U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–232PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE FUTURE OF ARPA-E 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

Serial No. 116–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California, 

Vice Chair 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

HALEY STEVENS, Michigan 

KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma 

MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DON BEYER, Virginia 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

KATIE HILL, California 

BEN MCADAMS, Utah 

JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, 

Ranking Member 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL DUNN, Florida 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio 

MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida 

JIM BAIRD, Indiana 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

HALEY STEVENS, Michigan 

KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

NEAL DUNN, Florida 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 26, 2019 

Page 

Witnesses .................................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. House of Representatives .................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Energy, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Arun Majumdar, Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor, Stanford University, and Faculty Member of the Department of Mechanical Engineering 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Dr. Ellen D. Williams, Distinguished University Professor, Department of 

Physics at the University of Maryland 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Dr. John Wall, Retired Chief Technical Officer, Cummins, Inc. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Dr. Saul Griffith, Founder and CEO, Otherlab 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Mr. Mark P. Mills, Senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Faculty 

Fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and 

Applied Science 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 63 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Report submitted by Dr. John Wall, Retired Chief Technical Officer of 

Cummins, Inc. ...................................................................................................... 84 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF ARPA-E 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Conor Lamb 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

U::ongrcss 

ilOilSC Of l\cprtllClltatiOC!l COMMITIEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

RAYBURN HOUSE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515···6301 

(202) 225-6375 

The Future of ARP A-E 

Tuesday, F cbruary 26, 2019 

!O:OOa.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. Arun Majumdar, Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor, Stanford University 

Dr. Ellen Williams, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland 

Dr. John Wall, Retired CTO of Cummins, Member of the Committee on 

Evaluation for the 2017 National Academies review of ARPA-E 

Dr. Saul Griffith, Founder and CEO, Otherlab 

Mr. Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute 
3 

PURPOSE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING CHARTER 

The Future of ARPA-E 

Tuesday, February 26,2019 

!O:OOAM EST 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose of the hearing is to assess the value of the role that the Department of Energy's 

Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy (ARPA-E) currently plays in accelerating the 

development of innovative energy technologies, and to examine ways that Congress and the 

Administration may be able to improve ARPA-E's capabilities to spur transformational 

technological advances in pursuit of the agency's energy and environmental missions. 

WITNESSES 

• Dr. Arun Majumdar is the Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor at Stanford 

University and a faculty member of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. 

Dr. Majumdar was the founding Director of ARPA-E from 2009 to 2012. During his time 

at the Department of Energy (DOE) he also served as acting Under Secretary for Energy. 

His current research explores chemical processes in clean energy technology, nextgeneration materials science, and efforts to improve the efficiency of the electric grid. 1 

Dr. Ellen D. Williams is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of 

Physics at the University of Maryland (UMD). Dr. Williams was the Director of ARPA-E 

from 2014 through the end of the Obama Administration. Prior to joining DOE, she 

served as Chief Scientist to BP and founded the UMD Materials Research Science and 

Engineering Center. Her research currently focuses on surface physics and 

nanotechnology.2 

1 "Arun Majumdar Bio." Stanford University. Accessed 12 Feb 2019. https://profiles.stanford.edu!arun-majumdar 

'"Ellen Williams Biography.•· University ofMary1and Department of Physics. Accessed 13 Feb 2019. 

https://umdphysics.umd.edu/about-us/news-from-the-chair/383-ellen-williams-to-serve-as-chief-scientist-at-bp.htm1 

1 
4 

• Dr. John Wall, now retired, served as the Chief Technology Officer for Cummins Inc. 

from 2000 to 2015, where he oversaw the company's worldwide commercial engine 

emissions reductions activities. Dr. Wall served on the Committee on Evaluation for the 

2017 National Academies review of ARPA-E. Dr. Wall currently serves as a technical 

advisor for DOE's Joint BioEnergy Institute and as an advisor for Cyclotron Road. an 

energy technology incubator at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3. 

• Dr. Saul Griffith is the Founder and CEO of Otherlab, a privately held research and 

development lab that develops clean energy, robotics and automation, and engineered 

textiles, among other technology areas. In its ten years of existence, Other lab has been 

the recipient of multiple ARPA-E awards. Over the course of his career Dr. Griffith has 

founded a number of companies4 and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 20075

. 

• Mr. Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at 

Northwestern University's McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science 

where he co-directs an Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. He is also a 

strategic partner with Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and an 

advisory board member of Notre Dame University's Reilly Center for Science. 

Technology. and Values. 

BACKGROUND 

History 

In 2005, Congress requested a report from the National Academies to identify what federal 

actions could ''enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can 

successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century" 6• The 

subsequent report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, made a series of recommendations to 

enhance the nation's technological competitiveness, including the creation of a new energy 

agency within the Department of Energy (DOE) modeled after the Defense Advanced Research 

Program Agency (DARPA) within the Department ofDefense7 . 

3 "Dr. John Wall, Former Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Cummins Inc. to Receive the Thomas W. Zosel 

Individual Achievement Award from the Environmental Protection Agency." Business Wire. Published 28 June 2016. 

https :/ iwww. business wire. com/news/home/20 160628005 254/ en !Dr.· John-Wall-Vice-President-Chief-Technical 

'"Short Bio." Accessed 13 Feb 2019. http://saulgriffith.com/ 

' MacArthur Foundation Fellows Program. Accessed 14 Feb 2019. https://www.macfound.org/fellows/825/ 6 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing 

and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

https://doi.org/1 0.17226/11463. 7 ''ARPA-E History.'' Department of Energy. Accessed 7 Feb 2019. https://arpa-e.energy.gov!"g~arpa-e-sitepage/arpa~e~history 

2 
5 

In 2007, the U.S. Congress authorized such a program as a part of the America COMPETES Act, 

calling it the Advanced Research Program Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)8

. ARPA-E's mission is "to 

overcome long-term and high-risk technology barriers in the development of energy 

technologies" 9

. Specifically, its goals are: 

·'(A) to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through the development 

of energy technologies that result in-

(i) reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources; 

(ii) reductions of energy-related emissions, including greenhouse gases; and 

(iii) improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic sectors; and 

"(B) to ensure that the United States maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying 

advanced energy technologies" 10. 

While ARPA-E was authorized in 2007, it did not receive funding until the passage of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009, which included $400 million to build and 

support the agency over a two year period11 • Since then ARPA-E's annual budget has generally 

increased, despite proposals from the current Administration to eliminate the program in its FY 

2018 and FY 2019 budget requests 1213 • ARPA-E's annual budget is currently at its highest level, 

with $366 million appropriated for FY 2019 14 • 

Program Structure and Design 

At the direction of Congress, ARP A-E possesses a unique structure and project management 

style as compared to DOE's other program offices. ARPA-E attempts to invest in projects that 

have a high potential for impact, but are too underdeveloped to receive sufficient investment 

from the private scctor15 ARPA-E's director has considerable independence over which projects 

8 America COMPETES Act. Pub. L. 110-69. 121 Stat. 621.9 Aug 2007. 

''National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. An Assessment of ARPA-E. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/1 0.17226/24778 

America COMPETES Act. Pub. L. 110-69. 121 Stat. 621.9 Aug 2007. 

:' "ARPA-E History.'' Department of Energy. Accessed 7 Feb 2019. https:i/arpa-e.energy.gov!?q~arpa-e-sitepage/ama-e-history 

11 Department of Energy FY 2018 Congressional Budget Request. 

https:/iwww.energy.gov/sites/prodlfiles/20 17 i05/f34/FY20 18BudgetVolume3 O.pdf 

'

3 Department of Energy FY 2019 Congressional Budget Request. 

https:l /www .energy.gov/sites!prodlfilesi20 18/031f49/FY -20 19-Volume-3-Part-2.pdf 14 "ARPA-£ Budget." Department of Energy. Accessed 12 Feb 2019. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/' g~arpa-e-sitepage/arpa-e-hudget 

15 "ARPA-E About." Department of Energy. Accessed 13 Feb 2019. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?g~arpa-e-sitepage/about 

3 
6 

are funded, the funding levels of projects, and the hiring of program managers, who are not 

subject to civil service hiring laws 16 • Program managers typically come from highly technical 

backgrounds and work for ARPA-E on short, three year cycles. Program managers have 

autonomy to rapidly begin projects, monitor them closely, and terminate funding if specific 

milestones are not reached 17• According to a 2017 review of ARPA-E by the National 

Academies, discussed further below, this allows the agency to manage projects at a speed and 

risk-level not found in other DOE research and development activities 18 . The awarded projects 

are organized into programs based on specific technology themes. There arc currently 38 distinct 

ARPA-E programs, with projects ranging from advanced nuclear energy modeling to plant 

driven carbon sequestration 19• ARPA-E also provides technical and commercialization assistance 

to all projects that are selected for funding. 

Performance 

Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided $1.8 billion in R&D funding to over 660 projects. Of these 

projects, 71 have led to the formation of new companies, l 09 have partnered with non-DOE 

government agencies, and 136 have attracted over $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on 

funding. ARP A-E projects have also produced 245 U.S. patents and I, 724 peer reviewed journal 

artic!es.20 

Included in ARPA-E's initial authorization was a requirement that it receive an independent 

evaluation from the National Academies of Science after its first 4 years.21 The National 

Academics of Science conducted this review beginning in 2015, and published its results in An 

Assessment of ARPA-E, in2017. In summary, the report concluded that ARPA-E was making 

significant, unique contributions to the U.S.'s energy research and development enterprise.22 

16 America COMPETES Act. Pub. L. 110-69. 121 Stat. 623.9 Aug 2007. 17 "Frequently Asked Questions.·· Department of Energy. https:/larpa-e.energy.govi"g=fag 18 ;\iational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017. An Assessment of ARPA-E. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. https:!ldoi.org!l 0.17226/24778 

"ARPA-E Programs.'' Department of Energy. Accessed 12 feb 2019. https://arpa-e.energy.govi?g=programlisting&term node tid depth~Ail&field program tid~AI!&field program status value~ !&sort bv-title&sort ord 

er~ASC 

00 "ARPA-E Impact." Department of Energy. Accessed 14 Feb 2019. https://arpa-e.encrgy.gov/?q-site-pagelarna-eimpact 

21 America COMPETES Act. Pub. L. 110-69. 121 Stat. 624.9 Aug 2007. 22 National Academies of Sciences. Engineering, and Medicine 2017. An Assessment of ARPA-E. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. https:;/doi.org/1 0.17226/24778 

4 
7 

LOOKING AHEAD 

Recently, several bipartisan and non-partisan energy and technology focused organizations, 

including the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF)23 and the American 

Energy Innovation Council (AEICi4

, released reports advocating for substantial funding 

increases to ARPA-E. Notably, the AEIC's 2018 report titled, Energy Innovation: Fueling 

America's Economic Engine, calls for an annual budget of$! billion for ARPA-E, close to three 

times its FY 2019 budget, These reports highlighted ARPA-E's unique structure and 

management, and recommend expanding these qualities to other DOE research and development 

programs. 

Acknowledging these recommendations, this hearing will examine the potential for 

improvements to the operations and impact of ARPA-E. In particular, the hearing will explore 

how ARPA-E can best leverage additional funding, whether by expanding its current portfolio of 

programs, establishing a scale-up program for select, well-reviewed projects previously 

supported by the agency, or other options. 

23 Hart, David. Kearney, Michael. "ARPA-E: Versatile Catalyst for U.S. Energy Innovation." Information 

Technology & Innovation Foundation. Published Nov 2017. http://www2.itiforg/20 17-arpae-energv-innovation.pdf 

"Energy Innovation: Fueling American's Economic Engine." American Energy Innovation Council. Published 

Nov 2018. http://americanenergyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/20 18/11 /Energy-lnnovation-Fueling-Am~ricasEconomic-Engine.pdf 

5 
8 

Chairman LAMB. This hearing will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to today’s hearing, which is 

entitled, ‘‘The Future of ARPA-E.’’ I’d like to thank our panel of expert witnesses for appearing with us today. 

In my district, and in many around the country, the topic of today’s hearing, which is energy and energy research, means cuttingedge science, but it also means jobs that support entire families. 

We must make sure that the United States remains a leader in 

this industry, and I look forward to working with Members from 

both parties to do that. 

And in fact, today, we are here to discuss a great bipartisan success, which is the future of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. I think it’s helpful for us to look at how this 

program was started. Almost 15 years ago, a bipartisan group of 

Members from the House and Senate were worried that the United 

States’ competitiveness in science and technology might be falling 

behind, so they did a smart thing, which is they commissioned a 

report from the National Academies to suggest how the Federal 

Government could continue to maintain leadership in these areas. 

The report was called, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,’’ 

and it did show that we were quickly losing our scientific and technological advantages. 

One of the major recommendations was the creation of a new 

program within DOE (Department of Energy), which became 

ARPA-E. It was modeled on DARPA (Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency) from the Department of Defense, which has been 

essential to revolutionary technologies like GPS (global positioning 

system) and the internet. So we created ARPA-E with that same 

program in mind. We did something that people may think we in 

Washington don’t know how to do, which is to double-down on a 

government success, but that’s what we’re doing and that’s what 

we’re trying to do here again today. We need to encourage innovation and paradigm-shifting discoveries in all sectors of our economy 

but especially energy. The United States has consistently demonstrated throughout its history that our greatest resource is its 

people and ability to innovate and lead, and we view that ARPAE is a critical component of spurring that type of innovation. 

Congress first authorized this program in 2007, and I’ve been 

told that it was largely due to the hard work of one person, who 

we are lucky enough to have in the room today, which was the 

Chairman of this very Committee at the time, Bart Gordon, who 

is sitting back and to my left. Chairman Gordon, thank you very 

much for your efforts and for being with us here today. Since then, 

ARPA-E projects have led to 71 new companies, 109 projects 

partnered with other government agencies, and 136 projects that 

have garnered more than $2.6 billion in private-sector funding. And 

as we’re going to talk about today, that is more than the government has spent on ARPA-E in that time. 

Among these projects is one that I’m very proud of. It’s located 

in my district at the historic Westinghouse Corporation in Cranberry Township. And what this project aims to do is to innovate in 

the nuclear power industry by continuing to provide carbon-free, 
9 

reliable electricity through a microreactor made of advanced materials that can be modeled and component samples can be fabricated 

and tested with the ultimate goal of reducing the cost and making 

these plants more available worldwide. I’m very pleased with the 

progress of this project, but I know it’s expensive and difficult and 

they might not be able to pursue it without the help of a program 

like ARPA-E. 

So now I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, the 

opening statements of other Members to learn what else we can do 

to improve this great program. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:] 
10 

Chairman Lamb Opening Statement for Hearing on the Future of ARP A-E 

Good morning. I'd like to thank this panel of expert witnesses for being here today. rd also like 

to welcome the other members of this subcommittee to our first hearing. In my district, and many 

around the country, energy means cutting-edge science and family-supporting jobs, and there is 

much work to be done to ensure the U.S. remains a leader in this industry. !look forward to 

working with members from both sides of the aisle to do just that. 

Today, we are here to discuss the progress and future of the Advanced Research Program 

Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. To understand the success of this program, I think it's helpful for 

us to better understand how it started. Almost 15 years ago, a bipartisan group of Members from 

the House and Senate, worried that the U.S.'s competitiveness in science and technology 

development might be falling behind, commissioned a report from the National Academies to 

provide suggestions to the federal government on how to maintain its leadership in these critical 

fields. The report, entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing 

America for a Brighter Economic Future, indicated that the U.S. was quickly losing its scientific 

and technological advantages. 

One of its major recommendations was the creation of a new program within the Department of 

Energy modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA) within the 

Department of Defense, whose work was essential to the development of revolutionary 

innovations like GPS and the Internet. And so, ARPA-E was born to ensure that the U.S. 

maintains its global competitiveness by pursuing high-risk, high-reward energy technology 

research and development projects. Our country's heritage of innovation does not exist in a 

vacuum. We need to encourage innovation and paradigm-shifting discoveries in all sectors of the 

economy- and especially in energy. Or as the National Academies put it: "Throughout history, 

the United States has consistently demonstrated that its greatest resource is its people and their 

talent for innovation and leadership. There has never been a greater need or opportunity for 

American leadership than that posed by the challenge of achieving dramatic innovations in 

energy technology." ARPA-E is a critical component of spurring that type of innovation. 

Since Congress first authorized this program in 2007, largely due, I understand, to the hard work 

of this Committee under its Chairman at the time, Bart Gordon, ARPA-E projects have led to 71 

new companies, I 09 projects partnered with other government agencies to further development, 

and 136 projects that have garnered more than $2.6 billion in private sector funding. 

Among these exciting projects is one right in my district at Westinghouse, located in Cranberry 

Township. This project aims to address known issues that face the nuclear power industry today 

to ensure that this valuable resource continues to provide carbon-free, reliable electricity to the 

grid. A micro-reactor design made of advanced materials will be modelled and component 

samples will be fabricated and tested with the ultimate goal of significantly reducing the costs 

and schedule for building a new plant. 

I am pleased with the progress of this project and many others supported by ARPA-E, and !look 

forward to the testimony from our witnesses here today to discuss issues and ideas Congress 

should consider as we aim to further the success of this program. 
11 

Chairman LAMB. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for all 

being here today. 

Today, we are going to hear from our panel of experts on the status of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) and discuss how Congress can effectively 

evaluate and reform this fundamental science program. 

Created in 2007, as noted by the Chairman, DOE’s ARPA-E program was modeled after the Department of Defense’s DARPA program. The agency was intended to provide finite R&D funding for 

innovative projects that could have disruptive impact on critical 

American economic, environmental, national security, and energysector challenges. Specifically, ARPA-E was tasked by Congress to 

reduce reliance on foreign sources of energy and energy-related 

emissions, and to improve energy efficiency in all economic sectors. 

ARPA-E was intended to be unique among DOE’s applied research programs. The agency aims to achieve its goals by funding 

the highest-risk, highest-reward fundamental science, the transformative research that industry will not pursue. 

But today, it’s unclear if ARPA-E remains true to this inspiring 

mission. While there are examples of truly groundbreaking research like the project exploring unique fusion reactor designs, 

there are also a large number of programs that actually overlap 

with DOE’s applied energy offices. For example, today, ARPA-E 

has funding announcements or active programs supporting research in wind energy technologies, advanced nuclear technology, 

and energy storage systems for the electric grid, all areas of research that receive—already receive funding through other DOE 

programs. 

Industry already has an interest in developing incremental improvements to today’s energy technology. We cannot afford to spend 

limited Federal resources on duplicative, late-stage programs that 

compete with private-sector investment. Instead, we should refocus 

the ARPA-E program on its original purpose, taking fundamental 

science discoveries and applying them to our biggest technology 

challenges. This approach could provide solutions across the Department’s diverse mission space, including areas like nuclear 

waste management and national security. With the agency’s unique 

expertise, I believe that this program is capable of supporting a 

new generation of scientific breakthroughs. But that won’t happen 

without real reforms to prevent duplication and refocus ARPA-E on 

the greatest technology challenges. 

We also can’t just assume that big increases in spending will 

magically appear in the budget. If ARPA-E’s budget is increased, 

we will inevitably have to make tough choices and cut spending 

elsewhere in the Department. 

In preparation for this hearing, I thought about what breakthrough energy technologies look like, and I was reminded of how 

hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling revolutionized the global energy market. Research at our national labs laid the groundwork, and American industry picked up and harnessed those discoveries to change the world. We need to focus agencies like ARPAE on applying DOE’s basic science discoveries. With this approach, 
12 

I believe that American industry can capitalize on that research 

and revolutionize the energy industry once again. 

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today and 

the witnesses for coming in to provide their testimony, and I’m 

looking forward to a productive discussion about ARPA-E’s future 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:] 
13 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member 

Randy Weber at Energy Subcommittee 

Hearing onARPA-E 

Feb 26,2019 

Opening Statement 

Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on the status of the Department of 

Energy (DOE)'s Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy (ARPA-E) and 

discuss how Congress can effectively evaluate and reform this fundamental 

science program. 

Created in 2007, DOE's ARPA-E program was modeled after the Department of 

Defense's DARPA program. The agency was intended to provide finite R&D 

funding for innovative projects that could have disruptive impact on critical 

American economic, environmental, national security, and energy sector 

challenges. 

Specifically, ARPA-E was tasked by Congress to reduce reliance on foreign 

sources of energy and energy related emissions. and to improve energy 

efficiency in all economic sectors. 

ARPA-E was intended to be unique among DOE's applied research programs. 

The agency aims to achieve its goals by funding the highest risk, highest reward 

fundamental science- the transformative research that industry will not pursue. 

But today, it's unclear if ARPA-E remains true to this inspiring mission. While there 

are examples of truly ground breaking research -like the project exploring 

unique fusion reactor designs- there are also a large number of programs that 

overlap with DOE's applied energy offices. 

For example. today. ARPA-E has funding announcements or active programs 

supporting research in wind energy technologies, advanced nuclear 

technology, and energy storage systems for the electric grid- all areas of 

research that receive funding through other DOE programs. 

Industry already has an interest in developing incremental improvements to 

today's energy technology. We can't afford to spend limited federal resources 

on duplicative, late-stage programs that compete with private sector 

investment. 

Instead, we should refocus the ARPA-E program on its original purpose- taking 

fundamental science discoveries and applying them to our biggest technology 

challenges. 
14 

This approach could provide solutions across the Department's diverse mission 

space, including areas like nuclear waste management and national security. 

With the agency's unique expertise, I believe this program is capable of 

supporting a new generation of scientific breakthroughs. But that won't happen 

without real reforms to prevent duplication and refocus ARPA-E on the greatest 

technology challenges. 

We also can't just assume that big increases in spending will magically appear in 

the budget. If ARPA-E's budget is increased, we will inevitably have to make 

tough choices and cut spending elsewhere in the Department. 

In preparation for this hearing, I thought about what breakthrough energy 

technologies look like- and I was reminded of how hydraulic fracturing and 

horizontal drilling revolutionized the global energy market. Research at our 

national labs laid the groundwork and American industry harnessed their 

discoveries to change the world. 

We need to focus agencies like ARPA-E on applying DOE's basic science 

discoveries. With this approach, I believe that American industry can capitalize 

on that research and revolutionize the energy industry once again. 

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today and the witnesses 

for providing their testimony, and I'm looking forward to a productive discussion 

about ARPA-E's future today. 
15 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Chairwoman Johnson for an opening statement. 

Chairwoman JOHNSON. Thank you very much and good morning, 

and good morning to our witnesses. 

Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding this timely hearing to 

review the impressive performance of ARPA-E to date and to explore new ways that this vital program might accelerate America’s 

transition to a clean energy future. 

