U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

26–077 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–259 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2018 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

BRIANNE MILLER, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy Advisor 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SCOTT MCKEE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

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

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 2 

WITNESS 

Perry, Hon. Rick, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy .................................... 4 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Heller, Hon. Dean: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 38 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

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

Perry, Hon. Rick: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 8 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 49 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in Room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will 

come to order. I apologize for the delayed start, but hopefully we 

will have an opportunity to hear from the Secretary and learn of 

the President’s views for the Department of Energy (DOE). 

Secretary Perry, I want to welcome you to your first hearing following your bipartisan confirmation here in the Senate. While it 

took us a little bit longer than we had hoped to get you in this role, 

we are glad to have you at the helm. We look forward to helping 

you get a full complement of folks there at the Department as well. 

The budget request for the Department of Energy takes a different approach this year than we have seen in the recent past. 

The President has made a concerted effort to increase funding for 

the National Nuclear Security Administration to focus on our nuclear weapons program. This is a portion of the Department that 

falls outside the scope of our Committee here. 

The Administration has also requested robust funding for the 

cleanup of nuclear waste left behind by our country’s Cold War legacy. To offset those funding increases, the budget request proposes 

deep cuts to research and development for energy and science. It 

also proposes to phase out innovative programs, such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), that have had 

demonstrated success. 

I understand what drove this proposal, but I am also concerned 

by certain parts of it. The United States is the world leader in 

science and energy. We like it that way, we want to keep it that 

way and at the core of that excellence is the work done at our national labs and universities by the men and women who dedicate 

their careers to furthering science. Members on both sides of this 

Committee want to maintain and strengthen that leadership, so we 

need to be careful that we do not get in the way of the good work 
2 

or the proper role of the private sector. Keeping that in mind, 

many of us have found good bipartisan opportunities where it 

makes sense to increase funding for R&D. 

I appreciate the need to derive savings and balance our budget, 

but that cannot come at the expense of our efforts on energy innovation. Good science should not sit on a shelf, and the Department 

should continue to push the limits of science in order to ensure 

that the next generation of energy technologies is developed here 

in this country. 

Although I do not support all of the proposals in this budget request, I believe that we do have some areas of agreement here. I 

also believe we can undertake reforms at the Department to help 

save taxpayer dollars. Our work on the loan programs is a good example, I think, of how that can work. 

My goal for the Department of Energy is to drive down the costs 

of emerging, pre-commercial technologies to make energy more affordable, reliable, clean, diverse, and secure. Taking you back to 

Energy 20/20, those principles have not changed, and it is particularly important for Alaska where energy costs are orders of magnitude above those in the Lower 48. 

Secretary Perry, again, thank you for being here this morning. 

I hope to be able to host you up in the state soon. I know that you 

have made similar commitments to colleagues in the Congress 

here. I look forward to hearing your priorities outlined before the 

Committee this morning. 

Now I will turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

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

hearing, and welcome back, Mr. Secretary. The Department of Energy is a global leader in science and technology with an unrivaled 

network of national laboratories. It is also key to our national security when it comes both to nuclear and cyber threats. 

The President’s budget proposes to slash many of the DOE’s essential programs, and it would devastate emerging clean energy 

jobs in our economy. It would kill science and innovation and the 

jobs that DOE supports. The budget would raise electricity rates in 

the Pacific Northwest—I guarantee you a number of people on this 

Committee will not be supportive of that—by auctioning off federal 

utility assets. The budget would undermine U.S. energy leadership 

in a sector that is poised to grow millions of jobs around the world 

and, according to the International Energy Agency, more than $30 

trillion will be invested in new renewable energy facilities and energy efficiency between now and 2040. 

We have heard a lot about the so-called energy dominance from 

this Administration. I would like to hear a lot less about exporting 

commodities that even nations like China are starting to have 

major blowback on and pledging more on how we are going to focus 

on winning the opportunity in energy efficiency, advanced technologies and things that consumers and businesses around the 

world are pledging commitment to. 

As this Committee recently showed, the cost of clean energy technologies have dropped between 41 percent and 94 percent since 
3 

2008. I was very proud to join the Chair on a recent Northwest trip 

where we saw energy efficiency helping businesses save dollars and 

also how microgrids in Alaska are looking for every advantage they 

can get in driving down the cost of energy. 

The success stories have been built on decades of strategic investment by the Department of Energy, and this is something that 

both Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, 

but President Trump’s budget is a break in that bipartisan tradition. It is an attempt to turn back the clock on energy policy, I 

think, at the expense of the future. 

During your confirmation hearing, you committed to protecting 

science, protecting the men and women who conduct that science, 

and advocating for our national labs. So I have great concerns 

about what I think is a proposed cut that could affect as many as 

1,000 people at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 

But specifically, this budget proposes to: eliminate ARPA-E, 

which are the advanced, high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for the private sector to either take on 

or advance, critically important to our nation; eliminate the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program, which 

provides critical state assistance to 50 states to help them; draconian cuts to the applied energy research programs, such as 70 percent for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and 

48 percent for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Electricity Reliability—I guarantee that is something that everybody across the 

board here cares about; and a 17 percent cut for the Office of 

Science, which is the largest federal sponsor of basic science and 

physical science. 

This week you questioned the certainty of science behind climate 

change and during your confirmation hearing you said, ‘‘I am going 

to protect all the science whether it’s related to climate or whatever 

aspects we are going to be doing,’’ end quote. So, Mr. Secretary, 

with all due respect, I want to make sure that you and your office 

have all the information that you need on science. 

Your budget proposal slashes the biological and environmental 

research within the Office of Science, the office that supports climate research, by 43 percent. Another troubling area is the important priority for DOE on energy infrastructure. Our grid and our 

energy networks are under cyberattack. From 2012 to 2016, the 

number of reported incidents against U.S. critical infrastructure 

more than doubled. And according to the Washington Post story 

last week, Russian government hackers have already shown their 

interest in targeting U.S. energy and utility systems. 

So this threat to our grid is clearly growing and this morning I, 

along with 18 of my colleagues, are sending a second letter to the 

President reiterating that DOE should address this growing threat 

on our critical infrastructure. 

During your confirmation hearing, you reassured me and the 

Committee that cybersecurity would be one of your top two priorities; nevertheless, your budget slashes the cyber funding by 30 

percent. So I want to see a larger investment in this very, very critical area to our infrastructure. 

I would like to mention—I know my colleague from Washington 

had a chance to talk to you about Hanford funding yesterday—I am 
4 

incredibly disappointed to see the Administration’s approach to the 

Hanford cleanup. In light of the recent tunnel collapse at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility followed by worker take-cover 

events at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and Richland’s Operations 

Office budget being cut demonstrates a disregard for the health 

and safety of the individuals who are working in our state. 

The Trump Administration needs to understand that if we do not 

prioritize Hanford funding and the potential for safety and security, we are going to have issues and serious problems. These recent incidents are a wakeup call for the Administration, and that 

is why I am working to ensure that the resources are there for the 

public. 

Now I know that I have a little sheet here somewhere of all the 

ideas and schemes that people have come up with in the past. We 

had Secretary Watkins delay the Vit Plant construction in 1991 to 

reconsider the waste and pretreatment plant. For two years, the 

Clinton Administration planned the privatization authorization of 

the Vit Plant to pay contractors for glass logs. We saw Secretary 

Abraham try to accelerate cleanup by grouting the waste in the 

tanks and calling it good. We saw Secretary Chu convene science 

experts to review the Vit Plant. We had Secretary Moniz explore 

new ways of cesium and strontium treatment. So all I am saying 

is every Energy Secretary comes into office pressured—pressured 

more by some Office of Management and Budget (OMB) person 

who knows nothing about science—trying to do cleanup on the 

cheap. I guarantee you it cannot be done. We have to remain resolute and committed to cleaning this up and making decisions based 

on science. I look forward to asking more about that, but I know 

that many of my colleagues throughout the Pacific Northwest, both 

on this Committee and on the Appropriations Committee, will have 

a lot to say about our priorities for Hanford. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Secretary Perry, it is good to have you before the Committee. I 

will note that Alison Doone is with the Secretary this morning. She 

is the Acting Chief Financial Officer for DOE. I understand that 

you will not be providing testimony this morning but thank you for 

being here with the Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, with that, if you would like to begin your remarks 

so that we can turn to questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK PERRY, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, thank you. It’s a privilege to be in 

front of you and the Committee again. 

Senator Cantwell, members of the Committee, each of you, it’s 

my privilege to be here, an honor, to discuss President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request. As each of you know, it is a great 

privilege to serve as the 14th Secretary of Energy. 

As a former legislator, I might add an appropriator as well and 

a Governor, I am very respectful of the budget writing process and 

know the importance of the work that you’re undertaking, and I 

look forward to working with you to finalize a budget that we can 
5 

all be proud of and that serves the taxpayers of this country as 

well. 

In my 3-1/2 months as Secretary of Energy, I have seen firsthand 

the impact of the Department’s leadership both domestically and 

internationally. I’ve traveled around the country, been in some of 

your states. And Senator Cantwell, I intend to get to Hanford 

ASAP, most likely this summer, to look at that, to talk to the men 

and women who are working there, visit with those brilliant individuals that are onsite that I happen to have a lot of faith in their 

knowledge of what’s needed and how to address these issues that 

are driving their mission. So I look forward to being in a lot of your 

states over the course of the next months ahead. 

These labs truly are, as you have all noted either today or in previous conversations, national treasures. They’re the future of innovation in this country. And I have been in absolute awe of the diverse scope of the Department’s mission and the consequential 

work that we are charged with undertaking. 

I have also traveled overseas representing the United States at 

the G7 meeting in Rome and then in Beijing for the Clean Energy 

Mission Innovation Ministerial. I had the opportunity to visit 

Japan and meet with leaders and stakeholders about the future of 

the energy partnership that the U.S. and Japan has. And on a very 

somber note, I toured the site of the Fukushima disaster and saw 

firsthand the absolute monumental task that they have before 

them. 

My trip to Asia, coincidentally, began on the day that President 

Trump announced that we would officially withdraw the United 

States from the Paris Agreement. I delivered his message to the 

world that even though the U.S. would no longer be a part of the 

Paris Agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy technology 

and we are committed to that mission. 

The Department of Energy does many things well. America has 

remained on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because 

of the amazing men and women at these labs. And Senator Heinrich, you particularly understand this with the two that you have 

in your state. They wake up every day knowing that they will 

make a real difference in the world. I told them the first time I met 

with them that the greatest job I ever had was being the Governor 

of Texas. But after working here, I’ve come to realize that the Secretary of Energy is officially the coolest job I’ve ever had, Senator. 

Under my leadership our experts at DOE will continue their work 

for the benefit of every American and our allies alike. 

As Secretary of Energy, I’m also a member of the National Security Council. This council is supported by DOE and its mission is 

to keep our nation safe. President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget 

request for the Department of Energy provides $28 billion to advance our key missions and focuses on important investments, including ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting our energy infrastructure from cyberattacks 

and other threats, achieving exascale computing and focusing the 

amazing network of our national laboratories on early stage research and development. 
6 

My goals are straightforward: advance our nation’s critical energy and scientific R&D mission, strengthen our nuclear security, 

and fulfill our environmental management commitments. 

I’ve just painted you a rather rosy picture, and while there is a 

lot of good news to report, there are other hard conversations that 

we need to have, as you’re well aware. There are approximately 

120 sites in 39 states that are storing spent nuclear fuel or highlevel waste. In fact, many members of this Committee have waste 

in their states. We have a moral and a national security obligation 

to come up with a long-term solution, finding the safest repositories 

available. This is a sensitive topic for some, but we can no longer 

continue to kick the can down the road. 

As a former legislative appropriator and agency head and Governor, I understand how important following the rule of law is. I’ve 

been instructed to move forward toward that goal. The President’s 

budget requests 20—excuse me—$120 million to resume licensing 

activities for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and to 

initiate a robust interim storage program. 

We also need to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. Con- gress has spent $5 billion on the MOX project that is way over 

budget with no end in sight. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the cost is $17.2 billion and a 2048 completion date. The 

money appropriated for this project is money that could be used toward other priorities, like national security or cleanup at other 

sites. There is a better, cheaper, and proven way to dispose of plutonium. In fact, we’re using that process now. I look forward to 

having an ongoing dialogue with many of you about these tough 

but important issues in the days and the months to come. 

This budget proposal makes some difficult choices, but it is paramount that we execute our fiduciary responsibility to the American 

taxpayer. The President’s proposed priorities dealing with the core 

mission of the Department by consolidating duplication within our 

agency is in order and it does, in fact, respect our taxpayers. He 

deserves credit for beginning this discussion about how we most 

wisely spend our scarce federal dollars. 

As for me, this isn’t my first rodeo. Having been the Governor 

of Texas for 14 years, I managed under some pretty tight budget 

constraints. It wasn’t always blue skies and smooth sailing. We had 

some substantial budget shortfalls during that period of time that 

I was Governor, and we were able to budget successfully. We faced 

limited resources at times and Texas became a shining example of 

energy growth, economic growth, higher educational standards, and 

important improvements to the environment. 

I will manage the same way at the Department of Energy. And 

we did that in my home state by working together. That’s one of 

the things that I want to really bring forward today, my intention 

of working with you. I understand this budgetary process, I understand it’s a first step, but I am committed to working with you, 

each of you, in the ways that you direct. I understand this process, 

I respect it: set clear goals, manage the best and the brightest to 

achieve those goals, and spend scarce resources wisely. With your 

help, I believe we can attain many of the positive outcomes that 

you expect, that you want to see, that the Department of Energy 

is capable of delivering on behalf of the American people. 
7 

So thank you again, Madam Chairman. I look forward to attempting to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Perry follows:] 
8 

Testimony of Secretary Rick Perry 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

June 22, 2017 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 

Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the President's FY 

2018 Budget Request for the Department of Energy ("the Department" or "DOE"). 

As you know, I was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 2, 2017. It is 

a privilege and an honor to serve as the 14th Secretary of Energy and fulfill this 

important role critical to our nation's energy and scientific pursuits along with 

assuring our nuclear readiness. 

As a former legislative appropriator and Governor, I'm keenly aware of the budget 

writing process and only wish I had been confirmed by the Senate earlier so I could 

be a full participant in crafting this proposal. 

The President's proposal focuses our priorities and reigns in spending. There is 

much the Department does well and stays within budget, and unfortunately there 

are places we need to be better stewards of our financial resources. This budget 

proposal makes some difficult choices. I look forward to explaining our priorities 

and working with you to continue the important mission of the Department of 

Energy. 

