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

95–232 2016

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

Serial No. 114–10 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ..................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 69 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Chart entitled, ‘‘DOE Budget for Applied Energy and ARPA-E,’’ submitted 

by Mr. Whitfield ................................................................................................... 3 

1 Available at:http://docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150211/102942/ 

hhrg-114-if03-wstate-monize-20150211-sd543.pdf. 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Barton, Shimkus, 

Latta, McKinley, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Griffith, Hohnson, Long, 

Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, 

McNerney, Tonko, Engel, Capps, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, 

Yarmuth, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

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

Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications Director; 

Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown, Press 

Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; 

Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy & Power; Tom Hassenboehler, 

Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; Peter Kielty, Deputy General 

Counsel; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; 

Brandon Mooney, Professional Staff Member, E & P; Mary 

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

& I; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; 

Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Jeff Carroll, 

Minority Staff Director; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Ryan Schmit, Minority EPA Detailee. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the meeting to order. 

Today’s hearing is the review of the fiscal year 2016 Department 

of Energy budget, and I would like to recognize myself 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

Today we are going to examine the Department of Energy’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. I am delighted that Secretary 

Moniz is here with us today. I want to say to him that I have great 

respect and admiration for him. I must also say that I don’t have 

a lot of respect and admiration for the administration’s energy policies. 

2 

But this proposed budget for 2016 is $29.9 billion, a 9 percent increase over last year’s appropriation. Interestingly enough, many 

people are making the argument that while DOE’s budget request 

is growing, the Agency’s role in setting the energy policy for the 

United States seems to be diminishing because EPA, through its 

regulations, seems to be dictating the energy policy more and more 

for America. 

Now, the potential damage goes well beyond the thousands of 

coal miners and tens of thousands of coal-fired power plant employees who have lost their jobs under this administration. Electric 

bills are on the rise, and reliability concerns are an increasing 

focus of a lot of different entities. And these are serious concerns. 

As a direct result of EPA’s proposed regulations on new power 

plants, you cannot build a state-of-the-art coal-fired plant today in 

America, the type that is being built today in Japan, in Germany, 

in China, in India, and in many other countries around the world. 

Now, I understand that low natural gas prices play a part, but 

EPA has effectively put a moratorium on construction by requiring 

that new plants use carbon capture technology that has not been 

demonstrated as commercially viable for power generation in 

America. And we continue to see that the prospects for CCS power 

plant commercialization are slipping years into the future, according to the Department of Energy itself. 

So at a time when EPA is ratcheting up the regulatory demands 

on coal-fired electric generation, DOE is reducing the fossil energy 

research and development program that could help the sector find 

ways to comply. 

Just last week the agency stopped the FutureGen program even 

though EPA’s regulatory agenda continues to require that new 

power plants install carbon capture and storage. 

Now, nothing speaks better about a budget than the budget 

itself, and this slide illustrates precisely what I would like it to say. 

This budget shows on the far left, that is the DOE budget for renewables and energy efficiency; and the rest of it, as you can see, 

all of them combined does not equal that. 

[Slide shown.] 

3 


95232.022
4 

Now the President of the United States goes around the country 

and the world talking about an all-of-the-above energy policy, but 

when you look at the budget of his Department of Energy, you see 

that his policy is about renewables and nothing else primarily. So 

that is a real disappointment. I might also just mention that I don’t think the President’s $38 

million reduction in his request for funding at the Paducah Gas’ 

diffusion site is a good sign. The DOE has now awarded the deactivation contract at this site. There is a mechanism to begin significant work, but consistent and adequate funding to begin cleanup 

is necessary. 

Overall, my issues with the proposed budget reflect my issues 

with the direction that this administration has taken on the energy 

policy, which is being climate-driven. And I think the budget, this 

slide, certainly reflects that. 

And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

And I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

This afternoon we will examine the Department of Energy’s proposed budget for 

fiscal year 2016. I welcome Secretary Moniz and look forward to hearing your 

thoughts on this proposed budget as well as your answers to our questions. DOE’s proposed budget for 2016 is $29.9 billion dollars, a 9 percent increase over 

last year’s appropriation. DOE’s budget request is growing, yet the agency’s role in 

setting the nation’s energy policy is shrinking. DOE has relinquished the lead to 

EPA, and much of DOE’s actions amount to little more than a support role, in particular providing justification for EPA’s efforts to handicap coal and other fossil fuels 

in the name of addressing climate change. 

The potential damage goes well beyond the thousands of coal miners and tens of 

thousands of coal-fired power plant employees who have lost their jobs under the 

Obama administration. Electric bills are on the rise, and reliability concerns are 

real and growing. Secretary Moniz, you will have the distinction of seeing more coalfired generation shut down during your tenure than any other Secretary of Energy, 

and by a wide margin. While the President and the environmentalists may applaud 

you for that, I can assure you the citizens of Kentucky and other coal states would 

not. 

As a direct result of EPA’s proposed regulations on new power plants, you cannot 

build a state-of-the-art coal fired power plant today in the United States—the type 

being built today in Japan, in Germany, in China, in India and other parts of the 

world. Low natural gas prices play a part, but EPA has effectively put a moratorium 

on construction by requiring that new plants use Carbon Capture technology that 

has not been demonstrated as commercially viable for power generation in this 

country. And, we continue to see that the prospects for CCS power plant commercialization are slipping years into the future, according to your agency. 

So, at a time when EPA is ratcheting up the regulatory demands on coal-fired 

electric generation, DOE is cutting back on the Fossil Energy Research and Development program that could help this sector find ways to comply. And, just last week, 

the agency put an end to the FutureGen program even though EPA’s regulatory 

agenda continues to require that new power plants install carbon capture and storage. 

I believe that a good budget reflects reality, and that a bad one reflects wishful 

thinking. I’d like to point to a slide that shows the DOE budget for Applied Energy 

and ARPA–E. As in previous years, this DOE budget lavishes large sums on wind 

and solar energy and other renewables. The requested budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is more than all of the other Applied 

Energy Office and ARPA–E budgets combined. But despite all this funding, nonhydro renewables remain less than 10 percent of our nation’s electricity supply, and 

they create serious cost and reliability concerns that are likely to preclude a significant increase. Wind and solar will always remain an intermittent and minor contributor relative to base load sources such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas. GrantVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-10 CHRIS
5 

ed, the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy does some useful work that 

should continue, but its $2.7 billion dollar budget is well out of proportion to the 

potential benefits and the realities of our nation’s energy needs. I would prefer that 

proposed spending levels better reflected the reality of America’s current and future 

energy mix. 

I might also add that I am extremely disappointed with the President’s $38 Million reduction in request for funding at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion site in Paducah, Kentucky. Since the DOE has now awarded the deactivation contract at the 

site, there is a mechanism to begin significant work, but consistent and adequate 

funding to begin cleanup is necessary. Now is not the time to slow down, but to 

push the project forward. I look forward to addressing this issue with you. 

I remain a strong critic of EPA’s proposed rules for new and existing coal-fired 

power plants and I will have many questions about these and other regulations at 

EPA’s upcoming budget hearing. But as long as these measures remain part of the 

administration’s energy agenda, I believe that DOE research efforts should be directed towards assisting industry in meeting these requirements. 

Overall, my issues with the proposed budget reflect my issues with the direction 

the administration has taken on its climate driven energy policy. 

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

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

And I want to welcome you, Secretary Moniz. I also want to commend you for the outstanding work that you are doing across the 

board, but I want to specifically commend you for the legacy that 

you are working to establish at the Department of Energy in regards to transitioning the agency to be more attuned to the needs 

of all segments of the diverse American population. 

Through the Minorities in Energy Initiative, which celebrated its 

1-year anniversary back in November of last year, the more recent 

Job Strategy Council, which you established this past January, I 

am extremely encouraged by these policies which seek to position 

DOE as a proactive, forward-thinking agency that can be part of 

the solution rather than part of the problem. 

Your staff, Mr. Secretary, recently got back to my office with constructive feedback on the workforce development bill that I introduced in the last Congress, and I was very encouraged to see that 

many of the policies and programs outlined in the bill align 

seamlessly with many of the proposals that you have initiated 

within the Agency. 

Of course, as we both understand, the steps that have been taken 

are only the beginning stages of a longer process that would take 

time, effort, and resources to fully implement and become effective. 

The problem of underserved communities being historically left out 

of the energy sector both in the private and public realm did not 

happen overnight, and the policies needed to address these issues 

will not take hold overnight. 

The good news, Mr. Secretary, is that today there is a focus on 

trying to proactively promote diversity and inclusion within all sections of the industry, and there is widespread support for policies 

that can help accomplish this goal. On this subcommittee alone, 

members on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in moving forward with legislation designed to target women, minorities, 

veterans, and other underrepresented groups, and to help train and 

prepare them for the energy and manufacturing jobs of the present 

and of the future. 

6 

Industry groups, labor unions, community colleges, and universities, all understand that it is a win-win situation to help prepare 

a more than willing labor force for the well-paying jobs and careers 

that can be found in all sectors of the energy industry. 

In America’s new energy renaissance, where a skilled workforce 

is mandatory for building new infrastructure, to installing wind 

turbines or solar panels, to designing the latest technological advances in drilling, the possibilities for the American worker are becoming more and more abundant. And ensuring that all segments 

of the American population are given access and equal opportunity 

to participate in this American energy renaissance will only serve 

as a benefit to industry, to communities, and to the American economy as a whole. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I say thumbs up to your agency, thumbs up 

to your plans, thumbs up to your budget. Let’s get this good work 

that the American people have called us to do, let’s start working 

on it immediately, if not sooner. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

At this time I would like to recognize the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Secretary, welcome back. 

I know that today’s discussion is just one of the many that DOE 

is conducting as we look forward to working together to create a 

21st Century energy policy. 

You know, the areas of disagreement between Republicans and 

this administration often get the most attention. But while those 

differences remain, I am one who always looks for areas of agreement, areas of common ground on an energy policy that can benefit 

all Americans. We have seen a tremendous increase in oil and natural gas production here in the U.S. And across North America. We 

are already seeing the benefits of abundant and affordable energy, 

whether it be at the gas pump, our power bills, and with the creation of new jobs. But for more Americans to see even better benefits, we need to move beyond decades-old energy scarcity policies. 

We need to maximize the benefit of North American energy, and 

at this committee we call it the building of the architecture of 

abundance. 

The first step is to upgrade and modernize our energy infrastructure. The new energy coming on line is of no use if we can’t deliver 

it to consumers and businesses. We need a modern and more resilient infrastructure to safely and responsibly maximize our growing 

oil and gas output. 

Our bipartisan pipeline safety legislation was an important milestone. Yes, it was. But there is more work to do. We also need to 

ensure that our electric grid can meet the challenges of the future, 

from everything from advanced grid technologies, to protecting 

against weather events or physical or cybersecurity threats. 

Our energy abundance is also proving to be a powerful jobs creator, not only in places like Texas and North Dakota, where production is booming, but also in Michigan and other manufacturing 

7 

States, where low energy prices are fueling growth and attracting 

new jobs. 

According to one study, modernizing North America’s energy infrastructure could, in fact, support an average of 432,000 jobs per 

year through 2035. Despite the recent decline in oil prices, there 

continues to be many job opportunities for trained workers; but the 

key word here is trained. 

One industry study estimates that there will be 600,000 career 

opportunities for men and women and minorities in energy in the 

years ahead. We need to ensure that necessary education and job 

training is available for all Americans. 

Our energy potential makes us more secure here at home and 

more powerful abroad. We can diminish the political influence of 

other energy exporters like Russia and Iran, and help many of our 

allies, who would much rather buy their energy from the U.S. But 

it will only happen if energy security and geopolitical benefits become a part of our policy decisionmaking. 

Dr. Moniz, we have a wonderful opportunity of working together 

to fulfill our tremendous energy potential. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Secretary Moniz, welcome back to the committee. I hope that today’s discussion 

is just one of many with DOE on creating a 21st century energy policy. The areas 

of disagreement between Republicans and the Obama administration often get most 

of the attention. But while our differences remain, I’m one who will always look for 

areas of agreement—areas of common ground on an energy policy that can benefit 

all Americans. 

We have seen a tremendous increase in oil and natural gas production here in 

the U.S. and across North America. We are already seeing the benefits of abundant 

and affordable energy—at the gas pump, in our power bills, and with the creation 

of new jobs. 

But for more Americans to see even more benefits, we need to move beyond decades-old energy scarcity policies. We need to maximize the benefits of North American energy. At the committee, we call this building the Architecture of Abundance. 

