 


Insert offset folio 219 here 95281.219
264 


Insert offset folio 220 here 95281.220
265 


Insert offset folio 221 here 95281.221
266 


Insert offset folio 222 here 95281.222
267 


Insert offset folio 223 here 95281.223
268 


Insert offset folio 224 here 95281.224
269 


Insert offset folio 225 here 95281.225
270 


Insert offset folio 226 here 95281.226
271 


Insert offset folio 227 here 95281.227
272 


Insert offset folio 228 here 95281.228
273 


Insert offset folio 229 here 95281.229
274 


Insert offset folio 230 here 95281.230
275 


Insert offset folio 231 here 95281.231
276 


Insert offset folio 232 here 95281.232
277 


Insert offset folio 233 here 95281.233
278 


Insert offset folio 234 here 95281.234
279 


Insert offset folio 235 here 95281.235
280 


Insert offset folio 236 here 95281.236
281 


Insert offset folio 237 here 95281.237
282 


Insert offset folio 238 here 95281.238
283 


Insert offset folio 239 here 95281.239
284 


Insert offset folio 240 here 95281.240
285 


Insert offset folio 241 here 95281.241
286 


Insert offset folio 242 here 95281.242
287 


Insert offset folio 243 here 95281.243
288 


Insert offset folio 244 here 95281.244
289 


Insert offset folio 245 here 95281.245
290 


Insert offset folio 246 here 95281.246
291 


Insert offset folio 247 here 95281.247
292 


Insert offset folio 248 here 95281.248
293 


Insert offset folio 249 here 95281.249
294 


Insert offset folio 250 here 95281.250
295 


Insert offset folio 251 here 95281.251
296 


Insert offset folio 252 here 95281.252
297 


Insert offset folio 253 here 95281.253
298 


Insert offset folio 254 here 95281.254
299 


Insert offset folio 255 here 95281.255
300 


Insert offset folio 256 here 95281.256
301 


Insert offset folio 257 here 95281.257
302 


Insert offset folio 258 here 95281.258
303 


Insert offset folio 259 here 95281.259
304 


Insert offset folio 260 here 95281.260
305 


Insert offset folio 261 here 95281.261
306 


Insert offset folio 262 here 95281.262
307 


Insert offset folio 263 here 95281.263
308 


Insert offset folio 264 here 95281.264
309 


Insert offset folio 265 here 95281.265
310 


Insert offset folio 266 here 95281.266
311 


Insert offset folio 267 here 95281.267
312 


Insert offset folio 268 here 95281.268
313 


Insert offset folio 269 here 95281.269
314 


Insert offset folio 270 here 95281.270
315 


Insert offset folio 271 here 95281.271
316 


Insert offset folio 272 here 95281.272
317 


Insert offset folio 273 here 95281.273
318 


Insert offset folio 274 here 95281.274
319 


Insert offset folio 275 here 95281.275
320 


Insert offset folio 276 here 95281.276
321 


Insert offset folio 277 here 95281.277
322 


Insert offset folio 278 here 95281.278
323 


Insert offset folio 279 here 95281.279
324 


Insert offset folio 280 here 95281.280
325 


Insert offset folio 281 here 95281.281
326 


Insert offset folio 282 here 95281.282
327 


Insert offset folio 283 here 95281.283
328 


Insert offset folio 284 here 95281.284
329 


Insert offset folio 285 here 95281.285
330 


Insert offset folio 286 here 95281.286
331 


Insert offset folio 287 here 95281.287
332 


Insert offset folio 288 here 95281.288
333 


Insert offset folio 289 here 95281.289
334 


Insert offset folio 290 here 95281.290
335 


Insert offset folio 291 here 95281.291
336 


Insert offset folio 292 here 95281.292
337 


Insert offset folio 293 here 95281.293
338 


Insert offset folio 294 here 95281.294
339 


Insert offset folio 295 here 95281.295
340 


Insert offset folio 296 here 95281.296
341 


Insert offset folio 297 here 95281.297
342 


Insert offset folio 298 here 95281.298
343 


Insert offset folio 299 here 95281.299