In short, the President's FY 2018 $28 billion Budget Request for the Department 

of Energy ("Budget") advances our key missions through significant investments 

to modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal, protect our energy infrastructure from 

cyber and other attacks, achieve exascale computing, and address our moral 

obligations regarding nuclear waste management and the Nation's nuclear legacy. 

The Department's world-leading science and technology enterprise also generates 

the innovations to fulfill our mission. Through our 17 national laboratories, we 

engage in cutting-edge research that expands the frontiers of scientific knowledge 

and generates new technologies to address our greatest challenges. While most of 

this is in the energy field, the DOE also does work to support the health sector with 

research and recently launched a program with Veterans Affairs to use our 

computing ability to assist our nation's veterans. 
9 

The Budget focuses the intellectual prowess of our scientists and engineers on the 

development of technologies that the ingenuity and capital of America's 

entrepreneurs and businesses can convert into commercial applications and 

products that improve the lives and security of all Americans. 

Restoring the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

The Budget fulfills the President's vision of rebuilding and restoring our Nation's 

security through robust investments in the Department's nuclear security mission. 

The Budget provides $13.9 billion for the National Nuclear Security 

Administration, $1 billion or 8 percent above the FY 2017 Enacted level. 

As a participant on the National Security Council, the Department has a unique 

role in our Nation's security. I undertake these responsibilities with the utmost 

gravity. 

One of my key duties as Secretary of Energy is to annually certifY to the President 

that the American nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable, 

without the need for underground explosive nuclear testing. The Budget includes 

$10.2 billion for Weapons Activities to maintain and enhance the safety, security, 

and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. This $996 million 

increase over FY 2017 supports modernizing our nuclear weapons enterprise and 

meets Department of Defense requirements in accordance with the President's 

Memorandum on Rebuilding the Armed Forces. 

The Budget supports our ongoing Life Extension Programs (LEP) and Major 

Alterations, which includes $4.0 billion for Directed Stockpile work, a $669 

million increase. Funding for the W76-1 warhead LEP directly supports the Navy 

and will keep the LEP on schedule and on budget to complete production in FY 

2019. An increase of$172 million, or 28 percent, for the B61-12 LEP will keep us 

on schedule delivering the First Production Unit (FPU) in FY 2020 to consolidate 

four variants of the B61 gravity bomb and improve the safety and security of the 

oldest weapon system in our nuclear arsenal. 

The Budget also supports the Air Force's Long-Range Stand-Off program through 

an increase of $179 million or 81 percent from FY 2017 Enacted for the W80-4 

LEP, to deliver the first production unit in FY 2025 of the cruise missile warhead. 

We also increase funding by $51 million or 18 percent for the W88 Alteration 370, 

to provide the scheduled first production unit in FY 2020. 

The Budget for Weapons Activities also increases investments to modernize our 

nuclear infrastructure. For example, we include $663 million, an $88 million 

2 
10 

increase from FY 2017, for construction of the Uranium Processing Facility 

needed to replace aging facilities at the Y -12 National Security Complex, as well 

as $98 million, up $83 million from FY 2017 Enacted, to accelerate the 

replacement of old and unfit buildings at the Albuquerque Complex. 

The Weapons Activities Budget request also includes $161 million, a $66 million 

increase, for NNSA collaboration with the Office of Science on the development of 

capable exascale computer systems, which I address below. 

Moving on to NNSA's Naval Reactors program, the Department has the ongoing 

responsibility to provide militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants for Navy 

vessels and to ensure their safe, reliable and long-lived operation. The Budget 

provides $1.5 billion to support the safe and reliable operation of the Navy's 

nuclear-powered fleet and continuation of the Columbia-class submarine program, 

refueling of the Land-Based Prototype reactor, and the Spent Fuel Handling 

Recapitalization Project. 

The Budget also includes $1.8 billion for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

(DNN) program to reduce global threats from nuclear weapons. This critical 

national security program prevents the spread of nuclear and radiological materials, 

advances technologies that detect nuclear and radiological proliferation worldwide, 

and eliminates or secures inventories of surplus materials and infrastructure usable 

for nuclear weapons. 

The Budget proposes to terminate the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

project, providing $270 million for use toward an orderly and safe closure of the 

project and $9 million to develop the pre-conceptual design for the dilute and 

dispose approach to plutonium disposition. This is an example of a significant cost 

and schedule overrun that should have set off alarms earlier in the project and 

should have been canceled. 

We will, in an orderly and responsible manner, begin to wind down the project. My 

staff, in coordination with other stakeholders, is already reviewing alternative, 

enduring missions that could potentially utilize existing infrastructure and 

expertise. 

The Budget also provides $277 million for Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident 

Response, $5 million above FY 2017 Enacted, to work domestically and around 

the world to improve our ability to respond to radiological or nuclear incidents, in 

conjunction with other agencies in a broader U.S. Government effort. 

3 
11 

Finally, the Budget for NNSA includes $419 million for the federal workforce at 

the NNSA. This $31 million increase is essential to ensuring our world-class 

workforce of dedicated men and women can effectively oversee NNSA's critical 

national security missions. 

Securing against Cyber Threats 

Among the most critical missions at the Department is to develop science and 

technology that will assure Americans of a resilient electric grid and energy 

infrastructure. Protecting these assets means it has to be resilient and hardened to 

defend against the evolving threat of cyber and other attacks. Consumers need to 

trust when they flip the switch, their lights will come on. Unfortunately, 

cyberattacks pose an ever-increasing threat to the Nation's networks, data, 

facilities, and infrastructure. 

As utilities and independent power producers and operators have integrated 

advanced digital technologies to automate and control physical functions in their 

energy systems to improve performance, sophisticated cyber threats have 

increased. Nation-states, criminals, and terrorists conduct sophisticated probes of 

energy systems that can be used to exploit cyber vulnerabilities that disrupt or 

destroy energy systems. 

To ensure robust cybersecurity programs across the energy sector, the Budget 

provides funding in multiple programs. In the Office of Nuclear Energy, we add a 

focus in the $20 million Light Water Reactor Sustainability program to research 

new technologies to address nuclear power plant cybersecurity, and we provide 

$17 million for cybersecurity at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). In the 

Office of Fossil Energy, we provide $8 million for our sensors and controls 

research program seeking early-stage breakthroughs to help secure power plants 

against cyber-attacks. 

Finally, the Budget includes $42 million for energy delivery system cybersecurity 

in Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and a renewed focus to take steps to 

make a difference within two years in the cybersecurity of our Nation's power 

grid. Our budget funds early stage activities that improve cybersecurity and 

resilience of the grid in order to harden and evolve critical grid infrastructure. We 

focus on early stage R&D at national laboratories to develop the next generation 

control systems and components, devices and systems with engineered-in 

cybersecurity features; and we fund a new activity to develop a continuous 

monitoring capability that will significantly increase our awareness and ability to 

prevent and respond to these types of events. 

4 
12 

We also cannot ignore the risks to the Department's own science, technology, and 

nuclear security infrastructure. Across the Department's programs and sites, we are 

taking major steps to safeguard our assets against cyber threats. The Budget 

includes robust funding to secure our own networks. For example, the Budget 

increases funding for the Chief Information Officer by $17 million from FY 2017 

to modernize infrastructure and improve cybersecurity across the internal DOE IT 

enterprise. We also increase funding for cybersecurity in the National Nuclear 

Security Administration to $150 million to step up security for our nuclear security 

networks. In the Environmental Management program, we consolidated $43 

million for cybersecurity into a new budget to ensure the security at our nine major 

cleanup sites. 

Cybersecurity is one of my key goals at the Department, and the Budget will help 

us take concrete steps to harden our systems and our infrastructure. 

Exascale Computing 

Turning to the Department's role in science and technology, the United States has 

long led the way in computing, dating back to invention of the first computers and 

continuing with world-leading machines at our national laboratories. Our 

leadership in developing and building the world's fastest computers has faced 

increasingly fierce global competition in the last decade. Maintaining the Nation's 

global primacy in high-performance computing is more critical than ever to ensure 

our national security, our continuing role as a science and innovation leader, and 

our economic prosperity. 

The Budget includes $508 million to accelerate development of an exascale 

computing system, including $347 million in the Office of Science (Science) and 

$161 million in NNSA. This unprecedented investment, which is $249 million-or 

96 percent-above the FY 2017level, reflects the Department's intention to 

deliver an exascale machine in 2021 and a second machine with a different 

architecture by 2022. To get there, the Science!NNSA partnership will focus on 

hardware and software technologies needed to produce an exascale system, and the 

critical DOE applications needed to use such a platform. 

By accelerating our progress towards exascale computing, we will take back 

American primacy in computing science and technology. This world-leading 

exascale program will bolster our national security by supporting the nuclear 

stockpile, while also supporting the next generation of scientific breakthroughs not 

possible with today's computing systems. 

5 
13 

Addressing the Obligation of Nuclear Waste and Legacy Management 

The President's FY 2018 Budget Request for the Department deals with the issue 

of nuclear waste disposal and supports accelerating clean-up of our Cold War 

legacy. 

Addressing the Imperative of Nuclear Waste Management 

For too many years, the prior Administration has literally kicked the can down the 

road on nuclear waste. 

The Budget Request takes significant steps forward for the country in other critical 

areas. First, recognizing that we must move ahead in fulfilling the Federal 

Government's responsibility to dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste, the Budget 

includes $120 million, including $30 million in defense funds, to resume licensing 

for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and initiate a robust interim 

storage program. 

The Budget devotes $110 million to restart Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) licensing activities for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 

including funding for management, site operations and maintenance, as well as 

technical, scientific, legal and other support. 

In addition, the Budget includes $10 million to initiate a robust interim storage 

program that complements the nuclear waste repository by developing a capability 

for earlier acceptance of spent nuclear fuel to accelerate removal from sites in 39 

states across the country. An interim storage capability also adds flexibility to the 

system that will move materials from sites across the country to its ultimate 

disposition. 

By restarting the long-stalled licensing process for Yucca Mountain and 

committing to establishing interim storage capability for near-term acceptance of 

spent nuclear fuel, our Budget will accelerate fulfillment of the Federal 

Government's obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and 

reduce future burdens on American taxpayers. This also will increase public 

confidence in nuclear safety and security, thus helping nuclear energy to remain a 

significant contributor to the country's energy needs for generations to come. 

Fulfilling Legacy Cleanup Responsibilities 

The Budget also includes $6.5 billion for Environmental Management (EM), $89 

million above the FY 2017 Enacted level, to address its responsibilities for the 

6 
14 

cleanup and disposition of excess facilities, radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, 

and other materials resulting from five decades of nuclear weapons development 

and production and Government-sponsored nuclear energy research. 

To date, EM has completed cleanup activities at 91 sites in 30 states and Puerto 

Rico, and is responsible for cleaning up the remaining 16 sites in 11 states-some 

of the most challenging sites in the cleanup portfolio. 

New in the Budget is $225 million to address specific high-risk contaminated 

excess facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex and the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory. 

The Budget includes $1.5 billion, $4 million above FY 2017, for the Office of 

River Protection at the Hanford Site, for continued work at the Hanford Tank 

Farms and to make progress on the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. 

This budget will continue progress toward important cleanup required by the 

Consent Decree and Tri-Party Agreement to include a milestone to complete hot 

commissioning of the Low Activity Waste Facility by December 31, 2023. The 

Budget also includes $800 million to continue cleanup activities at Richland, 

including continued K-Area decontamination and decommissioning remediation 

and the K-West Basin sludge removal project. 

For Savannah River, the Budget provides $1.4 billion, $214 million above FY 

2017, to support activities at the site including the Liquid Tank Waste Management 

Program, continued construction and commissioning to achieve startup of the Salt 

Waste Processing Facility in 2018, continued construction of the Saltstone 

Disposal Unit #7, and support for facilities that receive and store nuclear materials. 

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is essential for the disposition of 

transuranic defense-generated waste across the DOE complex, and the Budget 

provides $323 million to safely continue waste emplacement at WIPP. The Budget 

Request will continue WIPP operations, including waste emplacements, shipments, 

and maintaining enhancements and improvements, and progress on capital asset 

projects, including $46 million for the Safety Significant Confinement Ventilation 

System and $19.6 million for the Exhaust Shaft. These steps will increase airflow 

in the WIPP underground for simultaneous mining and waste emplacement 

operations. 

The Budget includes $359 million, $30.9 million below FY 2017 enacted level, to 

continue major clean-up projects at the Idaho site, such as the Integrated Waste 

Treatment Unit, and to process, characterize, and pac'kage transuranic waste for 

7 
15 

disposal at offsite facilities. It provides $390 million for Oak Ridge, $108 million 

below FY 2017, to continue deactivation and demolition of remaining facilities at 

the East Tennessee Technology Park, continue preparation of Building 2026 to 

support processing of the remaining U-233 material at the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, and support site preparation activities for the Outfall200 Mercury 

Treatment Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex. 

For Portsmouth, the Budget includes $418 million, $36 million above FY 2017, to 

continue progress on the deactivation and decommissioning project at the 

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, safe operation of the Depleted Uranium 

Hexafluoride Conversion Facility, and continue design and construction activities 

at the On-Site Waste Disposal facility. And at Paducah, the Budget includes $270 

million to continue ongoing environmental cleanup and depleted uranium 

hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facility operations at the Paducah site. In 

addition, the FY 2018 Budget Request supports activities to continue the 

environmental remediation and further stabilize the gaseous diffusion plant. 

Together, these investments for Environmental Management will make significant 

progress in fulfilling our cleanup responsibilities while also starting to address our 

high-risk excess facilities at NNSA sites. 

Refocusing Priorities on Core Missions 

The Budget refocuses the Department's energy and science programs on earlystage research and development at our national laboratories to advance American 

primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

The Budget funds $6.4 billion in early-stage R&D while reducing later-stage 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs by $3.1 billion 

from the FY 2017 Enacted levels. 

As part oftransitioning later-stage R&D, demonstration, and deployment 

responsibilities to the private sector and the States, the Budget terminates five 

Energy Innovation Hubs and five Clean Energy Manufacturing Institutes, which 

together constitute an annual taxpayer burden of over $187 million. The Budget 

eliminates the Supercritical Transformational Electric Power demonstration 

program and SuperTruck II, together saving $44 million annually, and terminates 

deployment activities like Weatherization and the State Energy Program in the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, saving a total of$265 million. 

Also in line with Administration priorities, the Budget terminates the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency-Energy, known as ARPA-E, and the Department's 

8 
16 

Loan Programs, while maintaining necessary federal staff to oversee existing 

awards and loans. We also close the Office of Energy Policy and Systems 

Analysis, to avoid duplicative efforts already accomplished by the program offices. 