About 12 years ago, since this agency was first authorized by this 

Committee, and 10 years since it was finally funded thanks to the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARPA-E now plays a 

critical role in maintaining America’s economic competitiveness by 

advancing high-risk concepts that previously lacked Federal or private-sector support that could have significant impacts on the ways 

we produce and use energy. 

Thus far, 71 ARPA-E projects have led to the formation of new 

companies, 109 have partnered with other government agencies for 

further development, and 136 have attracted over $2.6 billion in 

private-sector follow-up funding. 

This clear record of accomplishment is why I was proud to introduce the ARPA-E Reauthorization Act in 2017 in the last Congress, 

which had 39 cosponsors including 11 Republicans. That bill was 

endorsed by an incredibly broad coalition of stakeholders, including 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Petroleum Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Alliance to Save Energy, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the Energy 

Sciences Coalition, just to name a few. And I think we can do better this year. 

I was also very proud to cosponsor the ARPA-E Act of 2018 introduced by then-Vice Chairman Lucas, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle to enable this agency to be as effective as it can be in achieving its mission. 

Before I’ll—before I close, I’ll note that over the last few years 

this program has been the subject of several overwhelmingly positive assessments by widely respected, bipartisan and nonpartisan 

institutions like the National Academies, the American Energy Innovation Council, and most recently by the Breakthrough Energy. 

And in Secretary Perry’s own address to ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit last March, he said, and I quote, ‘‘ARPA-E is one of 

the reasons DOE has had and is having such a profound impact on 

American lives.’’ I couldn’t have said it better myself. So I certainly 

hope that in its next budget request, this Administration will reconsider its previous and fortunately doomed proposals to eliminate 

ARPA-E altogether. 

I thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward 

to the dialog with the excellent panel of witnesses and thank them 

for being here. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:] 
16 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy Hearing 

"The Future of ARPA-E" 

February 26, 2019 

Good morning and welcome to our witnesses. 

Thank you, Chairman Lamb, for holding this timely 

hearing to review the impressive performance of 

ARPA-E to date and to explore new ways that this 

vital program may accelerate America's transition 

to a clean energy future. 

After about 12 years since this agency was first 

authorized by this Committee, and 10 years since it 

finally received funding thanks to the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARPA-E now plays 

a critical role in maintaining America's economic 

competitiveness by advancing high-risk concepts 

that previously lacked federal or private sector 
17 

support, but could have significant impacts on the 

ways we produce and use energy. 

Thus far, 71 ARPA-E projects have led to the 

formation of new companies; 109 have partnered 

with other government agencies for further 

development; and 136 have attracted over $2.6 

billion in private sector follow-on funding. 

This clear record of accomplishment is why I was 

proud to introduce the ARPA-E Reauthorization Act 

of 2017 in the last Congress, which had 39 

cosponsors including 11 Republicans. That bill was 

endorsed by an incredibly broad coalition of 

stakeholders, including the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, the National Association of 

Manufacturers, the American Council on Renewable 

Energy, the American Petroleum Institute, the 

Nuclear Energy Institute, the Alliance to Save 

Energy, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the Energy 

Sciences Coalition, just to name a few. And I think 

we can do even better this year. 
18 

I was also very proud to cosponsor the ARPA-E Act 

of 2018 introduced by then Vice-Chairman Lucas, 

and I look forward to continuing to work with him 

and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 

enable this agency to be as effective as it can be in 

achieving its mission. 

Before I close, I'll note that over the last few years 

this program has been the subject of several 

overwhelmingly positive assessments by widely 

respected, bipartisan and nonpartisan institutions 

like the National Academies, the American Energy 

Innovation Council, and most recently by 

Breakthrough Energy. And in Secretary Perry's own 

address to the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit 

last March, he said, and I quote, "ARPA-E is one of 

the reasons DOE has had and is having such a 

profound impact on American lives." I couldn't have 

said this better myself. So I certainly hope that in its 

next budget request, this Administration will 

reconsider its previous, and fortunately doomed 

proposals to eliminate ARPA-E altogether. 
19 

Thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look 

forward to the dialogue with this excellent panel of 

witnesses on the future of ARPA-E. 

I yield back. 
20 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. 

The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Lucas for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Chairman Lamb. And I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Chairman of the Energy 

Subcommittee, and thank you for holding this hearing today. And 

I also appreciate your acknowledging the former Chairman Gordon 

in attendance with us today. I’ve had the privilege of serving with 

five of the previous Chairmen whose portraits are on this wall, and 

I look forward to the inevitable day when we have the first lady 

portrait hanging, which is now inevitable, too. That will be a good 

day. 

That said, ARPA-E was created to help the U.S. energy sector 

maintain its competitive edge in developing advanced energy solutions. The program was established to jumpstart technologies that 

were too-early stage to attract private-sector investment but could 

have a significant impact on the energy market. In order to accomplish this, ARPA-E was given a unique management structure, 

with the flexibility to start and stop research projects based on performance. Program managers have expedited hiring and firing authority to make sure that ARPA-E staff can adequately select and 

support. 

Today, ARPA-E supports fundamental research over a wide 

range of cutting-edge energy technology areas, including bioenergy, 

battery technology development, and advanced nuclear. But despite 

some fascinating areas of research, ARPA-E is not without controversy. For example, many ARPA-E programs have significant 

overlap with programs’ goals of DOE’s applied energy research programs. We’ll hear testimony today supporting big increases in 

spending for ARPA-E. But with $6 billion in annual spending already devoted to applied research elsewhere in DOE, ARPA-E, and 

any increased spending for it, is redundant if it’s not refocused on 

more innovative research. 

Now, that brings us to the second problem. We’ve heard concerns 

over the years that ARPA-E isn’t meeting its intended goal—to 

fund the kind of technologies that are so pioneering they would 

never attract private-sector investment but instead, providing funding to big companies with access to capital markets or funding research that’s already succeeding in the private sector. 

ARPA-E is a program that can and has had tremendous impact 

on the development of new energy technologies, but we must address these concerns and refocus the agency on funding the most 

innovative research. That’s why I, too, introduced a bill to reform 

ARPA-E in the last Congress, which passed the House in a—with 

bipartisan support. This legislation expanded the mission of ARPAE to include the full DOE mission and empowered the agency to 

promote science- and technology-driven solutions to DOE’s broader 

goals. 

My bill also included important direction to prevent the duplication of research across DOE and ensure that the limited taxpayer 

dollars are spent on the most transformative technologies, not in 

competition with the private sector. 

I hope that we can work together to include those reforms in any 

reauthorization of ARPA-E this Congress. 
21 

It is our job to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ resources of 

course, and with the right mission goals and commonsense conservative management, I believe ARPA-E’s innovative approach can 

build on the basic science and early-stage research at the Department. We can help fast-track new technologies that will grow our 

economy, stabilize our environment, and maintain U.S. leadership 

in science and technology around the world. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look 

forward to a productive discussion this morning. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:] 
22 

Opening Statement of Ranking Member 

Frank Lucas at Energy Subcommittee 

Hearing on ARPA-E 

Feb 26, 2019 

Opening Statement 

Thank you, Chairman Lamb. I would like to congratulate you on your new 

position as Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee and thank you for holding this 

hearing today. 

ARPA-E was created to help the U.S. energy sector maintain its competitive 

edge in developing advanced energy solutions. The program was established 

to jumpstart technologies that were too early-stage to attract private sector 

investment but could have a significant impact on the energy market. 

In order to accomplish this goal, ARPA-E was given a unique management 

structure, with the flexibility to start and stop research projects based on 

performance. Program managers have expedited hiring and firing authority to 

make sure ARPA-E staff could adequately select and support projects. 

Today, ARPA-E supports fundamental research over a wide range of cuttingedge energy technology areas. including bioenergy, battery technology 

development. and advanced nuclear. 

But despite some fascinating areas of research, ARPA-E is not without 

controversy. For example. many of ARPA-E's programs have significant overlap 

with the program goals of DOE's applied energy research programs. We'll hear 

testimony today supporting big increases in spending for ARPA-E. But with $6 

billion in annual spending already devoted to applied research elsewhere in 

DOE, ARPA-E- and any increased spending for it is redundant if it's not 

refocused on more innovative research. 

That brings us to the second problem. We've heard concerns over the years 

that ARPA-E isn't meeting its intended goal- to fund the kind of technologies 

that ore so pioneering they would never attract private sector investment - but 

was instead providing funding to big companies with access to market capital, 

or funding research that was already succeeding in the private sector. 

ARPA-E is a program that can and has had tremendous impact on the 

development of new energy technologies - but we must address these 

concerns and refocus the agency on funding the most innovative 

research. That's why last Congress I introduced a bill to reform ARPA-E. which 

passed the House with bipartisan support. 
23 

This legislation expanded the mission of ARPA-E to include the full DOE mission 

and empowered the agency to promote science and technology driven 

solutions to DOE's broader goals. 

My bill also included important direction to prevent the duplication of research 

across DOE and ensure that limited taxpayer dollars are spent on the most 

transformative technologies, not in competition with the private sector. 

I hope that we can work together to include these reforms in any reauthorization 

of ARPA-E this Congress. 

It is our job to be good stewards of taxpayer resources. With the right mission 

goals and common-sense conservative management, I believe ARPA-E's 

innovative approach can build on the basic science and early-stage research 

at the Department. We can help fast track new technologies that will grow our 

economy, stabilize our environment. and maintain U.S. leadership in science 

and technology around the world. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to a productive 

discussion this morning. 
24 

Chairman LAMB. If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the 

record at this point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. First, Dr. 

Arun Majumdar is the Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor at 

Stanford University and a faculty member of the Department of 

Mechanical Engineering. Dr. Majumdar was the Founding Director 

of ARPA-E from 2009 to 2012. During his time at the Department 

of Energy, he also served as Undersecretary for Energy. His current research explores chemical processes and clean-energy technology, next-generation materials science, and efforts to improve 

the efficiency of the electrical grid. 

Dr. Ellen D. Williams is a Distinguished University Professor in 

the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland (UMD). 

Dr. Williams was the Director of ARPA-E from 2014 through the 

end of the Obama Administration. Prior to joining DOE, she served 

as Chief Scientist to BP and founded the UMD Materials Research 

Science and Engineering Center. Her research currently focuses on 

surface physics and nanotechnology. 

Dr. John Wall, now retired, served as the Chief Technology Officer for Cummins Inc. from 2000 to 2015 where he oversaw the company’s worldwide commercial engine emissions-reduction activities. 

He does not, contrary to popular opinion, play point guard for the 

Washington Wizards. Dr. Wall served on the Committee on Evaluation for the 2017 National Academies’ Review of ARPA-E. He currently serves as a Technical Advisor for DOE’s Joint Bioenergy Institute and as an Advisor for Cyclotron Road, an energy technology 

incubator at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Dr. Saul Griffith is the Founder and CEO of Otherlab, a privately held research and development lab that develops clean energy, robotics and automation, and engineered textiles, among 

other technology areas. In its 10 years of existence, Otherlab’s been 

the recipient of multiple ARPA-E awards. Over the course of his career, Dr. Griffith has founded several successful companies and 

named a MacArthur Fellow in 2007. 

Mr. Mark Mills is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute 

and a Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick 

School of Engineering and Applied Science where he codirects an 

Institute on Manufacturing Science and Innovation. He is also a 

strategic partner with Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy 

tech venture fund, and an Advisory Board Member of Notre Dame 

University’s Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values. 

As our witnesses know, you will each have 5 minutes for your 

spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the 

record for the hearing. When you have all completed your spoken 

testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have 5 

minutes to question the panelists. We will start with Dr. Arun 

Majumdar. 
25 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ARUN MAJUMDAR, 

JAY PRECOURT PROVOSTIAL CHAIR PROFESSOR, 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. I want to thank—extend my thanks to Mr. 

Chairman, the Ranking Member, and all the Members of this Committee. 

Between 2009 and 2012, I had the honor of serving as the Founding Director of ARPA-E where I recruited the first team and helped 

create ARPA-E’s DNA that involved multiple elements: A laser 

focus on the mission of ARPA-E that Congress laid out recruiting 

top talent in science and engineering; using the special hiring authority that Congress provided; creating a culture internally of an 

open debate and discussion to unleash this talent to fund research 

on the most profound breakthrough technologies; creating a model 

internally of operational efficiency, active program management, 

and financial integrity; and finally, an exemplar of engaging stakeholders via the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, as well as creating a model of partnership with Congress. 

Because of these elements, due to the remarkable breadth of new 

research that ARPA-E funded, it certainly caught the attention of 

many thought leaders in the United States. In 2012 at the summit, 

the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of FedEx, Mr. Fred Smith, said, 

quote, ‘‘Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, activity for activity, it is 

hard to find a thing the United States has done that is more effective than ARPA-E.’’ Bill Gates and his colleagues had very similar 

comments as well. 

Given all this, I’m going to address two questions in my opening 

remarks. No. 1, what is the key to ARPA-E’s success that needs to 

be preserved? No. 2, what else can ARPA-E do to make the United 

States even more successful and globally competitive? 

As you know, ARPA-E is modeled after DARPA that has an illustrious 60-year history. Like DARPA, ARPA-E defines the cutting 

edge of science and engineering research for breakthrough technologies that will form the foundation of entirely new industries 

that do not exist today and make the U.S. industries more competitive in the world. But to achieve this, it is critical to have the most 

talented people within ARPA-E at the cutting edge of research in 

science and engineering. It takes one to be at the cutting edge to 

recognize what is cutting edge, so in many ways ARPA-E is all 

about the people. 

As the Director, I spend a large fraction of my time recruiting 

talent. None of these recruits needed a job. They joined ARPA-E to 

serve the Nation and be part of something special. After 3 to 4 

years, they went back to the private sector or academia with an 

ARPA-E record as a badge of honor. During the time of ARPA-E, 

they conceived some of the most impactful and research programs 

that bridge two or three different fields of science and engineering 

to create something completely new that no one in the world had 

ever imagined. 

So my message is the following: It is very important to preserve 

the special hiring authority that Congress has bestowed on ARPAE to ensure that the leadership in ARPA-E uses this authority to 

recruit top talent. It is also important that ARPA-E maintain its 
26 

independence within the Department of Energy and the Director 

report directly to the Secretary of Energy. 

Finally, one of the best things about the ARPA-E model is that 

the program directors stay for 3 to 4 years and then they are required to leave. This time constraint puts a level of urgency to 

make a difference, and this urgency is very important to create the 

internal efficiency within ARPA-E. This needs to be preserved as 

well. 

Now, my second question. What else can ARPA-E do to make the 

United States more successful? I have two recommendations. In the 

last 10 years, a lot has changed in the global energy landscape. As 

was pointed out, there were three game-changers that have happened: Unconventional oil and gas revolution due to fracking, electrification of transportation via lithium-ion batteries, and carbonfree electricity generation from wind and solar. 

While these are necessary, these are certainly not sufficient to 

help address the ARPA-E mission. Fossil fuels still comprise 80 

percent of the global energy use. The scale is simply enormous. Reducing greenhouse gases—gas emissions, which is part of ARPA-E’s 

mission, is a billion-ton-scale problem, and to go from a lab-scale 

concept, proof of concept that ARPA-E funds to the billion-ton-scale 

solution is a long and arduous process. 

So the two important recommendations, it is important for Congress to be patient in its expectations of commercial impact from 

ARPA-E-funded research. Expectation of short-term success will 

produce increment thinking within ARPA-E, and that will defeat 

the whole purpose of ARPA-E, which should be going for the home 

runs. 

Second, it is also very important to look at the gaps beyond 

ARPA-E funding and to see what has worked in the past to see if 

you could create private-public partnerships to enable some of 

these proof of concepts that has been proven in the labs and universities and national labs to go eventually make this journey to 

the private sector. 

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Majumdar follows:] 
27 

Written Statement of Dr. Arun Majumdar 

Hearing on The Future of ARP A-E 

Subcommittee on Energy, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

February 26, 2019 

I would like to extend my thanks to the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the esteemed 

members for inviting me to testify on the Future of ARPA-E. 

I am currently the Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor in the Department of Mechanical 

Engineering at Stanford University and also the co-Director of the Stanford Precourt Institute for 

Energy. Before joining Stanford, I was the Vice President for Energy at Google. I remain deeply 

engaged with energy businesses across the world, either through work at Stanford or as a private 

citizen advising businesses. 

Between 2009 and 2012, I had tbe honor of serving as the Founding Director of ARPA-E, during 

which I recruited the first team and helped create ARPA-E's DNA that involved multiple 

elements: 

recruiting top talent in science, engineering and business using the very important hiring 

authority that Congress provided. 

a laser focus on the mission of ARP A-E that Congress laid out in its authorization reducing 

energy imports, energy efficiency across the economy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

and providing the US with a technological lead 

• creating a culture of open debate and discussion within ARP A-E to unleash this talent to 

identify new opportunities and fund ideas with potential for breakthrough technologies; 

• creating a model of operational efficiency, active program management and financial 

integrity, with the discipline and compassion to sunset futile projects; 

• an exemplar of engaging stakeholders via the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit as well as 

a creating a model of partnership with Congress. 

Because of these elements and due to the remarkable breadth of new research ideas that ARPA-E 

funded across the USA, ARPA-E certainly caught the attention of many thought leaders in the 

US. Here are a few examples of what they said. 

At the 2012 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, the Founder, Chairman and CEO ofFedEx, 

Mr. Fred Smith, said "Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, activity for activity it is hard to find a 

thing the United States has done that is more effective than ARPA-E." In 2011, Senator Lamar 

Alexander noted "It is my beliefthat ARPA-E is one of the bright stars in innovation in the 

world today, and certainly for our country." And in the same year, Senator Dianne Feinstein 

suggested to the then Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, in a Senate appropriation hearing: "Even 

though ARPA-E is a new agency, I'd like to ask that you apply ARPA-E program management 

to other DOE offices." Bill Gates and his colleagues at the American Energy Innovation Council 

had high praise for ARPA-E as welL I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. 

ARPA-E has been viewed as one of the most valued organizations within the US government for 

research investments with the goal of making the US the most innovative and globally 

competitive nation in the world in the energy sector. 

1 
28 

This year marks the 1 O'h anniversary of ARPA-E. Therefore, this hearing is very timely indeed 

to reflect back and ask two key questions: (a) What is the key to ARPA-E's success that needs to 

be preserved? (b) What else can ARPA-E do to make the US even more successful and globally 

competitive? 

What is the key to ARP A-E's success that needs to be preserved? 

ARPA-E is modeled after DARPA that has a 60-year illustrious history during which it helped 

create the internet, stealth and many other technologies. Similar to DARPA, ARPA-E is an 

organization that funds research in science and engineering with the purpose that if the research 

ideas are successful, they will produce breakthrough technologies that will have large 

commercial impact in the future. These technologies will form the foundation for entirely new 

industries that do not exist today and make US industries much more competitive in the world. 

To fulfill this important mission, it is critical to have the most talented people within ARPA-E, 

ones who are at the cutting edge of creative research in science and engineering with a deep 

understanding of how research could create value for society via the private sector. It takes one 

to be at the cutting edge to recognize what is cutting edge. So in many ways, ARPA-E is all 

about the people. As the Director, I used my own stature and network in the scientific 

community to recruit top talent as Program Directors from the best organizations within the US -

MIT, Intel, NC State, PNNL, GE, etc. None of my recruits needed a job. They joined ARPA-E 

to serve the nation and be part of something special as one of the most intellectually stimulating 

and enriching environments. After 3-4 years they went back to the private sector or academia 

with their ARPA-E record as a badge of honor. During their time at ARP A-E, they conceived 

some of the most impactful programs that bridged two or three fields of science and engineering 

to create something completely new that no one in the world had ever imagined. These include 

batteries much more advanced than lithium-ion to provide multi-day support for the grid. Or 

entirely new routes to use biology and agriculture to convert carbon dioxide into fuels. 

So my message is the following. It is very important to preserve the special hiring authority 

Congress has bestowed on ARPA-E and to ensure that the leadership in ARPA-E uses this 

authority to recruit top talent. One of the best things about the ARPA-E model is that the 

program directors stay for 3-4 years and then are required to leave. This time constraint puts a 

level of urgency to make a difference, and this urgency is very important. This needs to be 

preserved as welL 

Finally, much of the research ARPA-E funds is often in the proof-of-concept stage. To go from 

a successful proof-of-concept to full-scale commercial impact is a long and arduous maturation 

process, which takes 15-20 years in the energy sector. After all, research on computer networks 

started in 1968 which eventually produced the internet, but the full commercial impact was felt 

25+ years later. The point I am making is the following: It is very important for Congress to be 

patient in its expectations of commercial impact from ARP A-E funded research. Expectations of 

short-term success will produce incremental thinking from ARPA-E, and that will defeat the 

whole purpose of ARP A-E which should be going for the homeruns. What should be asked of 

ARPA-E is whether there are signs of potential future success, such as: intellectual property 

creation; follow-on private sector funding after ARP A-E's investment; creation of startup 

2 
29 

companies; technologies going into demonstration projects and industrial testing; new 

manufacturing supply chains being created. We are indeed seeing this happen, but it will take 

another 5-l 0 years for large-scale commercial impact. 

What else can ARP A-E do to make the US even more successful and globally competitive? 

In the last 10 years, a lot has changed in the global energy landscape. Today, three gamechanging paradigm shifts are already shaking up this global energy landscape: unconventional oil 

and gas revolution due to fracking of shale formations; electrification of transportation via 

lithium-ion batteries; and carbon-free electricity generation from wind and solar. The rapid cost 

reduction in these technologies due to R&D have create these tectonic shifts in the energy 

industry. 

Despite this remarkable progress, fossil fuels still comprise 80 percent of global energy use. And 

yet we now know that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fierce urgency to 

mitigate the ill effects of climate change. Reducing emissions is a billion-tonne-scale problem 

and it needs billion-tonne-scale affordable solutions. What are these potential solutions? 

They include: grid-scale storage at one tenth the cost of lithium-ion batteries; small modular 

nuclear reactors at half the constmction cost oftoday's reactors; refrigeration and air 

conditioning using refrigerants with no global warming potential; zero net energy buildings at 

zero net cost; using renewables to produce carbon-free hydrogen at the same cost as that from 

shale gas; decarbonizing industrial heat needed to make steel, concrete and chemicals and 

reimagining carbon-neutral constmction materials; decarbonizing the food and agriculture sector, 

and leveraging agriculture to suck out carbon dioxide from the air and store it in the ground; and 

capturing carbon dioxide from power plant exhausts followed by sequestering it deep 

underground or using it make plastics or even fuels. 