The first step is to upgrade and modernize our energy infrastructure. The new 

energy coming online is of no use if we can’t deliver it to consumers and businesses. 

We need a modern and more resilient infrastructure to safely and responsibly maximize our growing oil and gas output. Our bipartisan pipeline safety legislation was 

an important milestone, but there’s more work to do. We also need to ensure that 

our electric grid can meet the challenges of the future, everything from advanced 

grid technologies to protecting against weather events or physical and cyber security 

threats. 

America’s energy abundance is also proving to be a powerful jobs creator. Not only 

in places like Texas and North Dakota where production is booming, but also in 

Michigan and other manufacturing states where low energy prices are fueling 

growth and attracting new jobs. According to one study, modernizing North America’s energy infrastructure could support an average of 432,000 jobs per year 

through 2035. 

Despite the recent decline in oil prices, there continues to be many job opportunities for trained workers. But the key word here is ‘‘trained.’’ One industry study estimates that there will be 600,000 career opportunities for women and minorities 

in energy in the years ahead. We need to ensure the necessary education and job 

training is available to all Americans. 

Our energy potential makes us more secure at home and more powerful abroad. 

We can diminish the political influence of other energy exporters like Russia and 

Iran, and help many of our allies who would much rather buy their energy from 

the United States. But it will only happen if energy security and geopolitical benefits become a part of our policy decision-making. 

8 

Let’s not lose sight of the opportunity to turn America into an energy superpower 

and the bipartisan efforts that will help us get there. Dr. Moniz, we have a unique 

opportunity to work together as we look to fulfill our tremendous energy potential. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, the ranking member, for 5 

minutes. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking 

Member Rush. 

I just want to welcome Secretary Moniz back to the committee. 

This is not the easiest time to be the Nation’s top energy official, 

but I would venture to say that you are proving yourself to be one 

of the better secretaries we have seen. 

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget would fund the Department of Energy at $29.9 billion, an increase of $2.5 billion, or up 

9.2 percent from fiscal year 2015 level. And the budget would increase funding for important national priorities, including energy 

efficiency and renewable energy. Additional policy and funding priorities which are designed to improve electric grid reliability, reduce methane pollution, and enhance U.S. economic and energy security include energy infrastructure, technology and research to accelerate energy technologies through the development of transformational technologies. 

The President’s budget would also fund cleaner fossil fuels as 

well as post- and pre-combustion carbon capture and compression 

technologies. And very importantly, the budget would adequately 

fund the Department’s critical defense-related activities and add 

$305 million to strengthen DOE’s protections and defenses against 

cyber attacks and improve energy sector cybersecurity. 

I support this budget because it takes the next logical steps in 

an already highly coherent energy strategy, which has greatly diversified our energy sources, generated significant efficiency gains 

and substantial reductions in demand, and, of course, lowered 

prices at the pump to levels that American drivers and households 

have not seen in many years. 

Closer to home, I want to particularly commend the work done 

last year, and would continue under this budget, with regard to the 

Northeast Regional Refined Product Reserve. My district in New 

Jersey was one of the hardest to have been hit by Superstorm 

Sandy, and the lack of access to gasoline made a terrible situation 

even worse. The gasoline reserve will help ensure we are ready in 

the future. In my opinion, the gasoline reserve and the Department’s efforts to address the resiliency and reliability of our electric 

grid, natural gas transmission and distribution systems, and other 

energy infrastructure, are critically important to not just my district, but also to the Nation as a whole. 

In short, this budget continues to build towards a true, all-of-theabove energy strategy that addresses supply, demand, and security. 

It builds on the progress made toward realizing the goal of creating 

a low-carbon, clean-energy economy that can be the engine of 

9 

growth for decades to come, and so I support it enthusiastically, 

and I look forward to hearing more from the Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. 

That concludes the opening statements. And so at this time, Secretary Moniz, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your statement. 

And welcome again. We appreciate your being here. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

And Chairman Upton and Whitfield, and Ranking Members 

Pallone and Rush, members of the committee, I really appreciate 

the opportunity to come and discuss our budget with you, and I 

also appreciate your flexibility with regard to scheduling of the 

hearing. 

Over the last 6 years, as has already been said, the U.S. has become the world’s number one producer of oil, liquid fuels, natural 

gas; and now, in fact, our net imports of crude oil end products is 

below 5 million barrels a day, quite a remarkable place to have 

come in this period. 

The EIA estimates that just in gasoline alone, the average household will be saving $750 in 2015, and there are other savings as 

well in the energy sector. 

I have submitted an extensive submission for the record, so I am 

going to be very, very brief in these remarks so that we can move 

to questions. I will just emphasize a few points. One is, this economic growth that we are enjoying, the energy boom that we are 

enjoying, has come even as we continue to decrease greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Secondly, that we are committed to an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy, and we will continue to do that through a whole raft of 

lower-cost, clean energy technologies, in fossil energy, energy efficiency, sustainable transportation, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and, well, energy efficiency I mentioned. 

I will also add that in addition to focusing on the supply-and-demand sides of the equation, that we are, as you know, very, very 

much focusing on energy infrastructure, and we hope to have our 

quadrennial energy review available within weeks, as opposed to 

months of time. And, of course, with your framework focusing on 

infrastructure, we look forward to that discussion. 

I will just end with noting, as Mr. Pallone did, that, of course, 

our role is not limited to energy. One of our very important roles 

as well is in providing a good piece of the backbone for the American basic research community through our science budget. We 

have requested $5.34 billion for science, about 5 percent over the 

appropriation. 

I do want to say that the science program continues to be very 

successful in, for example, completing large projects. I was at 

Brookhaven on Friday dedicating a huge light source, a billion dollar project, on budget and ahead of schedule. And in this budget 

request, we will build yet additional facilities. 

10 

In addition, we have, of course, a major national defense responsibility, specifically nuclear security; and there again we have I 

think a strong request of $11.6 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, approximately a 10 percent increase over 

the fiscal year 2015 appropriation, very importantly continuing a 

science-based approach to the deterrent and helping to control dangerous nuclear materials globally. 

Finally, environmental management, our fiscal year 2016 budget 

request is for $5.8 billion, approximately equal to the 2015 appropriation, although up significantly from our request of last year. 

It is worth noting, because we clearly have some very challenging 

projects there, but it is worth noting that over the years DOE has 

cleaned up over 85 percent of its sites and 90 percent of the land 

area, but again significant challenges remain, and we think we can 

make good progress in fiscal year 2016. 

I think those really are the remarks I would just make to open 

up the discussion because I think our ability to discuss this will be 

much more valuable. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, and we appreciate that opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Moniz follows:] 

11 


95232.001
12 


95232.002
13 


95232.003
14 


95232.004
15 


95232.005
16 


95232.006
17 


95232.007
18 


95232.008
19 


95232.009
20 


95232.010
21 


95232.011
22 


95232.012
23 


95232.013
24 


95232.014
25 


95232.015
26 


95232.016
27 


95232.017
28 


95232.018
29 


95232.019
30 


95232.020
31 


95232.021
32 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, we will begin the questions, and I 

would recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Secretary, I am not going to talk today about proposed regulations on existing coal plants, but I do want to focus for a moment 

on the proposed regulations for the new coal power plants. And I 

want to do that because in December of 2010, the Department of 

Energy reported that it had seven potential CCS demonstration 

projects for coal power plants. 

Three of those plants were estimated to startup in 2014, three 

in 2015, and one in 2016. Now, I am assuming that EPA and DOE 

had a lot of conversation with each other because, as you know, 

EPA in their proposed regulations for the new plants set guidelines, and they focused on the Kemper plant in Mississippi, a proposed plant in Texas, one in California, and one in Canada. And 

the one in Texas has not began operation, has not even started construction, nor in California. There is a small one up in Canada. 

But the Kemper plant, of which these emission standards were 

developed, looking at the projected emissions from Kemper, this is 

a plant that is 2 years behind schedule, billions of dollars over 

budget. And of those projects that DOE talked about in 2010, three 

of those projects have been cancelled, three of the remaining four 

projects are now estimated to begin operation in 2019 or 2020, if 

at all. And yet EPA sets a standard, an emissions standard, based 

on projected emissions from some pie-in-the-sky CCS plant that is 

built so that you can use CCS for enhanced oil recovery. 

And this morning I had a meeting with the Applied Energy vice 

president at the University of Kentucky, who had just come back 

from China, where they are tearing down old coal plants but building new coal plants using supercritical technology like the one at 

the Turk plant over in Texarkana, Arkansas, which is the newest 

plant in the U.S., which was built before this proposed regulation 

comes out. 

So here we are in America, finding ourselves not able to build a 

new plant using the best technology because of some fathomable 

emission standard set by EPA. And I was just curious, has EPA, 

Ms. McCarthy or others, have they talked to you all about this and 

the state of commercially viable CCS technology? 

Secretary MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, so first of all, as with lots of 

rules across the government activities, the Department of Energy 

does often provide technical support when it is not our responsibility to implement a certain rule or regulation. 

With regard to carbon capture and sequestration, I think it is 

very important to keep in perspective the proposed rule and what 

our demonstration projects are, because they are different levels of 

ambition in a certain sense. 

First of all, there is no question that all of the technologies have 

been demonstrated, including in an integrated fashion, for example 

in the Boundary Dam project in Canada to which you referred, and 

for both coal plants and for industrial plants, there are other large 

projects coming onboard. 

But I think a very important point is we are, as is appropriate 

for the Department of Energy, our projects are really trying to 

push the edge. So all of our projects are looking at 90 percent capture, et cetera. If you look at the rule as proposed, for example, 

33 

building an ultra supercritical coal plant with carbon capture, with 

that proposed rule, would require only 30 percent capture. That is 

a very, very different level of challenge than the projects that we 

are putting together. 

We will be seeing—you are absolutely right that some of the 

projects are delayed. We will be seeing a good portfolio deployed, 

but you are also correct that some of the projects will not come online, and partly it is because of litigation and other issues, and the 

ARRA funding deadline coming in this year. 

But, again, the key point is if one were to go out right now to 

build an ultra supercritical plant, and they exist, and use conventional capture there, one is talking only about 30 percent. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I might just say that the experts in the 

utility industry say that it could not be done in a commercially viable way where they can be competitive. And I think the EPA in its 

extreme regard of this regulation is really diminishing our opportunity to be competitive and have a reliable electricity source. 

At this time I would like to recognize—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I would be happy to come by and talk about 

some of this in more specific detail in terms of, especially the ultra 

supercritical route. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, well, we will take you up on that. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, 

for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. Secretary, I have a lot of questions that I want to cover, but 

unfortunately I do not have the time to do it all this afternoon, so 

I will be reaching out to your office to schedule a meeting where 

we can more fully discuss some of the priorities that I have already 

outlined. 

That said, Mr. Secretary, my office is contacted frequently by 

business owners and entrepreneurs who would like to access DOE 

loans, grants, and/or anything technology transfers from the national labs. Many of these entrepreneurs tell us they cannot access 

these resources either because they don’t know the right people, 

don’t have the right connections, they don’t fully understand the 

process, or in some cases they might just be intimidated by the 

very same process. 

Mr. Secretary, in addition to helping women, minorities, veterans, and other underrepresented groups access employment in 

the private sector through outreach and skills training, I would 

also like to work with you to establish outreach policies to educate 

the public on accessing DOE loans, grants, and technological transfers. 

It is important that we demystify these processes so that all 

Americans can benefit from these extraordinary resources that 

DOE possesses. Do you agree, and do you have any preliminary 

thoughts on how we might educate the public to make these resources, these loans, grants, transfers, more accessible? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

And thank you again for your support of the Minorities in Energy program, including being there at the beginning and the 1- 

year anniversary. 

34 

In terms of the access to the labs and the transparency, you 

know, that is a very important issue. We are working on that. Actually, we can provide you some background material, for example, 

on some of the Web sites that we have created, for example, looking at financing opportunities for business. But we have more to 

go, a longer way to go. 

Just today, literally this morning, we were able to announce a 

new group that we are putting together, a new office. It is called 

the Office of Technology Transitions. And that office’s role is precisely to address the transparency and access to technologies that 

are in our laboratories that we want to get out as well, and have 

a larger customer base for it if you like. 

Importantly, and I do want to note this very clearly, in the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, the Congress authorized a 0.9 percent of applied 

energy R&D fund for commercialization. Up to now, that has been 

satisfied by the existing cost-shared CRADA agreements. Today I 

announced that we are going to move forward and actually create 

that as a separate fund, a technology commercialization fund, that 

will be run out of this Office of Technology Transitions by our technology transfer coordinator. It will seek at least 50 percent matching funds—it can always be waived in special circumstances—but 

that would be the norm, and making that system transparent. Allowing access to medium and small business as well as large businesses will be part of the goal. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, you have done such a remarkable job 

during your tenure in establishing the Minorities in Energy Initiative and the Jobs Strategy Council. Do you think that we should 

look at some of your best practices and begin to codify some of 

those in law? That is the first question. 