Termination of these three programs will save over $300 million in FY 2018 alone 

while significantly reducing financial risk to the taxpayer moving forward. 

Focus on Innovation 

The FY 2018 Budget focuses its investments on the basic, early-stage R&D 

conducted by the scientists and engineers at our 17 national laboratories who are 

constantly on the path to developing the next great innovations that can transform 

society, and bring forth a new era of prosperity for the American people. The 

Budget provides $6.4 billion, $4.5 billion in the Office of Science and $1.9 billion 

in energy research and development programs, with a renewed focus on cuttingedge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the private marketplace. 

The Budget consolidates programs focused on bringing technologies to the market 

in the Office of Technology Transitions. Through concerted effort and 

coordination with our labs, this will reduce costs to the taxpayer while at the same 

time providing a robust technology transfer program to transfer breakthroughs 

from the national laboratories to the private sector. 

Nuclear Energy 

The Budget provides $703 million for Nuclear Energy, $313 million below the FY 

2017 level, to continue innovating new and improved ways to generate nuclear 

power. The budget refocuses funding on early-stage research and development, 

such as the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies program, that enables 

innovation driven by the private sector. While the Budget ends the Consortium for 

Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), it increases funds for 

Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) by $7 million to 

integrate VERA, the virtual reactor developed by CASL, and RELAP-7, a safety 

analysis and simulation tool developed at the INL, into the existing NEAMS 

program. 

From 2012 through 2017, the Department spent $390 million on the Small 

Modular Reactors (SMR) Licensing Technical Support program. With NuScale 

Power submitting its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 

completion of planned activities in FY 2017, the Department closes the SMR 

Licensing Technical Support program having achieved its goal to commercialize 

SMR technology. Given the ongoing promise of SMR technology, the FY 2018 

9 
17 

Budget includes $20 million for early-stage R&D supporting advanced SMR 

designs. 

Finally, the Budget for Nuclear Energy also supports robust safeguards and 

security funding of$133 million-a $4 million increase-for protection of our 

nuclear energy infrastructure and robust infrastructure investments at INL 

facilities. 

Fossil Energy Research and Development 

The Fossil Energy Research and Development program advances transformative 

science and innovative technologies which enable the reliable, efficient, affordable, 

and environmentally sound use of fossil fuels. Fossil energy sources currently 

constitute over 80% of the country's total energy use and are critical for the 

nation's security, economic prosperity, and growth. The FY 2018 Budget focuses 

$280 million on cutting-edge fossil energy research and development to further our 

energy security, advance strong domestic energy production, and support 

America's coal industry through innovative clean coal technologies. 

In FY 2018, we invest $30 million in a new initiative to repower coal-fired plants 

through research on advanced technologies and systems that improve the reliability 

and efficiency of existing coal units and incorporate new, advanced technology 

components and systems. We also will support research on coal combustion to help 

support potential U.S. coal exports, as well as research on carbon utilization efforts 

to develop materials and chemicals for new business opportunities, in support of a 

strong American energy sector and vibrant coal industry. 

As part of the Department's effort to operate more efficiently, the Budget proposes 

the initial stages of footprint consolidation for the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. In a phased approach, we propose to consolidate NETL's Albany, 

Oregon site into the NETL's Eastern sites and initiate a Mission Alignment study 

in FY 2017 to evaluate alternatives for the consolidation ofNETL's eastern sites. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget funds $636 million to 

support research at our national laboratories to drive energy innovations in 

renewable energy, next-generation transportation, and energy efficiency. 

The FY 2018 investments support development of battery technologies and 

advanced combustion engines, and new science and technology for developing 

biofuels. The Budget funds research into the underpinnings of future generations 

10 
18 

of solar photovoltaic technology, into the design and manufacturing of low-specific 

power rotors for tall wind applications, and on wind energy grid integration and 

infrastructure challenges. 

The Budget also funds early-stage R&D for advanced manufacturing processes and 

materials technologies. These efforts, combined with the research that leverages 

the unique high-performance computing assets in the national laboratories, we can 

drive the breakthroughs that will promote economic growth and manufacturing 

jobs in the United States. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

All power generation, regardless of the fuel, relies on the power grid to deliver 

electricity to our homes and businesses across the nation. The Budget provides 

$120 million for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to support research 

and development at the national laboratories to develop technologies that 

strengthen, transform, and improve energy infrastructure so that consumers have 

access to reliable, secure, and clean sources of energy. 

In addition to the cybersecurity program described earlier, the Budget funds 

foundational research to ensure the reliability and resiliency of the U.S. electric 

grid, to support modernization of the distribution of electric power, and to advance 

the state of the science and technology underpinning grid energy storage, 

transformers, and other grid components. 

World-Leading Science Research 

The Department of Energy is the Nation's largest Federal supporter of basic 

research in the physical sciences, and the President's FY 2018 Budget provides 

$4.5 billion for the Office of Science to continue and strengthen American 

leadership in scientific inquiry. By focusing funding on early-stage research, this 

Budget will ensure that the Department's National Laboratories continue to be the 

backbone of American science leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic 

research, and by building and operating the world's most advanced scientific user 

facilities-which will be used by over 27,000 researchers in FY 2018. 

We provide $722 million for Advanced Scientific Computing Research, an 

increase of $75 million above FY 2017. This funding will continue supporting our 

world-class high-performance computers that make possible cutting-edge basic 

research, while devoting $34 7 million in the Office of Science to reflect the 

Department's intention to accelerate our achievement of exascale computing by 

2021. This focused effort will drive the innovations necessary for computing at 

11 
19 

exascale speeds, resulting in computing systems at unprecedented speeds at 

Argonne National Laboratory in 2021 and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2022. 

The Budget also provides $1.6 billion for Basic Energy Sciences, supporting core 

research activities and the Energy Frontier Research Centers. We will continue 

construction ofthe Linac Coherence Light Source-II at SLACNational Accelerator 

Laboratory and operations of the light sources across the DOE science complex, 

supporting research across the Nation and ensuring our continued world leadership 

in light sources and the science they make possible. 

The Budget also provides $673 million for High Energy Physics, including $54.9 

million for construction of the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility and Deep 

Underground Neutrino Experiment, $5 million above FY 2017. By supporting the 

highest priority activities and projects identified by the U.S. high energy physics 

community, this program will continue cutting-edge pursuit to understand how the 

universe works at its most fundamental level. 

The Budget for the Office of Science provides $310 million for Fusion Energy 

Sciences, including $247 million for domestic research and fusion facilities and 

$63 million for the ITER project. For Nuclear Physics, the budget provides $503 

million to discover, explore, and understand nuclear matter, including $80 million 

for continued construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and operations of 

facilities, including the newly-upgraded Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 

Facility. For Biological and Environmental Research the Budget includes $349 

million to support foundational genomic sciences, including the Bioenergy 

Research Centers and to focus on increasing the sensitivity and reducing the 

uncertainty of earth and environmental systems predictions. 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

In addition to our nuclear security responsibilities, the Department of Energy, in 

conjunction with other federal agencies, is responsible for ensuring the Nation's 

energy security. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), one component of that 

effort, protects the U.S. economy from disruptions in critical petroleum supplies 

and meets the U.S. obligations under the International Energy Program. The 

Budget includes $180 million, $43 million below FY 2017 Enacted, to support the 

Reserve's operational readiness and drawdown capabilities. 

Looking forward, the President's Budget proposes to sell approximately 270 

million barrels ofSPR crude oil by 2027, roughly halfofthe remaining SPR 

inventory after all sales currently authorized by law are completed, resulting in 

12 
20 

estimated receipts of $1 billion by FY 2019 and $17 billion through 2027. The SPR 

program will conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the sites to be 

decommissioned as the SPR footprint is reduced from four to two sites. The 

Budget continues the sale of SPR oil for the Energy Security and Infrastructure 

Modernization Fund authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 to support an 

effective modernization program for the SPR, but at half the previous funding level 

because of the anticipated closure of two SPR storage sites. 

Finally, as the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve (NGSR) is operationally 

ineffective and not cost-efficient as a regional product reserve, the President's 

Budget proposes to liquidate the NGSR and sell its one million barrels of refined 

petroleum product in FY 2018, resulting in an estimated $69 million in receipts. 

Power Marketing Administrations 

The Budget includes $82 million for the Power Marketing Administrations, the 

same as FY 2016 Enacted. The Budget also proposes the sale of the transmission 

assets of the Western Area Power Administration (W AP A), the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA), and the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA). The 

Budget also proposes to repeal the $3.25 billion emergency borrowing authority 

for W AP A authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I reaffirm my commitment to ensure that the Department of Energy, 

through its National Laboratories, will continue to support the world's best 

enterprise of scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive American 

prosperity, security and competitiveness for the next generation. The President's 

FY 2018 Budget Request for the Department of Energy positions us to take up that 

challenge while continuing to ensure our national security. 

In my opening I mentioned my time as Governor of the State of Texas. Over my 

14-year tenure, I proposed seven budgets. Some had spending increases. Others 

had deep spending cuts to deal with economic downturns and uncertainties. Every 

one of them directed the spending of billions of dollars of our taxpayer's dollars. 

As we move forward over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to 

working with you and your colleagues in the United States House of 

Representatives. I am committed to ensuring DOE is run efficiently, effectively, 

and we accomplish our mission driven goals. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

l3 
21 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I appreciate your enthusiasm for your new role. I am sure that 

will help you get through every day, and some days are easier than 

others, we all know that around here. 

Let me start my questioning with ARPA-E because I am a big 

fan of ARPA-E. I recognize that when we think about the Department of Energy and the cool things that you get to do, one of the 

cool things is to really help facilitate some of these great, fabulous 

ideas that change the country, change the world. But as we all 

know, cool ideas that start in somebody’s garage do not always end 

up making it through. 

We talk a lot around this Committee about the so-called ‘‘valley 

of death’’ with energy innovations, and good things happen, but 

they just cannot make it to that point of commercialization. When 

I think of the role of ARPA-E and how it has really helped to be 

that bridge, its investments have reportedly spurred nearly $2 billion in follow-on private sector funding and spin-off companies to 

advance technology and market. This is exactly the type of thing 

that we should be doing. 

So the question to you this morning to start things off, do you 

support the mission of ARPA-E? And if so, if we eliminate it, where 

are we? Really, where does that put the Department of Energy and 

that space that you should be occupying, which is to help really 

revolutionize and change the world here? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. Senator, you asked the perfect 

question and I think, from my perspective, the result of being able 

to deliver the next big thing, if you will. And when you think about 

the Department of Energy and other ARPA type of agencies, not 

directly DARPA, for instance, and the Internet, hydraulic fracturing was greatly assisted by the Department of Energy. I mean 

there are, as you shared, extraordinary stories about the technology and the innovation that has come out of the Department of 

Energy. 

ARPA-E was created about a decade ago, and it was funded the 

first time in ’09. So my point with this—and listen, again, as I said, 

I understand this budgetary process, and I’m going to follow your 

lead when it comes to—I know how the money is appropriated, I 

know how the instructions come. And so if the result is we want 

the Department of Energy to be really focused on pushing these 

new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, I am incredibly 

in support of that because—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that is a role of the Department? 

Secretary PERRY. I do. I think that there is a real role to play 

on getting basic research funded, gap funding, to get that to the 

point where you can commercialize it. 

We’re going to argue, Senator Franken, about whether, you 

know, ‘‘Is it this much or is it this much?’’ or what have you, but 

I don’t think we’re going to have an argument about—I truly believe—and you look at my history. I mean, as the Governor of 

Texas, we helped create an Emerging Technology Fund in that 

state that commercialized technologies that would have died in 

that ‘‘valley of death,’’ as you referred to, if the gap funding had 

not been there. I understand that. I support that. 
22 

Now, Senator, we’re going to have a discussion here and debate 

about, what’s the proper structure? Is it the ARPA-E structure? If 

that’s what the Congress decides, ‘‘Perry, this is the structure we’re 

going to have, you go make it work,’’ and I will salute and I will 

go get that done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the structure has not worked 

in recent years? 

Secretary PERRY. I will tell you that I think it’s worth having a 

conversation about, and looking at each of these programs, having 

a good open discussion about, ‘‘Is this the proper structure? Is this 

the right way to deliver the result?’’ And I’ve got a pretty good 

background of 14 years of managing a pretty big entity. 

What I would ask you, Senator, and each of you, in both a personal and a professional way is, I hope you will trust me, if you 

will, to manage this agency to deliver the results that you want. 

Is it absolutely in the structure that we have today? I can’t tell you 

yes or no. What I’m going to tell you is I’m going to work with you 

very closely. 

Senator Franken asked me this offstage, and I answered it yesterday as well, when somebody said, ‘‘Defend this budget.’’ I said 

the budget was written before I got here. It was written before the 

second day of March, the best I can tell, but my job is to robustly 

defend that budget, and I am going to. With that said, I highly respect this process, and this is the first step of this budgetary process. 

As a Governor, I put a lot of budgets forward. Senator Cantwell, 

I never got one back the way I sent it. But with that said, we’re 

in a process. I respect that. I want you to know that on the ARPA 

side of things, I will work diligently to deliver for you the results 

that you expect, you demand, and that the American people will salute and say, ‘‘Well done.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think you will find, at least among this 

Committee, that there is good support for what comes out of ARPAE, so I am hearing that you are willing to work with us on that 

and I think that that is important. But again, you have good supporters here. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to follow up. I know Representative 

Newhouse had a chance to talk to you about the Pacific Northwest 

labs. And I think when he raised the question about the potential 

of 1,000 layoffs, you tried to reassure him that you would manage 

the lab, ‘‘in a way that continues to keep the employment at levels, 

deliver innovation and technology that is needed in this country, 

that this country is going to need.’’ Are you suggesting that those 

thousand employees would not lose their jobs or would those employees—I am trying to understand where you think this is 

going—— 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CANTWELL. ——because they are so involved in innovation. I would say DOE experts from PNNL have been key partners 

in the Fukushima cleanup and the Hanford cleanup, and so many 

other things. I just want to understand where you think this is 

going. 
23 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, there are a lot of numbers that have 

been thrown out about there are going to be this many people lose 

their jobs at the labs, and I’m not going to sit here in front of you 

and the Committee and tell you I guarantee there is not going to 

be one person lose their job at a lab. I’m not going to do that because that’s not realistic. What is realistic is to tell you that my 

priorities are going to be to make sure that we get the job done at 

these labs. It obviously requires a lot of really capable, smart, brilliant individuals. 

We have the flexibility with our budget. I hope you will consider 

giving me even more flexibility than maybe previous Secretaries 

had to be able to manage those dollars the best that we can to keep 

those labs both functioning at the high level that they are and to 

keep as many of those individuals employed that you’re going to 

need. 