What I am describing is nothing short of a new industrial revolution. This is a remake of much 

of our economy electricity, automobiles, steel, concrete, oil, gas, food, agriculture, etc. We 

stand at the doorstep of a colossal change of the energy sector worth $10 trillion per year, more 

than 10 percent of the global GDP. This change will impact eve1y human being, and will shape 

the economy, environment, international security and geopolitics of the 21" century. In short, 

this global energy transition presents a historic opportunity for every country and region. And 

the race is on to seize this opportunity. We must ensure that the US remains globally 

competitive and maintains its technological lead, which is part of APRA-E's mission. 

The seize this opportunity we need to create new solutions. These solutions often start from new 

ideas of breakthrough technologies that arc initially too risky or dismptive for the private sector. 

ARPA-E's mission is to help our scientists and engineers try out a portfolio of new ideas in their 

laboratories. Many will fail, but if some of these succeed, they will form the foundation of this 

new industrial revolution. 

But here is the key challenge in the US. is that the journey from ARP A-E funded laboratoryscale proof of concept to billion-tonne scale commercial solutions contains multiple valleys of 

death. We must address these gaps for the US to receive the full economic benefit of ARPA-E 

investments. Let me propose one option for your consideration. 

3 
30 

When faced with global competition in the semiconductor industry in the mid-1980s, DARPA 

convened 14 US semiconductor companies who would otherwise compete with each other in the 

market, and created SEMATECH, a not-for-profit consortium that performs R&D to advance 

chip manufacturing. Some of the funds came from DARPA, but the industry chipped in. A 

GAO report noted that this government-industry R&D consortium helped improve US industry's 

technological position while protecting the government's interest that the consortium be 

managed well and public-funds spent appropriately. 

To address the first valley of death post-ARPA-E funding, Congress should seriously think about 

the lessons learnt from the past, adapt these lessons to the current energy landscape and allow 

ARPA-E to create such private-public consortia to enable the US energy industry become 

globally competitive. Such consortia could then nurture ARPA-E funded technologies beyond 

the proof-of-concept stage, and enable them to mature to pilot demonstration and beyond. 

But let me also be very clear that such activity requires additional budget authority for ARPA-E. 

This should not come at the cost of ARPA-E research funding on new research ideas. When I 

was the Director of ARPA-E, I was often asked what should be ARPA-E's budget. My answer 

was very simple. Since ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA, one should look at DARPA's first 

budget. In 1962, the 87'h Congress gave DARPA its first appropriated budget of $246M. In 

2019 dollars, that is roughly $2B. 

If we are serious about creating and leading in a new industrial revolution and compete with 

China, EU and other parts of the world, Congress should seriously consider ARPA-E's budget 

authority to be SIB at the very least. With the best scientific infrastructure and talent in the 

world, and with the entrepreneurial spirit that is in the American DNA, the US has a remarkable 

capacity to innovate and deliver on ARPA-E's investments. As Fred Smith implied, this is the 

best investment public dollars can make and best return on investment that our nation will 

receive. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

4 
31 

Arun Majumdar Biosketch 

Dr. Arun Majumdar is the Jay Precourt Provostial Chair Professor at 

Stanford University, a faculty member of the Departments of Mechanical 

Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering (by courtesy) and codirector of the Precourt Institute for Energy, which integrates and 

coordinates research and education activities across all seven Schools and 

the Hoover Institution at Stanford. 

Dr. Majumdar's research in the past has involved the science and 

engineering of nanoscale materials and devices, especially in the areas of 

energy conversion, transport and storage as well as biomolecular analysis. 

His current research focuses on using refrigeration and cooling with zero 

related to artificial photosynthesis, and a new effort to re-engineer the electricity grid. 

In October 2009, Dr. Majumdar was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate to become 

the Founding Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy (ARPA-E), where he served till June 

2012 and helped ARPA-E become a model of excellence for the government with bipartisan support from 

Congress and other stakeholders. Between March 2011 and June 2012, he also served as the Acting Under 

Secretary of Energy, enabling the portfolio that reported to him: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability, Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Fossil Energy, 

as well as multiple cross-cutting efforts such as Sunshot, Grid Tech Team and others that he had initiated. 

Furthermore, he was a Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, on a variety of matters related 

to management, personnel, budget, and policy. In 2010, he was of Secretary Chu's team that helped stopped 

the leak in the Deep Water Horizon (BP) oil spill. 

After leaving Washington, DC and before joining Stanford, Dr. Majumdar was the Vice President for Energy at 

Google, where he created several energy technology initiatives, especially at the intersection of data, 

computing and electricity grid, and advised the company on its broader energy strategy. 

Prior to joining the Department of Energy, Dr. Majumdar was the Almy & Agnes Maynard Chair Professor of 

Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science & Engineering at University of California-Berkeley and the 

Associate Laboratory Director for energy and environment at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Dr. Majumdar is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and 

Sciences. He served as the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Board to US Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, and 

was also a Science Envoy for the US Department of State with focus on energy and technology innovation in 

the Baltics and Poland. He served as a member of the Council of the National Academy of Engineering, the 

Advisory Council of the Electric Power Research Institute and currently serves on the Science Advisory Board 

of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is a member of the International Advisory Panel for Energy of the 

Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry and sits on the Advisory Board of Envision Energy, Breakthrough 

Energy Ventures and the New Energy Group of the Royal Dutch Shell. 

Dr. Majumdar received his bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, 

Bombay in 1985 and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989. 
32 

Chairman LAMB. Dr. Williams. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ELLEN WILLIAMS, 

DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member 

Weber, and other Members of the Committee. I truly appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the future of 

ARPA-E. I was the second Director of ARPA-E, and I benefited 

from the innovations and the activity that Professor Majumdar has 

just described to you. 

I would like to say that ARPA-E is an innovation agency, and 

one set of words you never hear in ARPA-E is, ‘‘because that’s the 

way we’ve always done it before.’’ ARPA-E uses innovation in its 

thinking, in its development, and in its planning. 

As Director of ARPA-E, I frequently consulted the agency’s 

founding authorization, which I consider to be just brilliant. It recognizes the importance of technological innovation in the world’s 

evolving energy systems and the implications for the United States 

of the international competition in advanced energy technologies. A 

goal called out in the authorization is for the U.S. to remain a leader in advanced energy technologies and, based on our capabilities, 

we should certainly be able to do so. 

However, even though the United States has been a world leader 

in basic research for most of the last century, our country has been 

notably less successful in transferring the benefits of its basic research successes into domestic manufacturing and the economic 

benefits that follow. ARPA-E is tasked to address that problem by 

translating cutting-edge discoveries into technical innovations. To 

do this, ARPA-E has developed a transformative research management model in which brilliant innovators, like Saul, are supported 

and mentored to advance both the technical performance and the 

commercial potential of their innovations. This process is essential 

for drawing value from early cutting-edge technologies that the private sector will not support because they are considered too risky. 

We’ve heard about ARPA-E’s measures of successes, and we’ve 

heard that there have been many recommendations to increase the 

level of fundings for ARPA-E. I believe you’ll hear some of the stories of actual technologies and the teams that make them successful from Dr. Griffith and Professor Majumdar, and I would also be 

happy to provide more examples. I would say that each year ARPAE has far more opportunities flowing from the ingenuity of America’s scientists, engineers than it has the ability to support. Many 

experienced observers such as the American Innovation Council 

have called for substantial increases in the agency’s budget. I agree 

with that assessment, and I agree that it needs to be addressed in 

an innovative and creative fashion, not just more of the same but 

really addressing new challenges in new ways. 

In creating strategies for growth at ARPA-E, as we thought 

about mechanisms for increasing the budget and using the budget 

effectively, we looked for opportunities to yield even greater impacts per dollar for the U.S. economy and identified three approaches. The first approach is to address the problem that at 

present even the most successful ARPA-E projects are still often 
33 

judged too high-risk by potential investors. As a result, they struggle to obtain early investments or may be undercapitalized compared with their international competitors. 

ARPA-E could give such companies a faster start with expanded 

programs for innovative scaling and advanced manufacturing processes suitable for domestic manufacturing. These would not be incremental improvements. These would be looking for game-changing improvements in how we do manufacturing and how we bring 

technology to commercialization. 

The programs would support the most competitive projects to 

move from the stage of successful prototype to pilot-scale demonstrations. The expanded effort would work collaboratively in 

terms of drawing funding and increased investment opportunities 

in the United States and prevent innovative U.S. companies from 

being stranded or frozen out of markets by international competitors who can move more quickly. 

The second approach is to expand investment in the earliest 

stage, most innovation, and thus highest-risk technologies. These 

represent the pipeline of innovation for the future. ARPA-E’s 

OPEN program funding opportunity announcements, which allow 

proposals at all areas of technologies, are an important discovery 

mechanism and have given rise to exciting new technologies such 

as slips, incredibly low-friction surfaces, sky cooling materials that 

spontaneously cool by sending heat into outer space, and Foro technology, which uses laser power for drilling in hard rock. 

Finally, ARPA-E can expand its core focus programs to include 

more larger-scale technologies and integrate performance demonstrations and prototype the pilot funding to optimize handoff to 

commercial development. The vision of the future of ARPA-E requires changes, but that’s important for—that’s appropriate for an 

innovation agency, and it’s already enabled by the flexibility built 

into its authorization. An expanded budget for ARPA-E will enable 

more early-stage cutting-edge technologies to be moved more quickly and more effectively to handoff for private-sector commercialization in the United States, boosting U.S. competitiveness and economic growth. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williams follows:] 
34 

Testimony on 'The Future of ARPA-e' to the Subcommittee on Energy, House Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology 

Ellen D. Williams 

February 26, 2019 

Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, members of the committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you today to testify on the Future of ARPA-e. As you know, I was 

the second Senate-confirmed Director of ARPA-e and served from December of 2014 through 

January of 2017. 

The founding authorization of ARPA-e recognizes the economic, environmental, and energy 

security importance to the United States of technological innovation in the face of the world's 

evolving energy systems. As energy systems are changing there is serious international 

competition in developing and deploying the advanced energy technologies of the modernized 

systems. I would like the US to remain a leader, and based our capabilities, we should. The 

United States has been a world leader in basic research for most of the last century. However, 

our country has been notably less successful in transferring the benefits of its basic research 

successes into domestic manufacturing and the economic benefits that follow. 

ARPA-e was established specifically to support US competitiveness by speeding the translation 

of promising innovations into domestic advanced energy technologies. Since it started 

operations in 2009, ARPA-e has demonstrated a transformative research management model in 

which brilliant innovators are selected on the merit of their proposed work and supported to 

simultaneously advance the technical performance and commercial potential of their 

innovations. ARPA-e's model is designed to reduce the technical and financial uncertainty that 

deter industrial and venture investors. 

ARPA-e's success with this model is quantified in part by the metric of private sector follow-on 

funding for the projects it has supported. As of February of 2018, 134 projects funded by ARPAe had been able to attract private follow-on funding totalling at least $2.6 billion, significantly 

exceeding the cumulative support of $1.8 billion dollars provided to ARPA-e's more than 660 

projects. The stories of the actual technologies and the teams that make them successful, are 

even more compelling, but less amenable to quick communication. 

The project funding that ARPA-e is now able to provide falls far short of meeting the opportunities 

that flow from the ingenuity of America's scientists and engineers, and the resulting potential to 

advance US competitiveness. Many experienced observers, such as the American Energy 

Innovation Council, have called for a substantial increase in the agency's budget. I agree with 
35 

that assessment- as director lied strategic planning for how growth of ARPAE from roughly its 

present budget to a budget of one billion dollars per year over a period of 5 years could be 

implemented. In creating strategies for such growth, we recognized that, as successful as ARPAe is, growth can be structured to yield even greater impact per dollar for the US economy. 

The expanded impact can be realized with differential expansion in three areas. First, with an 

expanded budget ARPA-e should prioritize the problem that, at present, even the most successful 

ARPA-e projects are still judged to have high risk by potential investors. As a result, they struggle 

to obtain early investments, or may be undercapitalized. ARPA-E could decrease investment risk 

with significantly expanded research funding for innovative scaling and advanced manufacturing 

processes suitable for domestic manufacturing. With a larger base budget, this could be 

accomplished with funding levels well within ARPA-e's authorization limits on such investment 

to no more than SO% of the budget. The resulting programs would support the most competitive 

projects to move from the stage of successful prototypes to pilot scale demonstrations. This 

expanded effort will increase investment opportunities in the US and prevent prototype 

technologies from being stranded or frozen out of markets by international competitors who 

were able to move more quickly. 

Second, under an expanded budget ARPA-e should moderately expand its investment in the 

earliest stage, most innovative, and thus highest risk energy technologies. These represent the 

pipeline of innovation for the future. ARPA-e's present "OPEN" funding opportunity 

announcements, which allow proposals in all areas of energy technology, now serve as an 

important discovery mechanism for new concepts and can readily be expanded. Those "OPEN" 

projects that prove most successful would then be able to compete for further development 

funding under the expanded prototypes-to-pilots program category described above. 

Finally, ARPA-e should moderately expand its core Focused programs under an expanded budget 

to include more larger-scale technologies, and to integrate performance demonstrations and 

prototype-to-pilot funding to optimize hand-off to commercial development. For example, ARPAe is now testing staged programming that supports a broad portfolio of moderate size projects 

in stage 1, and a smaller number of the most competitive projects at a higher level in stage 2. 

This vision of the Future of ARPA-e is already enabled by the present authorization, and it builds 

on the successful operational approaches that ARPA-e has demonstrated. An expanded, budget 

for ARPA-e will enable faster and more effective hand-off of innovative energy technologies to 

private-sector commercialization in the U.S, boosting US competitiveness and economic growth. 
36 

Ellen D. Williams 

Ellen Williams is a Distinguished University Professor at the 

University of Maryland, where she works at the interface of 

energy technology and policy. Before returning to the 

University in January of 2017, she was the Director of the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA-E, which advances 

high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too 

early for private-sector investment. 

Prior to Senate confirmation for her role in ARPA-E, Dr. 

Williams had been the Chief Scientist at BP {2010-2014), and 

a Distinguished University Professor in the Institute of 

Physical Science and Technology and the Department of Physics at the University of 

Maryland. At Maryland she established an internationally recognized research program 

in experimental surface science, exploring fundamental issues in statistical 

mechanics and nanotechnology. She founded and led the University's interdisciplinary 

Materials Research Science and Engineering Center from 1996 through 2009. 

Dr. Williams has a distinguished history of professional service, including chairing the 

development of the NAS report on Technical Issues for the Comprehensive Test Ban 

Treaty, and extensive work in providing technical advice to the U.S. government, primarily 

through the Departments of Energy and Defence. She is a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences, a foreign member of the Royal Society (london), a fellow of the 

American Physical Society, American Vacuum Society and American Academy of Arts and 

Sciences, and has been recognized by awards from the American Physical Society and the 

Materials Research Society. 

22/02/2019 
37 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you, Dr. Williams. Dr. Wall. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN WALL, 

RETIRED CTO, CUMMINS, 

MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON EVALUATION FOR 

THE 2017 NATIONAL ACADEMIES REVIEW OF ARPA-E 

Dr. WALL. Chair Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, Chair Johnson, 

and Ranking Member Lucas, and other distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about 

ARPA-E. My testimony today is guided by my career working on 

energy and environmental technologies at Chevron and Cummins, 

a Fortune 200 engine and power system manufacturer, and as a 

member of the National Academy of Engineering on a recent National Academies study to assess the first 6 years of ARPA-E. 

I’d like to make three main points today. ARPA-E plays a vital 

role in U.S. energy innovation beyond what industry can do for 

itself. ARPA-E’s unique use of experienced practitioners as program 

managers is important for its success, and ARPA-E is critical for 

U.S. global competitiveness. 

First, ARPA-E plays a unique and vital role in U.S. energy innovation beyond what energy—what industry can do for itself. Innovation in the industry happens—in energy happens across a broad 

spectrum from novel, unproven hypotheses to integration into products that are then bought and used by customers. Innovation only 

has value if it makes it all the way into use. Required investments 

grow through this progression from thousands to millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. De-risking of novel concepts is a very 

important element of this development process to allow for rational 

business investment and product development and productionized 

manufacturing. 

A manufacturing company is not equipped to do all the research 

required for breakthrough and disruptive innovation internally. In 

fact, they may not even recognize it when it’s happening. But they 

can embrace it, scale it up, and bring it to market once it’s validated. For example, this year, Cummins is celebrating its 100th 

year in the diesel engine business and also is introducing its first 

all-electric powertrain. While Cummins was innovating in the diesel engine space, those electric powertrain technologies were being 

developed and validated independently by innovators with unique 

skills that Cummins simply did not possess. But they’ve now been 

brought into the company for integration into a new product line. 

ARPA-E facilitates technology development and transfer like this 

with culture and talent specifically aimed at identifying promising 

concepts in critical energy areas and nurturing them to success. 

The National Academies found that one of ARPA-E’s strengths is 

its focus on funding high-risk potentially transformative technologies, and ARPA-E has funded research that no other funder 

was supporting at the time, technologies which are now beginning 

to enter the commercial market. 

But it’s not just about funding. ARPA-E attracts experienced 

practitioners into relatively short-term government service with the 

specialized skills to evaluate new technology concepts and to manage them forward. Empowered program managers are a unique 

and critical component of ARPA-E’s success. They’re accorded wide 
38 

latitude in identifying research themes, creating new programs, supervising projects, identifying commercial opportunities, and, when 

necessary, terminating projects through very active program management. So this is not casting our bread onto water. It’s cultivating fish. 

My final point is that ARPA-E is critical to U.S. global competitiveness. Energy is a multitrillion dollar industry. It provides jobs 

and security for our citizens. It is undergoing a global transformation from traditional energy sources to new generation, 

power, and storage technologies. And other governments get it. 

Consider Cummins’ experience in China. Cummins entered the 

Chinese engine market very successfully based on world-class emission technology that far exceeded indigenous capability and later 

moved on to a hybrid powertrain partnership with China government’s support. That support was abruptly terminated as China realized that the rest of the world was ahead in that domain, too, 

and shifted to a focus on battery electric vehicle (EV) powertrains 

with a strategic intent to lead the world in EV production. 

As I was reflecting on this, I looked up the current China 5-year 

plan. Here’s some of what I found: Ensure innovation in science 

and technology takes a leading role; encourage public startups and 

innovations; develop strategic emerging industries; build a modern 

energy system. Make no mistake about it, we are in a race without 

a finish line, and it is a global race. 

ARPA-E’s unique mission, structure, active program management, and drive from innovation into commercialization are critical 

for American technology leadership, for American business leadership, and for American jobs, especially high-tech jobs. That’s worth 

a billion-dollar investment in ARPA-E and secure year-over-year 

funding. 

I ask that my full testimony and the executive summary of the 

National Academies’ 2017 report and assessment of ARPA-E be 

submitted to the record, and I encourage the Committee and Subcommittee and staff to read the full report. Thank you very much. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wall follows:] 
39 

The Future of ARPA-E 

Testimony before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Dr. John Wall 

February 26, 2019 

Chairman Lamb, Ranking Member Weber, and other distinguished Members of the 

Energy Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify about ARPA-E. 

My testimony today is guided by my career working on energy efficiency and 

environmental technologies at Chevron and Cummins, including 15 years as Cummins 

Chief Technical Officer. In addition, I served on a recent National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study committee tasked with assessing the first 

six years of ARPA-E. 

The ARPA-E study committee 

As this committee is well aware, the National Academies' assessment of ARPA-E was 

mandated in the authorizing legislation. The study committee was asked to conduct an 

assessment of the progress the agency made toward achieving its congressionally 

mandated mission and goals. The committee was composed of a diverse set of 

members, including academic and industry engineers (such as myself) and scientists, 

academic economists and statisticians, experts from private research organizations, 

and former government officials. 

The committee concluded that there were clear indicators that ARPA-E is making 

progress toward its statutory mission and goals, while understanding it could not 

reasonably be expected to have completed fulfilled those goals given so few years of 

operation and the size of its budget. 

I would also like to note that the idea of ARPA-E sprang from a recommendation in a 

2007 National Academies' report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and 

Employing America for a Bright Economic Future. In the Gathering Storm report, the 

committee recommended that the federal government create a DARPA-like organization 

within the Department of Energy charged with sponsoring specific R&D programs to 

meet the Nation's long-term energy challenges and creating an opportunity for "out-ofthe-box" transformational research. 

Despite the fact that the genesis of the idea came from within the National Academies, 

the study committee that I served on conducted an independent and unbiased 

assessment of ARPA-E. 

I would like to make three main points today. 
40 

First, 

ARPA-E plays a unique and vital role in US energy innovation, beyond what 

industry can do for itself. 

2 

From my personal experience, I can tell you that innovation in energy happens across a 

broad spectrum- from novel, unproven hypotheses to concept validation to integration 

into products that are then bought and used by customers. Innovation only has value if it 

makes it all the way into use. 

Required investments grow through this progression from thousands to millions to 

hundreds of millions of dollars from unproven concepts to productionized 

manufacturing. "Derisking" of novel concepts is a very important element of this 

development process to allow for rational business investment in product development 

and manufacture. 

A manufacturing company is not equipped to do all the research required for 

breakthrough and disruptive innovation internally. In fact, they might not even recognize 

it when it's first happening. But they can embrace it, scale it up, and bring it to market 

once it's validated. 

For example: In 2019, Cummins is celebrating its 1 001

h year in the diesel engine 

business and also is introducing its first all-electric powertrain. While Cummins was 

innovating in the diesel engine space, those electric powertrain technologies were being 

developed and validated independently by innovators with unique skills that Cummins 

simply did not possess. But they have now been brought into the company for 

integration into a new product line. 

My experience in industry was echoed in the findings of our National Academies report, 

where we found that 

"One of ARPA-E's strengths is its focus on funding high-risk, potentially transformative 

technologies and overlooked, "off-roadmap" opportunities pursued by neither private 

firms nor other funding agencies, including other programs and offices within DoE." 

(NASEM report on ARPA-E. Finding 4-4). 

and 

"ARPA-E has funded research that no other funder was supporting at the time. The 

results of some of these projects have prompted follow-on funding for various 

technologies, which are now beginning to enter the commercial market." (NASEM report 

on ARPA-E. Finding 4-1) 
41 

ARPA-E has established an organization to facilitate technology development and 

transfer like this, with culture and talent specifically aimed at identifying promising 

concepts in critical energy areas and nurturing them to success. 

3 

The National Academies report documented the work done by ARPA-E to look for 

perceived gaps or opportunities in the energy technology landscape. ARPA-E searches 

for technological approaches that are truly novel or greatly underexplored, and searches 

to fill gaps left in other research or funding programs. One example of this in the report 

is the Full-spectrum Optimized Conversion and Utilization of Sunlight (FOCUS) program 

which merged concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies to create a 

combined technology with lower cost per kilowatt hour than either technology alone. 

The report's case study appendix (Appendix D) highlights other effective programs as 

well. 