And the second question, if you have an opportunity to answer this, is do you think that this $29.9 billion budget that you are 

seeking, is that enough to do the work that you are required to do 

in this particular area? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the budget request is a very good 

one, and one in which we can move forward in the areas that you 

have said, but it will take, frankly, continued commitment at the 

top of the Department, and I don’t mean only me. I mean a lot of 

other of the leadership of the Department. 

And as far as best practices go, there are several to draw upon. 

One, we mentioned earlier the tremendous development in the oil 

and gas sector, for example, in the United States. And here I will 

say working together with API, the Petroleum Institute, it has 

been terrific in that we have had, I think, now about a half-dozen 

workshops jointly focusing on attracting minorities into the many 

job opportunities in that area. That is one example. 

Another example, a person we brought on board last June named 

Dave Foster is really the point person on the whole jobs strategy. 

And so combining Minorities in Energy, women in clean energy, job 

strategy, the situation in our energy world right now, the very fortunate one, I hope we can make some real progress in the next 2 

years. We need the talent. 

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

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

Upton, for 5 minutes. 

35 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

On Monday, as you know, Mr. Secretary, this committee released 

a legislative framework for compiling a solutions-based energy 

package in this Congress. And it consisted really of four areas: 

Modernizing infrastructure, 21st Century energy workforce, energy 

diplomacy, and efficiency and accountability. And we do want to 

make sure that we coordinate this closely with our Senate counterparts, and also working with the Department of Energy. And we 

welcome the constructive engagement in those areas, and appreciate the discussions we have had thus far. 

Also, know that the Department is preparing for the release of 

the first quadrennial energy review, QER, focusing on energy 

transmission, storage, and distribution. And we further understand 

that the effort will include some legislative proposals to Congress, 

which should complement the effort underway before this committee. And while we have not yet received your recommendations, 

we look forward to working with you, reviewing those in a timely 

manner to find agreement of common interest. I appreciate that 

willingness. 

Recognizing that the legislative process is about give and take, 

we hope that you will be open to our ideas as we seek solutions 

to permitting challenges and infrastructure bottlenecks to resolve 

those. We also think that it is important to think about ways how 

we can use our energy resources, and the Department’s role in securing resource development as a source for global good. 

And I know that you have been personally involved for many, 

many months, in discussions with our allies in Eastern Europe and 

around the world, our partners in Canada and Mexico, and I wonder if you might expound on those in the remaining time that I 

have? Some of those—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly. Thank you. 

And first of all, let me again assure you publicly of what we have 

discussed privately, that we look forward to working on the framework that you have put forward. All of those issues are very dear 

to what we are doing, especially the accountability of Congress that 

was in that fourth part. 

Mr. UPTON. You don’t have to worry about us. 

Secretary MONIZ. With regard to the international events, I will 

mention two of those, yes. One is Ukraine, you effectively alluded 

to, and our people, led by our emergency response people, but 

bringing in others, Red Cross, FEMA; Canadians have been very 

helpful, we have sent teams over to Ukraine now three times. Our 

teams, I want to emphasize, did not write the Energy Winter Contingency Plan for Ukrainians, but led them through the process of 

how to do that; and they wrote an energy contingency plan. 

It also identified correctly the problem that there was going to 

be with coal, for example, this winter, and some other problems. So 

that has been very, very well appreciated. The Ukrainian Government is asking us now to do more, which we had a fact-finding 

group go there a week before last. They would like training, they 

would like to know how to manage emergency response. They want 

to know about energy modelling. These are all, I think, very helpful 

tools for them. But that is where I think we will need some discusVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-10 CHRIS
36 

sion with the Congress and other parts of the administration as to 

how we can respond to that. 

With regard to North America, in December we had a very, very, 

very positive trilateral energy ministerial with Canada and Mexico. 

One result is we agreed that we should do it every year at least, 

which is progress. But, for example, we signed an MOU that we 

have already launched the work on through our Energy Information Administration on data, energy data integration. We really 

don’t have a lot of data integration across the borders, or in some 

cases the same data. It seems to be different. So that is just one 

example. 

I will mention a very interesting example. In the trilateral, our 

Mexican colleagues, Minister Joaquin Coldwell in particular, gave 

us an extensive briefing on energy reform in Mexico. And while 

there has been a lot of focus on the hydrocarbon part, they want 

to emphasize the reform on the electricity sector is equally ambitious, and will open up many more collaborative possibilities. In 

fact, they said more electricity integration is something that Mexico 

would like to work with us very, very closely. 

So I think those are two areas of some of our international work, 

different in character, but both very important. 

Mr. UPTON. Great. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

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

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming in. It is always 

a pleasure to have you testify in front of the committee here. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. As I look over the budget numbers, I am very 

happy to see a large increase in the electricity delivery and energy 

reliability categories. One of my colleagues, Ms. Ellmers, and I are 

working together on grid technology. And I just want to ask what 

the Department can do to translate all that it has learned about 

smart grid investment grants and smart grid demonstration 

projects into actionable information for electricity providers. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

I can assure you also the quadrennial energy review coming out 

will have a major focus, of course, on the electricity grid, as does 

our budget. We have a $356 million proposal for the whole-grid 

modernization approach, so that will have many, many aspects. 

Part of it will be developing more of the essential technologies, 

like the high-power electronics, wide-band gap semi-conductors, et 

cetera, et cetera. Part of it will be a system analysis. Part of it will 

be further integration. You alluded to the data. So, for example, 

with the ARRA funding, one of the major programs was to really 

deploy well over 100 syncrophasors to really let us know what is 

going on in the high-voltage grid. Now integrating that information 

into actionable, precautionary actions will be part of this. 

But also another part of it is—actually, we have two different 

programs, but one specifically here—we also propose a State planning grant program. It is about $27 million we propose for grants 

to States to plan for reliability and how they will be doing integraVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-10 CHRIS
37 

tion. That, of course, in turn could lead to subsequent proposals for 

actual projects to implement microgrids, distributed generation, 

other kinds of IT-based technologies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I am looking forward to working with your Department on that and with my colleagues. 

Fusion, what do we have in the next budget for fusion energy? 

And you know, this is an area I think a lot of good future potential, 

but it is not in the immediate future. 

Secretary MONIZ. I regret I have the same answer as last year, 

which is that I am recused from fusion. That recusal ends in May, 

so if you would like to ask me the question in June, we could come 

back. But seriously, perhaps our deputy secretary or our under secretary could come and visit you about that. Because I am recused 

from all decisionmaking in the fusion program. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Fair enough. 

So about the smart grid technologies, what do you think are 

some of the barriers to improving our grid technology and reliability then, given where we are today? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, on the high voltage side, the high voltage 

grid, I think one of the issues, as I already described, was this 

issue of now being able to use the new data that we are getting 

from these new kinds of sensors. But a lot of the action is really 

going to be on the distribution side. I think that is where a lot of 

the imbedded intelligence has to be. That is key to starting to bring 

in distributed generation, maybe distributed storage. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you think we are going to have to put incentives out there for the local distribution networks to move forward 

on this? 

Secretary MONIZ. And so, that is a very good point. I was going 

to end with, of course, we can help on the technology side; but the 

regulatory authority for that, of course, will rest with the States. 

So that is where we need a potential State-Federal partnership. 

That is where those planning grants can come in, where we will 

give a grant to States, to the State Energy Offices, to see what they 

need to do for their smart grid, and then we will see if there is 

some possibility of our working with them to implement it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am also happy to see energy efficiency 

and renewable energies move forward with this budget. Very important for our Nation’s energy mix to have those as a significant 

and reliable part. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I just want to ask the chairman to consider that 

developing carbon sequestration technology is going to be beneficial 

to the coal industry, because as climate change progresses there is 

going to be a larger outcry to stop producing carbon dioxide. So this 

is something that is going to benefit the coal industry. We are not 

out to hurt the coal industry with carbon sequestration technology. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

The gentleman yields back. 

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

Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

38 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are these the DOE labs that have high-level nuclear waste: Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Idaho Labs, and Hanford? 

Are there any more, in significant amounts? 

Secretary MONIZ. In significant amounts, I think those are the 

main ones, actually and principally, Idaho, Hanford, and Savannah 

River, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. While I was at Oak Ridge they—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Oak Ridge also has, yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You have promised me numerous times that you 

as Secretary would continue to follow the law of the land. Is that 

still true? 

Secretary MONIZ. It always has been true. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. OK, good, we are on the right track here. 

Secretary MONIZ. And the Constitution. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, in your budget justification, you have $3 billion 

to move to a pilot interim storage plan. Do you agree that that 

would require a change in law? Do you not? 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly not to begin to discuss consent-based 

processes, et cetera. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is a law 

signed—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So we—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So the use of this money would not be with the 

intent of the law, because the law says that—it doesn’t give the 

DOE the authority or the responsibility to go into a pilot interim 

storage. 

Secretary MONIZ. To site such a facility would require further 

legislation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. I would note, of course—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, let me just go on. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you have $3 billion. You also mentioned $5.7 

billion is outlined to maybe do this, which would require a change 

in law, but—and I made this point, I think, last year—the administration needs to appreciate that there is a change occurring in the 

State of Nevada. 

We recently had one Member elected who said that if it was 

proven that Yucca Mountain would be safe, then he would support 

it. That is public record. Now that the NRC has finished its safety 

and evaluation report, it said that Yucca once closed would be safe 

for a million years. 

So we are in a new world now than we were before. And just for 

public record, $3 billion or $5.7 billion could be very helpful in the 

State of Nevada transitioning to—restarting and opening Yucca 

Mountain, and also an interim, pilot interim storage site. So I just 

put that on the record. 

We have also heard that it is also required by DOE under the 

law to do the environmental impact statement. Is that not correct? 

Secretary MONIZ. We have—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer is yes. 

39 

Secretary MONIZ. We have responded to every request and order 

from the NRC, including providing the information that they needed for the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But you are not doing it? 

Secretary MONIZ. We have no—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is your responsibility under the law to do the 

environmental impact statement. And what is going on now is the 

NRC is going to do it with the money remaining because of the failure of DOE to the final EIS. 

Secretary MONIZ. No. We have responded completely to NRC’s request. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. We will just agree to disagree. 

As the NRC moves forward with adjudication of the license application, assuming that the funds are made available for the purpose, will you commit to following the law and defending the application DOE has submitted? 

Secretary MONIZ. I must point out that the NRC also pointed out 

that we do not have the authorities in terms of land and water, for 

example, for Yucca Mountain. Which goes right back to the consent-based process. Without a consent-based process, we continue 

to think—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But the question is, under the law you are required to defend the application. Are you willing to follow the law 

and defend the application? 

Secretary MONIZ. I will have to check with the exact aspects of 

the law on that. I know the DOE was required to submit the application. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. The last time we tried to visit Yucca, DOE 

gave us a lot of trouble. We are going back this year. I hope you 

will give us all opportunity and make it easy for us to get there 

and get the door open. 

Secretary MONIZ. I wasn’t aware of that. I apologize for that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, no. OK. And then finally in your budget, 

FutureGen 2.0, obviously that money was pulled. That was the retrofitting of the plant in Meredosia and then the carbon capture sequestration issue in Morgan County, Illinois. 

I just make that point obviously because it is Illinois, and that 

is a traditional DOE project from the original FutureGen to now 

FutureGen 2.0 to pulling it away. It just adds to what—those of us 

from coal areas of the country are concerned that as we ramp up 

these environmental rules and regulations, we really shut down 

coal-fired generation, and that is major base load activity, which 

we as a country just can’t sustain the loss of that power. 

So with that, thank you, and I look forward to working with you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Mr. Chairman, may I just comment? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Make two comments if I may? I think it might 

be helpful. One is, first of all, in your opening statement, Mr. 

Shimkus, in terms of the four DOE sites, I would just note, of 

course, those do not have commercial spent fuel. It is high level 

waste. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Which doesn’t make it any less safe. Where is that 

supposed to go? 

40 

Secretary MONIZ. So if I may just say that there is no resolution 

yet. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, no. There is a resolution. It is supposed to 

go to Yucca Mountain. That is where it is supposed to go. 

Secretary MONIZ. Last fall we completed a study, and it is on our 

Web site, requested by the Blue Ribbon Commission, in terms of 

looking at the issue of whether there should be separate pathways. 