344 


Insert offset folio 300 here 95281.300
345 


Insert offset folio 301 here 95281.301
346 


Insert offset folio 302 here 95281.302
347 


Insert offset folio 303 here 95281.303
348 


Insert offset folio 304 here 95281.304
349 


Insert offset folio 332 here 95281.332
350 


Insert offset folio 305 here 95281.305
351 


Insert offset folio 306 here 95281.306
352 


Insert offset folio 307 here 95281.307
353 


Insert offset folio 308 here 95281.308
354 


Insert offset folio 309 here 95281.309
355 


Insert offset folio 310 here 95281.310
356 


Insert offset folio 311 here 95281.311
357 


Insert offset folio 312 here 95281.312
358 


Insert offset folio 313 here 95281.313
359 


Insert offset folio 314 here 95281.314
360 


Insert offset folio 315 here 95281.315
361 


Insert offset folio 316 here 95281.316
362 


Insert offset folio 317 here 95281.317
363 


Insert offset folio 318 here 95281.318
364 


Insert offset folio 319 here 95281.319
365 


Insert offset folio 320 here 95281.320
366 


Insert offset folio 321 here 95281.321
367 


Insert offset folio 322 here 95281.322
368 


Insert offset folio 323 here 95281.323
369 


Insert offset folio 324 here 95281.324
370 


Insert offset folio 325 here 95281.325
371 


Insert offset folio 326 here 95281.326
372 


Insert offset folio 327 here 95281.327
373 


Insert offset folio 328 here 95281.328
374 


Insert offset folio 329 here 95281.329
375 


Insert offset folio 330 here 95281.330
376 


Insert offset folio 331 here 95281.331
377 


Insert offset folio 333 here 95281.333
378 


Insert offset folio 334 here 95281.334
379 


Insert offset folio 335 here 95281.335
380 


Insert offset folio 336 here 95281.336
381 


Insert offset folio 337 here 95281.337
382 


Insert offset folio 338 here 95281.338
383 


Insert offset folio 339 here 95281.339
384 


Insert offset folio 340 here 95281.340
385 


Insert offset folio 341 here 95281.341
386 


Insert offset folio 342 here 95281.342
387 


Insert offset folio 343 here 95281.343
388 


Insert offset folio 344 here 95281.344
389 


Insert offset folio 345 here 95281.345
390 


Insert offset folio 346 here 95281.346
391 


Insert offset folio 347 here 95281.347
392 


Insert offset folio 348 here 95281.348
393 


Insert offset folio 349 here 95281.349
394 


Insert offset folio 350 here 95281.350
395 


Insert offset folio 351 here 95281.351
396 


Insert offset folio 352 here 95281.352
397 


Insert offset folio 353 here 95281.353
398 


Insert offset folio 354 here 95281.354
399 


Insert offset folio 355 here 95281.355
400 


Insert offset folio 356 here 95281.356
401 


Insert offset folio 357 here 95281.357
402 


Insert offset folio 358 here 95281.358
403 


Insert offset folio 359 here 95281.359
404 


Insert offset folio 360 here 95281.360
405 


Insert offset folio 361 here 95281.361
406 


Insert offset folio 362 here 95281.362
407 


Insert offset folio 363 here 95281.363
408 


Insert offset folio 364 here 95281.364
409 


Insert offset folio 365 here 95281.365
410 


Insert offset folio 366 here 95281.366
411 


Insert offset folio 367 here 95281.367
412 


Insert offset folio 368 here 95281.368
413 


Insert offset folio 369 here 95281.369
414 


Insert offset folio 370 here 95281.370
415 


Insert offset folio 371 here 95281.371
416 


Insert offset folio 372 here 95281.372
417 


Insert offset folio 373 here 95281.373
418 


Insert offset folio 374 here 95281.374
419 


Insert offset folio 375 here 95281.375
420 


Insert offset folio 376 here 95281.376
421 


Insert offset folio 377 here 95281.377
422 


Insert offset folio 378 here 95281.378
423 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 379 here 95281.379