But it's not just about funding. 

This leads to my second main point. 

ARPA-E attracts individuals into relatively short-term government service as 

program managers with the specialized skills to evaluate hypotheses that can be 

quite arcane and to manage them forward. 

The National Academies committee also concentrated on ARPA-E's internal operations 

to appraise the effectiveness of its structure at achieving its mission and goals. 

The committee found that the ARPA-E benefits from three defining organizational 

features: 

1. The director exercises technical and leadership skills that enable a culture of 

empowerment to be sustained. 

2. ARPA-E's program directors are empowered with the authority, responsibility, and 

ability to make program-and project-related decisions. 

3. Active project management is important to ARPA-E. 

The National Academies report found that 

"ARPA-E program directors have wide authority to develop new focused technology 

programs that are potentially transformative." (NASEM report on ARPA-E, Finding 3-8) 

and 

"ARPA-E program directors actively manage projects through technical research 

guidance and feedback, regular and frequent assessments of progress made toward 

stated technical milestones, and revision of milestones in response to new findings and 

research discoveries." (NASEM report on ARPA-E, Finding 3-9) 
42 

Program directors are accorded wide latitude in identifying research themes; creating 

new programs; supervising projects; identifying commercial opportunities; and, when 

necessary, terminating projects. 

And the program directors are specifically recruited for their technical domain 

knowledge. 

4 

Interviews with current and former ARPA-E program managers led the study committee 

to conclude that program managers found that working at ARPA-E allowed them to 

"work on truly revolutionary ideas or technologies" in contrast to private industry "where 

research is focused on supporting existing product lines and over short time spans." 

(NASEM report on ARPA-E, p. 57} 

The National Academies also recommended that ARPA-E retain its practice of keeping 

program managers for short terms. "ARPA-E should continue its practice of hiring 

program directors for 3-year terms, allowing one, term-limited extension when 

necessary to complete implementation of a new program or for other reasons 

determined by the ARPA-E director." (NASEM report on ARPA-E, Recommendation 3-

4}. 

So this is not "casting our bread on the water", it's "cultivating fish"! 

Many of ARPA-E's internal processes were patterned after DARPA. The committee 

highlighted many of the similarities- and some differences- between ARPA-E and 

DARPA (NASEM report on ARPA-E, pp. 74-79). Both of the agencies have low levels of 

hierarchy, an organizational culture of risk taking, a focus on hiring highly qualified 

technical staff with academic and industrial backgrounds, and providing broad 

autonomy for program managers to identify and support relevant technologies. 

There are a number of differences between the agencies, the largest and most 

important of which is the size of each agency's budget and the uncertainty surrounding 

whether it will be funded. As discussed in the National Academies' report, DARPA's 

annual budget is roughly 10 times that of ARPA-E. nor has DARPA experienced threats 

of having its budget reduced to 0 each year. This scale and certainty of funding allows 

DARPA to take a broader and longer-range view to supporting technology development. 

Despite its smaller budget, my third point is that 

ARPA-E supports US global competitiveness. 

Consider Cummins experience in China. Cummins entered the Chinese engine market 

very successfully based on world-class emission technology that far exceeded 

indigenous capability, and later moved on to a hybrid powertrain partnership with China 

government support. That support was abruptly terminated as China realized that the 

rest of the world was ahead in that domain, too, and shifted to a focus on battery electric 

vehicle powertrains with the strategic intent to lead the world in E.V. production. 
43 

5 

As I was reflecting on this, I looked up the current China Five-Year Plan. Here's some of 

what I found: 

(http:/len.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201612/P020161207645765233498.pdf) 

PART II INNOVATION-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT 

With innovation as the basis from which to pursue development, we will give a central 

role to innovation in science and technology and a supporting role to the development of 

talent, closely integrating scientific and technological innovation with business startups 

and innovation by the general public in order to achieve leading-edge development that 

relies more on innovation as its driver and offers greater incentives for first innovators. 

Chapter 6 Ensure Innovation in Science and Technology Takes a Leading Role 

We will see that scientific and technological innovation leads the way in all areas of 

innovation. We will strengthen basic research, bolster primary innovation, innovation 

based on the integration of existing technologies, and innovation based on import and 

assimilation, and improve China's own capacity for innovation, so as to provide an 

inexhaustible driving force for economic and social development. 

Section 1 Breakthroughs in Strategic and Frontier Fields 

Chapter 6 Ensure Innovation in Science and Technology Takes a Leading Role 

Chapter 7 Encourage Public Startups and Innovations 

Chapter 8 Establish Innovation Promoting Institutions and Mechanisms 

Chapter 23 Develop Strategic Emerging Industries 

Chapter 30 Build a Modern Energy System 

Chapter 48 Develop Green and Environmentally Friendly Industries 

This isn't their energy policy it's the blueprint for all dimensions of their national policy 

-and it is heavily focused on innovation in energy. 

Make no mistake about it-- we are in a race without a finish line. And it's a global race. 

ARPA-E plays a critical role here 

for American technology leadership, 

for American business leadership, 

for American jobs, especially high-tech jobs. 

That's worth a billion-dollar investment in ARPA-E. 
44 

6 

I would also like to highlight a few recommendations for improvement of ARPA-E 

from the National Academies report, which were offered very much in the spirit of 

"you don't have to be bad to get better". 

ARPA-E should reconceptualize its "technology-to-market" (T2M) program to account 

for the wide variation in support needed across programs and performers with respect 

to prospective funding, commercialization, and deployment pathways. (NASEM report 

on ARPA-E, Recommendation 3-3) 

The director of ARPA-E should continue to promote and maintain a high-risk culture 

within the agency. Means to this end include periodic reassessment to ensure that the 

principles that drive support for high-risk projects are being maintained. (NASEM report 

on ARPA-E, Recommendation 4-2) 

The National Academies found that through its projects and programs, ARPA-E is 

accumulating not only technical knowledge of what is working and has promise, but also 

potentially very useful information on what does not work that can be an important 

addition to ARPA-E documentation (NASEM report on ARPA-E, Finding 4-7), and 

recommended that program managers compile a repository of lessons learned on all 

projects, included both positive and negative outcomes. (NASEM report on ARPA-E. 

Recommendation 4-6) 

The National Academies also recommended that ARPA-E increase and improve its 

communication for non-technical audiences, which would help demonstrate how the 

projects and programs are working toward its stated mission and goals to a more 

general audience. (NASEM report on ARPA-E, Recommendation 4-7) 

And finally, the National Academies' report recommended that ARPA-E should consider 

streamlining some its reporting requirements to ease the burden on performers. 

(NASEM report on ARPA-E, Recommendation 4-5). 

I ask that my full testimony and the Executive Summary of the National Academies 

2017 report An Assessment of ARPA-E be submitted into the record. And I encourage 

the Committee and Subcommittee members and staff to read the full report. 
45 

Dr. John C. Wall 

Dr. John C. Wall has more than 40 years of industry experience in internal 

combustion engine technology, fuels and emissions, and in global engineering 

organization development. Most recently, John served as Chief Technical Officer 

of Cummins Inc., the world's largest independent manufacturer of diesel engines 

and related technologies, retiring in 2015. As he progressed from research and 

product engineering into engineering leadership, John remained directly involved 

in the most critical technology programs for low emissions, powertrain efficiency 

and alternative fuels. He also led the growth of Cummins technical organization 

from 1000 engineers, mostly centered in the U.S., to more than 6000 engineers 

globally, establishing new technical centers in India and China. Prior to joining 

Cummins in 1986, John led Diesel and Aviation Fuels Research for Chevron, 

where his team was first to discover the important contribution of fuel sulfur to 

diesel particulate emissions. He is currently an advisor to the DOE Joint 

BioEnergy Institute and Co-Optima Program, the Cyclotron Road energy 

incubator at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, to the International Council of Clean 

Transportation and to the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of 

California - Davis. He is active in a number of roles with the National Academies, 

including the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, and is a member of 

the Board of Directors of Achates Power. He has been recognized for his 

technical contributions by election to the National Academy of Engineering and 

as a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has received the SAE 

Horning Memorial Award and Arch T. Colwell Merit Award for research in the 

area of diesel fuel effects on emissions, the SAE Franz F. Pischinger Powertrain 

Innovation Award, the ASME Soichiro Honda Medal for significant engineering 

contributions in the field of personal transportation, and the California Air 

Resources Board Haagen-Smit Clean Air Award and US EPA Thomas W. Zosel 

Individual Achievement Award for career accomplishments in diesel emission 

control. John studied mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, where he received his SB and SM degrees from the Mechanical 

Engineering Honors Program in 1975 and SeD in 1978. 
46 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you, Dr. Wall. And I can assure you we 

will. Dr. Griffith, please. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SAUL GRIFFITH, 

FOUNDER AND CEO, OTHERLAB 

Dr. GRIFFITH. Good morning, and thanks, everyone, for giving me 

the opportunity to talk about my favorite topic: Energy innovation. 

I moved to the United States in 1998 to do my Ph.D. at MIT, 

and, after completing that, I moved to Silicon Valley in 2004 to be 

at the heart of the technology industry in this country. 

We created Otherlab. It’s a small independent research lab created to make technologies that are commercialize-able, and we 

commercialize them by spinning companies out of Otherlab that 

grow themselves into stand-alone, viable entities. 

I guess I’m here to give case studies of successful ARPA-E 

projects. I just founded a company, a wind energy company called 

Makani Power in 2006. The idea was to build wings the size of 

747s and fly them on a string about a mile above the ground and 

flying in circles at 200 miles per hour and generating electricity 

from them. 

In 2009, we got ARPA-E funding, $3 million, and I can say with 

certainty that Makani Power would not have existed were it not for 

that investment. Makani Power then got acquired by Google, and 

under Google X, about $100 million more was invested in the company. They are now generating net positive power and just this 

year have announced a partnership with Shell, one of the world’s 

largest energy companies, to do offshore deployments of what is 

fundamentally a transformational new energy technology. 

In 2012, we started another company called Sunfolding. The sun 

moves across the sky. Sunfolding is a very simple idea. How do you 

track the solar panels as they—as the sun moves across the sky? 

You get about 25 percent more energy by doing so. Traditionally, 

this is done with complicated machines and expensive little electric 

motors, gearboxes, and mechanical components. We had a radical 

idea to move those with plastic bags. That turns out is a crazy idea 

but it works. We got three different rounds of funding from ARPAE to make that technology work. There was no—we tried to get investment in that technology prior to ARPA-E funding. Nobody 

would believe that it was going to work. That is so successful that 

we are now producing 10 or 20 megawatts a week of these trackers. 

We are manufacturing in six States across the United States. We 

are employing 25 people. We’ll be doing a C round of funding for 

that company this year, and it looks like it may be the next success 

story in the solar industry. 

Other examples, we started—there was a MOVE program, Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy. In 2012 ARPA-E wanted—— 

Chairman LAMB. Don’t worry about that. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I’m in Washington. I worry about those things. 

ARPA-E wanted to support the natural gas industry with technologies to run vehicles on natural gas that would make them 

lower carbon per mile. One of the problems, however, with natural 

gas vehicles is the big spherical tank that doesn’t fit very well in 

the back of the truck or in the trunk of the vehicle, so they wanted 
47 

to make what’s called a conformable gas tank, make a gas tank 

that can fit in the nooks and the crannies of the vehicle so that you 

can get more natural gas in there and make the cars go faster. We 

used some arcane mathematics to come up with a new idea and basically imagined that instead of one big tank we made a giant intestine of a tank. This reduced the cost of making tanks by about 

20 percent, the weight by about 20 percent, increased the range of 

those tanks by 30 to 40 percent. 

That technology has been licensed into the natural gas industry 

and is being commercialized with—in partnership with Westport. 

That technology was then further developed with funding from 

many different automotives, so we got about $10 million in development revenue from the major automotives to also develop the same 

technology for hydrogen vehicles, and that hydrogen technology has 

now been licensed to Linamar, a major OEM (original equipment 

manufacturer), and is going to market in that industry. 

Another radical idea we had was to make clothing that could 

change its shape in response to temperature, the idea being if it 

gets cooler, the clothing gets warmer. If it gets warmer, the clothing gets cooler. I did that in partnership with a colleague from MIT 

who had originally come to work on Sunfolding as our material 

science, but the one point to emphasize here is that ARPA-E is 

funding a community of people. When they get funded on one 

project, then they often go on to work on other energy technologies. 

And the community is fundamental to the value of ARPA-E. 

We have been able to use that ARPA-E funding to develop entirely new manufacturing processes, knitting and weaving processes to create this textile. We’ve secured so far about $2.5 million 

in venture funding. That company will probably be deploying that 

technology in real products, bedding and clothing, next year and 

will be doing another fundraise this year. 

We did another program called the Super Sankey. This was not 

focused so much on making an energy technology but rather how 

do we understand the U.S. energy economy in the greatest possible 

detail? So we pored over all existing government sources of data 

and some nongovernment sources of data to build the most comprehensive flow diagram of all the nuanced relationships in the 

U.S. energy economy, and this tool is now online. And in fact in 

their last—ARPA-E’s last OPEN FOA (funding opportunity announcement), they suggested that teams use this tool to understand the potential impact of their technologies on the U.S. energy 

economy. It also highlighted that there are great opportunities for 

re-examining how we gather data about the U.S. energy economy 

and how we report it in order to support how we transition to a 

new energy economy. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffith follows:] 
48 

Saul Griffith, PhD, CEO Otherlab. 

Testimony to the Energy Subcommittee, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Scheduled for Tuesday February 26. 

Big Ideas, Small Companies, and ARPA-E innovation. 

Otherlab and associated companies have been very successful leveraging ARPA-E funding to 

commercialize new energy technologies that are starting to have a major impact on the energy 

economy. 

ARPA-E has a critical role in technology development in the US not only in the earliest stages of 

technology development (the first valley of death) but in assisting through pilot programs and 

manufacturing scale-up to get the most promising technologies over the second valley of death 

and into the market. 

About Otherlab: 

Otherlab is a small independent research lab whose business model is to invent and develop new 

technologies, find product-market fit, and spin out financeable start-up companies. Much of the 

reason to use this model is that it allows us to leverage early government investment and transition 

to other sources of capital such as angel investment and venture capital to grow successful 

companies. 

This is a powerful model for commercializing technology, and reflects the recent analysis that 

small teams are more effective at early-stage technology disruption 1

, while large teams are 

good at later-stage technology development, cost reduction, and improvement. At any one time 

Otherlab has 4-8 projects running with anything from 1-20 people on the teams. We have a 

focus on new energy technologies because of the importance of building a robust 21st-century 

energy infrastructure that will help us deal with climate change. 

Otherlab is not a university, nor is it a federally funded or national lab, which puts it in a unique 

position. We have, however, partnered with both universities and national labs. We are known for 

being both inventive and effective, as evidenced by three companies growing out of ARPA-E funding 

and ARPA-E seeing the value in that research to the point of awarding follow-on funding for each. As 

well as being pioneers in new energy technologies, we are well known for our pioneering work 

in soft robotics, soft exoskeletons, and advanced manufacturing. Otherlab typically has 25-50 

1 https:l/www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0941-9 
49 

people on its payroll, and at any one time may have as many as 200-500 people employed by 

the various companies that have spun out 

However, because of our status as a for-profit independent research and development lab, we 

cannot apply for all categories of federal funding. I believe making more federal R&D money 

available to groups like ours will lead to a more innovative America. 

Fortunately, ARPA-E and DARPA are agencies that will work with all categories of institutions. 

We have had a great deal of success working with both DARPA and ARPA-E, and we have also 

done research contract work for EERE, SOCOM, ONR, NASA, NSF, and NIH. We have had 

partnerships with universities including MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Tulane, Purdue, and more. We 

have similarly partnered with major industrial concerns including Ford, Toyota, Facebook, 

Google, Adidas, Specialized, Nike, GE, Autodesk, OReilly Media, and more. 

Otherlab and ARPA-E (Case Studies in Chronological order) 

Makani Power, funded under ARPA-E Open 2009. 

I founded the company Otherlab on April 22, 2009 (Earth day). I had previously been working as 

the CEO of Makani Power, which I founded in 2006. One of the last things I did at Makani was 

helping with their ARPA-E proposal for the inaugural funding round "Arpa Open 2009." Makani 

was successful in obtaining an ARPA-E contract which was critical in the survival of the 

company in the depths of the global financial crisis of that period. I think it is reasonable to 

assume that the airborne wind energy technology Makani has pioneered would not have 

survived until today without the assistance of ARPA-E. Makani was later acquired by Google 

and absorbed into Google X. It has since partnered with Shell for its initial pilot commercial 

deployments. Makani has employed hundreds if not close to 1000 of the country's best young 

engineers over the 1 0-plus years it has taken for the technology to move from equations on a 

sheet of paper and sketches in our imaginations to a powerful contender as a platform 

technology for high utility offshore wind energy. I estimate upwards of $200M has been invested 

in making this technology commercial, a successful example of the leverage of a relatively small 

ARPA-E investment (around $3M). 

Sunfolding. Funded under ARPA-E Open 2012 with two "plus-up" awards 

Sunfolding is on the cusp of becoming the next solar success story. We are redesigning solar 

trackers from the ground up -- these are the machines that move solar panels to follow the sun 

and are being installed in almost every utility-scale system today. Powered by air, Sunfolding's 

tracker uses just three components while others use over twenty, making our solar plants 

easier, faster and cheaper to build and operate. Over the last 7 years, Sunfolding has gone from 

revolutionary concept with funding from ARPA-E to a 60MW portfolio being installed this 

quarter, including projects with one of the biggest solar developers and one of the largest 

utilities in the U.S. 
50 

Sunfolding started with questions: What would a machine look like if it were specifically 

designed for solar? What problems could we solve by redesigning the fundamental building 

blocks of machines?What if we could use high volume manufacturing methods and advanced 

materials to create reliable, scalable solar trackers right here in the United States, rather than 

manually assembling these machines overseas, like nearly all existing tracker technologies 

today. 

Back in 2011, we tried to get investors and corporate partners interested. Were it not for 

ARPA-E funding Sunfolding would not exist today. With ARPA-E funding we were able to do the 

fundamental R&D to determine whether or not the technology could work. Our progress was 

such that we received two "plus-up" awards from ARPA-E to continue the work. Both were 

critical to get the technology to the stage that it was investable by the private sector. There are 

still many hurdles to getting a new hardware out of the R&D lab and into the energy market. 

One challenge is proving that the the technology will survive in the field for 20-plus years before 

you have put them in the field for 20 years. A crucial part of this process are real world 

deployments and pilot projects. It is hard to find funds for this stage of development; often the 

developing entity of the technology has to finance these deployments and tests themselves, yet 

another difficult hurdle in bringing these projects to market. 

Sunfolding was extremely fortunate at a critical moment to secure California Energy 

Commission funding for a pilot project. Without it, this promising technology may have withered 

in the lab without ever being tested in the real world. I cannot emphasize enough the importance 

of funds to do test deployments and pilot projects in de-risking new energy technologies. 

Without that de-risking, banks aren't willing to finance projects with that energy technology, 

which is one of the final and biggest hurdles to entering the mainstream energy market. 

Sunfolding has been able to leverage the investments of ARPA-E to raise investor funding, 

including Y-combinator. Sunfolding now employs 25 people and has manufacturing 

partnerships across the country, including Dupont. Our US-based supply chain partners are 

behind some of the most dependable material applications in the world typically employed in 

automotive, rail, marine, and industrial lift applications. We are partnering with them to bring 

their manufacturing methods, materials and quality standards to the solar industry. Sunfolding's 

tracker technology is poised to install 1 OO's of MW of plants all over the US and internationally 

over the next 2 years. By all measures the company is succeeding greatly in lowering the cost 

of zero carbon renewable energy and keeping the US at the forefront of Solar. 

FOCUS "Full-Spectrum Optimized Conversion and Utilization of Sunlight" 2014-2017. 

Otherlab and Sunfolding became involved in another ARPA-E program in collaboration with 

Tulane University and Boeing's Spectra lab. The program "FOCUS" targeted increasing the 

total system efficiency and even adding storage to solar energy through hybrid systems that 

captured more light and more heat and utilized both. Ultimately the technologies developed 
51 

under this program were not core to either Otherlab's or Sunfolding's mission, and we novated 

that award to the Sub Awardees to continue the good work in the University research setting 

which is now itself spinning up into a company. 

Volute Inc. Funded under ARPA-E MOVE program. "Methane Opportunities for Vehicular 

Energy," 2012 and 2013-2015. 

The MOVE program was designed to create technologies that supported Natural Gas Vehicles 

which can have lower operating costs and lower emissions than gasoline vehicles. Under that 

program, we developed a conformable tank technology exploiting some cunning mathematics 

and geometry. This technology improves the range, safety, and cost of natural gas vehicles. 

The program was initially funded with $250,000 to prove the concept, and upon successful proof 

we were granted a second contract of -$4.1 M of which we had to meet -$870,000 in cost 

share. 

Volute was able to leverage the $3.5M (federal share of the funding) to find another $1OM in 

development revenue from major automakers in co-development programs. 

The technology was licensed to Westport Fuel Systems (a natural gas vehicle company) for 

compressed natural gas vehicles. 

Technology has been licensed to Linamar (a large supplier to major automotive OEMs) for 

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Linamar is continuing development and has hired several members 

of the core team that worked on the initial ARPA-E project. 

Approximately 15 full-time jobs were created in the US; roughly 10 on the Volute team now at 

Linamar with a further 5 at contract manufacturers in the US. 

Kestrel Materials, Funded under DELTA program. "Delivering Efficient local Thermal 

Amenities." 20 15-0ngoing. 

Kestrel Materials was an idea that we developed at Otherlab to create textiles that use ambient 

temperature changes to change the loft (thickness) and hence the insulation (warmth) of fabrics. 

These can be used to make clothes that increase the comfortable temperature range of people 

within buildings and also outside. The idea was developed principally with Brent Ridley (PhD, 

MIT) who was originally hired to help with the materials science components of Sunfolding. It is 

important to recognize the importance of the role of ARPA-E in developing communities of 

experts and professionals not only across institutional boundaries but across disciplinary 

boundaries. Many of these people work together on multiple projects at different times. They 

are the institutional memory and skilled workforce of America's energy innovation ecosystem. 

Otherlab secured a phase 1 award of $1.84M with a follow-on award of $3.6M after we proved 

the technology was on a successful pathway. Once again we have met the cost share of almost 

$1.5M with a combination of internal funds, angels, and professional venture capital. Kestrel 
52 

has secured more than $2.2M in venture funding and has advanced the technology to functional 

prototype articles of clothing and a scalable manufacturing process for producing bulk active 

textiles at affordable rates for inclusion in commodity clothing articles. 