So I understand how to manage during some times that you have 

budgetary challenges. There may be some hard decisions that get 

made about whether or not this number of employees is the right 

amount or not, with the goal being using our unexpended balances, 

using our flexibility for that not to be a challenge for our labs. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, look, I will give you this, you are not 

the first Energy Secretary to come before this Committee with 

ideas of changing things, but most of the time I think our Committee and the appropriators have probably set those administrations straight because we have been the stewards of these concepts 

and prioritizations and continually focus on them as regional issues 

or as national issues. But I am just curious, what area do you 

think we do not need innovation in? I mean, in the context of these 

lab workers and what they are working on—cybersecurity, nuclear 

nonproliferation, Hanford cleanup, grid reliability, building efficiency—are any of those areas that you do not think that we need 

to continue to innovate in? 

Secretary PERRY. No. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. So none of those would be on the chopping block? 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, everything is going to get analyzed. 

And again, I’m not going to tell you publicly or privately that there 

is not an employee that’s going to get—lose their job in the process. 

I’m going to manage it and I’m going to manage it in a very well 

way. But, you know, nothing that you said is not an important part 

of what the Department of Energy does. Can we do it better? I 

think we can. Can we do it more efficiently? I think we can. And 

I’m not just talking from a, you know, political standpoint. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Secretary PERRY. I’ve done that before. 

Senator CANTWELL. I wanted to ask you about worker safety at 

Hanford. This is a critical—I know we only have a few minutes 

here, but all of these issues are critically important to our state 

and very much in the forefront of what is concerning. What specific 

steps are you taking on worker safety and will you look at this air 

tank issue for us? The workers at various sites have come up with 

what they think are more workable solutions that are being implemented at other DOE locations to help the workers continue to do 
24 

the cleanup that they need, but to be safe and secure on their air 

systems. 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, one of the things that I want to, in a 

global way, just kind of share with you, one of the first videos I 

sent out agency-wise was about worker safety, about our commitment to it, about if they see—if workers see an issue, that they 

should never fear that they cannot report that back to the Secretary of Energy, all the way up, if that’s what’s required. And I 

think that was an important message that we sent out there, our 

commitment to the safety of these workers. We’re going to continue 

to find ways to implement programs, whether it’s—you know, your 

site may be the biggest challenge that this country has got, Hanford. 

Senator CANTWELL. No, Hanford is the largest nuclear waste 

cleanup site in the entire world. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CANTWELL. And that is why you cannot do it on the 

cheap. So anyway—— 

Secretary PERRY. There’s a difference between doing it on the 

cheap and doing it as efficient as you can, and I want to have that 

conversation with you and the Committee often. 

Senator CANTWELL. We can’t wait to welcome you to Hanford as 

soon as possible. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you again. 

Secretary PERRY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator FLAKE. During the confirmation process, we discussed 

some of the issues that customers in Arizona have had with WAPA, 

the Western Area Power Association. The effective delivery of federal hydropower around Arizona and the rest of the West, as you 

know, is very important to rural and urban customers alike. And 

as the chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I see our 

oversight role as improving the efficiency and transparency at 

WAPA. 

Ratepayers and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is 

spent, to know that it is spent wisely, and for the intended purpose. I know that WAPA is staffed with a lot of good people, but 

unfortunately a string of past fraudulent spending has cast a shadow over the agency’s finances. Fraudulent spending of ratepayer 

money has been recently reported by Arizona television stations 

and by newspapers. This March, the DOE Inspector General (IG) 

reported a list of actions taken by WAPA to address concerns over 

fraudulent or improper spending in the Government’s Purchase 

Card Program; however, the DOE report did not, ‘‘determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses.’’ 

Then just last week it came to my attention that on several instances in sworn testimony this spring, a senior WAPA official has 

said that problems with the Government’s Purchase Card Program 

have not been adequately fixed. Now, it is troubling to see that 
25 

there is disagreement at the highest levels of WAPA over whether 

sufficient safeguards are in place to stop this from happening 

again. 

My question for you is—obviously it is unacceptable what we 

have seen—the investigation’s news stories, hearings, audits, and 

after all that, there could still be waste, fraud, and abuse at 

WAPA. Do you agree that that is an untenable situation? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. And if I may just resound on that. We, at 

this particular point in time, after the IG’s investigation, are unaware of any current fraud or waste or abuse, for that matter, at 

WAPA. It is unacceptable. We hopefully will send that message 

loud and clear, that the IG inspection did that as well, that, number one, that we’re watching and we’re paying attention. 

If from your perspective or any individual that you make reference to, if you think that there is a continued investigative effort 

that needs to come from DOE, can we have that conversation and 

go forward from there? Because it’s just unacceptable, sir. Anytime 

those kind of activities occur, people lose faith in government. And 

I came to this job to be of assistance, to help, and I hope I can be. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, thank you. What I think would be helpful 

is to follow up with the IG at DOE to ensure that procedures are 

put in place to ensure that this cannot happen again. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator FLAKE. Apparently some believe that they are not, and 

that the IG—their report is saying that it did not determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identifying weaknesses. So obviously they need to do that. And also, if you could 

request of the IG to ensure that money from the fraudulent and 

improper purchases has been recovered. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Just in the minute I have left, research done at DOE. Obviously, 

the budget makes some tough choices. In a time of tight budgets, 

we have to prioritize this kind of spending. I am exploring a bipartisan effort to help DOE identify some specific clean energy goals 

in the area of advanced nuclear reactor technology and grid-scale 

storage. 

With intermittent power coming on increasingly, particularly in 

the West, then we have to have clean baseload power. This puts 

pressure on nuclear power that was not there before. We have to 

make sure that research done at DOE can help us into the next 

generation of nuclear and also grid-scale storage to take advantage 

of intermittent sourcing. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. I’ll just quickly—I happen to think— 

and Senator Murkowski and I have had this discussion from our 

first meeting—small modular reactors and the work that has been 

done and the work that will be done, I happen to think, is one of 

the areas that we need to spend some substantial time and resources on in our national labs. INL, in particular, is working on 

that. We’ve got the private sector, we help fund NuScale—that’s 

out now, moving toward commercialization. So I think we’re making some good progress—not fast enough to suit me and not broad 

enough to suit me. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is great to see you, Mr. Secretary. I want to start by thanking 

you for your trip to New Mexico. I think it meant a lot to the folks 

at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). It certainly meant a lot 

to the folks at Los Alamos. I know Sandia is looking forward to getting to connect with you at some point as well. I think one thing 

you have heard from multiple perspectives this morning is the importance of safety. And in my conversations with you, I want to 

thank you for your commitment to that because whether it is Los 

Alamos, WIPP, Hanford, all these places, worker safety has to be 

number one. 

As you know, Los Alamos, which I believe you visited in May, 

has long been the nation’s Center of Excellence on plutonium research. Is it correct that this budget, FY18, the request maintains 

Los Alamos’s central role in the nation’s plutonium mission and 

that it is your intent to stay on schedule and meet the statutory 

requirements for production? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is good to hear. Is it also your intention 

that Los Alamos continue into the future to fill that important mission for the nation as was approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator HEINRICH. I will just ask you one more thing on this 

front. Can you assure me that you will make the final decision on 

additional plutonium facilities based solely on strictly objective criteria, things like cost, schedule, compliance, with your mission requirements? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. I want to ask you something that is 

not strictly a budget-related item, but it is certainly timely and is 

incredibly important from an economic perspective. As you well 

know, wind generation in West Texas has really taken off over the 

last few years. Now it accounts for about 23 percent of power generation for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, ERCOT, as you 

probably know it. Further, ERCOT believes that close to 100 percent of the new electricity generation that is going to be added to 

Texas over the next 10 years is likely to be wind or solar. Do you 

agree with ERCOT’s technical assessment that they can accommodate such high penetration levels of renewable energy? 

Secretary PERRY. I’m going to be cautious about answering that 

with definity. We’re in the process of doing a grid study now—— 

Senator HEINRICH. That is why I bring it up. 

Secretary PERRY. ——that I think will give a better, certainly 

more in-depth, answer than I could just off the top of my head 

today. So if I could punt this to the first week in July, we should 

be getting that finalized. You obviously, and the members, will 

have access to that as we talk about it. But you know my history 

with wind. You know my history with having a very broad portfolio, and I bring that to the Department of Energy. Nothing has 

changed from that perspective. 
27 

Senator HEINRICH. I raised it largely because ERCOT is already 

managing dramatically higher levels of renewables than most 

states in the nation. So I think looking at what they have been able 

to do is instructive for whether or not we actually have a problem 

anywhere else. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. And what I would remind folks is that 

Texas has a rather substantial baseload energy production as well. 

And that’s probably where we’re going to be getting down into the 

weeds on this, Senator, is that, what is the percentage of baseload, 

whether it comes from fossil fuels either from coal or natural gas 

or from nuclear that maintain that baseload? And obviously, having solar and wind as part of your overall mix we think is a good— 

I think, let me put it that way, is a very good thing. 

Senator HEINRICH. Yes. I do not actually remember baseload 

being a term when I was studying engineering because we have always had a situation where for maintenance purposes, you take entire facilities offline. So just like solar does not work at night, also 

coal-fired and natural gas-fired facilities get taken offline in their 

entirety in many cases. 

I think we ought to be looking at reliability and being able to 

manage the grid effectively for that reliability as opposed to saying, 

well, this is good and that is bad, or vice versa. 

Secretary PERRY. Absolutely. I think you’re correct in that, particularly in the sense of making sure that you have enough energy 

sources that are going to be reliable and stable and economical. 

That’s what the public wants. I mean, you and the engineers and 

myself, we’ll all have a great discussion about some intricacies 

here, but the American people want to know that when they flip 

that switch on—when it’s 117 degrees in Las Vegas as it was two 

days ago—that that air conditioning is working. 

Senator HEINRICH. There might be something to this global 

warming thing after all. Thank you, Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Great to see you again, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PERRY. How are you? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks for being here today. 

I want to talk a little bit about some things in the budget request. The budget request includes some steep cuts to the Fossil 

Energy Research and Development Program. That is a program 

that includes carbon capture and storage research, which the Department proposes to cut by more than 80 percent. I am concerned 

that these proposed cuts conflict with what the President has said 

in terms of his goals to bring back coal jobs and increase coal production. 

In 2005, coal accounted for about half of the U.S. power generation. This past year, it declined about 30 percent. So I think we 

have to reverse this decline in order to maintain a reliable and resilient electric grid. I think it is critical that we need to have all 

of the energy sources. 

Now, there are emerging technologies, like carbon capture and 

storage, that have the potential to reverse coal’s decline while also 

reducing emissions. I think successfully achieving the commer-
28 

cialization of these technologies is both going to protect the environment and ensure that coal plants remain in service and competitive in energy markets. 

So could I just ask you to talk a little bit about the assurances 

that you can give us and give me that the Department’s budget request is sufficient to support the development and the commercialization of the clean coal technologies? 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, as I said earlier, maybe before you 

stepped in, I’m going to do my best to vigorously defend this budget. Again, it was written before I got here. But with that said, I 

understand this budgeting process, and prioritizing parts of it that 

may on the face of this budget look like there’s been massive cuts 

over here, I hope we’ll have the back-and-forth in the management 

of this budget where we prioritize some things and we fund them 

and we get good results. CCUS is one of those. 

On our trip to China at the Clean Energy Ministerial, we were 

able to get them in an international way to agree to put that carbon capture utilization and sequestration issue at the forefront of 

the Clean Ministerial to do some investigative work to have that 

conversation internationally. I think that’s good not only for the environment, I think it’s good for American technology. 

As you know, one of my first acts as Secretary of Energy was to 

go to the Petra Nova plant right outside of Houston, the world’s 

largest sequestration utilizing coal capture—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Sure. 

Secretary PERRY. ——and it is a fascinating—we had this conversation with Zhang Gaoli who is the Vice Premier in China. They 

are interested in this technology. 

I mean, I think we’re doing what not only the American people 

but this Congress wants us to do as a country, and that is to promote these technologies that are coming out of, in this case, DOE 

in a lot of the cases, and the private sector, working together. 

So I’m committed to promoting that technology, committed to 

this ‘‘all of the above’’ approach, which the carbon capture side of 

coal utilization is very important. We’re going to use it, we’re going 

to use it wisely, and we’re going to use it in a way that affects our 

environment in a positive way and in a way that affects our economy in a positive way. 

Senator BARRASSO. One other thing. The Department’s budget 

proposal includes a significant cut to the Office of Electric Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, and that is the program that is responsible 

for research and development to improve grid reliability and security in terms of attacks. 

I know you talked about in your prepared remarks among the 

most critical missions of the Department is to develop the science 

and the technology that will assure Americans of a resilient electric 

grid and energy infrastructure. We all agree. According to the 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s report last year 

on the terms of cyber and physical security threats to the grid, they 

said they continue to increase, becoming even more serious. We are 

hearing it all across the country, and not just to the electric grid, 

but all components. 

So I am just concerned that less research and development for 

this innovative work could place our nation’s grid at risk to these 
29 

threats. So if you could spend a little bit of time talking about how 

we can make sure that the security is there for the grid for the future. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. I am deeply aware of the President’s 

Executive Order, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, taking a lead on cybersecurity. Even before 

that was done we had stood up three of our national labs in what 

is referred to as the CyberCorps to be working on. It is a 

prioritization. 

When I had all the lab directors in, that was one of the things 

they heard, that we were going to spend the resources, we’re going 

to spend the focus, and we’re going to have the result of being able 

to deliver to the private sector and to the government the challenges and the fixes, if you will. And we’re working on that diligently. 

And I’m committing to you, Senator, that that is a top-tier priority at the Department of Energy, and I suggest to you again that 

those labs have the capability. INL has its own grid out there 

where they can go and break things and infest it, if you will, and 

duplicate what we’re seeing. 

So I’m concerned about it, as an American citizen. I am confident 

that the Department of Energy has the intellect, the capability, 

and I will suggest to you the funding, to do what both the President and you, as Members of Congress, expect us to deliver. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome back to the Committee, Secretary Perry. I do not envy 

your position. You seem to be a defense counsel for someone 

charged with murder, and you seem to be saying, ‘‘I know he’s 

guilty, but I’m going to give him a robust defense.’’ So you are 

doing a great job. 

Secretary PERRY. That’s an interesting observation, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Two days ago, the American Energy Innovation Council, a group of ten current and retired corporate leaders, 

including Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, and 

Bill Gates, released a report about the importance of federal investment in energy research and development. The group recommends 

vastly increased funding for ARPA-E from $300 million to $1 billion a year, and increasing federal investment for advanced energy 

innovation to $16 billion per year, 2-1/2 times the total amount for 

energy research proposed in your budget. 