That remains a decision to be reached. 

With regard to FutureGen, let me just say that I think the 

FutureGen project, an oxycombustion plant with deep saline aquifer storage, is very, very important; and unfortunately, that funding was from the Recovery Act. The date of expending the funds 

is upon us, so the project could not meet that, and with regret we 

are in the structured closeout. 

I do want to say we will preserve the IP, and we will preserve 

the asset of the pour space that we have purchased in Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I will just say the Blue Ribbon Commission is not an elected body, and they were told specifically not 

to consider Yucca Mountain. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I will recognize the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is always a pleasure, Mr. Secretary, to have you come before 

our committee. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And today was no different. 

And I want to start with a premise which I hope we can all agree 

upon. And that is the fact that climate change is real, and it is a 

serious threat to our Nation and to our planet. While we are already seeing and paying for the impacts of climate change, we do 

still have a chance to mitigate some of the long-term damages. 

We need to act now, however, to reduce carbon pollution and 

move toward a clean, sustainable energy future. This will require 

significant American innovation and investment. And I know the 

Department of Energy and this administration is committed to it. 

While this is not easy, I believe we have some of the best 

innovators in the world, and that we are up to that challenge, but 

they cannot do it on their own. 

The Federal Government does play an essential role in driving 

the research in development of these technologies, and this is 

something I have seen firsthand in my district. 

And I want to ask you about two of the projects that come out 

of your administration that are being developed through the University of California in Santa Barbara, have applications there. 

One of them that was one of the first, Frontier Energy Research 

Centers, designated by your Department in 2009. And since then, 

this center has made very significant advances in key energy technology, some of which we use every day, like photovoltaics and 

LEDs. In your testimony you say that the Energy Research Center’s program is DOE’s flagship—this is a quote—flagship investment in basic science that underpins future energy technologies. 

Music to my ears. 

41 

Why is this program so important to DOE’s efforts on climate 

change, and do you see this commitment remaining strong in the 

future? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The EFRCs I think have been a tremendous success. I might say 

for the committee that originally there were 46 funded in 2009, 

partly with Recovery Act funds. But it is worth saying this again, 

in a bipartisan spirit, that the setup for the EFRCs came from an 

exemplary process run by the Department of Energy during the 

Bush administration, several years of convening workshops of 

1,500 scientists to define the key science challenges that underpin 

future energy technologies. 

They have been tremendously successful. With the ARRA funding falloff, regrettably we have had to lower the total number. But 

in fiscal year 2016, we are proposing a 10 percent increase to be 

able to get a few more of those operating. They have been tremendously successful, and I think are very important for the future of 

clean energy in this country. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And that leads me right into my second question, because while some marketplace applications are already there, it is 

so essential that these come out of the lab setting, out of research 

institutions, and get into our economy and help to build that economy in the right direction. And that is why I was so pleased to see 

the increase in your budget. 

ARPA–E provides essential research and development funding 

from the government, but the part we need to stress even more is 

the generation of private funds that have already and will continue 

to drive our economy. Will you elaborate on this? 

What is the ratio between I call it startup funds that come from 

the Federal Government, and how does that impact the private sector? Because that is what motivates me when I see it becoming an 

economic driver right in my congressional district. 

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

example of, I think, a tremendously successful program. And we 

have requested an increase from $280 to $325 million. 

By the way, the ARPA–E Summit is going on as we speak out 

at the convention center, and I was there this morning. And it is 

just remarkable technologies. And I would like to say here that we 

have some first discussions going on about potentially bringing to 

the Congress an exhibit of some of the ARPA–E technologies. I 

think it would be a great science fair for us to have here. 

In terms of the impact, the fifth anniversary of the first ARPA– 

E contract will be coming up in March. So now that we are at the 

5-year mark, what we are seeing is a lot of these projects getting 

into the marketplace. Big leverage in terms of investment. I know 

one class of projects just drew in $800 million of financing. But, 

also, five of the projects now have been essentially bought by much 

larger strategic investors. For example, a big American defense 

firm just took that. So these are becoming into the marketplace 5 

years. That is a pretty good track record. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Chairman, I am going to yield back. 

But I think that was a very practical suggestion. It would be interesting to work with the Science Committee to see if there could 

be some kind of demonstration here—— 

42 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS [continuing]. On Capitol Hill for what we are doing. 

Secretary MONIZ. If I may just, we had last fall, I thought, a very 

successful—I think some of you may have come—a very successful 

lab day, where we showed results out at the laboratories. And I 

think now it would be nice to complement that with an ARPA–E 

day. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And at this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Olson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair and welcome Dr. Moniz. 

I want to start with a few thank yous, my friend. Thank you for 

going to India this past March and making exports of U.S. energy 

a top priority between India and America. Thanks for that. Very 

important back home. 

Also, thank you for the role your Department played in the Petra 

Nova project in the Parish power plant in my district, the first true 

carbon capture enhanced oil recovery operation in America that 

will be viable. Thank you for that. 

Secretary MONIZ. And under construction. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Secretary MONIZ. All right. 

Mr. OLSON. My first question is about our national security infrastructure. It has been under attack. Last April, snipers shot up a 

Silicon Valley substation. In 19 minutes, they fired off rounds almost causing a blackout in Silicon Valley. Twenty-three pipeline 

companies have had cyber attacks. Your 2016 budget doesn’t address these attacks. You spend six times more on solar than secure 

power lines and secure pipelines. And I am sorry to put you on the 

clock, but in 1 minute, can you tell us your views on protecting our 

energy infrastructure, what is your role? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. There are several things to say about that. 

It is a very important problem. 

Number one, the quadrennial energy review, first installment, on 

infrastructure will have a significant focus on resilience against 

multiple threats; extreme weather, cyber, physical, geomagnetic 

storms, which actually have occasionally hit the system. That is 

one point. 

Second point is, first of all, I want to thank the Congress. In the 

fiscal year 2015 budget, there was funding included for us to build 

out our emergency response center for the energy system so that 

we will have better situational awareness about threats to our system. We will be implementing that this year. 

Third, we have a substantial cybersecurity crosscut in the budget. 

Fourth, we convened, under the deputy secretary—it has been 

going on now for a few years—a very high level, a CEO-level electric utility group specifically on cybersecurity. And including the 

fact that we have granted security clearances to a select number 

of leaders so that we can go deeper into the threat space. 

Mr. OLSON. Well, thank you. And thank you, that was 1 minute 

exactly. 

My next question is about EPA working with you and FERC. 

EPA’s regulations are closing many base-load power plants, mostly 

43 

coal plants. And those that remain open may have to go offline at 

times for retrofits. Our grid will look very different in 2020. And 

there could be local brownouts, local blackouts. Some have complained that EPA is seeking advice on the impact of its rules after 

the fact and in a very ad hoc way. 

My question, sir, is will you object to creating a process where 

EPA consults with FERC and DOE as new air rules are written? 

Yes or no? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the answer is ‘‘yes’’ in the sense that it 

happens. We provide technical assistance, and that is with both 

EPA and FERC. 

Mr. OLSON. How about we create a formal process review of EPA, 

FERC, and you? Object to that? Because right now that doesn’t 

exist. It is sort of informal. How about a formal process of review—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think we have to review specifics. But 

I think it happens now in the sense that certainly any rule that 

goes through OIRA and then goes out for agency comment, in addition to our direct technical consultation there. So I think I would 

have to look in terms of what enhancement would be being looked 

at. But I am certainly happy to have that discussion. 

Mr. OLSON. OK. Thank you. 

One final question about a bill I had last Congress. It is a bipartisan bill with myself, Mr. Green, and Mr. Doyle. It guarantees 

that if a power plant is ordered to briefly run and exceed its permits during an emergency situation, that—this is under Section 

202(c) of the Federal Power Act—other regulators can’t interfere 

and shut them down. 

Your predecessor, Mr. Chu, said, ‘‘Good bill.’’ He supports it. I 

asked you last time you were here. You had just got here and 

hadn’t looked at it. So you have had some time. Support the bill? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am going to have to look at the bill. But this 

is about engaging—— 

Mr. OLSON. Power crisis permits—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Federal Power Act—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. We can find some—— 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Authority. 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. Back in Texas—well, across the country, 

where there has been a power crisis, there has been a heat wave, 

a cold snap, there has been—plants have been ordered to stay online, exceed their emission permits. They have been sued. This bill 

stops that. This says if it is a true crisis, you can exceed your permits for 60 days and review it. 

Again, common sense, keep the power up, keep people cold in the 

summer and hot in the winter. Do you support the concept of having one voice, the power regulator decide what will run, what won’t 

run? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, I think we will have to follow this 

up. But certainly the DOE has Federal Power Act authorities to 

order plants to run, at least for some period of time, to make sure 

reliability is there in a crisis. It is obviously something you don’t 

want to use a lot. Frankly, it was used the last time I was here 

at the end of the 1990s in California. Secretary Richardson had to 

order some plants to run to avoid blackouts. 

44 

Mr. OLSON. And that is fine. But they have been sued. The power 

generator said keep that plant up and running. They were sued. 

Mirant in San Francisco got sued for doing what the regulators 

said to do. That is what this bill tries to stop. Let them keep the 

power up without penalty. 

Secretary MONIZ. We will look at this and get back to you. 

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

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

Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

It is always a pleasure to have you here in front of the committee. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have a keen interest in the National Energy Technology Lab for many reasons, but most especially because of the outstanding work that NETL is doing in implementing the mission of DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy. The work 

of the NETL is critical to the people of southwestern Pennsylvania, 

as well as many other States in our entire Nation. 

Recently, a commission has been created. It is currently working 

to examine missions and effectiveness of DOE national labs, including the NETL. And, in fact, the commission is in Pittsburgh today 

as we speak, preparing to make recommendations, including 

privatizing the lab, which I think would be a huge mistake and unacceptable. 

Can you share with us your perspective on the efficacy of the 

NETL and what you see as the future for our national labs? Are 

there specific areas of concern that you have or have been brought 

to your attention? And I would like to say that I know we have had 

you in Pittsburgh several times, and we certainly appreciate it. But 

your schedule hasn’t permitted you to actually visit the NETL in 

Pittsburgh. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. And I would like to contact your office and reach out 

to you and see if we might be able to schedule a visit—— 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. To the lab in Pittsburgh. But could you 

talk a little bit about this commission? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. DOYLE. And any concerns you may have? 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. I have been to the Morgantown site, but— 

I think I have another scheduled in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. DOYLE. I am sure the gentleman from West Virginia appreciates that—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. That is right. He was there. He was there. 

Mr. DOYLE. But it doesn’t do much for us in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. That is right. So that is right. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. The—— 

Mr. DOYLE. I mean West Virginia is so friendly to the administration, I can understand why you are there first and not in Pittsburgh. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. So NETL. Look, NETL is our fossil fuel 

laboratory—just no ifs, ands, or buts about it—and has done very, 

very good work in the carbon capture sequestration arena, in methane hydrates, and in some of the hydraulic fracturing environmental impact work, et cetera, et cetera. So its future is—we have 

45 

a new director, of course, relatively new director. And I think she 

will do a great job. 

First of all, you mentioned privatize. And I don’t know what this 

congressional commission will recommend. But I have made it 

very, very clear that we have no plans to change the organizational 

structure of NETL as the one of our 17 laboratories that is a—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. That is a Federal organization. 

Mr. DOYLE. I appreciate hearing you say that. Can you tell me— 

we know NETL has been playing a role in identifying and developing and deploying numerous technologies that increase efficiencies and reducing the environmental concerns from coal-fired 

plants, which is a big source of our electricity in States like Pennsylvania and others. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. DOYLE. But if we are going to be serious about moving fossil 

energy research and development forward, I do have some concerns 

about the proposed DOE budget in 2016 for fossil energy. It seems 

to me that we need to establish scaled demonstrations of technologies that show our industry partners and the Nation that we 

have a serious commitment to this, specifically in areas of advanced combustion systems, gasification, advanced turbines, coal 

biomass to liquids, fuel cells, and rare Earth elements research. 

And much of this research, I should note, is being done in Pittsburgh at the NETL. 

I would really like to hear about your commitment to fossil energy R&D and where you see the role of this in America’s energy 

portfolio and, also, to talk a little bit about the current status of 

DOE’s CCS research, development, and demonstration efforts and 

what your agency is doing to develop a sustainable future for coal. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. There is many parts to that question. 

First of all, in terms of the commitment to advancing clean fossil 

fuel technology, clean coal technologies, again, I think we are demonstrably very committed. We are—we had a discussion earlier 

on the large integrated CCS projects, and I anticipate a good five 

of those will be fully successful and operating. 