Kestrel employs 9 full time people and a number of contractors and has moved to Portland, 

Oregon to be closer to the epicenter of the apparel industry in the US. Kestrel will be releasing 

its first products in 2020 and anticipates raising a larger round of venture funding in mid 2019. 

Super-San key, IDEAS program, "Innovative Development in Energy-Related Applied 

Science" 2017·2018. 

In 2017 Otherlab secured close to $500K in funding from ARPA-E to build analysis tools and 

data visualizations to create the highest resolution mapping of US energy flows yet produced. 

The notion behind this project is that if we understand the flows and interactions of various 

energy sources in the US economy we can more effectively allocate federal research dollars 

and create greater professional and public understanding of the options for innovation and 

change in our energy economy. 

This small project successfully highlighted problems with how we view energy flows born of 

historical legacies in how we defined and represented the data. This project has also enabled us 

to draw up scenarios for the US energy economy that enable us to think more clearly about the 

various pathways to decarbonization, or to american energy independence as examples of 

scenarios that can be looked at. 

The Super Sankey project never had a commercial outcome in mind, but is a clear success in 

helping experts and the general public in understanding the energy flows of the American 

economy. ARPA-E's latest OPEN FOA even suggested that applicants cite this tool in their proposals 

to quantify their impact. 

Near-Isothermal-Compression, OPEN 2018. 2019-ongoing. 

Otherlab received a new award that started under contract only a few days ago, on February 

20th, 2019. The award is to develop a near-isothermal compressor technology that will have 

profound implications for many applications where a gas needs to be compressed. It could be 

an enabling technology for the hydrogen economy, have huge implications for industrial 

efficiency in compression of air and other gases, potentially lower the huge energy cost of 

pumping natural gas, and enable new classes of refrigerators, air conditioners, and heat pumps. 

The award is only $500K and Otherlab has already been able to find a cost share partner (an 

angel investor) for the project. This project will employ 4 people in 2019 and will hopefully 

succeed and expand as we prove the viability of the design. 

Closing Summary. 
53 

ARPA-E has been an excellent source of early stage funding for audacious and ambitious new 

energy technologies. The majority of the successful companies and projects discussed here 

would simply not exist if it were not for the early stage funding of ARPA-E. 

ARPA-E has demonstrated an unbiased approach to funding non-traditional research entities. I 

think this is fantastic. In my experience (and backed up by recent research results) small teams, 

small companies and small start-ups are a vital national resource for high-risk transformative 

technologies. 

Without exception, the challenge with bringing any of these technologies to market is the 

transition from a proof of concept-something that works-into a tested, validated, bankable, 

finance-able, product. ARPA-E currently does not provide funding for this stage of technology 

development. Again, in my experience, this phase of development always represents a cost of 

$1-1OM (and sometimes much more) after the initial costs of technology development. This is 

due to the nature and expense of hardware development, and the timelines of development and 

proof of energy technologies. It would be in the national interest to increase ARPA-E funding in 

a manner that would enable it to help finance the very risky second valley of death: the proof by 

pilot or field testing of energy technologies. 

I would further suggest that like DARPA, the agency that ARPA-E is loosely modelled on, 

ARPA-E is one of the most effective and transformative technology development agencies in 

the country. DARPA's budget is around $3bN. It wouldn't be crazy were the US to similarly 

prioritize its energy infrastructure and technology development program to a similar level, 

something like 1 OX what it is today. 

ARPA-E isn't perfect. The cost-share concept which I initially was in support of, I have found 

through experience to force the developers of technology to make poor partnerships or take 

ill-matched investments to meet, and it generally leads to bad outcomes of one kind or another, 

including the death of otherwise high-potential technology development projects. 

ARPA-E could also improve on its billing cycle; small government contractors the nation over 

suffer enormous cash-flow problems in financing the receivables of government research 

contracts. On many occasions I had to take out extreme or egregious loans including home 

mortgages to cover the receivables on ARPA-E grants. On occasion, the federal government 

would pay more than 90 days after the work was completed. This may be absorbable by 

universities or National Labs, but it is fatal to small companies-the most innovative engine in 

the economy in bringing transformative technologies to market. I was on the brink of closing 

down on numerous occasions with more than half a million dollars in receivables to the 

government. 

ARPA-E also has some egregious clauses in their contracts that do not ultimately benefit the US 

economy downstream despite the intention of those clauses. The worst perhaps is the "made in 
54 

the USA" clause which wants most of the technologies to be made in America. While a good 

goal, this is impractical in the global marketplace of energy technologies that have complicated 

supply chains. These clauses become issues when raising venture to commercialize the 

technology as Venture Capitalists appropriately don't want any unnecessary constraints on how 

they build successful US-based, globally operating companies. 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the American taxpayer and the American economy 

is benefiting greatly from investments that ARPA-E is making. In addition to the economic 

impact of the companies mentioned above themselves, the employees, Interns and contractors 

working on these projects have gone on to run dozens of related projects and have used skills 

learned on these projects to improve their careers, move to the top grad schools in the country, 

and launch new technology companies in every domain from electric aircraft to autonomous 

cars to advanced robotics to ag-tech. 

We should find every possible way to help government research agencies fund and support the 

best work in the country, by the best people, no matter which Jab or organization they work in. 

There are transformative technologies in garages that are finding it hard to escape because of 

biases in the federal funding system. 

We should expand the funding and scope of ARPA-E in this moment of the international energy 

economy transition. The dominant energy technology players of the next century are being 

started and funded today. 

The challenge of most hardware technologies, particularly in the energy industry, is proving that 

they will survive in the field for 20-plus years before you have put them in the field for 20 years. 

A Jot of resources are spent testing this as it forms a critical component of the "bankability" of the 

technology-meaning the willingness of a bank to finance the projects that include the 

technology. A crucial part of this process are real-world deployments and pilot projects. Often 

the developing entity of the technology has to finance these deployments and tests themselves, 

yet another difficult hurdle in bringing these projects to market. 

Government could choose to fill the different funding gaps for energy technologies. As we see 

it, there are 4. 

The 1st is fundamental and exploratory research finding out what is possible and exploring new 

opportunities. This is obviously the traditional domain of government funding of the NSF variety. 

The 2nd is development. This is applied research taking fundamental ideas and shaping it into 

a technology with the potential to have an impact. DARPA, ARPA-e and agencies like the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) have been fundamental in our experience in this phase. 

Bankability (the 3rd) is using the proven elements of research and development and building a 

tested and piloted project or product sufficient to get first customers (the ones that will take risk) 
55 

and private investment (that wants to see that a customer will buy it). This is definitively the 

energy technology's most difficult valley of death and a giant opportunity for ARPA-e to help 

accelerate energy technology transition to market. This stage may also include assistance in 

funding the manufacturing innovations required to bring the technology to market. 

The 4th category is commercialization and deployment. This is where government should not 

be involved, this is financeable by banks and late stage venture. This is where the market can 

pick the winners. 

Thank you for your time and your interest in this topic that I have devoted my career to. 

Saul Griffith, 

Otherlab. 
56 

Dr. Saul Thomas Griffith 

Short Bio: 

Saul Griffith is the Chief Scientist at Other Lab where he focuses his work on engineering solutions for energy production and energy efficiency in light of climate 

change science. He has multiple degrees in materials science and mechanical engineering and completed his PhD in Programmable Assembly and Self Replicating 

machines at MIT. He is founder or co-founder of numerous companies, including Optiopia, Squid Labs, Potenco, Instructables.com, Howtoons and Makani Power. Saul 

has been awarded numerous awards for invention and was recently named a MacArthur 

Fellow. Saul holds multiple patents and patents pending in textiles, optics, nanotechnology, and energy production. He also co-authors childrens comic books called Howtoons, about building your own science and engineering gadgets, and is a technical 

advisor to Make magazine and Popular Mechanics. He rarely wears shoes, is typically found knee deep in machinery with fists full of tools, and has holes in most of 

his pockets. 
57 

Chairman LAMB. All right. Thank you, Dr. Griffith. We’ll stop 

you there at the end of the 5 minutes and move on to Mr. Mills. 

TESTIMONY OF MARK MILLS, 

SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. MILLS. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify here. I’m honored and in fact humbled to join such an esteemed team of witnesses and join in enthusiasms for ARPA-E. It’s one of the rare opportunities for true bipartisan enthusiasm. 

In that context, I’d like to use my minute—5 minutes to frame 

the ARPA-E transformational mission by talking about the energy 

scale challenge. Traditional metrics are really inadequate for visualizing the magnitude of the global oil, coal, and natural gas production. Other witnesses have pointed out that 85 percent of the 

world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons, but if they were all in the 

form of oil and laid out in physical barrels that would form a row 

stretching from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles, and that row 

would grow in height by a Washington Monument every single 

week. 

Then as the world’s poorest 4 billion increase their energy use of 

just 15 percent of the per capita level that we enjoy in the West, 

the world’s demand for energy will increase by the equivalent of 

adding the United States’ worth of demand. And in the developed 

countries, we can consider the applications in the future of just two 

fast-growing sectors. Every billion dollars spent in commercial aircraft or billion dollars spent on data centers each leads to about $2 

billion in energy purchases over a decade. And the world currently 

spends over $100 billion a year building and supplying the market’s new airplanes and data centers. 

Meanwhile, we do know something about the cost of policies to 

impact this enormous market. Over the past 2 decades the world 

has spent more than $2 trillion on non-hydrocarbon energy, but hydrocarbon use rose nearly 150 percent over that time. And hydrocarbon’s share of global energy supply decreased by barely a few 

percentage points. 

This scale challenge of course commonly elicits the aspirational 

proposition that we should embrace the spirit of the Apollo program. The problem with this analogy is that it’s a category error. 

Transforming the energy economy is not like putting a dozen people on the moon a handful of times. It’s like putting all of humanity 

on the moon permanently. But in the decades since the Apollo program, we’ve seen another and bigger tech revolution that’s inspired 

a similar trope. This is of course the computing and communications revolution, often short-formed as Moore’s law. The International Monetary Fund, to just pick on one example, has asserted 

that, and I quote, ‘‘Smartphone substitutions seemed no more imminent in the early 2000’s than large-scale energy substitution 

seems today,’’ end quote. 

But the Moore’s law in transformation of how energy is produced 

or stored isn’t just unlikely. It can’t happen with the physics that 

we know today. If photovoltaics (PVs) scaled like computing, a postage-stamp-sized solar array could power the Empire State Building. Similarly, if batteries scaled like computing, a book-sized bat-
58 

tery that costs 3 cents would fly an A380 to Asia. Only in comic 

books does the physics of energy production work like that. 

Of course, wind turbines, solar cells, batteries, all those will improve. So, too, will drilling rigs and combustion turbines and of 

course software will bring very important and even dramatic efficiency gains. But there’s no possibility that more Federal funding 

will lead to digital-like disruptive tenfold gains in these old technologies. All are approaching their physics limits. 

The relevance of ARPA-E is that its out-of-the-box mission can 

only come from new phenomenologies and that leads eventually 

then to radically new technologies, all of which can only come from 

basic research. 

Now, to state the obvious, internet didn’t emerge from improving 

the rotary phone; the transistor didn’t come from subsidizing vacuum tubes; and the car didn’t come from studying railroads. Policies 

in pursuit of an energy revolution require a focus on basic science. 

One example in an area which is seeing a deficit of research support where I think magic can yet happen is in the basic materials 

sciences. 

Let me conclude by summarizing three things Congress could do 

in order to fulfill the mission originally envisioned for ARPA-E. All 

three are found in fact in the original Gathering Storm report. 

First, ARPA-E should ensure a very clear focus on basic science. A 

vital role for ARPA-E is in filling the often ignored gap between the 

foundational science discovery, invalidating whether that radical 

discovery is in fact useful. This is quite different from the oftencited gap between innovation and commercialization. 

Second, the Congress should I think put ARPA-E’s role under the 

Undersecretary of Science, as originally envisioned, to both signal 

a commitment to basic research and insulate it from the—what I 

would call contamination of near-term outcomes. 

Finally, ARPA-E’s budget, I agree, should increase, but I would 

also stipulate as a caveat that we should adhere to the Academies’ 

original recommendation, finding those funds but reallocating from 

those Federal programs that are already doing what I would call 

de facto private-sector development. 

Finally, I think Congress should follow the Academies’ proposal 

to continue to review the performance of ARPA-E but in particular 

this time with an independent committee that is not dominated but 

includes Federal representatives so that the private markets that 

understand basic science transitions participate. I have no doubt 

that scientists will yet unveil what Bill Gates calls an energy miracle. That’s the word Bill Gates used, but that won’t come from 

spending more money on yesterday’s technologies. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:] 
59 

Testimony of 

Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute 

Before 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

On 

The Future of ARPA-E 

February26, 2019 

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington D.C. 

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. I'm a Senior Fellow at 

the Manhattan Institute where I focus on the policy implications at the intersection of technology and 

energy, 

I am also a Faculty Fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University where 

my focus is on the technology and the future of manufacturing. And I note for the record that I'm as 

well a strategic partner in a boutique venture fund dedicated to startup companies developing 

software and artificial intelligence for oil & gas technologies. 

Permit me to begin with a brief observation about the report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" in 

which the National Academy of Sciences originally proposed the creation of ARPA-E. That report 

specifically focused on the "long-term energy challenges" and the "need for creative 'out-of-the-box' 

transformational" research. So, as a predicate for thinking about the future of ARPA-E, it is worth 

framing the scale of this energy challenge. 

As is well known by this Committee, roughly 85% of global energy comes from oil, coal and natural 

gas. Traditional metrics are inadequate to visualize the magnitude of hydrocarbons our digitally 

infused industrial society requires. But, for context on the scale challenge, consider that if global 

hydrocarbons were all produced as oil and stacked up in a row of barrels, that row would stretch 

from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles, and would grow in height by a Washington monument every 

single week. 

That's today's state of affairs, and that challenge is expanding. When, not if, the world's poorest four 

billion people increase their energy use to a mere 15% of the per capita level of developed 

economies, global energy use will rise by an amount equal to adding an entire U.S.A.'s worth of 

demand. Meanwhile, in the developed nations, we can illuminate the scale challenge looking at just 

two fast-growing sectors: every $1 billion of commercial airlines put into service leads to some $2 

billion in aviation fuel consumed over one decade. Similarly, every $1 billion spent building 

datacenters leads to $2 billion in electricity use over a decade. The world is buying both at a rate 

north of $50 billion a year. 

We already know how challenging it is to find any means, never mind practical ones, for making 

"transformational" changes at these scales. Over the past two decades, the world has spent more than 

$2 trillion on non-hydrocarbon energy alternatives; meanwhile hydrocarbon use has risen nearly 1.5-

fold and hydrocarbon's share of global energy supply has decreased by only a few percentage points. 

These realities are what likely motivated Bill Gates- who has given serious thought and significant 

capital to energy innovation-- to recently state that "there is no [energy] substitute for how the 

industrial economy runs today." 

The scale challenge commonly elicits the proposition that a solution can be found by embracing the 

spirit of the Apollo program: "If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can [and we can fill in the 

blank with any aspirational goal)." This popular rhetorical analogy is in fact a profound category 

error. Transforming the energy economy is not like putting a dozen people on the moon a handful of 

Mark P. Mi//s-2/26/19 
60 

times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon -permanently. To do the latter would require 

science and engineering that doesn't exist today. 

But in the decades since Apollo, we've seen another, far bigger engineering revolution that has also 

inspired a similar trope. This is of course the computing-communications revolution -often shortformed as simply, Moore's Law. 

!t has become a cliche to observe that smartphones are not just far cheaper but also far more 

powerful than a room-sized IBM mainframe from 30 years ago. Invoking the Moore's Law analogy, 

the International Monetary Fund, to name only one example, asserts in it's "Riding the Energy 

Transition" manifesto: "Smartphone substitution seemed no more imminent in the early 2000s than 

large-scale energy substitution seems today." 

But this analogy is also based on a category error. A similar transformation in how energy is 

produced or stored isn't just unlikely, it can't happen with the physics we know today. 

In the world of people, cars, planes, and large-scale industrial systems, increasing speed or carrying 

capacity causes hardware to expand, not shrink The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a 

ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries 

are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics. 

In order to illustrate how far from reality this kind of thinking is, consider that if combustion engines, 

for example, could achieve Moore's Law scaling, a car engine would generate a thousand-fold more 

horsepower and shrink to the size of an ant. With such an engine, a car could actually fly, very fast. 

Or, if photovoltaics scaled that way, a single ant-sized solar array would power an entire office 

building. Similarly, if batteries scaled like computing, a battery the size of a book, costing less than a 

dime, could power an A380 to Asia. 

But only in comic books does the physics of energy production work like that. In our universe, power 

scales the other way. The challenge in storing and processing information using the smallest possible 

amount of energy is distinct from the challenge of producing energy, or moving or reshaping physical 

objects. The two domains entail different laws of physics. 

Of course wind turbines, solar cells, and batteries will yet see useful improvements in cost and 

performance; so too will drilling rigs and combustion engines. And of course Silicon Valley 

information technology will bring important, even dramatic efficiency gains in the production and 

management of energy and physical goods. But the outcomes won't be as miraculous as the invention 

of the integrated circuit, nor the discovery of petroleum or nuclear fission. 

The point of all this is precisely relevant to ARPA-E. An "out-of-the-box" energy revolution can only 

come from discovering new "transformational" science, new phenomenologies that then lead, 

eventually, to radically new technologies. That can only come from basic research. It won't come 

from deploying R&D funds to improve -or subsidize --yesterdays' technologies. The Internet didn't 

emerge from improving the rotary phone, nor the transistor from subsidizing vacuum tubes, nor the 

automobile from subsidizing railroads. Policies in pursuit of an energy revolution require a focus 

entirely on basic scientific research. 

To be blunt: there is simply no possibility that more federal funding for wind turbines, silicon solar cells or 

lithium batteries will lead to a "disruptive" I 0-fold gain. All those technologies are approaching physics 

limits, just as aviation engines have. And while one cannot, by definition, predict what kind of entirely new 

phenomenologies have yet to be discovered, we do know from history that such discoveries do happen. But 

history also shows that they rarely if ever emerge from directed goal-specific funding. 

I can offer one example of an area where there is a serious deficit in support for research where 'magic' can 

yet happen, and that is in the basic materials sciences. We already know that metamaterials and quantumMark P. Mills- 2/26/19 
61 

engineered catalysts or alloys- areas that will yet benefit from the emerging capabilities of artificial 

intelligence and exascale computing- hold the potential for "big bang" energy impacts. Radically new 

materials can profoundly change how energy is produced, transported, stored and used, from the still 

chimerical pursuit of batteries as effective as fuel tanks to doubling combustion engine efficiencies. to 

engineered bacteria that excrete diesel fuel. 

Returning then to the Academy's Gathering Storm report: its recommendations provide a clear 

road map for three things Congress should do in order to fulfill the mission envisioned for ARPA-E. 

3 

First, APRA-E should have a clear focus on basic science. While it is often tempting and perhaps more 

politically comfortable to fund projects with directed and near-term utility, that focus fails the 

science challenge set out for ARPA-E. 

The role of ARPA-E should not be in duplicating private sector R&D, which in any case vastly 

outspends the government in this area. Nor should it try to bridge the oft-noted "valley" between 

innovation and commercialization, which again is not only a private sector activity but is already 

engaged (for better or worse) by many other DOE and federal programs. A vital role for ARPA-E is in 

the far more challenging gap between foundational science discovery and validating whether a 

radical new discovery, while clever, is useful. 

My second recommendation is that Congress follow the Academy's original plan and place ARPA-E's 

function within the office of DOE's undersecretary of science. This should be done both as a signal of 

the commitment to basic research- again, with a focus away from commercial goals like speed-tomarket, or incremental cost-reductions --and as a practical operational insulation from the 

inevitable 'contamination' by policies oriented towards near-term outcomes. 

Third, I support those who propose increasing ARPA-E's budget, but with two caveats. The first, to 

restate, is that spending must be focused on long-term basic science. I believe the evidence is clear 

that ARPA-E has significantly drifted towards near-term goals to improve yesterday's technologies. 

This is not just duplicative but a drift away from critical "transformational" possibilities. My other 

caveat regards the source of funding. Rather than new appropriations, the funding should follow, 

again, the Academy's original recommendation to expand ARPA-E "through reallocation of existing 

funds." The reallocation should come from federal programs at both DOE and other federal agencies 

where the spending is duplicative of what private markets do. 

In order to support these recommendations, Congress should also follow the Academy's original 

proposals to undertake a review of ARPA-E's performance. Such an audit should focus on how well 

ARPA-E has fulfilled its primary "basic science" mission as originally envisioned. And, critically, such 

an audit should be undertaken by an independent panel that is neither run by nor dominated by 

federal agencies, drawing mainly on private sector and university experts in basic science domains. 

I have no doubt that scientists will yet unveil, and engineers will yet commercialize '!r!J'!1"t:gy 

')!>iracle':- the specific word Bill Gates has used for this goal. But, to repeat and close on my central 

theme, that will not come from helping private markets make yesterday's tools better. 

<> 

Mark P. Mills- 2/26/19 
62 

Mark Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a faculty fellow at 

Northwestern University's engineering school, and a partner in Cottonwood 

Venture Partners. He writes a column for Forbes.com on the intersections of 

technologies and is published widely including frequently in The Wall Street journal. 

He earlier served as chairman and CTO of !Cx Technologies, helping take it public in 

a 2007 I PO. He is author of Work In The Age Of Robots (Encounter Books, 2018), and 

earlier co-authored the book, The Bottomless Well, which rose to #1 in Amazon 

science. He served in the White House Science Office under President Reagan, and 

previously was an experimental physicist and engineer in semiconductors and fiber 

optics, working at Canada's Bell Labs and RCA's Sarnoff Research Center. 
63 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you, Mr. Mills. At this point we will 

begin our first round of questions, and I will recognize myself for 

5 minutes. 

First, I want to talk about how we track the success of ARPAE over time. And I think, Dr. Majumdar and Dr. Williams, you 

both kind of addressed this in your testimony. I’ll start with Dr. 

Majumdar. What do you think about the idea of this metric of the 

amount spent by the Federal Government on ARPA-E versus the 

follow-on private funding that has resulted from it? Recognizing 

those two don’t match up exactly because the private funding only 

attracted to a small percentage of what was funded in the first 

place, but do you consider that to be a decent measure of progress 

for ARPA-E? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is 

a really important question. I was asked this question, believe it 

or not, in my confirmation hearing for being the ARPA-E Director 

by Senator Murkowski, and we spent a lot of time thinking about 

it. The question is how do you define success? And one can think 

of success as a full commercial scale like the internet today. And 

just taking the example of internet, the research and computer networks started in 1968. It took 25-plus years to really get full commercial impact of the internet. And during that time, it was funded 

by DARPA to really improve and finetune that. 