Secretary Perry, the President’s budget is frankly anti-innovation. It does the exact opposite of what the American Energy Innovation Council recommends. It absolutely guts private investment 

and research, including slashing energy research programs by $3.1 

billion, and cutting renewable energy and energy efficiency research by nearly 70 percent. And, again, on ARPA-E, the President’s budget completely eliminates them. 
30 

You said at a hearing yesterday that the budget was written before you were confirmed, and you said that today. But do you support this Administration’s budget cuts? 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, I’m going to do everything I can to deliver to the American people within the bounds of the budget that 

you write. And again, I understand and support, respect, this process. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Of course. 

Secretary PERRY. Is ARPA-E, the result of ARPA-E, a good 

thing? Yes. Is ARPA-E the holy grail of how government needs to 

be structured? I will suggest to you maybe not. 

Senator FRANKEN. Let’s talk about some of these things. During 

your confirmation hearing you talked about how the Federal Government helped in developing technologies central to hydraulic 

fracturing. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. And if we talk about baseload, if we are talking about baseload, natural gas, that is really important, right? 

Secretary PERRY. I will suggest to you they are, as is nuclear, as 

is clean coal. 

Senator FRANKEN. So that would be a yes. Now, the most suc- cessful one-fifth of ARPA-E projects have raised $1.8 billion in private funding and launched at least 56 new companies. You know, 

that is—$1.8 billion is much more than ARPA-E has expended during the first seven years of its funding. This whole idea that there 

is not a role—and I am not going to make you defend it because— 

I just want to say it is the whole idea that the valley—that the government’s job is not to take things through the valley of death is 

wrong, and it is just that is the government’s job in certain technologies, and we need to do that. 

We tried in the ’80s, the government cut energy funding by 52 

percent. Do you know what happened to private research investment then? 

Secretary PERRY. No, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Well, they fell by 40 percent. Private industry does not fill in in these kind of emerging technologies when 

the government does not do it. What the government does is 

incentivizes private industry to jump in. So industry—well, actually industry cut energy research by 79 percent when the overall 

R&D expenditures were cut. 

So let me turn to climate change because that is what we are— 

oh, I am out of time. I did wait a while here because of the health 

care thing that you guys were doing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. So do you think—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin is [off microphone] here. 

Senator FRANKEN. I know he is. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Off microphone.] 

Senator MANCHIN. Can I start? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, I guess you can. 

[Laughter.] 

Go ahead. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we will go to Senator Manchin. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. 
31 

The CHAIRMAN. But we will have a second round, Senator 

Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you so very, very much, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, Secretary Perry, it is good to see you back again. You 

were here last on January 19th for your hearing. At that time, I 

want the Committee to know that we talked, we had a very good 

conversation, and you committed when I asked, ‘‘Would you come 

to West Virginia?’’ You are coming to West Virginia July 7th to see 

the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and to see all 

the advances we have made in clean coal technology, and I appreciate that. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. You are a person of your word, and I thank 

you. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. I also remember, Mr. Secretary, when we 

were Governors together in 2005, I never forgot this. We were sitting in the Southern Governors Association meeting, if you recall. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Hurricane Katrina was getting ready to hit. 

I asked you at that time, I said, ‘‘Rick, is this hurricane going to 

have any effect on you?’’ and you said, ‘‘Joe, I’ve been told by my 

weather people that it’s going to miss us.’’ It might have missed 

you, but you got hit directly—— 

Secretary PERRY. The results didn’t miss us. 

Senator MANCHIN. The results did not miss you. I will never forget that. You had over a quarter of a million people come to your 

state looking for refuge, and you took them all in. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. Senator Murkowski, if I could just add one 

thing here, and I know it’s a little bit off subject, but I think it’s 

important, about working together. This was a Democratic Governor of West Virginia and a Republican Governor of Texas. I got 

a call from the Governor of Louisiana then, and she said, ‘‘Can you 

handle 25,000 people?’’ and I said, ‘‘Send them.’’ About 125,000 

later, I’m on the phone to him saying, ‘‘Hey, Joe, can you send 

some aircraft to help us move some people?’’ because we had another hurricane that came in and moved all those people. 

Senator MANCHIN. Rita came right behind. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Anyway, had it not been for Joe Manchin and the people of West 

Virginia, and the National Guard of West Virginia, we’d have had 

some people in some real sling. I will never forget that, sir. Thank 

you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, I think that is the way we are supposed 

to work here, too. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. I know how we did it as Governors, but it is 

the way it should work in Congress, the Senate, and Congress, and 

we are trying. The Chairman and I work very much along those 

lines. But anyway, we sent six C–130’s and we sent 1,200 troops. 

Secretary PERRY. Yep. 
32 

Senator MANCHIN. And we worked well together. With that being 

said, I want to thank you again that you are coming and we are 

looking forward to your visit. Senator Capito is looking forward to 

your visit, and we will entertain you in a bipartisan way. With 

that, we say thank you. 

Let me go to the thing I am concerned about. I understand that 

the study of our grid’s reliability and resilience that you have undertaken—and I want to thank you for undertaking this—has 

drawn some criticism. I do not know why you would draw criticism 

from finding out how secure the grid system is and what it takes 

to energize this grid system. As being both former Governors, I 

think we are on the same page regarding what is best to be left 

alone and we should be collaborating with the Federal Government 

because we have got to make sure this thing does not collapse on 

us. And the study fits into that collaboration column. 

In West Virginia, our existing installed capacity is over 90 percent coal, and we have eliminated all of the old plants. We have 

basically supercritical plants with scrubbers, low-NOx boilers, 

baghouses, and we are looking for that new technology. I believe 

the Department of Energy is taking a good look at this issue of how 

coal should play a part in our national defense, and I thank you 

for that. It is not about one fuel type over another, it is, ‘‘how do 

we energize and secure the grid?’’ 

So can you please comment on why you believe the study is so 

important and, basically, focus on ensuring the reliability that the 

country depends on? I think you said, ‘‘When it is 115 degrees and 

they flip the switch, they want something to work.’’ 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. Senator, it is very much, I think, one 

of the—I’m so glad that we got tasked with—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes. 

Secretary PERRY. ——this grid reliability because I think it is important for us to have this conversation. I think all of us would love 

to see blue skies and clean air everywhere in the world. 

Senator MANCHIN. So everyone knows what we are talking about, 

Mr. Secretary, we are talking about baseload. Baseload runs 24/7 

uninterrupted. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. When you have 60 days of coal laying there, 

you are not going to interrupt that, they are going to feed it, and 

that is going to give you power. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Nuclear gives you that. Gas is coming on 

strong. We are depending on it. 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, I’ll just mention this in passing. Yesterday there were places where they had either brownouts or blackouts in some of the western states. I saw this on the news. I’m not 

reporting it as guaranteed fact, I’m just telling you we know that 

when there is that kind of stress on our grid system, that we need 

to be prepared for that. And so, it’s so important that we economically, and from a national security standpoint, have these multiple 

sources of energy that will be there when we need it, when it’s 

called on. You know, having 60 days of coal on the ground I happen 

to think is important. Having nuclear plants that are functioning 

and being able to move the waste offsite of those so that that in-
33 

dustry knows that there’s going to be a future for them is important. 

I think the natural gas that we are blessed to be able to retrieve 

now is an incredibly important part of that. Our wind energy and 

our solar energy and our hydro—all of those collectively are part 

of a portfolio that we’ve got to protect—and making sure that our 

grid, when it’s stressed to its highest levels, will still be able to 

keep that air conditioning running in a place that temperatures are 

reaching 120 degrees outdoors. I don’t want to take that call that 

a family has been put in distress or even died because we didn’t 

do our work to make sure that there is a baseload of energy to take 

care of the needs that this country has 24/7, 365 days out of the 

year. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, I think it is one of the most important 

studies you all have taken on and I thank you for it, because I 

think it is going to be imperative for the American people and the 

security of our nation that we find out, how do we keep these grids 

alive and keep the energy flowing? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. So I want to thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Senator DAINES. As you know, Montana is an incredible state 

known for fly fishing, elk hunting, for the great outdoors, Glacier 

National Park, Yellowstone National Park. We are also an energy 

state. We have more recoverable coal than any state in the United 

States. And I think, as Montanans, we strike a pretty good balance, 

one that believes in the importance in developing our natural resources because without doing that, we do not have jobs; low-cost, 

affordable, reliable energy sources; tax revenues for our schools and 

our teachers. At the same time, we work to protect our environment. 

As Montanans, may we always be a state where that Mom or 

Dad can go down to Walmart and buy their elk tag, that we do not 

become a state where only the rich and famous can afford to live 

there. 

Secretary PERRY. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. One of the ways to do that is ensure that we 

keep developing our natural resources responsibly. Coal, oil, gas, 

they are an important component of our economy, yet we also have 

a large amount of hydroelectric power and some wind. We have 

these large deposits of coal. We have critical minerals, which we 

develop responsibly and safely. And I really do believe we could 

bring this Montana balance on a national scale. I think clean coal 

technology will play an important role in that going forward. 

Global energy demand is slated to grow, and so is the need for 

coal. I really do believe, as we think about the longer-term here, 

we need to lead in this important technology development. 
34 

I want to talk for a moment about energy exports, Mr. Secretary. 

I was struck by some data I saw, in fact, at an energy summit that 

I put on in Billings, Montana, last year. We took a look at the big 

picture, the long-term, and there are projections around what is 

going to happen between now and 2050 globally. And every projection is simply that, it is a projection, but it was from the U.S. 

Chamber, a reliable and good source of information. They tell us 

that the global population will increase by about 1.6 billion people 

between now and 2050. They also told us that energy demand is 

going to increase about 85 percent between now and 2050. 

With the growth in global energy demand, with the U.S. now 

playing a larger role in supplying Europe and East Asia with coal 

and liquid natural gas, how do you see the Department’s budget 

supporting energy exports? Because I think, and I have heard you 

say it, you said it is not about energy independence, it is about 

global energy dominance, and I completely agree. I think it is so 

strategic from an economic viewpoint going forward but also from 

a national security viewpoint and the world’s security. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Spending some time up in Montana this last year, I was struck 

by two things. One, just the natural beauty of the state—it’s extraordinary. I understand why some folks from my part of the 

world want to spend their summers up there. 

Senator DAINES. And spend their money, too. 

Secretary PERRY. But the other thing, the fact that really hit me, 

and I didn’t understand initially, was that Montana is 49th in the 

nation in wages. And one of the reasons is because of the attack 

that we have seen historically on that form of energy, on coal and 

also the timber industry. The regulations—and generally speaking, 

these are government regulations, and Federal Government regulations—have really impacted your state in a very negative way. 

President Trump has clearly given us instructions, whether it’s myself or all of us—— 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Secretary PERRY. ——you know, Congress—or I should say Secretary Zinke, for instance, who knows your state very well, that 

putting regulations into place that absolutely take care of our beautiful resources that we have but also keep in mind the men and 

women, whether they’re tribal members or whether they’re citizens 

of a coal strip, that we understand the rules and regulations that 

we’re going to be making. Being able to sell that coal. 

I had the President of Ukraine in the office on Monday. 

Poroshenko and I were talking about U.S. coal being able to be delivered to Ukraine so that they don’t have to rely upon the pressures from Russia at this particular point in time. President—or, 

excuse me—Prime Minister Modi is in town soon to talk to the 

President, and I can assure you that country is going to be the 

most populous country in the world in the very near future. Their 

electricity demand is going to be monumental. We can be a part of 

that: American LNG, American coal, American technology. And it’s 

that CCUS that I was talking to the Vice Premier of China about, 

and our being able to deliver that. 

America, I don’t think, has had a greater opportunity in our history than to be able to play a powerful role in securing our national 
35 

defense, making sure economically that we are a massive player in 

the global marketplace, and having an impact on the environment. 

Because the way Texas drove down its emissions back in the 2000’s 

partly was transferring away from those older inefficient power 

plants to natural gas, and American LNG can help do that. 

So we have an extraordinary opportunity, Senator, and I hope 

that the DOE, and I feel very confident that we will be working 

with you to find those strategies which we can put in place to promote American energy, American technology, and strengthen our 

security and our economy. 

Senator DAINES. Secretary Perry, thank you. I am out of time, 

but I want to thank you for your support in that area and your vision. I will tell you when Vice President Pence came out to Montana several weeks ago, he met Secretary Zinke in Billings. I flew 

out with the Vice President from DC and the very first place that 

he went as Vice President, his first visit to Montana as Vice President, we jumped in the Suburban and we drove out to the Crow 

Indian Reservation—— 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator DAINES. ——to the Westmoreland coal mine—— 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator DAINES. ——and we rode horseback with the Secretary 

and the Vice President, the three of us rode horses up to tour the 

mine. Those jobs for Indian Country are critical. If they lose those 

jobs there, their unemployment rate goes to 80 percent. So—— 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. It’s unacceptable. 

Senator DAINES. It is. Thank you. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Perry, welcome back to the Committee. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. When you were nominated for Secretary 

of Energy, we had a frank and serious conversation about my grave 

concerns about siting nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Since that 

time you visited the site, and thank you for the courtesy, you called 

me ahead of time to let me know you were going there. But since 

that trip you went from touting the importance of state sovereignty 

to a full-throated support for depositing the nation’s waste in Nevada against the will of my state, undermining a state’s right to 

defend its communities against dangerous nuclear waste. What has 

prompted such a change in your viewpoint? 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, I, with all due respect, disagree with 

your analysis of my position. Nothing has really changed. I think 

it is wise for us to have a very open conversation with this country 

about the moral obligation that we have as a people. There are 

statutory requirements for us to move this waste. There are multiple options about where that waste could go. 

As I clarified yesterday, there is no plan in place to put that in 

a particular place at this particular point in time, but I think we 

need to be looking at all of our options and having an open and a 

productive conversation about how—I don’t think it’s wise for us to 

continue to leave high-level waste, you know, spent rods in pools, 
36 

not unlike what they had at Fukushima, and particularly that over 

in California is in the Ring of Fire. I mean, geologically you could 

have an event that is not unlike what they had in Fukushima, 

and—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Secretary Perry, I appreciate it, and I 

received your comments, but let’s talk about Yucca Mountain. I do 

not disagree we need a long-term plan, but the concern that I have, 

and many in our state have, is specifically when it comes to Yucca 

Mountain, because I will tell you, your predecessor, Secretary 

Moniz, and the DOE, they were steadfast in the position that the 

Yucca Mountain program is unworkable. In fact, the Department 

concurred with the recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future that a phased adaptive, consentbased siting process is the best approach to gain the public trust 

and confidence needed to site nuclear waste facilities. 