We have right now opened an $8 billion loan guarantee program 

in fossil. And I can’t talk about individual projects, but we are pretty happy with the proposal stream. I might note—this is not DOE, 

but in the fiscal year 2016 budget, there is the proposal for new 

tax credits, investment tax credits for CCS and a tax credit for sequestering CO2 . So that is very strong. 

Then, of course, we have our R&D program, which is in fossil energy and also in ARPA–E. We shouldn’t forget ARPA–E also has 

programs in methane detection, carbon capture, et cetera. 

So it is a very, very broad program. You mentioned also rare 

earth elements. That is the study that the Congress asked for, I believe is within a 2 or 3 months probably about addressing the questions about whether or not coal ash, et cetera, is a viable source 

of rare warths. And I don’t know the answer. If the answer is yes, 

then we should discuss how to implement. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to following up with you on the Pittsburgh visit. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

46 

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

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. I appreciate your testimony. 

If I could talk a little and ask a few questions about the American Medical Isotopes Reduction Act of 2012. As part of that, the 

Department of Energy is to develop a program to assist in the establishment of the domestic production capabilities for medically 

vital isotopes like Mo-99—I think it is also pronounced ‘‘moly 99.’’ 

And that is used in nuclear medicine to perform life-saving procedures related to both heart disease and staging of cancer, two of 

the largest killers in our country. 

The motivation behind all of this was to address the fact that foreign production facilities that are scheduled to cease production in 

2016. In the Western Hemisphere, the only place that is producing 

it is in Canada and, I believe, that they are going to be going out, 

unless something changes, I think, in 2016 when that occurs. 

Then, as you look around the world where there might be production, in Europe I think there is five different facilities and one 

in Russia. I think there is one in—or two in South Africa and also 

in Australia. But, also, what this produces has a shelf life of only 

about 66 hours. So to get it from point A to point B to this country 

is vital to make sure that it is not degrading during that period of 

time, that it is not only 50 percent effective when it gets here. 

So I guess the first question is: When the supplier in Canada 

ceases its isotope production in 2016, what is the DOE doing to ensure that there isn’t a shortage that would affect, I think, the 

United States using probably 50 percent of the world’s isotope? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, as we continue to develop capabilities, 

one of the important developments in the last week was that Canada announced that it will maintain the capability until 2018 if required. So they have made that announcement. And without getting into too many specifics, we would work with them to see that 

that 2018 date could be met. And in the 2018 timeframe, then I 

think we are much more assured of continued isotope. 

Mr. LATTA. Well let me ask this. OK. If we go from 2016 to 2018, 

but at the same time is there the thought that the United States 

ought to be manufacturing it right here in the United States? And 

if that is the case, how long would it take from start to finish to 

be able to produce a facility that could produce that isotope? 

Secretary MONIZ. Sir, I am going to have to get back to that in 

terms of exact timeline. I just don’t have that—— 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. On my fingertips, I am afraid. But 

we will get back to you on that. 

Mr. LATTA. Because at the same time, if you could also get back 

on the whole question really if it is going to be longer than 2018, 

is there a way that this could be expedited to make sure that we 

don’t have that—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA [continuing]. Shortage in the United States then? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LATTA. It would be very, very helpful. 

47 

Secretary MONIZ. No. It is a very important point. And we will 

get back to you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Switching gears a little bit, what legislation would be most helpful to the NRC to be able to quickly licensed a DOE developed gen4 reactor? What is out there that we should be doing to get to that 

next level? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I can’t speak in detail for the NRC. But 

I think that their appropriated funding is quite modest, I believe. 

And it is a question of staff to get educated, trained in terms of alternative technologies. 

For some technologies, like the light water-based, small modular 

reactors, that is not as big a step away from the current regulatory 

basis. But if you start going into fast reactors or some of the more 

exotic molten salt reactors, you put your finger on a very important 

point. They need to get staffed up and ready to regulate such 

things. 

So it would be staff—presumably paid for either out of appropriations or out of some way of having the industry support them 

through some fee. I really don’t know in detail, but that is, I presume, the only two sources that are possible. 

Mr. LATTA. If I could just go back to your opening statement— 

because I didn’t really see it in your written statement. And I tell 

you we take so many notes up here. But you were mentioning 

about the energy boom in this country. Would you attribute that 

energy boom especially to the advancements we have had in 

fracking in this country to be able to bring up that natural gas and 

oil that we have right now? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, quite clearly. For gas and oil, hydraulic 

fracturing has been critical. We are still increasing our production 

in the Gulf of Mexico. But the big increases, certainly in gas, have 

been from hydraulic fracturing. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here this afternoon. 

And more importantly, thank you for leading the Department with 

such vision and intellect. And your team is great to interact with. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. I appreciate that. 

In general, I express my strong support for the research, development, and demonstration funding that is included in the budget request for this year. Innovation is indeed the fuel that will drive 

progress and create new industries and, therefore, new jobs. 

Mr. Secretary, wind and solar technologies are advancing at a 

rapid and steady pace. I fully support the increase in R&D for 

these and other renewable technologies. We hear a lot about wind 

and solar. We hear less about geothermal energy. 

I see that in the fiscal year 2016 effort, the administration is proposing a significant increase for work in this area, including funding for research and demonstration sites, dubbed FORGE. Could 

48 

you expand, please, a bit on the goals for this funding and on the 

promise that this technology holds? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first, in terms of the promise, engineered 

geothermal systems, hot rock systems, roughly speaking, have been 

looked at as having a promise in the United States of perhaps as 

much as 100 gigawatts of power. That came out of the 2005 report 

that the Department commissioned led by MIT, I might say. Not 

by me. 

So we are talking certainly many 10s to 100 gigawatts as the 

kind of range of potential. However, the scientific base has not 

been adequately laid. And that is what the FORGE project is to do, 

to have a highly instrumented experimental facility that can better 

do things like direct control fractures, et cetera, that are a huge 

part of how you engineer a geothermal system—an engineered geothermal system. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And I am pleased to see that there is a proposed increase in 

funding for great modernization for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

As you know, the electricity sector is undergoing a significant 

transformation, driven by a number of factors. I believe there is a 

Federal role in helping to smooth out those bumps in the road, so 

to speak. 

So, you mentioned the energy storage and integration work that 

the Department is doing in partnership with Southern California 

Edison. The budget proposal includes funds for State energy and 

reliability and the assurance grants. That is a new program. 

Will these grants be used for projects similar to the one that we 

have had with Southern California Edison? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, they certainly could be. But they will be 

broadly based and to individual States to determine. They will be 

planning grants, not project grants. But our hope is that the planning grants will lead to project grants. For example, in the QER 

we will specifically talk about how the State assurance plans that 

we have proposed could be essentially part of the—almost the requirements for then accessing other funds for projects. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. There are many aspects of the Department’s portfolio that directly or indirectly address climate change. 

I would like to hear a bit more about DOE’s proposed work to reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas development 

and delivery. It is an important emission that needs to be addressed. So is the Department going to explore some new activities 

here with those emissions? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. In particular, we hosted five stakeholder 

round tables specifically on methane strategy last year. What I 

want to note is that our focus at DOE is not so much on the production end, it is on the mixed stream, if you like, so then the 

transmission pipes and then getting to the distribution systems. 

On the transmission pipe in particular, compressors are a big 

issue. We are looking at standards for compressors. And we are 

also funding new technologies for leak detection, for example. In 

fact, this morning at ARPA–E I saw a very elegant one. The 

ARPA–E, I believe, has right now 13 methane detection projects 

going on. 

49 

Mr. TONKO. Now, are you doing this in partnership with the industry, the work on the emissions? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the ARPA–E projects, many of them are 

being done by industry, typically small companies and some by universities. 

Mr. TONKO. And is it an effort that will require new technology, 

or is it just making an effort to—— 

Secretary MONIZ. No. It is new—— 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. Improve the technology we have? 

Secretary MONIZ. It is novel technology to try to get effective, 

sensitive, inexpensive technologies. For example, the one I saw this 

morning out at the ARPA–E involved a novel use of carbon 

nanotubes to detect methane with high specificity. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on the remarks that the congressman 

from Pennsylvania was talking about with NETL. 

And I just wanted to get maybe a little bit more specific with 

this. Because just in the next 2 years, Mr. Secretary, when you 

think about the facility in both Morgantown and Pittsburgh, maintaining the level of research, personnel, and all of their attributes 

of what they are doing, on a scale of 1 to 10, what do you think 

it is going to look like 2 years from now? Be the same? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think in terms of scale it will probably 

be very, very, very much the same. Yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Is it like a 10? You think that there will be—it 

will be on the high level, that we can anticipate that that facility 

isn’t going to change much in the next 2 years? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, it is not going to change in terms of organizational structure. It is going to, I think, be very comparable 

in size. But hopefully, when you look inside, you will see change, 

of course, as projects evolve. One of the things that we are doing 

right now—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I just wanted to get—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. OK. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. We can have a conversation—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Like I said, but the large-scale computation at 

NETL is being upgraded. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Thank you. 

I noticed the other day that the administration—through DOE 

you had invested in some more projects in carbon capture in China. 

Is that accurate? 

Secretary MONIZ. I am not aware of any specific project, no. We— 

in the—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. There were clean coal projects there. I think it 

was carbon capture is what it was. But that leads to my next question. 

Secretary MONIZ. I could be wrong. But I can look into that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If you could. 

Secretary MONIZ. But we do have—in the October agreement of 

Presidents Obama and Xi, it did say in there something that still 

50 

remains to be designed that we would work together on a specific 

sequestration project instrumented. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So having said that, though, when I read that, 

it tipped off, then, where else—if we are investing money in clean 

coal or whatever energy projects in China, where else are we investing money—— 

Secretary MONIZ. No. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Outside the United States? 

Secretary MONIZ. If I may clarify. So we have a clean energy re- search center with China. It is $10 million a year. That is spent 

in American laboratories and universities, et cetera. It is matched 

by the Chinese, and both of our contributions are matched by industry. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Well, that is really where I was going, is to 

find out are we investing in bricks and mortar or are we investing 

in research? And you are saying it is in research. So if it is in research, will we own the intellectual rights to that based on the research we have done? Or will it be something shared with the Chinese? Let me leave it at that. Will we own the rights? 

Secretary MONIZ. The IP issues are very much a part of the discussion of every project. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

Secretary MONIZ. There is a lot of progress on that. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Next—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So we are protecting our IP rights. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. What about other governments? Are we investing 

in other countries around? Because we seem to have ceded Africa 

to the Chinese in developing energy that we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. We—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. Backed off. 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, we have a very similar matching 

funds arrangement with India on some joint projects, including 

biofuels, et cetera. 

With Africa, the main investment—again, we tend to provide a 

lot of support, but the main investment comes from AID. So it is 

Department of State funds. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If I could, I am fearing I am going to run out of 

time. 

I think that the—everyone has, on the other side of the aisle, 

they have been quick to dodge and talk about there is no war on 

coal, but there is obviously a war on coal. 

Secretary MONIZ. I disagree. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And it made people very nervous all around the 

United States about this. That is why these elections have consequences, and you have seen what has happened in some States 

as a result of it. 

So I am just curious, because we have got a trade agreement 

coming up. And I have this very strong suspicion that there some 

climate change issues are going to be part of that. Can you give me 

any indication—have you shared anything with the administration, 

or have they talked to you about what conditions—it has already 

been telegraphed a little bit—when he went to China and set that 

deal with China that they could increase their CO2 emissions until 

2030, while we were supposed to decreased ours by 2015, and then 

51 

went to India and cut a deal with India that they would use less 

coal and more nuclear. 

That, to me, was telegraphing that he is going to export his war 

on coal to other Nations. I am concerned about what else could 

happen with the various trade agreements that are going to come 

up. Do you see any component of fossil fuel—the emissions of 

greenhouse gases or anything else going to be in any trade agreement? 

Secretary MONIZ. I certainly don’t know that. I can say that 

when Ambassador Froman has asked me or us for information, it 

has been mainly on oil and natural gas. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. Because I think we ought to be very wary. 

He has already indicated what he has done with two other countries. And to add a host of other Nations, 19 other Nations into it, 

I would be very nervous about supporting any trade agreement as 

long as there is a potential of cutting back on the use of fossil fuels. 

Apparently, I am running out of time. 

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

Mr. MCKINLEY. He is going to yell at me here. 

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

Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Ms. CASTOR. The Obama administration’s energy policies are 

really paying off for American consumers. As the economy recovers 

and more people are working, unemployment is down, to have gas 

prices at the lowest level in 6 years is a great thing for so many 

families and businesses. 