So looking at ARPA-E’s technology, ARPA-E’s funding mostly 

proof-of-concept ideas. To take proof of concept and go—to go all 

the way to commercial scale is, as I’ve mentioned, is a long process. 

It takes 15 to 20 years. So the only thing we can really say postARPA-E right now is, what are the signs or metrics of future success that we should be looking for? And I think there are many of 

them. There’s not one single—there’s no silver bullet in this one. 

I think one should be looking at is there intellectual property creation that has happened? Is there follow-on private-sector investments in—on ARPA-E-related projects that are showing some signs 

of success? 

Chairman LAMB. And I agree with you there, not to cut you off, 

but time is limited, so thank you. 

And, Dr. Williams, you specifically cited that figure of the followon private investment, so I know it’s tough because of the timescale 

that you all are talking about. Something could take 15, 20 years 

to commercialize. But do you still think us tracking that comparison over time is a useful measure of success even if it’s not the only 

one? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. I absolutely believe it is a useful measure of success. It’s an early-stage measure, as Professor Majumdar says. It’s 

something we can measure, and it is indicative of future success. 

As time goes on, you will see our ability to measure more metrics 

such as jobs creation and manufacturing, but that’s a longer-term 

process. And the scale problem that we heard about is acute. This 

will not happen overnight. And the cumulative impact of these 

types of investments and these early metrics are very, very useful 

for predicting that. 

Chairman LAMB. Great. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Wall, go ahead. 
64 

Dr. WALL. Just a quick comment and a watch-out. I think as we 

discovered as we were doing our Academies study, that there’s an 

inherent tension between the 3-year funding cycle in ARPA-E, people wanting to see success, and the longer-term nature of the investment. So the watch-out here is that, as we want ARPA-E to be 

really focusing on long-term benefits, that we don’t put so much 

pressure on showing early success that we wind up shortening the 

cycle and then turning it into some of the issues that have been 

raised about the—starting to look like short-term—more short-term 

research. 

Chairman LAMB. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Mr. Mills, I just wanted to ask one question of you before I close. 

I take your point about the tension between the basic science research and some of the other proposed ideas for ARPA-E. I guess 

one concern that I have is that this isn’t happening in the vacuum 

of the United States. We have foreign competitors, especially 

China, who will really stop at nothing to dominate certain industries. They’re very open about that actually. And there was the 

great example from Dr. Wall about what happened with electric vehicles. So they have no hesitation about putting a lot of money into 

the commercialization of existing technologies. Given that competition that we face, do you think there’s still a role for the commercialization funding as a way of accelerating what might otherwise 

happen through the private market to keep us competitive? 

Mr. MILLS. The short answer is yes, there is a role, but this is 

always a challenge that you have in Congress is the—where you 

lie on the spectrum of the nature of that role. I’ll give as one example when I—as you know, I worked in the Science Office in the 

Reagan White House, which dates me as not being young anymore. 

The—Congress and the White House was lobbied heavily then to 

mount a program that countered the Japanese program mounted 

by MIDI for next-generation computing. We were told then that the 

Japanese were going to take over the computing business and leapfrog IBM, which dominated world markets then. 

The approach of the Science Office then was that we didn’t—we 

liked to support the commercialization of next-generation technologies, but the President did not believe that anyone in government actually knew specifically what to commercialize. And that 

was the same year, by the way, that Steve Jobs took Apple public, 

and it was not one of the companies that was on the radar of 

changing the computing world. 

So I think this is the tension but also the temptation is to fund 

what we think will be the revolution against the huge funding by 

our competitors, then Japan, today China. 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you very much. That’s a helpful example. 

And I now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. So actually I’m going to yield to Mr. Norman for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you, Congressman Weber. I appreciate you 

yielding. 

And, Mr. Mills, this will be directed to you. I’m from the private 

sector. We look at results, not intentions. We look at results. And 

let me just read some of the numbers. As of February 2018, the 
65 

program has invested approximately $1.8 billion in R&D, which 

funded over 660 projects through more than 44 programs. And in 

your testimony you mentioned the need for audits. Do you think 

these audits would be useful in highlighting duplicative programs 

overlapping so that we can track where the dollars are yielding results? 

Mr. MILLS. Well, thank you for that question. I—I’m deeply conflicted in this area because I have written about and in an early 

life I was a research scientist. I’m extremely enthusiastic about the 

prospect for government giving more money to scientists. At the 

same time, I work in the private sector, and I’m very sensitive to 

results outcomes. 

My proposal for an audit is really focused on two things, not just 

looking for duplication, which I—there’s some merit in duplication. 

I mean, as—you know, we do this in the private sector, as you 

know. You might have two teams trying to solve problems 

orthogonally. But there can be too much duplication. What I would 

like ARPA-E to focus on is avoiding doing work that doesn’t adhere 

to its mission. There are missions for basic development, but the 

underlying transformational science mission I think there’s a potential looking at some of the programs as adrift toward doing 

things that are in fact the missions of other agencies in the Department of Energy but that are really not transformational. 

So the other part I would like to add just briefly is that the— 

holding ARPA-E to a utility function that can be specifically measured like dollars and patents is a natural tendency, but I think it’s 

a mistake. I think it’s useful, but it will not measure transformations, and that’s the—I think it’s not trivial. There’s no easy 

measurement. I think the witnesses have pointed this out. And I 

think if you were in a confirmation hearing, you would be forced 

to say what’s my measure? I understand that. 

I think there would be merit to forming a committee as part of 

ARPA-E’s future look to come up with an additional creative answer to that question. What else could we use that would help us 

understand that what ARPA-E’s funding has the potential to be 

transformational, not simply evolutionary to making a PV cell better? That’s important, but that would be a private-sector mission 

in my view. 

Mr. NORMAN. Do you think it would be beneficial to put it under 

the Department of Energy? 

Mr. MILLS. The—ARPA-E or the—— 

Mr. NORMAN. Correct. 

Mr. MILLS. Well, I think it’s got a good home. I think the challenge is a version of being insulated from the near-term. If you report to the Secretary, it’s better status, I understand that, but the 

Secretary is driven by the budget and near-term mission. One 

would hope that you create an entity that has some of the insulation that an SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) 

might have. Some of the agencies that can operate on 5-year cycles 

or the chairman or the head of it isn’t turfed out for failing on a 

budget metric but rather they have a different mission. The SEC 

doesn’t have a budget mission, for example. It has a broader social 

and regulatory mission. In my view, ARPA-E is more in that category than it is in the traditional research category. 
66 

Mr. NORMAN. Dr. Griffith, did you want to say something? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely. Your concern I believe was that ARPAE’s funding may be duplicative of other agencies. 

Mr. NORMAN. Not—I don’t know that. I’m saying why not put a 

measure in place that could see for the benefit of the program to 

see if—— 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I might respectfully suggest that it’s not terribly 

relevant. We applied for—I have now created and commercialized 

technologies that would not have existed without ARPA-E. We 

tried to have those things funded through the other agencies of the 

Department of Energy, and they were non-receptive because in 

general those agencies are more prescriptive about what they’re 

looking for. So ARPA-E’s beauty is that it is—has very wide view, 

purview on what is transformational, and so it can pick and choose. 

And I think it is doing a very good job. 

So I think it almost by necessity needs to be duplicative in the 

sense that there’s solar here and there’s solar there because the 

transformative is in the details and in the—in how ARPA-E is— 

has a wider mandate to fund a broader array of entities. For example, ARPA-E can fund a small startup company like mine that 

doesn’t look like a national lab, doesn’t look like MIT or Stanford, 

and don’t believe that they are the only places that ideas in this 

country come from. In fact, in nature they just showed that small 

teams operating independently are the biggest force for transformational R&D in the world. That looks like small companies like 

mine that quite frankly aren’t allowed to access a lot of the underfunding within the DOE. So ARPA-E is really the only option. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Chairman LAMB. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lipinski for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this really important hearing. It’s great that Chairman Gordon is 

here. I remember working—I think I’m the only one up here who 

was here when we established ARPA-E. I wish that there were 

more chairs that were filled here because there’s a lot of talk right 

now about climate change and what should be done. There’s a lot 

of talk in politics, social media about some other vague, big, broad 

ideas, but this right here, ARPA-E may be—this may be the most 

important thing we do on climate change this year if we put more 

funding into ARPA-E. 

I was just talking to Bob Inglis, who used to sit on this Committee. He’s been dedicated over the last 10 years to getting a carbon fee put in place. It’s something I support. But here is something I think we should all be able definitely to support is more 

funding for ARPA-E. It was envisioned to be funded at $1 billion 

annually, not $1 trillion, $1 billion annually. Fiscal year 2019 it’s 

at $366 million. 

So I wanted to ask, what do you think would be the difference 

if we could get that funding for Fiscal Year 2020 up to $1 billion? 

What difference would that make in really advancing these green 

energy technologies? So, Dr. Majumdar, do you want to begin? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I think—first of 

all, I appreciate your support of ARPA-E right from the beginning. 

I think the billion-dollar budget, there’s a lot of discussion on that 
67 

going on. And if you look at internally within ARPA-E what fraction of these amazing ideas that come in as proposals to programs, 

what fraction gets funded? In a regular program that is announced 

in a funding option announcement and if you go through the whole 

screening process, it’s only about 10 percent or 15 percent of the 

actual proposals get funded. The next 10 to 20 percent are equally 

good ideas; we just run out of funding. 

If you look at OPEN funding option announcement, and there’s 

a lot of, you know, discussion on the rest of the Department of Energy. There’s no one in the Department of Energy that actually has 

an OPEN funding option announcement, open for any ideas. And 

in those OPEN FOAs, the rate of success for proposals is less than 

5 percent. And so there’s a tremendous appetite for innovation in 

the United States that is not being funded. In fact, at the Energy 

Innovation Summit, on the recommendation of former Chairman 

Gordon and others, we actually invited the people we could not 

fund because we wanted them to get funded as well from other 

sources because these were really, really good ideas. 

So there’s a tremendous opportunity to raise and build the ecosystem and the community, the energy innovation community to be 

much larger, as is needed to address the major challenges that we 

have. I also—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Let me move on to Dr. Griffith. I’m sorry; I have 

a limited amount of time here. I know Dr. Griffith had his hand 

up. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I existed the coalface or maybe I should say I existed the solar cell of this issue. I haven’t had to really place a job 

ad to hire people for the last decade. I have volumes, probably 10 

of the best and brightest young Americans who’ve been trained by 

the best universities in the world volunteer themselves to me every 

week. We want to work on energy technologies. We want to work 

on climate change. We want to come and work for you. We have 

our own ideas. 

Without a doubt there is at least tenfold the good ideas that are 

currently being funded under ARPA-E existing in the minds of 

your young people. And you want to get the money as directly as 

possible to the 25-year-olds, not their professors. Their professors 

are working on last year’s technology. You got to get it to the grad 

students who are imagining next year. ARPA-E can do that. 

I would argue that it should have funding that looks more like 

DARPA, $3 billion a year as a budget. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I don’t have much time, but Mr. Mills raised an interesting argument there that we need transformational not evolutionary. I think Dr. Williams wanted to respond on that. I just 

want to see what your thoughts were on that. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Yes, so very much the case that ARPA-E does not 

want to do evolutionary research and does not fund evolutionary 

research. Every project is selected for its potential to be a gamechanger, to move outside of the normal boundaries of industry 

roadmaps or long-term planning and things are already mapped 

out and being done by the Department of Energy. 

So, as an example of something that is transformational that 

ARPA-E is working on right now, even though it is a project within 

the broad sphere of wind, it is a project to transform how we think 
68 

about designing and developing wind technologies, using machine 

learning and engineering technology to develop better methods of 

designing and deploying and manufacturing wind turbines. So 

that—if that succeeds, it will be a completely transformational approach in an old technology. And that’s the type of projects that 

ARPA-E can do more of and should do more of. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I see my time is up, so I yield back. 

Chairman LAMB. And I now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Very interesting. 

Mr. Mills, in your prepared testimony—well, you said a couple 

things about patents, for example. And I like that because not all 

patents yield results. I’m reminded, Thomas Davenport had a patent on the electric motor in 1837 and it went absolutely nowhere, 

and so while it was transformative, it wasn’t practical. 

You also say that transforming the energy economy is not like 

putting a dozen people on the moon a handful of times. It’s like 

putting all of humanity on the moon permanently. And, quite 

frankly, I’ve got some friends that I wouldn’t mind doing that with. 

And let me just say that, get that out of the way. But to do the 

latter would require science and engineering that doesn’t exist 

today is what you said in your statement. And we’re talking about 

raising the funding to $3 billion, which would necessitate that we 

cut from somewhere else. We have to find that money. So I don’t 

know that it is practical. Could you expand on this comment and 

detail the science and engineering capabilities that would be required for success in a non-carbon energy economy moonshot 

today? I’m—I like to hear you elaborate on that. 

Mr. MILLS. Well I—you know, I—first, if I might, as I—it’s part 

of the elaboration, I—I’m in agreement with probably 99 percent of 

what’s said in this hearing by other witnesses. It’s one of these 

areas that’s a challenge because the debates that are important are 

in the 1 percent of disagreements, which where—it’s where the 

transformations happen. And my concern is in the implementation 

and as it relates to vision to your point that it won’t be a single 

magical thing. 

I mean, the magical thing we need to change the world’s energy 

economy would be the equivalent of the discovery of fission or, to 

use a materials science example, if one were able to engineer a 

meta-material that could—that was strong enough and functioned—and it was lightweight that was a shield against x-rays 

and gamma rays, you could make what engineers thought you 

could do in 1950, a nuclear-powered car. I mean, you’d make a little pellet-sized reactor, and this is—this would be magical. 

It’s not crazy to think of those things. It’s certainly not possible 

with anything we know today. That kind of transformation would 

certainly be the equivalent of the discovery of petroleum or the 

photovoltaic effect. Some things can’t be done, and my point really 

was that you can’t make a photovoltaic cell more efficient than the 

photons that arrive at Earth and converting them at some—you 

can’t convert 100 percent efficiency, so we know what the boundaries are. 

So when one looks at a proposal, one can know without knowing 

anything about its merits first whether it can be transformational. 
69 

If you change the cost of something by 20 percent or 30 percent, 

in business that’s meaningful. It’s not necessarily transformational 

to the world because you’re chasing other things that are changing 

by 20 or 30 percent. 

The market that solar, wind, and biofuels and batteries compete 

against is the hydrocarbon market. It gets better all the time, too, 

to the benefit of everybody on the planet. 

So I think your point of patents is a particularly important one. 

Patents are a metric, and they’re important. I have a few patents 

for my early career. They were fairly foundational ideas. One 

wasn’t. Some are pretty sloppy patents. The patent office can be 

overwhelmed, as we all know if we’ve been applicants. But they’re 

an important measure. They’re useful. But they don’t necessarily 

measure foundational change unless you look at—as you know, not 

to get into the weeds—prior art. If there’s no prior art, it might be 

foundational. That’d be one mechanism, for example, to sort of finetune the ARPA-E mission is if we get a patent, is it a derivative, 

an incremental patent or is it actually foundational with no prior 

art? 

Mr. WEBER. Well, thank you for that. I do need to move on to 

a second question for all the witnesses. I’m running a little bit out 

of time here. We’ve heard a lot today about the need to significantly increase ARPA-E’s budget as quickly as possible, but in Congress, as I mentioned, we’re going to have to find that money somewhere. We’re called to be good stewards. And I’m not sure than any 

of our constituents—my constituents would be on board with an increase of close to $700 million. That’s hard to justify back home in 

spending at the Department of Energy. So providing this kind of 

funding increase for ARPA-E is almost, as I said earlier, going to 

require cutting somewhere. 

So let me put you all in the driver’s seat for a minute. Where 

would you cut, Dr. Majumdar? I’ll start with you. 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Well, that’s a really difficult question to answer, 

Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. WEBER. Tell me about it. 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. I think this is a discussion between you and Secretary Perry and the current team out there, the Under Secretaries 

and others—— 

Mr. WEBER. So you’ve not—I’m sorry to cut you off but I’m really 

short on time. You’ve not thought through this, don’t have an 

exact—example? Dr. Williams, I’ll give you the same question. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Well, of course one thing that can be done and is 

being done increasingly at the States’ level is more leveraging. And 

there are a variety of interesting new financial mechanisms for increasing leveraging and the output benefits of what we get from 

ARPA-E and from other programs and government. So I would 

strongly encourage that as one mechanism for getting more bang 

for bucks out of the Federal funds that we do supply. 

Mr. WEBER. Dr. Wall? 

Dr. WALL. Yes, I think I’d go down the same path. First of all, 

I’m not sure that I would close the budget debate just within energy considering the importance of energy for our future but to look 

at the entire budget, which gives you a little more flexibility. 
70 

But I think as we look at growing the ARPA-E budget, we ought 

to be also looking at other things that they could be doing, models—other models that could be added. Dr. Majumdar raised a parallel to SEMATECH (semiconductor manufacturing technology), 

which involves—brings in more industrial partners who can participate in a way that’s a little bit different than the model that we 

have now. So I’d also look at changing the operating model with 

this incremental funding at the same time. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Well, I appreciate that. I got to go on. Dr. Griffith, finally, be brief, please. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. To tie it to your moonshot question of the previous—what does a moonshot look like, if America plays its card 

right and completely electrifies its economy, it will only need half 

of the primary energy it needs today to supply the economy as it 

is. If it does that, it will be the leader of the world economy, and 

it will more than pay for itself. If you had to just very callously 

look at—I would look at other poorly spent budgets within the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, their research 

budgets. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Let me stop there because I’m way over my 

time, and I appreciate you all’s indulgence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LAMB. I now recognize Ms. Stevens for 5 minutes. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important and 

necessary hearing, and thank you to our expert witnesses for joining us today. 

As a former Obama Administration official who worked in the 

advanced manufacturing space, I couldn’t think of a more timely 

hearing in part because just the other week, as my colleagues and 

I pondered on the House floor what should be our moonshot vision 

for innovation for the quarter-21st century, for the mid-21st century—we find ourselves in the room with the sign that says where 

there is no vision, the people will perish. 

So the burden of American greatness and our industrial might 

must be how we define these moonshot visions, not debating the 

merits of funding them, but seizing hold of the opportunities to invest and win the future. We are still in the race for our innovation 

and what we saw in the mid-20th century as we were racing to get 

to the moon. We are competing against the likes of China and 

Western Europe, and so we know we need to continue to invest. 

I now today represent Michigan’s 11th District, the suburbs of 

Detroit, the most robust automotive supply chain in the country. 

We are the recipients of $35 million from ARPA-E projects largely 

going into electrification, electric vehicle battery development. And 

we’ve heard other questions from this great panel. We’ve heard 

other questions on exercising what the ARPA-E funding does for 

this work. 

I’d like to just take it a layer deeper because the headline that 

I find quite alarming among many alarming headlines is that 

China is leading the charge for lithium-ion mega factories, China 

is leading the charge for battery electrification, that China now has 

over 70 OEMs in the battery efficiency space. Where are we? So 

what does it mean if we fail to invest or don’t increase our budget? 
71 

Dr. Williams, I’d like to start with you particularly on the automotive industry, please. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Yes. Well, it’s a pleasure to hear from you. I grew 

up in the suburbs of Detroit, and I also experienced the health and 

the dynamism of the automotive industry there. 

In terms of electric vehicles, we do face very stiff international 

competition. I would say that much of the growth that we are seeing now on lithium-ion battery and battery development is using 

old technologies and driving down cost by better manufacturing 

techniques. ARPA-E has invested lightly in electric vehicle batteries only in areas where we think we can make a transformative 

change in the actual battery chemistry and the future—and allow 

us to have future batteries that will be better than the ones that 

we are seeing developed in China. 

Coming out of that research we’re seeing many innovative exciting new battery chemistries, and I can’t emphasize to this Committee too much the peril that we face. We do phenomenal basic 

research in the United States. We train great graduate students. 

We send them out to do great research. ARPA-E tries hard to take 

some of those exciting new ideas and move them forward to prototypes. If those prototypes reach a certain stage of development and 

readiness and that next stage of investment is not there, they fall 

dead. We lose that investment. Other companies, countries will 

know about what we’ve done, and they will take it forward. We 

have to make sure that we are able to support our young 

innovators to not just do the innovation but to actually deliver the 

benefits that come from it. And EV batteries is one area where we 

absolutely need to maintain that primacy. 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes, thank you so much. Dr. Majumdar, this reminds me of your testimony and where you talked about the return 

on the investment and the lifecycle of the investment, and I was 

wondering if you could just shed a little bit more light on where 

Dr. Williams left off, around the continuity of funding and ensuring 

that we don’t allow new technologies to fall into the valley of death, 

what this means for industries like our great automotive industry, 

which, by the way, has said they want to see zero emissions. They 

want to embrace electrification. They are looking and waiting for 

us to continue these partnerships, to continue to invest if not but 

for the government to lay the foundation, to set the table. That’s 

the conversation we’re having here. So if you don’t mind. 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the 

automotive industry, as you pointed out, is trying to pivot. This is 

a time of extreme importance because this is a once-in-a-century 

colossal change that is happening to an industry that has grown 

in a certain way and they’re trying to pivot. We are very proud of 

course in the United States of the Gigafactory that is going to 

make batteries. In China there are two and now I’m hearing the 

third Gigafactory being built. 

So the question that comes at—the fundamental question that 

Dr. Williams raised is that how do you go from a proof of concept 

to a proof of system to a proof of—in a pilot demonstration so that 

it gets into the Gigafactory? And I think this is where in my written testimony I propose that look back at what DARPA did. When 

there was a challenge to the semiconductor manufacturing indus-
72 

try, DARPA said, OK, you have your competitors, Texas Instruments, Intel, and others. Let’s just come together to create something called a SEMATECH to nurture some of the DARPA-funded 

fundamental research in breakthrough technologies that led 

them—then they were nurtured by the industry and then they took 

those technologies and they competed in the marketplace with 

products and services. So I think that’s a model—— 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes. 

Dr. MAJUMDAR [continuing]. That’s—the semiconductor industry 

is not the same as the energy industry. So we should look at these 

opportunities, the things that have been done in the past and see 

what are the lessons learned that could be adapted to the energy 

field and see what we can do in the private and public sector together. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you so much. I cede back. 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Foster for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. And I guess I’d like to start off by just 

seconding all the praise that’s been showered on ARPA-E for its 

achievements to date and my gratitude to Bart Gordon for his role 

in initiating this. 