Let me just say this. You have previously stated that you want 

to have a good working relationship with as many Governors as 

you can. I can tell you, as you well know, that Governor Sandoval 

is incredibly concerned about not only your talk and discussion on 

Yucca Mountain but doubling down on talk about interim storage 

at the Nevada National Security Site. 

In fact, let me just say this. The Western Governors’ Association, 

which includes your predecessor in Texas, recently passed a policy 

resolution which states that a nuclear waste facility should not be 

located within the boundaries of any western state or U.S. flag island without the written consent of that Governor or territory. 

That is all that Nevada is asking for, is consent-based siting, which 

your predecessor, Secretary Moniz, and the Blue Ribbon Panel 

have agreed that is what should occur. That is what we are asking 

you to do. 

So why is that such a difficult concept? Why is that something 

that you think should not occur and, in fact, this Yucca Mountain 

process should go forward, and interim storage, which is a whole 

new conversation that we had not heard before, at the Nevada National Security Site? I am confused. 

Secretary PERRY. Let me help with the last issue that you 

brought up, Senator, as I can. I was making reference to an article 

that was by a Nevada state senator, that he pitched that out as 

an idea. I think about a May 14, 2017, article that I picked up. 

That was what I was making—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Well, I appreciate that, and I will tell 

you that that is not something that we are going to support in—— 

Secretary PERRY. Okay. But, Senator, I’m not—I think it was 

taken out of context. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. But let me just say this, what we are 

looking for is at least some sort of commitment that you are looking for at least the science to prove that it is safe. I mean, even 

your Deputy Secretary, Dan Brouillette, recently commented when 

he was in here in his nomination hearing that if the science is not 

there, that we would not support the project. 

So if you cannot get behind consent-based siting, which is what 

all states should be—we should be looking at for all states and individuals there, then at least look at the science and commit that 

if the science is not there and it is not workable, then we should 
37 

not store nuclear waste or spent nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. 

Can you commit to that? 

Secretary PERRY. Sure. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Secretary PERRY. I can. And I think it’s important for us to do 

two things: pay attention to the science and also to the rule of law. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Secretary Perry, just so you do know, I have been asked to submit as part of the Committee record here today a letter that Senator Cantwell and I received, as the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member, from a colleague of Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Heller, 

also from Nevada, with a request specific to the Department about 

repository costs in previous studies and a request for new cost 

studies on geologic disposal in repositories. So this will be included 

as part of the record. I believe that you may have already received 

it or are in the process of receiving it, but he has asked for that 

request—— 

Secretary PERRY. Yes. I will certainly take it under consideration, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. ——and I have complied with that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
38 

DEAN HELLER NFVADA FINANCE 

Bnitcd ~mtcs ~cmm 

RECEIVED JUN Z Z 2017 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chainnan 

Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

WASHING rON, DC 20510 

June21,2017 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chaim1an Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

T write today to express my vehement opposition to the Administration's request for $120 million 

in the Department of Energy's (DOE's) fiscal year 2018 budget to be in part utilized to restart 

licensing activities at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. I strongly believe that our 

nation cannot fully move forward with viable sustainable solutions for spent nuclear tuel and 

defense high-level waste without moving past Yucca Mountain. The Administration's request 

simply perpetuates a decades-long fight that has been strongly opposed by Nevadans from the 

state, done little to solve our nation's waste problem, and wasted billions of U.S. taxpayer 

dollars. 

Chainnan Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, I commend your leadership in working to 

address our nation's long-tem1 nuclear waste problem through introducing bipartisan, 

comprehensive legislation. I believe you have taken an important step forward in finding a 

solution, and I stand ready to partner with you on furthering your efforts with respect to consentbased siting. Together, I believe that we can find a path forward on what I would argue is one of 

our nation's most critically important issues not only to diversifying our energy portfolio but to 

that of Nevada and respecting the rights of all states to have the ability to object to storing highlevel nuclear waste. 

As I have stated to Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein with the Energy and 

Water Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, the Administration purports that this budget request 

will "address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden," yet 

in practice, it will do the exact opposite. Governor Sandoval has made clear the state of Nevada 

will contest over 200 elements of any license application, which will take years to resolve and 

cost the federal government billions of dollars. This is in addition to the DOE's estimates that an 

additional $82 billion would be needed to license, litigate, build, operate, decommission, and 

eventually close Yucca Mountain. With respect to what has already been spent on the 

repository, this adds up to more than $96 billion for the total system life cycle cost of the project. 

It is clear that U.S. taxpayer dollars would be better spent identifying viable alternatives for the 

long-term storage of nuclear waste in areas that are willing to house it. In fact, in 2012, DOE 
39 

cost estimates show that all other costs being equal, walking away from Yucca Mountain and 

starting with a new repository site in a deep salt bed or a deep shale formation could save 

between $12 billion and $27 billion over the life of the repository. Before Congress spends any 

more U.S. taxpayer money on Yucca Mountain, I strongly urge you to ask Secretary Perry as he 

testifies before your subcommittee to explain what the Department has learned about repository 

costs in its previous studies. Furthermore, I believe we need new cost studies on geologic 

disposal in repositories, studies that include the lessons learned from recent progress with 

repositories in Europe. 

Moreover, I am deeply troubled by recent comments made by Secretary Perry stating that the 

Nevada National Security Test Site could be an option for temporary storage of high-level 

nuclear waste. Not only do J believe that this comment is irresponsible, I also remain concerned 

about the legality of such actions by the Department. As I have repeatedly expressed to the 

Secretary, Nevada will not be forced against its will to shoulder the burden of housing our 

nation's nuclear waste. 

The only viable solution to our nation's long-term nuclear waste problem is one that is rooted in 

consent. J stand behind the DOE's 2005 initiatives regarding consent-based siting as a result of 

the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. This open process ensures all 

Americans have a meaningful voice if their community is being considered for a future nuclear 

waste repository. I strongly believe that Secretary Perry should focus his efforts on this 

worthwhile initiative instead of making Nevada our nation's nuclear waste dump. 

I stand with the state of Nevada in staunch opposition to any attempt to restart the repository 

licensing process, and I strongly urge you not to fund the Administration's request. Secretary 

Perry has referred to a "moral and national security obligation," and I believe that fighting for 

Nevada against Yucca Mountain is mine. Moreover, I encourage you to devote resources 

towards DOE's consent-based siting initiative for the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level radioactive waste. Thank you for your attention to this important request. 

Senator Dean Heller 
40 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I do not envy you today because you have been 

sent up here to defend the indefensible. This budget is perhaps the 

worst budget for any agency that I have seen in 12 years in public 

life in terms of corresponding to national priorities. It is amazing. 

You made a statement in your opening statement when you first 

appeared before this Committee in your confirmation hearing. You 

said, ‘‘When it comes to climate change, I’m committed to making 

decisions based on sound science and also take into account the 

economic impact.’’ 

This is not a sound science budget, Mr. Secretary, this is a nonscience budget. You are cutting the very areas where the science, 

which we need to make good policy decisions, is going to be examined. Earlier today you said the U.S.—this is a direct quote—‘‘The 

U.S. is the leader in clean energy technology, and we are committed to this mission.’’ 

The budget does not say that: ARPA-E, 93 percent essentially 

eliminated; you are even cutting the Energy Information Agency 

3.5 percent which just provides information about our country’s energy situation; Energy Efficiency, 69.6 percent cut; Office of 

Science, 17 percent—those are the national labs. 

By the way, there are 56,000 people that work for the national 

labs. The budget, I am quite confident, is largely personnel. So a 

17 percent cut in a 56,000-person agency is about 9,500 people. 

Now probably there are other areas that can be cut, but to come 

here and try to tell us that you are about sound science when you 

are cutting the very departments, the very portions, of your essential agency that are going to give us the science it does not pass 

the straight face test, Mr. Secretary. 

I like you, you and I were Governors together, but I think you 

have been sent on a suicide mission here. I want you to go back 

and tell the people that are pushing you to do this, ‘‘I can’t do it. 

It’s not responsible.’’ If you can find a question in there, you are 

welcome to it. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary PERRY. I was looking for it, sir. 

Senator KING. Well, I want to know, how do you justify these 

giant cuts? And don’t tell me about reorganization. You cannot cut 

something by 69 percent and say you are going to find efficiencies. 

Secretary PERRY. Governor, here is what I would tell you, is that 

if we’re going to continue to do everything like we’ve always done 

it, then we’re going to probably continue to get the same result. I 

hope what I can tell you is that I understand this budgeting process, I respect it, and I bring a rather substantial management history of running big things and doing them in a fairly substantial 

way. Sometimes we had the money that most agency heads thought 

that we needed, sometimes we didn’t. But I hope that we will—we 

can agree that this is a good starting point—— 

Senator KING. No, it is not a good starting point. It is a terrible 

starting point. 

Secretary PERRY. Well, it’s—let me just say it’s a starting point. 
41 

Senator KING. If you want to make it, let’s say, 4 or 5 percent, 

but 69.6 percent is not a good starting point. I could meet you in 

the middle, and it is still not adequate. 

Secretary PERRY. Well, then we’ll work together to try to get it 

to be adequate, Senator, is about the only answer I know to give 

you. 

Senator KING. Well, let me go to the other one that is—it is 

awful—Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 47.8 percent 

cut. Are you aware that our grid is incredibly vulnerable right now 

to cyberattacks? 

Secretary PERRY. I probably am more so than most people. 

Senator KING. Well, how in the world can you allow people to say 

you are going to cut the Department that works on energy reliability and delivery, that is the grid, by almost 50 percent? 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, again, I go back to if we get some 

flexibility in our budgeting, I feel pretty confident we’ll be able to 

protect the grid, because that’s not the only place that we’re doing 

any grid work, by a substantial margin. There are substantial 

places in our national labs, whether it’s INL and other places, 

where we’re doing work to protect the grid and to analyze the grid. 

Senator KING. Well, that is a national security concern, and I 

want to follow up with you on that, and if there are other places 

and if you can move money around, but cutting money for the reliability of the grid right now is a national security threat. I serve 

on other committees around here that deal with this issue. It is a 

serious national security threat. 

I guess as you have pointed out and you have said several times, 

there is a process and you understand Congress—the President 

proposes, Congress disposes. Here is the question though, if and 

when, and I believe it is only a question of when, Congress restores 

a lot of these funds, will you administer them as intended by Congress? And will you staff adequately to meet those needs? Will you 

administer and implement the budget that Congress passes? 

Secretary PERRY. To the best of my ability, I’m going to follow 

the rule of law, sir. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. 

We will have an opportunity for another round of questions. I 

know that Senator Hoeven is hoping to make it back. 

I wanted to ask you, Secretary Perry, about the Office of Indian 

Energy. This provides assistance with energy development, capacity building, cost reductions for tribes and Alaska Natives. This is 

a tough area to cut in my view. We have a situation in Alaska— 

we have half the tribes in the country and a lot of opportunities 

in the energy space when it comes to our native people. 

We have doubled the staffing in the Office of Indian Energy in 

Alaska. We now have two DOE folks, two permanent employees, in 

the state. We had been working with Secretary Moniz because we 

had one fellow, one person, who had basically been running things 

for a period of years. He promised that we might be able to see as 

many as three—we are up to two. 

But the reality is that we have had lack of adequate and consistent DOE staffing within our state. I am not going to suggest to 
42 

you that you need to be on a hiring spree here, but I do want to 

make sure, again, that our needs are met. The Office of Indian Energy, in my view, is one of those areas where you have high need, 

an important priority. We need to make sure that not only resources are there, but those to help effectuate the initiatives are in 

place. 

So the question to you at this time is whether you think that 

there are some opportunities within the Office of Indian Energy to 

do more with not sharing of the funds but distributing these funds 

through different grant programs. What are we going to do to make 

sure the role of the Office of Indian Energy is not diminished? I 

would ask you to speak to the issue of the staffing that we have 

tried to make a priority in the state and where you see that might 

go. I am actually glad Senator Franken has rejoined the Committee 

now, because this is something that he and I have talked about 

often, that within the Office of Indian Energy there is good opportunity there. And Senator Hoeven, coming out of North Dakota, I 

think appreciates that well. So you have three of us that are interested in this budget category. 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, if I might, and I’ll try to be as brief 

as I can on this. As a matter of fact, this is just a new—it was released today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I like that you are using new technology instead 

of paper. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. The Office of Indian Energy Policy 

and Programs announced today that it selected 13 tribal energy 

projects to receive funding at $7.8 million. I’m not going to delve 

into it anymore, but we’re making some progress on that. We will 

work very closely with you, and Senators Hoeven and Franken 

both, as you all have tribal interests in your states and in this program. So—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate that and it is always nice to 

hear news of grants, but again, I would like to know that we 

have—— 

Secretary PERRY. Staffing. 

The CHAIRMAN. ——some great sustainability here, and that sustainability comes with staffing. As you know, we have a really big 

state. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

The CHAIRMAN. We do not need to go into the Alaska-Texas comparison, but I will remind you that we are 2-1/2 times the size of 

Texas, and we have one guy—now we have two guys. 

Secretary PERRY. I was given that t-shirt that showed Texas inside of Alaska with the adage, ‘‘Size matters.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad that we have connected here. So this 

is good, this is good. 

[Laughter.] 

I am going to defer to Senator Franken and then Senator Hoeven 

here so that they have a chance to ask a second round of questions. 

Senator FRANKEN. Senator Hoeven is Chairman of Indian 

Affairs, and he has signed on, along with others, on the loan 

guarantee program for Indian Energy. I am glad to hear there is 
43 

$7.8 million and there is more money in the loan guarantee program also for Indian projects. I think that is a good thing. 

I want to ask you about climate change. Secretary Perry, at your 

confirmation hearing you acknowledged that the climate is changing, but on Monday you were asked on CNBC, ‘‘Do you believe CO2 

is the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and 

for climate?’’ and you answered, ‘‘No.’’ So if the climate is changing 

and if you disagree that CO2 is the primary driver, what do you 

think is driving the change? 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. And I’ll finish the rest of that interview for the public that may have not gotten as much coverage as 

me saying that I did not think that CO2 was the primary knob that 

changes it. I don’t. I think there are some other naturally occurring 

events, the warming and the cooling of our ocean waters and some 

other activities that occur. I also said in the next breath that man’s 

impact does in fact have an impact on the climate. The question 

is, what is going to be the economic impact for this country? 

I referenced yesterday—in a hearing in front of the Senate Appropriations—that even an individual as celebrated from the standpoint of his capability as the Under Secretary of Energy under the 

previous Administration, Stephen Kunz, he said that the science 

isn’t settled yet. 