I never thought that I would see gas prices below $2 again. But 

they have these Web sites now where you can go and find the lowest—the gas station in your neighborhood. And I just checked back 

in Tampa. I still found one below $2, although most are at $2 or 

a little bit more. So the energy information group under your purview said that that is going to save consumer families $750 a year. 

Secretary MONIZ. Average household savings. 

Ms. CASTOR. The average household savings. So that comes at a 

great time. And it is part of the strategy, part of what we have 

seen on reduced demand for energy and increased supply. In recent 

years, the U.S. has experienced a natural gas boom, now one of the 

largest natural gas producers in the world. 

And then when you look at savings, the fuel economy is remarkable. It has improved year after year for vehicles in the U.S. The 

difference in miles per gallon or your fuel economy between 20 

miles per gallon and 30 miles per gallon is $518 per year for consumers, or about $2,600 over 5 years. And now consumers have 

many more choices when it comes to vehicles. We have recently 

purchased a new car, and the sky is the limit on how many different kinds of hybrids, electrics. So I think the administration has 

been right on track. 

Then when you add in wind and solar energy—have tripled since 

2008. The country is changing how it uses energy. The progress, 

when you sample it, is really impressive. This is a study, the 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance Report. Progress in clean energy 

52 

has really been immense. It says wind and solar have achieved liftoff, and the renewable energy story keeps getting better, too. In 

2007, according to Bloomberg and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, renewable energy provided just 7 percent of the 

Nation’s total. But by 2014, it had nearly doubled, to 13 percent. 

That is a real success story. 

And then we have seen great improvement in energy efficiency, 

too. This is the most cost effective area. But I am still not convinced that we have unleashed the power of consumers to really 

conserve energy and use the existing and emerging technology to 

help them save money and help us all conserve energy. 

What is in your budget specifically on energy efficiency that will 

help partner with businesses, the technology companies, and unleash the power of consumers to control their thermostat or for 

businesses to do better in saving costs? 

Secretary MONIZ. So we do have in the budget a proposed increase for building technologies. And those building technologies 

can be everything from external skins of buildings and windows to 

things like smart thermostats and smart everything there. 

But I want to emphasize that besides the budgetary approach, let 

me just mention two other things that we do to address the demand side. One is, of course, efficiency standards. Setting standards for appliances, electric motors, et cetera, and keeping at the 

technology, not at, but maybe it is only a little bit behind, at least, 

the technology frontier. That is very important. 

It is not appreciated so much that if we take all of the efficiency 

standards that have come into effect during this administration 

and those that we project for the next 2 years, and then we ask 

for the cumulative impact to 2030, the projection is about $450 billion—that is a B—of energy savings for consumers and about 3 

gigatons of CO2 avoidance. That is one approach. 

And then finally, the third approach, besides technology and 

standards, is just convening. So we do something called a better 

buildings challenge, for example. All we do is we convene companies that volunteer to meet a 20 percent energy intensity reduction 

by 2020. We give them some branding, and they agree to share 

best practices with others. It is really fantastic. Some companies 

reach their 2020 goals in like 3 years and then double down. So 

it is a broad-based approach to efficiency. 

Ms. CASTOR. I will add that to my list. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

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

Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for being here and giving us your time. And thank you for your 

service to the country. 

I just have a few questions I am going to get right into. 

Do you believe that the Federal Government should use a coordinated process to assess the impact of policy decisions on national 

security and foreign policy? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. In many ways, that is what the quadrennial energy review is all about, trying to get an integrated coherent 

approach. 

53 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. And would you agree that Federal decisions 

for everything from rule making to project reviews and export licenses impact energy diplomacy? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I would say selectively. I think we would 

need to talk about examples. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, I believe it is vital that we ensure the 

United States’ role as a leader in the nuclear technology export 

market, that it is maintained. China and India have increased 

their nuclear generation capabilities twentyfold, and Russia has recently taken the lead in the $500 billion nuclear technology export 

market. In fact, just yesterday it was announced that Russia and 

Egypt signed an accord with one another that puts Russia in 

charge of creating a nuclear plant in Egypt. 

Let me ask you about the DOE’s role in enhancing U.S. manufacturing and competitiveness through your nuclear export control 

policies. Would you agree that strong nuclear exports will not only 

contribute to strengthening domestic job growth, but that it will 

also benefit U.S. influence over international nuclear safety and security? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. It is an interesting sidenote, too, because I think it is—for every $1 billion in exports in this, it is something 

like 10,000 jobs are created, which is—and especially for my district, it is huge, too. 

Secretary MONIZ. May I just add to reinforce that, also, frankly, 

the United States, I would say, is the gold standard in terms of 

nonproliferation norms in energy commerce. So maintaining a 

strong role in that commerce is very important in that point, too. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes. And I agree with you. But my concern, 

though, is, as you see, all these other countries, especially Russia, 

proliferate their nuclear exports. We may have the gold standard. 

We may negotiate gold standard agreements. But the Russians 

don’t necessarily have the same standards we do, which is why I 

think that is so important. 

Ensuring peaceful use of civilian nuclear technology is a core 

mission and responsibility of yours as the Secretary of Energy. 

What are you doing to ensure that the U.S. is a leader in the 

peaceful use of civilian nuclear technology? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, for one thing, I think there is no doubt 

about it, I think we have, first of all, advocate for that and help. 

I mean we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we do have quite 

a bit of nuclear technology being built elsewhere. I mean, in China, 

for example, there may be like 18 Westinghouse AP1000s, for example. And just recently in the President’s trip to India, there was 

real progress made in terms of implementing that agreement. 

And frankly, again, I and others in the administration, when we 

visit many Eastern European countries, for example, we certainly 

advocate strongly for the value of U.S.-based technology. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And I know many of us do when we do our own 

traveling, too. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Mr. KINZINGER. You have been working on the first revision of 

the nuclear export procedures. That would be the first revision in 

more than 25 years. My only concern is this has been in progress 

54 

for a little more than 3 years already. Why is it taking so long for 

the Department to reform its nuclear export procedures? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think it is fair to say that we will be finishing 

that process very, very shortly. 

Mr. KINZINGER. OK. Good. And according to the GAO report 

issued as part of the committee’s ongoing nuclear oversight last 

year, DOE does not have a clear timely, efficient review process. 

Some reviews can take more than a year, depriving the U.S. Companies from entering into commercial negotiations. Will you commit today that you will ensure that the Department is addressing 

fully the GAO report recommendations? 

Secretary MONIZ. We have done and will do all that we can to 

expedite these. I just wanted to caution that, while we are perhaps 

the signatory in the end, it is a multi-agency review process 

and—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. And that can get messy. But I just want to make 

sure, at least at your level, it is receiving senior attention. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So hopefully that is the case. 

And then lastly, what is the DOE’s plan to ensure that Federal 

agencies continue to use private sector funding and expertise to 

meet their energy efficiency goals through energy saving performance contracts, or ESPCs? And what is the biggest barrier to increasing the use of ESPCs by the Federal Government? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the ESPCs certainly have been very effective. And I will be honest, I have lost a little track of how many 

commitments we have—I think we are over $2 billion now in terms 

of ESPC contracts. One of the issues there is, and of course, you 

know, the President has asked us to double that to $4 billion, 

which is going to be a real push. 

But one of the issues is that more and more the projects take on 

a different character than the initial projects. A lot of the low-hanging fruit, in a certain sense, in terms of direct energy savings may 

have been—have been done. And now it is a question of things like 

deeper retrofits that have to be done. So that is a little bit of an 

issue we are dealing with in going forward. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Understood. Thank you. Thank you for being 

here. 

And I will yield back. 

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

New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would just as soon we continue 

with the other Democrats because I think we are going to have 

votes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes, Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And I thank the ranking member for going out of order. I appreciate that. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I am very excited to be on the larger Energy and Commerce 

Committee, and on this subcommittee in particular. I am not new 

to Congress, but I am new to the committee and the subcommittee. 

And thank you very much again for being here today. And I have 

55 

really enjoyed the testimony and the questions from folks from all 

over the country. 

I am from Iowa. Of course, there is a lot going on on the energy 

front in Iowa, as you might imagine. In your testimony, you state 

that DOE loans and grants have helped to support two commercialscale cellulosic ethanol facilities, one of these located in my home 

State of Iowa. And as you know, these are critical for the country 

going forward. 

We often talk about corn ethanol. That is first generation ethanol. Cellulosic is second generation, and that seems to get a little 

more political support nowadays, although I am still a firm supporter, as you might imagine, of corn ethanol. 

But what percentage of funds would be set aside for these programs, or can you elaborate a little bit on what might be set aside 

for these particular second generation ethanol endeavors? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, there are a variety of approaches. And by 

the way, coming to the committee, if you would like a briefing, a 

broader briefing on DOE, we would be happy to arrange that for 

you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Like, for example, with the loan program, then 

there is no specific set-aside for biofuels. That would be competing 

within a broader pool there. 

But if you look at some of our direct programs, one of the directions that we are going in now, in addition to the cellulosic ethanol, 

is moving towards drop-in fuels because those are—especially the 

military is very interested in that. It is a more complex process. 

We have—I believe it is something like $45 million in this budget 

request specifically for a project with the Department of Defense 

and the USDA in terms of looking towards—I think toward three 

projects for drop-in biofuels. So that is an example of what we are 

doing. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. Thank you. 

And you mentioned, as you did in your testimony, about the investments in biofuels more generally. I don’t want to implicate you 

in the whole renewable fuels standard debate. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Certainly. That is for another cabinet member 

probably or two. 

But with the uncertainty of the blending guidelines out there, 

what does that mean for investments in the biofuels field, if you 

will? Do you have any thoughts about that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think, as in all of the energy technologies, certainly having some stability and a clear projection, I 

think, is very important. 

So here, I think one of the issues that remains to be resolved— 

and you are right, I am not involved in the RFS—is the question 

of the vehicles. Is 10 percent really a blend wall? What is the future in terms of more flex fuel vehicles? So I think we often just 

focus on the fuel, but it is really the fuel-vehicle system, I think, 

that we need to address. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Not to mention the infrastructure part of it as 

well? 

56 

Secretary MONIZ. And then comes the infrastructure issue. And 

that is where, of course, the alternative, for example, biomass-derived drop-in fuels—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ [continuing]. Would resolve that, but at the cost 

of it being a much more complex process. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Exactly. 

Finally, Iowa is one of the leading wind producing States, as you 

know. Wind energy producing States. About 27 percent or so of our 

electricity in Iowa is generated through wind. 

What kind of investments can we see set aside, if any, for the 

future as far as the wind industry is concerned? If you could elaborate on that a little bit. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the programs continue to look at stretching the technology. For example, the materials for bigger blades, 

for example, is very important. One of the directions there is in the 

competitively awarded Manufacturing Institute on Composite Materials that we announced in January. That is one example. There 

is work in terms of different direct drive, for example, turbines for 

larger, higher efficiency machines. 

By the way, there is also, it is kind of low-brow, but when you 

go to the bigger blades you do have to worry about transportation 

logistics. And that is another issue. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I might just say when you come to Iowa next, just 

go down Interstate 80, and you will see lots of those blades being 

transported across the State. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. They have TPI Composites in Newton in my district. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. We have Siemens in Fort Madison in my district. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Yes. That is great. Yes. 

And the last thing I will say is probably—it is probably slightly 

less relevant for Iowa, but we are looking at offshore wind as well 

in terms of trying to capture particularly a deepwater resource. But 

that will take a while to get into an economically competitive 

range. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have a vote on the floor, and there is going 

to be three votes. And there is about 6 minutes left in the first 

vote. 

I am going to go to you, Mr. Griffith, for your 5 minutes. And 

then I would ask the other members who have not asked questions 

how many of you want to come back. My understanding is the Secretary has a 4 o’clock meeting. He has to leave here, at the latest, 

at 3:45. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. A quarter of, yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So how many of you would like to come back to 

ask questions? 

OK. Well, I will tell you what, then, we will go with you, Mr. 

Griffith. And I guess that would terminate the questions for the 

Secretary, unless you all want to come back. So why don’t I recognize Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes. 

57 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate it. 

Mr. Secretary, I heard you say something in your opening comments about a trilateral group that met regarding North American 

energy grid, and indicated that Mexico wanted to hook their grid 

into our grid. This immediately raised some concerns which I hope 

you can allay for me. And that would be that while workers in central Appalachia, and particularly in the 9th District of Virginia, 

which I happen to represent, are being laid off in the mines because of EPA policy, not DOE policy, but because of EPA policy, we 

have a situation where if we hook our grid into Mexico’s, they could 

theoretically be sending electricity to the United States made with 

either Texan coal or Mexican coal or somewhere else they get it. 