And I’d also like to emphasize that this is complementary to the 

role that national labs play. An example of that would be, since 

we’re talking about batteries, the JCESR (Joint Center for Energy 

Storage Research) program where one of the main deliverables is 

computer models of battery chemistries that will be developed and 

maintained by a large team of people that has to stay around more 

than 3 years. So it’s not a one-shot thing. This will be a national 

resource, and I think the labs are appropriate stewards for this. 

But there’s a real need for something like ARPA-E to fill gaps 

in the private-sector research and development. You know, you can 

sort of analyze this as why, if this is such a great idea, isn’t the 

private sector doing it? And the reasons that occur when you ask 

venture capitalists, they said, well, this is too long-term, that the 

payoff will be outside the patent window, and it’s a real reason for 

ARPA-E to exist. 

The second is the low probability of success. Now, you’re placing 

some bets that are unlikely to pay off. They’ll be transformative if 

they do, and that’s not an attractive investment to a VC (venture 

capital) firm that has to show the fund is making money after some 

small span of years. 

The third reason that I’d like to look into a little bit is the lack 

of patentable intellectual property. Very often you have a great 

idea, and this is wonderful, it will be transformative if it works, but 

it’s not really patentable. And so very often venture capitalists 

won’t invest in that. And I was wondering how you handle the 

issue of patentable IP (intellectual property) both in the selection 

of projects to decide to get behind and also when you contemplate 

follow-on funding and the probability of handing off to the private 

sector where patentable IP will be important. You know, either Dr. 

Williams or Dr. Griffith. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. So I’ll start. I would say that ARPA-E’s commercialization activities strongly encourage its teams to develop patentable IP. We don’t initially select on the basis of whether or not 
73 

they’re—they have patents or patentable IP. As they move forward, 

there are certainly different models for companies. Many—there 

are many types of technologies which, if they can’t be patented, are 

kept as company and proprietary secrets. ARPA-E supports our 

project teams in developing such technologies and respects when 

they need to develop that proprietary technologies and move it forward without risk of exposure. I hope that’s helpful. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. Dr. Griffith? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. Writing and obtaining patents is really easy, and 

you can do it all day. It’s expensive, so you want to do it as little 

as possible when you’re starting new technology companies. I think 

it’s a very bad predictor of success, but it’s one of the—it’s easily 

measurable, so we use it, but it’s not at all good. In the global marketplace today and because of the dysfunctionalities of the whole 

patent process, your really only advantage now is to speak to market. And inasmuch—what do patents exist for? Maybe to help you 

get financing, but apart from that, it’s all about speed of execution, 

so it’s the wrong thing to measure. 

Mr. FOSTER. So how much of this has to do with what I view 

frankly as a sort of assault on the patent system that’s happened 

in the last several years, led actually by Congress. The sort of systematic weakening of patentholder rights and various forms that 

have been passed? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I think it’s more fundamental and structural than 

that. The patent system has existed long enough that it easily 

gamed. 

Mr. FOSTER. In what sense? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. The large corporations can play it very easily. 

They can afford to. Small companies that are doing the really innovative thing can’t. And you can have large corporations basically 

outmaneuver you. And so I think that is one example of a structural problem. We evolved through lobbying the patent system toward advantaging large companies because they could afford to, 

and small companies who do the innovation are disadvantaged in 

the patent-playing field. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, also, when they try to enforce those patents, 

they’re characterized as trolls and so on. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, Dr. Mills? Or Mr. Mills. 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Mills. Yes, I was one of the ones that quit graduate school, but I wasn’t as successful as Bill Gates when he quit 

graduate school. It’s a very good point—— 

Mr. FOSTER. He quit undergrad if I remember properly but—— 

Mr. MILLS. That’s right. The patent issue is interesting, and I 

agree with Dr. Griffith that it can be gained and often is. And I’m 

worried about the attack on the patents because it’s not just the 

Constitution; it has real merit. But I would point out, as an active 

venture capitalist, that patents are only one measure of what you 

would make in investment. Frequently, such speed to market is 

critical, but there are many things one does in the technology business. And I know I—I know you know this is truth, that are what 

you call process knowledge and domain knowledge that you deliberately don’t patent because once you patent them, you’ve told people how to do it. And it’s remarkable how much of innovation lies 
74 

in that area and how little relies on the patents. So I just—just for 

the record, I think—and that’s a hard one to measure. That’s measuring the team, which is a challenge for ARPA-E, and it’s a challenge for venture capitalists. 

Mr. FOSTER. OK. And let’s—we’ve had a lot of sort of discussion 

of transformative high-payoff research. But, you know, Dr. Griffith’s examples he gave, many of them seemed incremental, a 20 

percent decrease in the tank for compressed air or a change in the 

actuator mechanism for solar tracking, which it’s a potentially good 

idea that will take over that segment of the market, but will not 

really transform the economics of solar power. And I was just wondering what is the payoff that you’re shooting for something that 

will transform a very small sector and make an incremental improvement? Yes, Dr. Williams? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. So I would say that I wouldn’t measure incremental in the sense of 20-percent or 10-percent impact on the energy. It’s—incremental I consider to be a fundamental—the idea of 

how the technology transforms the approach. So something like the 

pointing mechanism based on a completely different technical approach, that’s a technical innovation, and it is far from incremental. It really transforms the mechanism. 

And what we see in an innovation system is that small—what 

are initially small projects like that combined together to create a 

whole learning curve, which ultimately grows and blossoms and 

creates much bigger impacts overall. 

And so this comes down to some of Dr. Majumdar’s comments 

about the need for patience. The innovation—— 

Chairman LAMB. And that’s helpful. We’ll probably have to stop 

you there, Dr. Williams, because we’re past time, and we’ll go to 

Mr. Casten for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming. 

I have to frame this by saying that this is a bit of an unfair question for Dr. Majumdar and Dr. Williams, but bear with me. I think 

a lot of this conversation is about metrics, and I think we really 

need metrics. I’m a chemical engineer and a biochemist by training. 

I’m an entrepreneur by career, and a couple months ago I decided 

to get a new job. I mentioned that because early on in my career 

we did work on biofuels and fuel cells, and it was before ARPA-E 

existed. I actually had colleagues who were able to get money from 

DARPA, and I’m thankful that my colleagues here created ARPAE to follow that example because you guys really have done a lot 

of neat stuff, and I thank you for that. And it was urgent and necessary. 

In the private sector, if you’re any good on the entrepreneurial 

side you look at the total cost, the total benefit, and then you figure 

out how to structure your business to get as much of the benefit 

and as little of the cost. In this new job I have, we tend to think 

about offloading cost to the private sector as being fiscally irresponsible, and I don’t think that’s always the case. 

If I’m doing the math right, ARPA-E has invested $1.8 billion, 

$2.6 billion of follow-on. That’s pretty successful. Relative to the 

challenge we face in the climate, respectfully, it’s a fart in the 

whirlwind. And so if we’re going to get to a point where you have 

the resources to take on the challenge that we have as a society, 
75 

we need to somehow get people thinking about what you do as 

being closer to the way that the venture capital world works, where 

they celebrate the unicorns, they maybe focus on the portfolio returns and do their best not to talk about the failures. Witness 

Solyndra. We’ve kind of done the opposite on the political side 

where we talk about the failures, we don’t talk about the portfolio, 

and the unicorns go on to be privatized, and we don’t talk about 

them too much. 

How do we get metrics that you all can manage to, and be rewarded for, that can build the political will so the people can recognize the value that we are creating here and not have it come out 

buried in the last freshman commenter in a science hearing about 

the net gain? And what are your thoughts on what those metrics 

might be? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I think this is a 

very fundamental question and it has come up many times before. 

I think you have to look at metrics over time scale. I have been 

funded by DARPA in my research career several times. I was not 

involved in the internet, but what we talk about for DARPA is 

internet, GPS, and things like that, right? It is the unicorns. So I 

think long-term you will get to see some of the ARPA-E technologies—you know, you have talked about the return—you know, 

the follow-on funding. Well, this is just the start of the follow-on 

funding. There will be many more later on as these technologies 

mature and come—become products and services. 

So I think it’s important, as I mentioned in my written comments, it’s important to be patient with these. But in terms of the 

metrics, I would look at a portfolio of metrics, not just one because 

I think if you fix—if someone gets fixated on one metric, you could 

be misled as to the true impact on the future. 

Mr. CASTEN. OK. One follow-on with the bit of time I got left. 

Last Congress, my colleague Congressman Luja ́n introduced the 

Impact for Energy Act, which would have established a nonprofit 

foundation at DOE with the private sector to raise funds to support 

the commercialization and development of innovative energy technologies. I’m working with Congressman Luja ́n to—on a similar bill 

that would bring it forward. 

Dr. Majumdar and others who can comment, if I’m following, the 

NIH (National Institutes of Health) has raised about $1 billion in 

total funds and supported 550 projects alongside NIH to do this on 

the biomedical side. Do you believe that such a nonprofit foundation at DOE, similar to NIH, could help further facilitate private 

follow-on dollars to leverage what we’re talking about here, and 

give you whether or not we can improve the kind of funding that’s 

necessary to make sure that there’s other sources that can? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Mr. Congressman, I think we should look at all 

the great examples of the past and the lessons learned from that. 

I think the NIH foundation is one of them. I think SEMATECH is 

another, and there are several other private–public partnerships 

that have nurtured technologies through research from the government-funded stage, which is early stage, the proof of concept to the 

later stages. 

The medical—the healthcare industry is quite different from the 

energy industry. The semiconductor industry is different from the 
76 

energy industry as well. So I think we should take a look at all of 

these and really figure out what applies, how can they be adapted 

to the energy industry and see if you could create public-private 

partnerships like the SEMATECH, like the NIH foundation, but 

may be adapted to the energy sector. So I think that’s what I would 

suggest Congress consider. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you. And I recognize Mr. McNerney for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses. And I apologize for missing your testimony this morning, 

but ARPA-E is a great program, and I’m a big supporter. I want 

to see it continue. 

Dr. Williams, could you say if there exists a gap between the cutting-edge technology that ARPA-E helps foster and the DOE loan 

program that commercializes technology? Is there a gap there? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Yes, there certainly is a gap. The projects coming 

out of ARPA-E are generally at the earlier stage, prototypes, just 

getting ready to put up their first manufacturing. At the loan program level, basically the projects that will be supported under 

loans have to be fully established with manufacturing and have 

customers already in line. So there is a big gap between those two 

programs. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So there’s room for public-private consortia to 

help fill that valley of death? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Well, thank you. I’m not sure which one of 

you would want to answer this next question, but while ARPA-E 

does a lot with carbon capture and sequestration, I’m also interested in carbon renewal and solar reflection technology development because I feel it’s pretty clear to me we’re going to blow past 

the 2-degree milestone even if we were to eliminate carbon emissions today, so we need to develop that technology. Can you discuss 

what opportunities and challenges might exist with ARPA-E in developing that kind of technology? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. Yes. So ARPA-E has investigated a lot of different 

areas for carbon removal. I think in addition to what one might 

normally think of as standard approaches such as taking CO2 from 

a fossil generation plant, putting it through some other chemical 

process to turn it into a different useful product, that’s one typical 

approach. 

There are other very different and more creative approaches as 

well. One is learning to breed—use plant breeding to create plants 

that actually capture CO2 and store it permanently in the soil. 

That’s a completely different form of carbon capture with tremendous benefits to the agricultural community, to the rangeland community, and to forestry. If we can select and breed plants that actually take CO2 out of the air, put it in the soil, it improves the 

soil—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So ARPA-E is a good—OK. What about the albedo modification technology? Is ARPA-E a place to do that kind 

of research? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. ARPA-E is not specifically invested in that, although we’ve had some interesting projects, as I mentioned earlier, 
77 

in technologies that are able to take waste heat and transform it 

into light that gets sent out into outer space, and that’s a little different than albedo modification, though. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes, Dr. Griffith? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I think when you’re talking about carbon removal, 

you have to think about what material flows humanity has that are 

as big as our carbon emissions problem in tonnage and basically 

the only materials that we move in the same quantities are cement 

and food. So the big opportunities are in putting the carbon into 

cement or putting it back into the soil or putting it into wood products. And I think there is enormous opportunity for fundamental 

materials science and applied materials science in those domains, 

and it would be a very high value. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. So what types of programs would 

ARPA-E expand into if the appropriations were expanded, whoever 

cares to answer that? What areas are ripe for ARPA-E to move 

into? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. Well, I think there are plenty of them. If you’re 

really looking at the carbon emissions challenge, how about, you 

know, really looking at very low cost—at 1/10 the cost of lithiumion batteries to store electricity for the grid, new ways of fission 

and fusion reactors that will enable carbon-free electricity, producing hydrogen lower than the cost that you can produce from 

shale gas. If you could do that, that’ll be transformative for the oil 

and gas and the agricultural industry. Reimagining how to make 

concrete and steel with very low-carbon emissions, so you—I can go 

on and on. Decarbonizing the food industry and the agriculture sector and helping and using agriculture, as Dr. Williams pointed out, 

to store carbon in the soil. And there are several others you can 

go on. 

What we’re really talking about is a remake of a large fraction 

of our economy that is tens of trillions of dollars, and that’s the 

global competition. This is the electricity, the automobiles, the 

steel, concrete, oil, gas, food, agriculture, et cetera. This is why 

other countries like China, as Dr. Wall and others are pointing out, 

are looking at this opportunity of the world transitioning to a new 

energy economy, and this is why it is so important to invest in 

ARPA-E right now because this time of the pivot is where the transitions happen, and we need to be at this game right now. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I’m glad I asked that question. I 

yield back. 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you. And I recognize now Mr. Beyer for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I’m sure this 

has already been done because I’m a late arrival, but I’d like to recognize the presence of my friend, the former Chairman of the 

Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Gordon, and just 

say that he’s better looking in person than his portrait here on the 

wall. 

Dr. Williams, you know, the President requested $3.5 billion for DARPA, and Congress appropriated roughly $2.5 billion for 

DARPA. And the President requested $0 for ARPA-E. Congress did 

$336 million. And I noticed that in your leadership, it got to $1 billion over that 5-year period. Do you have a sense of where it should 
78 

be right now in terms of its return on investment and is good for 

our society? Is $1 billion the right target number for us in Congress 

looking to appropriate? 

Dr. WILLIAMS. I think $1 billion is a good target. I would say that rationally one could grow that—grow to that $1 billion over a period of several years, probably 5 or a little bit more years to grow 

to that level of $1 billion. In that growth I expect ARPA-E would 

innovate, develop new approaches, demonstrate new ways of 

leveraging, and overall provide a whole new set of metrics and understanding about what can be delivered. So I’d say that going to 

$1 billion and then assessing and evaluating the success of that 

project would be a really excellent target for the House. 

Mr. BEYER. Dr. Griffith? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. You have a really strong bench in this company— 

country in terms of the talent, and they’re sitting on the bench unfortunately and not playing the energy game. They’re running software to sell ads. 

Mr. BEYER. Yes. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. You know, to use DARPA as an example, it funded 

robotics for many, many, many years. Every single robotics company out there right now has DARPA talent funded by DARPA in 

the DNA of all these companies that are doing all of the big radical 

transformations in robotics. I think you can easily justify a 

DARPA-sized budget for ARPA-E to do the same for energy. So I 

think $1 billion is low. It’s not nearly aligned with the scale of the 

energy transformation challenge, and I think you have enough people and there are enough ideas and things worth working on that 

it would be money well spent. 

Mr. BEYER. Yes, one of the things that we heard in this Committee in years past was that the percentage of excellent-rated 

projects submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and 

to NIH continues to decline. We’re down in the 10 percent ratio, 

which would argue that we could allocate much more money there 

that would still be very well spent. Dr. Majumdar? 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. So given the discussion on the budget, I mean, 

I just want to point out—and the comparison to DARPA. So one 

can ask what was DARPA’s budget when it started off? So 1962 

was the first appropriated budget for DARPA. It was started in 

1958, but the first appropriated was 1962. And that was $246 million in 1962 dollars. And today, if you do the prorating for that, in 

today’s dollars it’s about $2 billion. So if you are to take this energy 

transition seriously as DARPA took in response to the Sputnik 

threat, I think that this is the level. 

And so what we’re asking is the budget to be in the order of $1 

billion, to grow, as Dr. Williams pointed out, to—you know, within 

a few years, not to put it suddenly, $1 billion from $300 million in 

1 year would be difficult for it to handle. But if you could do that, 

I think that the agency can then grow, bring in the talent, create 

new programs, create these public-private partnerships, and then 

be at the level of the DARPA impact that it ought to have. 

Mr. BEYER. And, Doctor, you were head of ARPA-E when you invented the internet, too, right? I’m just kidding. 

But Dr. Majumdar, in your testimony you talked about the transformation that’s happening. There have been a number of inter-
79 

esting articles in the last couple of days about the need to go to 

negative net carbon. Is there a better player in the U.S. economy 

to help us move to net negative than ARPA-E? Dr. Griffith? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. If DARPA wants to get involved, that would be 

good. But both, yes. 

Mr. BEYER. And carbon capture, how plausible is removing carbon for the air or from the ocean? 

Dr. GRIFFITH. I think you need to place realistic expectations on 

it. It’s very, very difficult. When you remove carbon from the 

ground and you combine it with oxygen, that’s what happens when 

you burn it. It expands in volume a lot. So we can’t stuff the carbon 

dioxide back into the hole it came from because it’s bigger than 

what came out. And a freespace floating molecule of carbon dioxide 

is very hard to capture. And thermodynamically, it’s highly uncertain that’s possible. I think what you should really focus the mind 

on is a complete commitment to electrification by nuclear, wind, 

solar, and renewables, and the electrification of heat that has to be 

done. Otherwise, we’re going to be natural gassing our way through 

heat forever. And then focus on the materials side of the economy 

where there are opportunities to do limited carbon sinking, which 

is concrete and cement, wooden, paper, and pulp industry, agriculture. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman LAMB. Thank you. That ends our round of questioning. 

I did want to—and the Members that have to leave don’t need to 

stay for this, but I did want to just give the—first of all, thank the 

witnesses again for coming all this way and for the information. 

There were a number of you throughout the hearing that I could 

tell really wanted to jump in on a certain topic, and we appreciate 

that. So we could start in reverse order with Mr. Mills and just ask 

you to keep it short, but if there was sort of one small thing that 

you wanted to mention that you didn’t get out—and don’t feel 

obliged to take me up on this, but if there’s one short thought, we’ll 

just go down the row. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLS. Well, I do feel obliged. I’m sure all of the—my colleagues do. I’d like to just point out that you heard a common 

theme, which would be the materials science domains that are extraordinarily important here, and they’re very difficult to justify on 

a venture-capital basis. And they’re—but they do hold the potential 

for magic, but they will require much more basic science, support 

for chemists and mechanical engineers, Saul said physicists, doing 

things that are very, very challenging. The NIH may not—it’s not 

NIH but the NSF may not do, a good role. I’d love to see the budget 

to go up. I’d like the DARPA-level budget, but my caveat, I’d like 

to take it away, the hard task that you all have from programs 

that are short-term focused in other areas of DOE. 

Dr. GRIFFITH. Contradicting my colleague, Mr. Mills, and even 

contradicting Mr. Gates, you don’t need a miracle technology to 

go—to decarbonize the U.S. economy. Everything we know today, 

everything that’s on the table, we just need a huge commitment to 

it. I think you should look at—ARPA-E isn’t perfect, but it’s better 

than all the other agencies. I think the fact that, like DARPA, it 

can look all over the U.S. economy for the best ideas is—speaks to 

its benefit. We need more research money, R&D money that looks 
80 

like that. And I think you really need to understand that at the 

end of the day you—that this type of funding is about building your 

team, building your bench. DARPA’s investment, investing in communities of people to become the intellectual communities that 

form the foundation of AI, the foundation of computing, the foundation of the internet, the foundation of robotics. And you need consistent, long-term funding at much, much higher levels than you 

have today if you want to have the world-class bench in energy 

technology. 

Dr. WALL. So being the big industry guy, I will take a little different approach to my remarks here because I feel like—you know, 

I may have a cleaner—a clearer picture of the global competition 

and business once the technologies are developed, who manufactures it, who sells it, who has the jobs, who makes the money. And 

I worry a little bit when we get into this discussion about taking 

money from one part of the energy—our energy investment and 

putting it into another or being focused internally on the United 

States, we lose the fact that China is not the least bit confused 

about this. 

I’ve spent time over the last 20 or 30 years in Japan, in Western 

Europe, in India, in China, and so I’m keenly aware of what it’s 

like to compete in those markets. And also, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, a specific example of what happened in China where 

they’ve decided they want to dominate in EV. They’re not having 

a debate about whether or not they should be working on basic research. 

I do think that one of the things that we could be doing with 

ARPA-E is looking at the enabling technologies that might be required to make some—to bring some of these into production. So 

advanced manufacturing, advanced materials hand-in-hand with 

new concepts for new energy. But if the United States starts focusing on do we put a dollar here or a dollar there and taking it away 

from other energy investments, then I think we could be making 

a big mistake in setting ourselves back behind the competition 

who’s not the least bit confused about this. 

Dr. WILLIAMS. And I’ll just add a last comment, which is that energy is a very big problem, it’s a very old field, but we have at our 

command is advances in understanding that allow us to approach 

these old problems in completely new ways. And we really need to 

be open to out-of-the-box thinking, thinking very hard about the 

fact that each new innovation that comes to us in the past 20 

years, vast improvements in our ability to design and create materials are now making a huge impact in what we can do with energy 

systems. 

Moving forward, we’re seeing advances in biology, the ability to 

understand and manipulate organisms. Those will be important in 

energy as well. We’re seeing advances in information technology, in 

artificial intelligence, in machine learning. All of those things are 

going to be applied to energy and create new opportunities, and we 

need to have the ability and the flexibility to look at those in new 

ways about how they applied energy, and we will continue to expand and find new opportunities to make a big difference. 

Dr. MAJUMDAR. I just want to double down on what Dr. Wall just 

said. Since I was not only the Director of ARPA-E, I was also the 
81 

Under Secretary for Energy with all the applied programs reporting to me, and I looked at the budgets as well. One thing I would 

say is that it’s—one has to think about it the right way. Any technology, whether it’s lithium-ion batteries or semiconductor chips, 

there’s a learning curve. That means the more you do, the cheaper 

it gets, the more—the better it performs. 

And ARPA-E’s role, as opposed to the applied energy’s role, are 

two different roles. The applied energy takes today’s lithium-ion 

batteries and makes it better and better and better and better and 

better, and that’s very important. And that’s going down an existing learning curve that’s extremely important. ARPA-E’s role is to 

create entirely new learning curves that do not exist today, but if 

they’re successful, they’ll be disruptive to the—today’s lithium-ion 

batteries so that the competition comes from within the United 

States as opposed to coming from outside the United States. And 

this is the hedging that has been created through the applied programs and ARPA-E. 