I’ll ask the Committee and I’ll ask you, don’t you think it’s okay 

to have this conversation about the science of climate change? And 

why don’t we have a red team approach and sit down—you know, 

get the politicians out of the room and let the scientists—and listen 

to what they have to say about it? I’m pretty comfortable that, 

what’s wrong with being a skeptic about something that we’re talking about that’s going to have a massive impact on the American 

economy? 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, you said this thing about—you told Senator Kunz that we need a red team-blue team exercise to establish 

climate change. It is my understanding that in a red team-blue 

team exercise, the blue team makes an argument, then the red 

team tries to knock it down, and the blue team then refines their 

argument, and they go back and forth until consensus is reached. 

But that is exactly how science works, and including climate 

science. Researchers collect data and make arguments, peer reviewers poke holes in the argument, the researchers respond, and it 

goes back and forth until consensus is reached. Every peerreviewed climate study goes through that red team-blue team 

treatment, and then thousands of studies are gathered into reports, 

and those reports themselves go through rigorous red team-blue 

team, and that is the scientific process. 

You are not the first to do red team-blue team. The Koch brothers hired a red team of skeptics in 2012 in an effort to cast out on 

main stream science. It was called the BEST Project, and much to 

the chagrin of their funders, the skeptical scientists found that 

mainstream climate science is correct. To quote the scientific director of BEST, Dr. Richard Muller, ‘‘Call me a converted skeptic.’’ 

This was in 2013 or ’14. ‘‘Last year, following an intensive research 

effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming 

was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were 
44 

correct. I am now going a step further, humans are entirely the 

cause.’’ 

Now, if you say that this is caused by the warming of the oceans, 

the reason the oceans are warming is because they absorb, water 

absorbs, the heat. That is why the sea level is rising, because when 

the water heats, it expands and also because of the melting of the 

ice caps. There is no peer-reviewed study that does not say this is 

happening. 

The biggest proponent of this is our military and they, in their 

quadrennial review, say this is the biggest threat to our world. The 

time for red team—I’m sorry—that is what we do every day, that 

is what scientists do every day and 100 percent of peer-reviewed 

scientists have a consensus, and that is that this is happening. 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, you said something that caught my attention in your remarks, that the person who had become a skeptic, 

converted skeptic? 

Senator FRANKEN. Mm-hmm. 

Secretary PERRY. And you said that he made the statement that 

global warming was 100 percent due to human activity. 

Senator FRANKEN. Mm-hmm. 

Secretary PERRY. I don’t believe that—100 percent? Every bit of 

that is global warming? I don’t buy it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would just like to respond to that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That was someone hired by the Koch brothers. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary PERRY. Listen, everybody has hired somebody that’s 

got something wrong from time to time, but to stand up and say 

that 100 percent of global warming is because of human activity I 

think on its face is just indefensible. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are probably not going to resolve that here 

today, so let’s go to Senator Hoeven. 

Secretary PERRY. Hence, we should have a red-blue team approach to this again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Never mind. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. One of the things that we talked about at our 

Energy and Water Appropriations hearing was how we could do 

carbon capture and sequestration. Actually Senator Franken, what 

we did talk about, and you were on board with, were the carbon 

capture and sequestration projects that we have underway and 

helping do them. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. So, I mean, that is using new technology to 

produce more energy—— 

Secretary PERRY. Improve it. 

Senator HOEVEN. ——and improve environmental stewardship. 

But there was one question that I did want to follow up with you 

on that I did not get to ask yesterday, and that is our Energy and 
45 

Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota, 

which I referred to yesterday and which we are going to get you 

out to visit and look forward to doing that and seeing what they 

are doing. They have contracts and cooperative agreements with 

the Department of Energy, with your Office of Fossil Energy. The 

Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of 

North Dakota has cooperative agreements with your Office of Fossil Energy at DOE. Under those cooperative agreements, they are 

actually doing this development of carbon—both the capture and 

the storage—and it is a big regional project, it covers a huge area 

out there where they are actually putting CO2 downhole. In some 

cases, it is tertiary recovery, in other cases it is just storage. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. Interestingly enough, we are not only doing 

that for the fossil industry, we actually have ethanol plants out 

there. One of our ethanol plants now, because we put the legal and 

regulatory structure in place to actually store CO2 from Class VI 

wells, so just store it, not for secondary recovery, but we have that 

legal and regulatory framework which we basically developed from 

the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). I think 

you were Chairman of the IOGCC, and I was Chairman several 

times. We developed that model legislation which we actually 

passed in North Dakota, so that legal regulatory framework is in 

place, and EPA just gave us primacy on the ability to regulate it. 

So now not only are we working with the fossil industry to store 

CO2 and get secondary recovery, we actually have an ethanol plant 

now that is capturing the CO2 out of their process and then they 

are going to actually store it too. That will not be for tertiary recovery, that will be just sequestration. Okay? So we are doing it on 

the renewable side too. 

These are the kind of cooperative agreements we have with DOE. 

My request to you is, would you ask your Office of Fossil Energy 

to expedite the grant funding? Because our guys have grant funding under those cooperative agreements and they are being held up 

on their projects right now because that grant funding is shared 

between the State of North Dakota, private enterprise, and your office but we are waiting on your piece of it. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. And, Senator, is it your understanding 

of this that the delay has been because of a review process that 

was going on at DOE? 

Senator HOEVEN. I do not know the answer to that. 

Secretary PERRY. I’ll find out. 

Senator HOEVEN. But these are agreements that are in place. 

The agreement is there, it is just that they are waiting on that 

funding for these ongoing projects. I am not sure why it is—— 

Secretary PERRY. I’ll find out. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary PERRY. We’ll be back in contact. 

Senator HOEVEN. I appreciate it. And when I see Senator 

Franken, I will tell him we are working hard on these carbon capture projects. 

Secretary PERRY. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 
46 

Secretary Perry, you have been very good. I had not thought we 

would keep you until a quarter of one o’clock, but again, I apologize 

for the late start and appreciate your indulgence going over here 

and your responses to many. As it gets warmer here in Washington, DC, though, you need to know that this Alaska girl longs 

for the Arctic, and I start thinking about Arctic all the time. What 

are we doing here in the Congress, what are we doing in the Administration to really take that leadership role that I think the 

United States should as an Arctic nation? We discussed at the confirmation hearing and prior to that, that this is a focus of mine, 

and I do not really see much in the budget here that will help us 

build out that Arctic energy vision. 

So I would like to know if there is something special in here that 

you want to point my attention to. I am happy to look at it but 

know that it is something that I would like to sit down with you 

and your team. I know that your team is a little bit skinny right 

now and we are going to help you with that, but we really want 

to try to make sure there is an understanding that within the Department of Energy we think that you can play a very, very key 

role in so many of these initiatives as we work on our Arctic global 

leadership. So I look forward to working on that with you. 

Secretary PERRY. Senator, the one thing that I would just reiterate with you, I think we’ve mentioned it here, I spoke to you and 

the Committee, in the room behind the Committee, prior to coming 

in, is my great belief and faith and hope that small modular reactors, the work that is being done in the private sector, the work 

that we will be doing to advance that, the next generation, if you 

will, is I think one of the ways that we can address the Arctic. 

The real challenges that you have of not having a widespread 

grid, this vast area of land where the population is thin in places 

and being able to deliver a source of energy to them that is practical, that is economical and that is stable would be a goal that I 

look forward to working with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I so agree. I think there are multiple applications where you might not think nuclear would be a fit for Alaska. Everybody thinks of us as this great fossil-producing state, and 

we certainly have that in abundance, as we do our renewables, 

whether it is wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro, clearly. Senator 

Cantwell noted in her opening statement that we had an opportunity to go to Cordova to conduct a field hearing of the Energy 

Committee focused on microgrids. We are pioneering microgrids in 

Alaska that the rest of the world is paying attention to. 

So we have a lot to offer. Again, these are areas where you might 

not think about in the context of the Arctic discussion, but there 

is clearly a role. If you are looking for incubators of innovation, we 

can absolutely provide that to you. In fact, I have a renewable energy fair that I would like to invite you to in mid-August in the 

interior of Alaska. It does not get any more beautiful than that. 

If you want to just get a slight preview of some of the innovation 

that goes on, I have a grow tower in my front reception room in 

my office here in the Hart Building where we are growing lettuce. 

I am just here to tell you that people do not think we can grow 

anything in the cold, in the dark, and we are proving that with a 
47 

little bit of ingenuity, you can grow it in your reception room. So 

I am looking forward to working with you on those issues. 

Secretary PERRY. I look forward to coming up and spending some 

time in the great State of Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. We look forward to welcoming you. 

Thank you for being here and thank you for your time. 

Secretary PERRY. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(48) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
49 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

July21,2017 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Madam Chairman: 

On June 22,2017, Secretary Rick Perry testified regarding, the Department of Energy's 

budget request for Fiscal Year 2018. To complete the hearing record, please find 

enclosed answers to the questions submitted by Ranking Member Maria Cantwell, 

Senators Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, Al Franken, Joe Manchin III, Martin Heinrich, 

Mazie Hirono, Bill Cassidy, and you regarding this hearing. 

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

Owen, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 586-5450. 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Sincerely, 

fl::R.~~~ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Senate Affairs 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 

* Printed wi1h soy ink on recycled paper 
50 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN LISA MURKOWSKI 

Q l. For the past several years, the Department has been preparing for a major effort to test the 

economic feasibility and practical benefits of Enhanced Geothermal Systems to make 

geothermal power more widely available. The project, which is called Project FORGE, is 

currently at a critical juncture. What activities will DOE be conducting to further 

geothermal research and development and the FORGE program? 

A I. The Geothermal Technologies Office is prioritizing early-stage hydrothermal and 

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) research and development (R&D) to enable the 

development of geothermal energy technologies and allow hydrothermal resources and 

enhanced geothermal systems energy to be a fully competitive, widely available, and 

geographically diverse component of the national energy mix. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, 

the Geothermal Technologies Office will pursue major activities in the EGS Collab, 

hydrothermal R&D, and initiate new early-stage R&D in waterless stimulation. 

The EGS Collab brings together a team of subsurface experts from across the National 

Laboratory complex, partnering with academia and industry to develop in situ 

intermediate scale fracturing experiments where the fundamental relationships between 

seismicity, stress state, and permeability (cracks in the rock) can be resolved, and thermal 

hydro mechanical chemical (THMC) models can be validated and verified. The basic 

science challenge addressed by the EGS Collab is to better understand fracture dynamics 

in crystalline rock and fluid flow at an intermediate scale. The fundamental concepts 

associated with advancing our understanding of permeability creation, enhancement, and 

sustainability will be directly applied at the Frontier Observatory for Research in 

Geothermal Energy (FORGE) EGS field laboratory. 

Although Department of Energy (DOE) is not requesting funding for FORGE in FY 

2018, implementation of the program will continue using prior year funding. Execution 

of FORGE is currently in Phase 28, in which the teams are securing all required 

environmental permits, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearances, and site 

characterization. A down-select to the final team and approval to move into Phase 2C is 

expected in FY 2018. Phase 2C will entail further site characterization, full size injection 

well planning, technical road mapping and development of an initial competitive R&D 
51 

Funding Opportunity Announcement, as well as the establishment of the FORGE 

Science, Technology, and Analysis Team. 

Q2a. Please describe your view of the Department's and National Lab's relationship with the 

private sector when it comes to cybersecurity. 

A2a. Partnership with the energy sector is central to DOE's cybersecurity strategy, as about 

90 percent of the Nation's energy infrastructure is owned and operated by the private 

sector. For nearly two decades, DOE has worked closely in a voluntary capacity with 

energy sector stakeholders at all levels-technical, operational, and executive-along 

with regional operators and state and local governments to identifY and mitigate physical 

and cyber risks to energy systems. The energy industry and DOE have worked toward a 

common cybersecurity vision and road map first developed in 2006, and updated in 20 II, 

with the publication of the Roadmap to Achieve Energy Delivery Systems Cybersecurity. 

The shared vision seeks to design, install, operate, and maintain resilient energy delivery 

control systems that can survive a cyber incident while sustaining critical functions. 

DOE's strong partnership with the energy industry has created a foundation of earned 

trust that promotes the mutual exchange of information and resources to secure critical 

energy infrastructures. DOE has leveraged partnerships to share cyber threat, 

vulnerability, incident, and mitigation information; develop and share field-proven best 

practices and risk management tools for cybersecurity; and deliver innovative 

technologies to secure critical control systems. These relationships leverage the distinct 

technical expertise within industry and government to develop solutions to the highly 

specialized security challenges of energy delivery systems. 

DOE's national laboratories serve as a critical strategic and technology partner, providing 

vital facilities, resources, and capabilities to support national security needs and 

conducting work that is not otherwise available from the private sector. DOE and the 

energy sector work with the national laboratories on R&D of advanced technologies, 

analysis of cyber security risks and threats, modeling and simulation of cyber impacts, 

and information sharing on evolving threats. 

2 
52 

Fulfilling DOE's authorities and responsibilities depends on this long-standing trust and 

coordination. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of2015 designated DOE 

as the sector-specific agency (SSA) for cybersecurity for the energy sector. As the SSA, 

DOE serves as the day-to-day Federal interface for energy infrastructure security and 

resilience, including dynamic prioritization and coordination of sector-specific activities; 

carrying out incident coordination responsibilities consistent with statutory authority, 

policies, directives, or regulations; and providing technical assistance to identifY 

vulnerabilities and help prevent or mitigate the effects of incidents. 

Q2b. Where should the Department prioritize its funding for these efforts? 

A2b. The Department has developed a multiyear plan with a two-fold cybersecurity strategy: 

address growing threats and promote continuous improvement to strengthen today's 

energy delivery systems, and develop game-changing solutions that will create inherently 

secure, resilient, and self-healing energy systems for tomorrow. The plan enjoys strong 

support from energy companies because it supports industry priorities in the 

Cybersecurity Roadmap. DOE's strategy is built around three strategic priorities: 

Strengthen energy sector cybersecurity preparedness through information sharing and 

situational awareness, including bi-directional, real-time, machine-to-machine 

information sharing tools; provide risk management tools and technical assistance; 

and reduce cybersecurity supply chain risks. 

Coordinate cyber incident response and recovery by developing a coordinated 

national cyber incident response capability for the energy sector; improving cyber 

incident response training and incident reporting; and conducting cyber incident 

response exercises. This supports the SSA role to develop and adopt procedures to 

enhance public-private communication and coordination to improve emergency 

response and recovery. 