I would note that Texas did approve a project, it appears based 

on the reports that I have got, in 2013 to send coal. Some people 

claim that it is not as good as coal that we would allow to be 

burned in the United States. But more importantly—and I am 

quoting from an article in, if I am reading this right—heartland.org 

by Cheryl Chumley, ‘‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency restrictions on coal power make Mexico the most viable market for 

U.S. coal mines near the Mexican border. Mexico has relatively few 

restrictions on coal power plants relative to the heavy EPA regulations of U.S. coal power plants. 

And then there is the concern that in the Coahuila—and I hope 

I pronounced that correctly—region of Mexico, which borders 

Texas, that the Los Zetas, formerly drug gang, now coal mining 

gang as well, have taken over the coal industry. And they produce 

about 95 percent of Mexico’s coal. 

So I just worry, if they hook in into our grid and then we have 

a shortage because we have had the EPA debilitate the ability to 

use coal in this country, that we will be using coal that is burned 

at lower standards, lower grade coal, where we have extortion and 

other things operating in the mines and a safety record for the 

workers that is abysmal. And I would have to ask you to be cautious on that. 

And I think you would agree with me that—we may not agree 

on how much coal ought to be used, but that when coal is used to 

provide American electricity, it ought to be done under American 

work standards and under American energy standards, and that 

we should not be allowing Mexico to backdoor the use of coal, particularly dirty coal, when we have lots of clean coal that my folks 

would like to be mining and are now finding themselves unemployed. You would agree with that, would you not? 

Secretary MONIZ. With all of our international engagements— 

trade engagements, environmental and labor standards are critical, 

yes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And the problem is, is that if you start wheeling 

that electricity in, it will have been made under their standards, 

and there is no way you can control that. Isn’t that accurate? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think you have raised an issue that we 

need to be on top of. I do think that it is important to recognize, 

look, this is just an early start of a discussion. But to recognize 

that Mexico is also taking some pretty strong environmental positions. That is a discussion that will have to evolve. I mean, it is 

a good point. 

58 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that. 

I will tell you that I think the DOE does some good things. I am 

worried about the EPA. And I have got a much longer question, but 

my time is running out because I got diverted with the Mexican 

issue. 

But it appears that the EPA has asked in their budget request— 

and I am quoting now—evaluating and capturing these compliance 

strategies requires the Agency to tap into technical and policy expertise not traditionally needed in EPA regulatory development, for 

example, nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and demand side energy efficiency, and to understand and project systemwide approaches and trends in areas such as electricity transmission, distribution, and storage. 

I just have to you tell you, I often think that the EPA thinks that 

they don’t need Congress. It sounds like, from the language in their 

budget request, they don’t think they need the Department of Energy. What say you? 

Secretary MONIZ. I can assure you that we—EPA and other 

agencies, FERC, others, do call upon us for technical analysis. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, but I don’t have any problem with them calling on you for technical analysis. It seems like they want to set up 

their own technical abilities to do that analysis. And don’t you 

think that would be wasteful spending on our part to approve that 

for the EPA when we already have your fine agency doing that 

work? And isn’t it just another example of EPA overreach? 

Secretary MONIZ. I appreciate the endorsement of our excellent 

work. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I appreciate you, Mr. Secretary, as well. 

I have other questions that I am afraid I will have to submit for 

the record because our time is up. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Do that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And we do have votes waiting. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But thank you so much for being here today, and 

I appreciate your good work. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Griffith’s time has expired. You have something, Mr. Flores? 

Mr. FLORES. We will submit our questions for the record. Thank 

you for being here. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Secretary, I have been told that some members did want to come back. I am sure we won’t be back over here 

until 3:20 or so. Are you available until 3:45? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. If we could think of 3:45 as an end date— 

end time, that would be great. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I tell you, if you wouldn’t mind just waiting here for a few minutes. I am going to go to the floor to vote. 

I am going to ask the four or five members if they can come back, 

oK. If not, I will call—— 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. And we will conclude the hearing. 

But thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, and thank you for being available. 

59 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. The correct term is recess subject to the 

call. 

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to 

the call of the Chair.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We will reconvene the hearing. And at this point 

I would recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, to resume his question and answer. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I am more than willing to, but I 

think Mr. Johnson is ready to go. I will let him ask his, and then 

I will ask mine. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. Johnson from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. 

Secretary, thanks for joining us again. It is always good to see you 

here. 

My line of questions deal with LNG exports and particularly 

around some of the diplomatic and global, international, implications of America getting into that market in a big way. In your 

opinion, will U.S. LNG exports improve the efficiency and transparency of international natural gas markets? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think in general the more LNG that goes into 

the global market the more opportunity there is for market development. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. So I take that is a yes in terms of efficiency 

and transparency? That you think—— 

Secretary MONIZ. It is the whole LNG global market. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. OK. Do the EIA 2012 LNG export analysis 

and the 2014 update, the NERA economic consulting analysis and 

the NETL analysis, all commissioned by DOE, does that give DOE 

the sufficient data needed to make the public interest determination about LNG exports? 

Secretary MONIZ. Last year when we modified the process, we 

said that we do have that set of analyses for up to 12 BCF per day. 

We are currently at 5.7, so we are still quite some headroom there. 

But we said we would need to commission, and we have done so, 

new analyses for going from 12 to 20 should that be called upon. 

We are still awaiting the contracted second study. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. When do you expect the Cove Point terminal 

to receive its final DOE approval? 

Secretary MONIZ. I believe Cove Point has received its final approval. Anybody know? Well, I will check that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Maybe we can mutually verify. 

Secretary MONIZ. We will verify either way. But I would emphasize that the—I mean, we have no applications available right now 

for our final approval—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. It was our understanding that, what I was expecting, was that you were waiting for FERC to reject their opponent’s 

request for rehearing, but FERC is not under a time limit; therefore, they are waiting. So the question is are we waiting for FERC 

to do a rehearing? Does anybody know? 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, I may be getting confused, but I thought 

we had approved Cove Point. OK. I am sorry? You are correct apVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:57 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-10 CHRIS
60 

parently, that we do not have a final approval, we are waiting for 

the EIS then from FERC. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So FERC does not have a time limit for their rehearing. Is there a policy requirement that DOE wait for FERC to 

deny the request for rehearing, or is it just DOE practice? Because 

I liked your first answer. I want it approved. 

Secretary MONIZ. So we need to have the EIS in order to have 

the information on environmental impact for the public interest determination. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is that what would come out of the rehearing process? 

Secretary MONIZ. If FERC is having a rehearing that is what 

would come of it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the problem. FERC is not under a timeline 

to do a rehearing, so it just sits there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Look, I will go look into the status of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could you, please? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I will. And it is just that again we need 

to have the adequate information for our making a public determination. Because we decided long ago, the Department before I 

was even at the Department, that we certainly didn’t want to do 

a parallel environmental impact statement. So typically what we 

simply do is adopt the FERC statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Shifting gears just a little bit, I want to com- mend you personally for including the $100 million in the fiscal 

year 2016 budget for the continued domestic uranium enrichment 

research and development and demonstration activities in Piketon, 

Ohio. This is a critical domestic need, national security—we have 

talked about that—to produce our own enriched uranium. 

The fiscal year 2015 CRomnibus contained language that directs 

the DOE to report to Congress by April 30 of this year with an accounting on the current and future availability of low-enriched uranium to meet our national security needs. Can you give us a status 

report on that report, and will the Department meet the 30 April 

deadline? 

Secretary MONIZ. There is a very active multi-agency process 

going on right now with the aim to meet that target. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Thank you very much. 

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

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

Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I just want to begin by 

applauding your willingness to bring the demonstration research to 

the committees. One of the things that obsesses me now is to try 

to figure out how we can make policy when things in the world are 

changing so rapidly. And we were talking earlier about the grid. 

And I read somewhere not too long ago where somebody has invented a way to transmit energy through sound waves, electricity 

through sound waves. And I am thinking if that is something that 

is actually viable and scaleable, then we might have a whole different alternative to the grid. 

So the things that I, as a matter of fact, I have thought it would 

be good for us to keep bringing futurists to the committee to talk 

61 

so we can make decisions in context. So anyway, I appreciate that 

and look forward to it. 

One of the things that I have been so excited about in the energy 

field is that the Federally funded clean energy manufacturing initiatives have made a huge difference around the country, and specifically in my district. We have, because of the Federal initiatives, 

we have like 4,000 new jobs at Ford Motor Company manufacturing plant. 

We have several thousand new jobs at a GE appliance plant because they are producing now energy-efficient appliances that have 

benefitted from Federal tax credits. They brought a line of hybrid 

water heaters back from China, 420 jobs. So these types of programs can have a phenomenal benefit for the community. Can you 

talk about the initiatives going forward, what you are proposing in 

the budget, to continue that kind of initiatives to promote energy 

efficient manufacturing? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, there are many things. For one thing, for 

the Manufacturing Institute Initiative we are proposing to have 

full funding of two new institutes in the fiscal year 2016 budget. 

That would be very exciting. Those are competitively awarded. And 

typically in the competition so far, the States have stepped up very, 

very strongly in terms of matching those funds. So that is one very 

important initiative. 

And by the way, to go back to some earlier discussions, with 

those institutes we are also making sure we integrate training programs with them so that, you know, you can get a workforce in the 

area, et cetera. 

On things like the Ford plant you mentioned, I believe was part 

of the loan program in the ATVM. We still have $16 billion of authority left in that program, and we are encouraging especially suppliers for the auto industry to come forward. And we also have, of 

course, calls out for fossil renewables and efficiency and nuclear. 

And when you put those all together, those could really, really help 

move the needle, I think, as have the previous loans in terms of 

jobs and cutting-edge manufacturing. 

Mr. YARMUTH. There is one thing that I have been meaning to 

ask somebody, so you are a good person to ask. Several months 

ago—well, it is probably a year ago now—General Wesley Clark 

was speaking to a group that I was part of, and talking about he 

has been doing a lot of work in the energy field internationally and 

been travelling back and forth to China. 

And one of the things he was concerned about, he talked about 

a company in Washington State that had actually developed a process for baking coal, not for energy, but to get very valuable minerals. They had been able to do that. And they were looking for 

some venture capital, I think it was $75 million, and couldn’t find 

it. So ultimately, a Chinese company came in and bought the technology that had been developed in the United States. Is that the 

type of situation that that loan program or maybe some other DOE 

initiatives might be able to accommodate? 

Secretary MONIZ. I would have to see it in more detail. From 

what the sound of it, I don’t think the loan program would do it. 

The loan program needs to push the technology envelop in an emissions-reducing technologies. Now, I don’t know what the minerals 

62 

are. For example, earlier we mentioned that there is a study going 

on right now that should be ready 2, 3 months, I would guess, on 

the question of whether or not coal or the coal combustion products 

are a viable source of rare Earth minerals. 

So that is the kind of thing that, if it looks positive, then we will 

come back and work with the Congress to see about a program 

there. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

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

Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. We appreciate your access to the 

subcommittee and the full committee. You have always been one of 

the most accessible Obama administration officials, and it is appreciated sincerely. 

I want to ask about the situation in the world oil markets. As 

you know, not too many months ago the price of oil was over $100 

a barrel. Now it is below $50. Massive layoffs in the service industry in the oil patch and drilling programs. I talked to an independent producer in Texas this past week. They had 15 rigs operating a year ago. They have two today. And they are not completing the wells. They are just drilling them. They are not 

fracking them. They are just drilling the wells. 

I introduced H.R. 702 last week to repeal the existing ban on 

crude oil exports. I have heard you in other venues say reasonably 

positive things about that. I would like your position and the Department’s position, and if you are able to give it the administration’s position, if you all would support the outright repeal of the 

existing ban on crude oil. 

My bill also requires a study of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

You know, we have got a fairly large SPR these days. And so we 

want to repeal the ban and then take a look at what the future is 

for the SPR. I would encourage your comments on those two issues. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, Mr. Barton, as you know, the crude export policy issue is one for the Department of Commerce to address. They did issue this clarification recently about lightly processed condensates. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, they are granting permits on a case-by-case 

basis, which is appreciated, but that is not a substitute, in my 

opinion, for a comprehensive policy. And it is much more cumbersome, it takes a lot longer, and it is not universal, as you well 

know. 

Secretary MONIZ. That again, that is an issue that at the policy 

level Department of Commerce would address. I do always put in 

context that we do still import seven million barrels of oil per day. 