And I think one has to look at the whole discretionary budget 

and not just the budget of the Department of Energy to see how 

do we want to compete in this time of pivoting of a colossal change 

in the whole energy industry globally? And I think you need to do 

both, because if you don’t do, I think it’ll be a mistake for the 

United States. 

Chairman LAMB. Excellent. Thank you again to all the witnesses, 

especially for keeping it brief here at the end. We really appreciate 

it. 

The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members and for any additional quick questions 

the Committee may ask of the witnesses. 

The witnesses are now excused and the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(83) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
84 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR. JOHN WALL, RETIRED CTO, CUMMINS, INC. 

An Assessment of ARPA·E 

An Assessment of 

ARPA-E 

Committee on Evaluation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy 

(ARPA-E) 

Board on Science, Technology. and Economic Policy 

Policy and Global Affairs 

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems 

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences 

Pradecp K Khosla and Paul T. Beaton, Editors 

A Consensus Study Report of 

The National Academies of 

SCIENCES • ENGINEERING· MEDICINE 

THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES PRESS 

Washington, DC 

www.nap.edu 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
85 

An Assessment of ARPA·E 

Summary 

Under a mandate from the U.S. Congress. the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 

an assessment of the progress the agency has made toward achieving its 

congressionally mandated mission and goals. This report includes both an 

operational assessment of the agency's funding programs and a technical 

assessment of its awards, to the extent possible. The ad hoc committee convened 

to conduct this assessment relied on quantitative and qualitative analyses of data 

on ARPA-E's creation of technology-focused funding programs, its decisionmaking processes for granting awards, its management of projects and awardecs, 

the patenting and publishing activities of awardees, and further investments 

made in awardee projects following ARPA-E funding. 

There are clear indicators that ARPA-E is making progress toward 

achieving its statutory mission and goals, and it cannot reasonably be expected 

to have completely fulfilled those goals given so few years of operation and the 

size of its budget. Importantly, especially at this early stage, the committee 

found no signs that ARPA~E is failing, or on a path to failing. to deliver on its 

mission and goals. From its complete set of 18 findings, the committee 

developed 14 recommendations. which are listed in full at the end of this 

summary. This summary presents an overview of the study and highlights the 

5 findings and 5 recommendations the committee believes are most important. 

The complete list of the committee's findings and recommendations is presented 

in Boxes S-1 and S-2. respectively, at the end of this summary. 

SCOPE OF TilE ASSESSMENT 

The first part of the committee's task was to assess the progress ARPA-E 

has made toward achieving its statutory mission and goals during the first 

6 years of its operation and whether it is on a trajectory to achieve them. 

Congress established the agency with a mission "to overcome the long-term and 

high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies." and 

specific goals to 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
86 

An Assessment of ARPA·E 

AS ASSES:>Mio"ST OF A Rf'A-lo 

"(A) enhance the economic and energy security of the United 

States through the development of energy technologies 

that result in-

(i) reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources; 

{ii) reductions of energy~related emissions, including 

greenhouse gases; and 

(iii) improvement in the energy etTiciency of all economic 

sectors; and 

(B) ensure that the United States maintains a technological 

lead in developing and deploying advanced energy 

technologies." 1 

The second part of the committee's task was to conduct both an 

operational assessment and a retrospective and prospective technical assessment 

in the context of the agency's statutorily defined means of achieving its goals 

"through energy technology projects by-

(A) identif)·ing and promoting revolutionary advances in 

fundamental and applied sciences; 

(B) translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge 

inventions into technological innovations: and 

(C) accelerating transformational technological advances in 

areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake 

because of technical and financial uncertainty.'"" 

The committec·s operational assessment considers how ARPA-E is organized, 

how it selects projects to support, how it partners with performers to manage 

those projects, how it actively manages projects, and what nontechnical support 

it provides to projects. The technical assessment outlines how ARPA-E. through 

its project selection and management, has made progress toward producing 

commercial products with the potential to transform the energy sector. The 

committee also considered the value to ARPA-E of developing a framework, 

processes. and specific systems for the collection of data that will be valuable 

for continuous improvement of operational processes and can serve as the basis 

for future self- or external technical and impact assessments. 

The scope of this study did not include providing a comprehensive 

benefit-cost analysis or other review of ARPA~E's value, such as a comparison 

with other possible uses of federal funding. Such an analysis is infeasible with 

currently available data. The study scope did include consideration of what 

\42 L:.s.c. t49 ~ 2

42 l!.S.C. 149 § 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
87 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

lessons learned from the operation of ARPA-E may apply to other DOE 

programs, as well as factors that Congress should take into account in 

determining the agency's future. 

sn;oy METHODOLOGY A:"'D LIMITATIO:"'S 

The committee's findings and recommendations are based on both 

quantitative and qualitative data, including agency data. publicly available data, 

observations at agency events, presentations by personnel from ARPA-E, DOE. 

and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), case studies of 

completed awards, consultations with current and fOrmer ARPA-E personnel, 

and consultations with individuals from other programs and offices at DOE. The 

development of new or transformative energy technologies from initial 

discovery to broad market deployment typically takes several decades, ARPA-E 

provides support for projects very early in this process, typically around first 

translation from scientific discovery to engineering--·focusing on ideas at 

technical readiness levels 2 to 4 ···-\vith the possibility of leading to a marketable 

product Most ARPA-E awards last for about 3 years, much shorter than the 

decades required to commercia!i?e energy technologies. Cnsurprisingly, few 

data were available for this study regarding ARPA-E's impact on energy 

teL'hnologies or the sector as a whole. StilL 6 years of operation provides data 

demonstrating the intermediate impacts of ARPA~E's activities. The committee 

developed its findings and recommendations by analyzing these available data. 

DEFINI:"'G ORGA'IIZATIONAL fEA Tl)RES OF ARPA-E 

Within the Department of Energy {DOE), ARPA-E can be distinguished 

by its culture, methods, and focused mission and goals. Through the course of its 

deliberations and analyses of the evidence gathered for this assessment, the 

committee found that ARPA~E benefits from three defining organizational 

features: 

The director provides technical and leadership skills that 

enable and sustain a culture of empowerment. 

ARPA~E's program directors are empowered with the 

authority. responsibility, and ability to make program~ and 

projeeHelatcd decisions. 

Active project management is important to ARPA-E. 

Collectively, these three features have the potential to contribute to ARPA-E's 

ability to achieve its intended mission and goals. The absence of these features 

would not guarantee fililure, and their presence does not ensure success. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
88 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

A,\ ASSESS\II'Xf OF ARPA-E 

However, these features arc important to creating a culture that can enable 

success. 

KEY Fl:-iOI!IiGS 

Closely linked to the defining organizational features set forth above, the 

committee developed 18 findings based on the available data and evidence. 

While all of these findings are necessary for understanding the progress 

ARPA~E has made toward fulfilling its mission and goals, five stood out to the 

committee as especially important. 

Finding 3-7:J ARPA-£ selects projects to fund through a 

multifaceted proceJs that entails evaluating each project's 

potential to contribute to the achit.:•vement of the agency's 

goals should it be successful. 

Quantitative evidence demonstrates that ARPA~E has instituted a system 

focused on finding and funding ideas with a high potential for impact on 

achievement of the agency's goals. The evidence also shows that this system 

involves a numbers of stages, and that at each stage ARPA-E uses a multi factor 

process to make decisions regarding applications. This process emphasiLes 

technical comments from internal and external reviewers; applicants' responses 

to those comments; and a holistic assessment of funding recommendations that 

considers the technical content of the applications, the potentia! for impact on 

achieving agency goals should projects be successful, and nontechnical factors. 

The process addresses such important issues as portfolio balance. both across 

technical categories and within the funded program, with an eye to ensuring 

sufficiently varied approaches. This process is distinguishable from those of 

some other agencies that make funding decisions based principally or solely on 

numerical reviewer scores. often utilizing a strict cutoff that does not allow for 

discretion on the part of the agency or program directors. Strong and consistent 

evidence indicates that projects selected through ARPA-E's process have the 

potentia! to yield mt:asurable outcomes at least as good as. if not better than, 

those of projects that would have been selected had less discretion been allowed. 

Finding 3-8: ARPA-E progrmn directors have wide autlrori~r 

to develop new focused technology progmms that are 

potentia/{l' transformath•e. 

3

The committee's Jlndings and recommendations are numbered according: to the chapter 

and ordaing: where they appear. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
89 

An Assessment of ARPA·E 

SL\1,\IARY 

The committee consistently found both qualitative and quantitative 

evidence that ARPA·E's program directors are empowered with wide authority 

to carry out their responsibilities, including those outlined in the agency's 

authorizing statute. Program directors create new technologically focused 

programs through a process that encourages novel ideas with the potential to 

identifY and promote revolutionary advances or translate discoveries into 

technological innovations.. This process involves collaboration and critical 

review with the agency director, other program directors, and the wider research 

community. It also encourages the pursuit of ideas overlooked or ignored by 

other funders. as well as truly novel ideas. 

Finding 3~9: ARPA~E program directors acth•e(v manage 

projects through technical research guidance and feedback, 

regular and frequent assessments of progress made toward 

stated technical milestones, and re1•ision of milestones in 

response to new findings and research discoveries. 

Throughout a program's life cycle ---from review of applications, through 

award negotiations, to completion of individual projects-, -program directors 

engage in active project management. They work closely with performers to 

create milestones. which can be modified in accordance with what the team 

lemns through the course of its research. Program directors regularly engage 

with performers to discuss a project's technical approach and collaborate to 

revise it based on results to date. They work with perfOrmers to modifY their 

research approaches, when appropriate, in response to data obtained through the 

course of research. Such changes can range from minor modifications of 

protocols. techniques, or project milestones to more significant project 

restructuring or changes in direction. Program directors even can, and do, 

recommend personnel changes and work with performers to identify and recruit 

qualified personnel or subcontractors. They also recommend that the agency 

terminate funding early when projects repeatedly fail to meet their milestones 

and appear unlikely to do so in the future. 

Collectively. findings. 3·7. 3~8. and 3~9 suggest that ARPA~£ has thus far 

maintained Its independence from such constituencies as groups seeking 

funding. Implementation of several of the recommendations presented below, 

particularly Recommendations 3~1, 4-3, and 4-8, would help ensure that 

ARPA~E maintains its independence. 

Finding 4~2; The projects ARPA-E has funded support its 

statutory mission and goals. 

Finding 4-3: While 6 years is Ito/ long enough to produce 

obserl'able evidence of wide.~pread deployment of funded 

technologies, there are dear indications that ARPA~E is 

making progress toward its statutory mission and goa[~. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
90 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

oL\' AS'iESSJ!EXT OF 0 1RPA-f_ 

While the fu!l market impacts of the technologies that ARPA-E has 

funded undoubtedly will not be seen for years, some intermediate outcomes are 

evident now, Roughly half have published results of their research in peerreviewed journals. and about 13 percent have obtained patents, One quarter of 

the supported project teams or technologies have received follow-on funding for 

continued work All of these arc positive indicators for technologies on a 

trajectory toward commercialized products, In fact, several are either already 

commercially available or poised to enter the commercial market 

Two important observations can be derived from these facts. First, there is 

an inherent tension to be managed by ARPA-E between having a short-term 

impact on a technology within the 3-year funding timeframe while producing 

transformational technologies. Second, after 6 years of operation, there exisl 

only about 3 years of completed projects to serve as evidence of progress toward 

ARPA-E's mission and goals. These two observations speak simultaneously to 

the need to consider ARPA-E's impact in context and over a duration that is 

well aligned with the agency's mission and the reality of the market dynamics of 

energy technologies, and to the need to gather, systematically. more and better 

data that can be used to discern and monitor mechanisms that may lead to a 

better understanding of how a technology's full impact is achieved over time. 

Reviewing the findings presented above, together with a!\ the findings and 

evidence gathered and presented for this report, it is evident that assessing 

ARPA-E at this time is a difficult task. ARPA-E"s \vas expressly created to 

achieve !ong·term environmental, security, and competitiveness goals. It was 

structured to fund and manage research and development (R&D) undertaken by 

entities other than the agency rather than undertaking its own R&D activities, 

Because the agency is tasked with seeking out transformational technological 

advances, it has necessarily utilin·d novel operational benchmarks to try to 

accomplish its goals. 

Any assessment of the agency at this time will encounter a well-known 

problem in R&D management: since sufficient time has not passed for outcomes 

to have become evident, an assessment cannot draw strong conclusions unless 

the enterprise is in an extreme situation, such as doing very badly. The findings 

make clear that ARPA-E is not in an extreme situation. The agency is not failing 

and is not in need of reform. Jn fact. attempts to reform the agency such as 

applying pressure for ARPA-E to shm.v short-term successes rather than 

focusing on its long-term mission and goals-would pose a significant risk of 

harming its efforts and chances of achieving its mission and goals. 

Nonetheless, the committee is confident that the data obtained and 

analyzed for this assessment indicate that ARPA-E has grown from a concept 

into a functioning organi7-ation and has made demonstrable progress toward 

achieving its statutory mandates. Moreover. the committee hopes that this report 

will provide useful guidance to ARPA-E as it continually assesses its data 

collection procedures with an eye toward improving operations and supporting 

future self- and independent evaluations of the agency. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved_ 
91 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

SU\!MARY 

KEY RECOMMEI"DATIONS 

On the basis of its findings, the committt:e formulated 14 recommendations intended to help ARP A-E continue to strengthen and build upon 

its early success. Five of these 14 recommendations stand out as key to 

positioning the agency for success to fulfill its mission and goals, and are 

presented here with their supporting findings. 

Recommendation 3-1: ARPA-E should preserve its 

distinctive and flexible management approach that 

empowers program directors and stresses active project 

management. 

Findings 3-L 3-2, and 3-3 show how ARPA-£ has internalized the 

principles of an innovative culture, dynamic leadership, and program director 

autonomy in its organizational structure. Specifically, it is evident that 

ARPA-E's program directors have been empowered to take risks in project 

selection in line with the agency's mission; have been given discretion that 

enables ARPA-E to fund relatively risky projects, with no clear indication that 

average project performance in the short term is n;duccd; and continuously 

engage in active management of ongoing projects, as reflected in the altering of 

project milestones, budgets, and timelines. These lindings highlight the 

important role of the program directors in supporting ARPA-E's vitality and in 

enabling the agency to execute its mission and goals. 

The committee recommends that ARPA-E strive to preserve this 

management approach that gives its program directors wide authority to develop 

new focused technology programs with potential to be transfonnative and 

enables them to manage projects actively through technical research guidance 

and feedback, regular and frequent assessments of progress toward stated 

milestones. and revision of milestones in response to new findings and .research 

discoveries. This management approach is a defining organizational feature that 

can contribute to the agency's ability to achieve its statutory mission and goals. 

and helps to distinguish ARPA~E tfom other public funding initiatives for 

energy R&D. 

Recommendation 4-8: The ARJ) A-E director and program 

directors should develop and implement a framework for 

measuring and assessing the ag(>ncy's impact in achieving 

its mission and goals. 

As described in Finding 4-9, ARPA~E is not yet able to assess the full 

extent to which it has achieved its statutory mission and goals. The agency has 

in place an extensive data gathering and rccordkceping system at the project 

level with which to track and monitor internal metrics and facilitate active 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
92 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

AS ASSLSS\flc'ST OF ARPA-E 

program management. It has a less extensive system for collecting. tracking. and 

reporting publicly available high-level innovation metrics such as publications: 

funding from other sources; and intellectual property infonnation. including 

disclosures and patents over time. Even if these traditional innovation metrics 

were available through a more systematic approach to their collection, they 

could not enable a robust, quantifiable assessment of whether and how 

ARPA-E's activities have contributed to achieving its statutory mission and 

goals. Consequently, neither the agency nor any other assessor can at present 

perform such an assessment. ARPA-E is, however, in a good position to develop 

a framework for prospectively mapping project-level data from program 

creation, through project selection and management. to mission success and 

achievement of goals. 

The development and implementation of such a framework would be very 

valuable and important for ARPA-E to undertake as soon as practicable, 

providing the agency with greater ability to demonstrate its value and impact It 

is critical that ARPA-E not delay implementation. The longer the agency waits. 

the more difficult it will be to implement such a framework and the less valuable 

it will be, and it will become more dit1icult if not impossible to assess program 

impacts in a way that allows for meaningful reform in response. The agency 

could !ink data from its robust internal database of project-level metrics to 

program-level goals. including indicators of commercial and noncommercial 

outcomes over the short and terms; connect those goals to standard, 

observable innovation metrics: then translate those metrics into progress 

toward achieving the agency-level mission and goals. Such a framework would 

need to include a system for tracking perfOrmers postfunding for at least 

I D years, and very likely longer, to capture technologies that are transferred in 

arms-len&>th transactions along with other ways of observing technology 

deployment. 

At the agency level. ARPA-E already is known for a willingness to assess 

its structure and operations and experiment with changes aimed at improving 

both operations and outcomes. Designing and implementing such a framework 

could place the agency at the tbrefront of self-evaluation. with the ultimate aim 

of improving the outcomes of its \Vork. To develop and implement this 

framework in a way that would best serve the agency, ARPA~E's director and 

staff would need to be empowered with the autonomy to do so based on their 

direct experience with running the agency and managing projects. 

Recommendation 3-3: ARPA-E should reconceptualize its 

"tech-to-market" program to :tccount for the \Yide 

variation in support needed across programs and 

performers with respect to prospective funding, 

commercialization, and deployment pathways. 

Finding 3-4 describes how ARPA-E views its "tech-to-market" (T2M) 

activities as an ongoing experiment. and the challenge of developing such a 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences_ All rights reserved, 
93 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

SCM\IARY 

program may be greater than originally thought. Incumbent energy technologies 

have long usable life spans. Adequately verifying and validating new energy 

technologies usually takes decades, and large amounts of capital are required 

relative to what is necessary in other technology sectors. Still more time is 

required to develop technologies into commercial products. The roughly 3-year 

timeframe of an ARPA-E project is too short to expect a technology to move 

from concept to market. 

The value added by ARPA-E's T2M activities varies by project and 

performer. Some performers consulted during this study. in particular those with 

established product development and marketing capacity, have not found 

ARPA-E's current approach for T2\1 helpful. Other performers, such as 

academic teams, have found value in the agency's T2M guidance. Given that the 

agency continually strives to evolve and improve its approach to T2\1. the 

committee encourages further evolution of that approach while cautioning 

against overexpansion. For example, ARPA~E should consider making full T2\1 

plans optional·---cncouraging development of these plans by perf<)rmers most 

likely to benefit, such as academics·-but requiring performers to describe 

potential product applications if they can prove technological feasibility. It also 

could provide information or research to performers on critical nontechnical 

factors that could impact market adoption of future products. such as regulatory 

risk and other. common risks other than business-market risks. 

Recommendation 4-3: ARPA-E should continue to use 

processes designed to identify and support unexplored 

opportunities that hold promise for resulting in 

transformational technological advances. 

Finding 4--t describes the importance for ARPA-E of seeking higi·Hisk, 

potentially transformativc technologies and overlooked, ·'off-roadmap" 

opportunities pursued by neither private firms nor other funding agencies. 

including other programs and offices within DOE, as a way to position itself to 

accomplish its mission. ARPA-E's underlying organizational features include 

encouraging its program directors to seek potentially high-impact projects and 

recognizing that many of its projects will produce only valuable knowledge, 

including knowledge of research path\vays that should not be pursued further, 

instead of commercialized products. 

Maintaining this focus will be one of the greatest challenges for ARPA~E 

in the future. It is not guaranteed that ARPA-E will be able to maintain a culture 

of pursuing high-risk but potentially transfOrmative technologies and research 

pathways characterized as novel or significantly underexp!orcd as the energy 

technology landscape evolves. ARPA~E leadership and the secretary of energy 

should actively work to sustain this culture. ARPA-E should continue to balance 

its overall portfolio between technologies that appear to have the potential to be 

trans formative and other valuable opportunities that are being ignored. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
94 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

10 AN ASSESS.\fE.VT OFARPA-E 

Recommendation 3-5: The secretary of energy should 

ensure that other offices and programs within DOE 

continue to explore and adopt elements of ARPA~E's 

practices that can improve the department's operations. 

Findings 3-L 3-2. and 3-3 provide details on ARPA-E's program creation 

and project management Finding 3-6 supports the positive influence those 

practices have had on other offices within DOE. To cite a direct example, the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has incorporated several 

elements of ARPA-E's approach into the management of its programs, including 

use of a workshop to de tine a program. usc of concept papers to screen funding 

applicants, and early termination of underperfonning projects. While some 

clements of ARPA-E's approach may be difficult to scale or translate to other 

programs and offices, there is great benefit in exploring their adaptability and 

suitability. Of particularly high value would be finding suitable ways to 

incorporate such key features as term-limited program managers, use of 

constructive engagement among program directors to sharpen the focus of 

programs. the degree of operational tfeedom accorded to program managers. and 

the risk-taking orientation of programs. Other DOE offices have expressed 

interest in adopting a number of these features. The secretary of energy should 

encourage and empower those offices to explore and adopt appropriate 

practices. 

FINAL THOUGHTS 

ARPA-E has the ability to make significant contributions to energy R&D 

that likely would not take place absent the agency's activities. The committee 

believes that implementation of its recommendations would benefit ARPA-E, 

and the nation, as the agency continues to evolve and improve its operations in 

service of its mission and goals. The committee also believes that these 

recommendations should be helpful to Congress as it considers ARPA-E's 

future. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
95 

Sl .\!JIARl II 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights 
96 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

/:! 

BOXS-1 

Continued 

.ISSE\S\!EXT UFAIIPA-E 

Findings regarding Technical Assessment (Chapter 4} 

Finding 4~1: ARPA~E has funded research other funder was 

supporting at the time. The results of some these projects have 

prompted follow~on funding for various technologies, which are now 

beginning to enter the commercial market 

The projects ARPA~E has funded support its statutory mission 

suc:ce:,.f<JIIy enhancing the 

by funding 

to open Up 

the merit of potential 

doing a poor job of creating awareness of 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
97 

An Assessment of ARPA-E 

BOXS-1 

Continued 

BOXS-2 

COMPLETE LIST OF ALL RECOIIIIMENOATIONS 

Recommendation 3~1: 

management approach 

active project management. 

and flexible 

and stresses 

Recommendation 3~2: ARPA~E should continue to hire exceptional 

program directors and empower them to create programs and manage 

projects. 

provide incentives to encourage more program offices and 

ARPA~E, which could potentially help reduce DOE's bureaucratic culture. 

(Continued) 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
98 

Æ 

An Assessment of ARPA"E 

/J IS ASSLSS.\fEXT OF AI/PA-I" 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.