And I think that is an issue. That plus, of course, current low 

prices would severely impact, I think, what actually, you know, 

would be the ground truth. But obviously we have had some analyses done. 

EIA, for example, has published a piece that says the exports 

would probably have zero or a small negative effect on gasoline 

prices, for example, mainly because the Brent price tends to correlate with our product prices. So we will continue to do analysis 

that supports a decision. 

63 

Mr. BARTON. I know the Department of Commerce has to make 

these decisions, but I would assume if the President were thinking 

about making a change in law, since it is crude oil exports, he 

would consult with the Secretary of Energy. And you happen to be 

the Secretary of Energy. If the Secretary of Commerce were here, 

I would ask his position, but he is not here. 

Secretary MONIZ. Her, her. 

Mr. BARTON. And you are. I would also point out that we export 

about four million barrels per day of refined products, which is up 

considerably. So we have got a situation where the patient is half 

pregnant. We are exporting the refined products, but not allowing 

the crude. And it does give our refiners somewhat of a captive market for the domestic crude oil. And if we just went free market totally, I think everybody would be better off. 

Obviously, it would squeeze the profit margin of the refineries, 

because they would not be able to maintain that captured discount, 

which has fallen. It has been over $25 a barrel, but right now it 

is I think around $5 a barrel. So as the world prices come down, 

that discount that the domestic refineries are receiving is coming 

down too. 

In my last 37 seconds, FutureGen, the Department I think made 

the correct decision, sadly, not too long ago to stop funding that 

project. What is your position on the next step in terms of clean 

coal technology, carbon capture sequestration, or perhaps even carbon capture and conversion? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, I want to agree with your 

characterization that it was sadly, because getting an 

oxycombustion plant done would be a very good demonstration, but 

the ARRA funding deadline made it not viable. We remain very 

committed to that. We still have a bunch of projects coming, including in Texas the Petra Nova project, for example, will be coming 

on. There is the Summit project. And also the industrial facilities, 

the air products project, for example, also in Houston is operating. 

So we are going to keep pushing forward. And two things looking 

forward. In addition to our research on, you know, new capture 

technologies, et cetera, two issues going forward: One is we do have 

the active solicitation for $8 billion of loan guarantee for fossil 

projects with emissions reductions. And we have a—I can’t talk 

about specifics—but we do have a very encouraging proposal 

stream. 

And, secondly, in the fiscal year 2016 budget, not from DOE but 

from Treasury, is the tax credit proposal for CCS. So a $2 billion 

ITC for construction, including C02 infrastructure, and a sequestration—— 

Mr. BARTON. So you are still supportive of research into the technologies, bottom line? 

Secretary MONIZ. Both research and deployment encouragement. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have four members still that would like to 

ask questions. I am going to ask each of you to cut it to 3 minutes, 

if possible, because I know the Secretary is leaving. He will tell me 

when he has to go to get to his White House meeting, but—Mr. 

Sarbanes, you are recognized. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

64 

Could you maybe just give me 1 minute of my 3 minutes speaking to what you see as the benefits that are already being realized 

from the efforts, heroic efforts, of the Department of Energy over 

the last few years to just generally diversify the energy portfolio of 

the country. I have an impression that the falling gas prices in part 

can be linked to that general commitment to diversification because 

of the concerns and anxiety it produces overseas from OPEC and 

others. 

But if you could speak to that briefly and any other broad benefits you see from the diversification effort, which I think has been 

really terrific over the last few years. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, the diversification effort would 

go forward irrespective of where the oil price was going because 

this is a long-term investment, number one. 

Number two, very critical, and I would refer you to a little paper 

on our Web site called Revolution Now that shows, I think, the big 

story. The four technologies, including solar and LEDs, the vehicle 

batteries, it shows the tremendous cost reduction of those technologies going forward and the associated large deployment increase. That is the huge story. And that is, in the end, key to what 

we do trying to push the envelop and get the cost down for these 

technologies. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. Let me switch gears to another topic, 

which increasingly according to all the surveys that are coming 

back in the recent period, the American public is now very focused 

on the effects of climate change. And it appears with each passing 

day, more and more are convinced that we need to step up and address this in a sustained fashion. And I think that is right. 

In your testimony, you talk about the sequestration of over nine 

million metric tons of CO2 through DOE-supported projects. You 

talk about the efficiency standards that have been issued in calendar year 2014, and what that will mean between now and 2030; 

that since 2009, you are projecting that you will have a 2.2 billion 

metric ton of carbon emission reduction up through 2030. Just 

speak to how these efforts the Department of Energy has undertaken can leverage even more meaningful steps more broadly out 

there in the country to meet the challenge that we have in terms 

of addressing climate change. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, first of all, for that example, I mean, efficiency is the number one short payback approach typically. We do 

have, we support the R&D to develop technologies, but in this case 

with appliances, et cetera, it is more we put out a well-understood 

standard cost benefit analysis, and our companies are plenty innovative enough to meet and beat those standards. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Long is recognized. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. 

What do you attribute these precipitous drop in gasoline prices 

to? What do you think are the main couple of factors that have led 

to this big drop in gas prices? 

65 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think the main issue is the combination 

of production, especially U.S. production. U.S. production of oil 

went up 1.6 million barrels per day just last year. 

Mr. LONG. Due to what? 

Secretary MONIZ. Due to the technology that had been developed 

over the years in terms of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, opening up the shale plays, also some deep water, but the 

shale plays mainly. So, we had very, very strong production. We 

have produced an extra several million barrels per day at the same 

time that you have economic softness, for example, in Europe and 

a lot of slowed growth in the Far East as well. Supply and demand. 

Mr. LONG. Yes. Supply and demand. I mean, to me common 

sense dictates, tells me, but I don’t have your knowledge. I am not 

in your position. But when we talk about fracking and things, and 

there was a gentlelady on the other side of the aisle that spoke earlier that was very happy that gas prices have dropped so precipitously, which we are all thrilled. 

The first time I went home after the big drop I filled up, I 

thought the pump had stopped. It was like $30 short of where it 

used to ring up. And we are all pleased with that. But I think that 

fracking has been very effective in increasing the amount of production in this country, and I just wanted to make sure that I was 

on the right wavelength with that. 

You also, and to your credit, pointed out when Mr. Olson from 

Texas was talking about the carbon sequestration plant down 

there, and you corrected him and said it is not running. We have 

had hearings before where they are not running. Do we have any 

that are up and running? And if so, why not? And are they going 

to be viable? Because everyone brags about carbon sequestration, 

which would be a great thing, but I haven’t found any that are operating. You see these projections of when they are going to be on 

line in 2015 and 2017 and 2019, and where are we on that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, there are plants operating. There 

is a natural gas reforming facility in Texas that is operating, putting carbon underground. I might add, and again in terms of an integrated coal plant, the Boundary Dam plant in Canada, is fully 

operational. 

Mr. LONG. The one in Texas that he was referring to—— 

Secretary MONIZ. The Petra Nova is under construction. It will 

be a few years until it is fully operating. The Kemper plant in Mississippi is nearing end of construction. The ADM ethanol plant capturing CO2 is nearing completion in Illinois. So we have a lot. 

And by the way, we have also had from the Great Plains plant 

in North Dakota—it is a gasification facility—it has supplied 20 

megatons of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery in Canada. So there is 

a lot of activity going on. 

Mr. LONG. So we can look forward to the Keystone being complete when we get that down here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Engel, you are recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for waiting. I am going to try to condense everything into 3 minutes. 

66 

I want to first be on the record in supporting flex-fuel cars. I 

don’t understand why every car built in America isn’t flex-fuel. I 

am told you can do it for under $100 a car, and I think we should 

be doing it. 

I want to tell you that I appreciate the President’s budget. It 

makes a strong commitment to clean energy. I think it is important. Climate change is real. There is already enough CO2 in the 

atmosphere to ensure that the U.S. will have more episodes of climate disruption. Superstorm Sandy in my district in New York, 

Hurricane Katrina, snow in Boston and Buffalo. We really need to 

take action. 

I have had many long conversations with Con Edison in New 

York about improvements they can make to better protect their 

critical energy infrastructure. And I know that the Department of 

Energy also made recommendations to industry and governments 

to enhance response preparedness, restoration, and resilience to future storms. So can you provide me with an update on DOE’s efforts to implement its recommendations, including updates on the 

northeast gas reserve? How have communications been improved? 

What has been done to facilitate access to fuel and other supplies? 

And have you identified any existing laws that need to be amended 

or laws that need to be promulgated? That is my first question. 

My second question involves Indian Point. I have been opposed— 

I have been for closing Indian Point. It is just north of New York 

City. I am convinced it would never be approved at its current location if it were to be built today for a myriad of reasons. And your 

predecessor, Dr. Chu, expressed a need to look at whether the Indian Point reactors should remain, and I am wondering if you could 

commit to do the same? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, on the first question, first of all, more 

broadly in terms of emergency response, the northeast situation is 

clearly a major one in terms of climate. I just want to note that 

other examples would include, for example, the propane issues last 

year in the upper Midwest. And in all these cases we are—first of 

all, we are greatly increasing through the EIA—the EIA is, by the 

way, a really important agency—our database and our communications with State energy offices, so that we have good situational 

awareness. 

Secondly, the Congress did support in fiscal year 2015 our expansion of our emergency response capacity at DOE. 

Thirdly, with regard to the petroleum reserve and the product reserve—of course, in the northeast now we have both a heating oil 

and a gasoline reserve, a million barrels each, and we are performing fuel resiliency studies for other parts of the country as 

well. That gasoline reserve is fully up and operational. And there 

are 700,000 of the million barrels are in the New York Harbor 

area. 

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, just give me 10 seconds. 

Could we communicate on Indian Point? I am not opposed to nuclear power at all. I just worry about that power plant. 

Secretary MONIZ. Maybe we can have that discussion—— 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

67 

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

Oklahoma for 3 minutes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, I need to leave in 3. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. How much time do you have left, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary MONIZ. About 3. 

Mr. MULLIN. I will literally have one question for you. With the 

rate that our coal-fired power plants are coming off line due to the 

administration’s rules on clean air and the war on coal, has there 

been any study at all to know if the capacity of our pipeline right 

now is going to be able to supply adequate supply to our power 

plants? Obviously, we know they are going to have to take up the 

blunt of the load. And I believe we are going to have shortage of 

electricity heating our power grid. What I don’t want to see is rolling blackouts. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. So, first of all, I want to just emphasize 

I don’t accept the war on coal characterization. 

Mr. MULLIN. That wasn’t my words. That came out of the administration’s. I mean, anyway, we can debate that at a different time. 

Secretary MONIZ. And there are many, many factors that have 

influenced the reduction in coal plants, and by the way, I might say 

nuclear plants as well. I have also—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I understand that, but we have a lot of plants coming off line in 2016. 

Secretary MONIZ. So on the gas side there was a paper—we will 

be happy to supply it to you—it was published just days ago. It was 

part of an analytical work in our QER. And what it says fundamentally is there will be some need for some regional build-out of additional gas pipe, but not nearly as much as is being discussed. For 

one reason, in the last years we have had a tremendous build-out 

of gas pipelines, in fact, enough to carry twice as much gas as we 

actually use. 

Mr. MULLIN. But getting it to the power plants. We are seeing 

4 years it is taking to get a permit, on average, to get a line built 

to the power plants. We have units coming down at an alarming 

rate coming 2016. 

If we are downing these things, then what is DOE’s answer to 

the shortage we are going to have in 2 years? Because we can’t 

even get the lines permitted in that amount of time. 

Secretary MONIZ. OK. Again, I think this is a more detailed discussion I would be happy to follow-up on. But to emphasize, there 

has been this huge build-out. Those pipes are underutilized. So 

there is a lot we can do just by using the unused capacity of these 

pipes. 

Mr. MULLIN. The volume capacity is set by you guys of how much 

due to highly populated areas and rural areas. But so there is 

going to have to be some fluctuation there. We can discuss this at 

further length, because this is obviously vitally important. 

So thank you for your time. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, it is. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Time is expired. 

Mr. Flores, do you have one question you want to ask? 

Mr. FLORES. I do. I will just submit mine for the record. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Mr. Secretary, thank you. So sorry. 

68 

We appreciate it and we look forward to working with you. And 

thank you so much. 

Secretary MONIZ. And we have a number of things to get back 

with, various numbers. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That concludes today’s hearing. The record will 

remain open for 10 days. And that is the end of the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

69 


95232.023
(70) 

[Secretary Moniz’s answers to submitted questions have been retained in committee files and are available at: http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if03/20150211/102942/hhrg-114-if03- 

wstate-monize-20150211-sd543.pdf.] 

Æ