Accelerate game-changing R&D of resilient energy delivery systems to prevent, 

detect, and mitigate a cyber incident in today's systems; and support next-generation 

systems that can survive a cyber incident. R&D priorities include: 

3 
53 

o Anticipating future grid scenarios and design cybersecurity into emerging devices 

from the start. 

o Enabling future power systems to automatically prevent, detect, mitigate, recover 

from, and survive a cyber incident. 

o Building strategic core capabilities in the National Laboratories and building 

university collaborations dedicated to advancing cybersecurity for energy delivery 

systems. 

This strategy, developed and implemented in partnership with the energy sector, seeks to 

reduce cyber-attack vectors and identify attacks quickly; enable operators to sustain grid 

operations during an attack and prevent equipment damage; and enable rapid recovery 

from a cyber-attack against critical energy infrastructure. 

Q3. Advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and micro-reactors, hold 

great promise for clean, reliable, and secure power. DOE programs have been essential 

in the early and later stages of R&D and commercialization. How do you intend to use 

the resources of the Department to continue efforts on advanced reactors, including 

SMRs? 

A3. The Department agrees that advanced reactors, including small modular reactors, hold 

great promise as a clean, reliable, and secure power source for our nation. The 

Department also recognizes that advanced reactors face challenges to ultimately achieve 

commercialization. Accordingly, the Department plans to partner with nuclear technology 

developers, including existing fleet, small modular reactor and other advanced reactor 

designs, in cost-shared research and development. This will be accomplished by a 

solicitation focused on, but not limited to: improvements in manufacturing; fabrication 

and construction techniques; sensors; instrumentation and control systems; plant auxiliary 

and support systems; operational inspection and monitoring capabilities; and modeling 

and simulation of various elements of plant life cycle. In addition to cost-shared research 

and development, the FY 2018 President's Budget prioritizes investments in nuclear 

energy research infrastructure to enable private sector innovation. 

Q4. While your budget supports the need for research into methane hydrates, noting it could 

be the next key to supplying the world with natural gas after shale development, the 

natural gas technologies budget is cut 87 percent to just $5.5 million. Given the 

4 
54 

successes that Japan and China have recently had in methane hydrate production, will the 

administration commit to keeping America a world leader on hydrates? 

A4. The FY 2018 budget request of$3.5 million for Gas Hydrates supports early-stage and 

lab-based gas hydrates research. The Department received $19.8 million for gas hydrate 

research in its FY 2017 appropriation. This funding allowed DOE to fund the initial 

phases of the joint U.S.-Japan Alaska North Slope project, and will allow for DOE's 

continued participation in that project through FY 2018. Additionally, the initial phase of 

the Gulf of Mexico field research project to conduct resource characterization at a single 

site has been completed and the results will be analyzed to confirm the nature and 

regional context of those gas hydrate deposits. The research proposed in FY 2018 does 

not represent a field-scale testing protocol as the FY 2018 budget relies on industry to 

fund this type of later-stage R&D. The Gas Hydrates request is consistent with the 

Administration's America First Energy Policy, which provides a mechanism for U.S. 

global energy dominance, while being prudent with taxpayer dollars and reasserting the 

proper federal role as a supporter of early-stage R&D. 

Q5. Micro grids are extremely important for our small off-grid communities in Alaska, 

because they provide the opportunity to introduce cleaner energy technologies while 

reducing costs for residents, industry, and military installations. In fact, in Alaska we 

operate over 200 microgrids. How will you leverage the work being done in Alaska on 

microgrids with the work being done at the Department? 

AS. DOE recognizes the importance ofmicrogrids in off-grid communities such as those in 

Alaska and military installations, and has made significant progress in partnership with 

local communities, states, and industry. For example, DOE supported the Alaska 

Microgrid Partnership under the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium in 2016. The 

project focused on developing the framework and programmatic approach to assisting 

stakeholders reduce diesel fuel consumption in Alaska's remote microgrids by at least 50 

percent, without any corresponding increase to system lifecycle costs but with significant 

improvement to system reliability, security, and resilience. Moreover, DOE supported 

developing and testing oftransactive control activities on three campuses (the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, University of Washington, and Washington State 

5 
55 

University (WSU) in the Pacific Northwest. The WSU campus will leverage its 

microgrid, major campus loads, and thermal storage to deliver transactive response. 

DOE will continue to work with Alaska on understanding resilience improvements and 

decision tools. 

6 
56 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER MARIA CANTWELL 

Q I. In your budget hearing testimonies, you answered questions by saying the budget 

proposal is just one step in the process for deciding funding levels. For the record: Do 

you support the President's budget request for the Department of Energy? 

AI. Yes. 

Q2. During your confirmation hearing you committed to protecting Hanford workers and to 

provide adequate funding to clean up the site. The proposed budget would not allow for 

progress to be made on the Central Plateau or the Hanford Tank Farms. It also cuts 

community support, used for oversight and outreach purposes and perhaps most 

importantly funding the Richland School district, by 46%. Why does the President's 

budget fail to provide the funding necessary to get the job done? 

A2. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget positions the Department to continue making 

significant progress at the Hanford Site, which includes continued progress in safely 

removing the K Basin sludge from near the Columbia River to the central plateau, 

continuing pump and treat activities to remediate contaminated groundwater, and the 

maintenance, repair, and replacement of failing infrastructure, facilities, and systems. 

This includes a focus on addressing risks posed by those that are specifically clean-up 

related and those that support our cleanup activities. 

The FY 2018 budget request is slightly greater than $2.3 billion. This funding is greater 

than one-third of the entire budget for Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of 

Environmental Management (EM). 

Taking many variables into account, DOE has generally prioritized its cleanup activities 

as follows: 

• Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex; 

• Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal; 

• Spent (used) nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition; 

• Special nuclear material consolidation, stabilization, and disposition; 

• Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition; 

• Soil and groundwater remediation; and, 

• Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning. 

7 
57 

DOE will continue to discharge its responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a 

"Safety First" culture that integrates environmental, safety, and health requirements and 

controls into all work activities. This ensures protection for the workers, public, and the 

environment. 

Q3. Can you guarantee that this August, you will meet with the proper DOE officials to 

determine what funds are needed to stabilize facilities at Hanford? 

A3. Yes. 

Q4. The budget for Hanford falls short by $124 million- and that's before the tunnel collapse. 

Every time an unforeseen event takes place at Hanford, money is shifted away from other 

projects to meet those needs. How do you expect the site offices to meet mandated 

commitments when they are constantly underfunded and having to shift money to 

remediate unforeseen situations? 

A4. The FY 2018 budget request is slightly greater than $2.3 billion. This funding is greater 

than one-third of the entire budget for DOE's Office of EM. 

The FY 2018 budget positions the Department to continue making progress at the 

Hanford Site, which includes continued progress in safely removing the K Basin sludge 

from near the Columbia River to the central plateau, continuing pump and treat activities 

to remediate contaminated groundwater, and the maintenance, repair, and replacement of 

failing infrastructure. This includes a focus on addressing risks posed by those that are 

specifically clean-up related and those that support our cleanup activities. 

The grouting of Plutonium-Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) Tunnel I later this fall is 

estimated to cost less than $10 million. Considering the Richland FY 2017 enacted level 

of$916 million, this urgent requirement causes only a minor shift in schedule oflower 

relative risk cleanup work. 

Q5. The Hanford facility in the state of Washington pioneered the plutonium extraction 

process and produced plutonium in support of our national defense for more than 40 

years. Do you agree that it is an urgent moral and legal obligation to properly fund and 

proceed with the cleanup effort at the Hanford site, including construction of the Waste 

Treatment Plant? 

8 
58 

A5. The Department takes its regulatory commitments seriously and is actively working to 

clean up the Hanford Site while continuing key risk reduction and remediation activities 

that may not have specific regulatory commitments. The Department continues to make 

progress on the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), having installed the 

last major component in the Low Activity Waste facility this year, which is a key facility 

in the Department's effort to begin treating low activity waste by December 31, 2023. 

Q6. How can I and the workers at the Hanford site trust that you will provide them with the 

resources they need when this budget fails to meet your commitments? 

A6. The Department takes its regulatory commitments seriously and is actively working to 

clean up the Hanford Site while continuing key risk reduction and remediation activities 

that may not have specific regulatory commitments. 

The FY 2018 budget positions the Department to continue making progress at the 

Hanford Site, which includes continued progress in safely removing the K Basin sludge 

from near the Columbia River to the central plateau, continuing pump and treat activities 

to remediate contaminated groundwater, and the maintenance, repair, and replacement of 

failing infrastructure, facilities, and systems. This includes a focus on addressing risks 

posed by those that are specifically clean-up related and those that support our cleanup 

activities. 

The FY 2018 budget request is slightly greater than $2.3 billion. This funding is greater 

than one-third of the entire EM budget. 

Q7. Will you ensure that you will impress upon the Administration that any changes in the 

Department's approach to the Hanford cleanup must include input from the state of 

Washington and the Washington delegation before moving forward, in order to avoid 

costly litigation that will only hamper progress? 

A 7. During my tenure as Secretary, I want to improve the collaboration with the Washington 

congressional delegation, the State of Washington, and Tribal leaders, to emphasize the 

importance of achieving cleanup results versus the apparent focus on increasing 

processes. I believe we can do a better job and I have challenged my staff to identify and 

evaluate specific focus areas for our consideration. 

9 
59 

I will work closely with leaders from the State of Washington, the congressional 

delegation, and other important stakeholders as part of the decision-making process for 

the cleanup mission at Hanford. 

Q8. Do I have your word you will work with the Washington delegation and state of 

Washington on the Hanford cleanup? 

A8. The Hanford Site cleanup is a high priority for me. As a former Governor, I have a 

strong appreciation and understanding of the role of elected officials. I am committed to 

working with the state of Washington, the Washington congressional delegation and our 

other important stakeholders to continue to make steady cleanup progress and develop 

new and innovative solutions to our cleanup challenges at the Hanford Site. 

As I indicated in my hearing, I want to look at opportunities to complete the 

Department's EM mission more efficiently and expeditiously, including the cleanup of 

the Hanford Site where considerable effort remains. 

To that end, the Office of EM is working to identify and examine opportunities to 

improve the effectiveness of its cleanup efforts. This includes examining ways to 

advance the tank waste cleanup mission at Hanford as we continue to maintain the focus 

on completing construction of the WTP Low Activity Waste Facility and making glass by 

December 31, 2023. I would also expect us to look at opportunities to advance the 

overall cleanup of the site as we complete cleanup efforts in the River Corridor area and 

shift our focus to the Central Plateau. 

Moving forward with these efforts will take leadership on all of our parts and a 

commitment to partnership, to think creatively and to work together to remove barriers, 

while still being safe and protecting human health and the environment. 

Q9. In just the past month a tunnel collapsed adjacent to the Plutonium-uranium extraction 

facility, which contains fatally harmful radioactive constituents and, more recently, 

radioactive contamination was found on a workers clothing. These events highlight how 

dangerous Hanford is and the extreme focus we must maintain on the safety mission. Do 

you acknowledge the extreme risk to workers at the Hanford site? 

10 
60 

A9. The partial tunnel collapse at the Hanford Site was a sobering reminder that the men and 

women who work for DOE contractors at Hanford do incredible work and can be 

exposed to hazardous conditions. The health and safety of the workers, members of the 

public, and protection of the environment is our first priority. 

I will work with you, labor organizations, and other key stakeholders to better understand 

worker concerns and to continue strengthening the Department's safety and training 

processes. 

Q 10. Do you commit to improving worker safety and improving the worker compensation 

program and the Department's contribution the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program at Hanford? 

AIO. The Department's Richland Office has initiated a number of actions to strengthen the state 

and federal compensation programs at Hanford. The actions include working with the State to 

obtain additional expertise related to chemical exposures to aid the state in its administration 

of the compensation program and improving workers' awareness of the Washington State 

Labor and Industries Office of the Ombudsman for Injured Workers of Self-Insured 

Businesses. 

These enhancements resulted from Richland's close collaboration with contractors, labor 

unions, state, and other federal agencies. The actions are now underway and I look 

forward to working with you and my counterparts at other relevant agencies on further 

improving these programs, while ensuring communication with the workers at Hanford. 

These initiatives are part of a more comprehensive set of efforts to ensure workers have a 

safe work environment. These include title I 0, Code of Federal Regulations, part 851, 

Worker Safety and Health Program (1 0 CFR 851), which incorporates the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) safety and health regulations (contained in 

29 CFR), 10 CFR 850, Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program which requires 

an extensive program to protect workers from exposure to beryllium and provide worker 

rights and benefits, and 10 CFR 835, and Occupational Radiation Protection which 

requires a comprehensive Radiation Protection Program to prevent occupational 

exposures to ionizing radiation. 

ll 
61 

In addition to these Rules, the Department has established a number of directives and 

technical standards to address worker safety and health and ensure the unique safety and 

health hazards associated with DOE work are addressed. The Directives include: 

• Integrated Safety Management - requires a consistent integrated approach to 

managing safety and health issues; 

• Nano Material and Biological Safety and Security- addresses these two safety 

concerns as they apply to facilities within the Department; 

• Federal Technical Capabilities- requires qualified safety and health managers and 

staff; and 

• Federal Oversight- establishes mechanisms for the oversight of safety and health 

programs. 

Safety and health best practices for hazards in the areas of worker safety and health, 

radiation protection, and chemical management, not covered by national consensus 

standards, are addressed in departmental technical standards. 

The Department is committed to continuing to strengthen its administration of the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) activities at 

Hanford and sites across the complex. DOE's role under EEOICPA is to provide records 

and information to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

and the Department of Labor (DOL) to assist with reconstructing dose and adjudicating 

worker claims. 

In addition, DOE has been working closely with DOL on a project to enhance the DOL 

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) for the Hanford site, which is a relational database that 

identifies toxic substances present at DOE sites and links that information with site 

locations, labor categories, illnesses, and other pieces of information relevant to claims 

adjudication. The SEM is an important tool for the claims adjudication process, and the 

effort to update and enhance this tool is a key priority for DOE. DOE has developed a 

Secure Electronic Records Transfer (SERT) system that is used to send and receive 

EEOICPA records requests quickly and effectively. 

12 
62 

DOE has recently funded two major scanning projects at Hanford beginning July 5, 2017, 

aimed at streamlining the response to EEOICPA claims. The first project is to digitize all 

legacy dosimetry records now existing in microfilm and microfiche. The collection is 

estimated to contain over 12 million separate images. The project is expected to be 

completed in September 2018. The second project is to complete the digitization of all 

legacy personnel records on site, approximately 200,000 more records in addition to the 

95,000 already completed. We expect this task-will be complete in May 2018. 

Qll. Do you acknowledge that the Department has a lot of work to do to improve how it helps 

sick workers at Hanford? Will you commit to work with me to fix the Department's 

deficiencies and work with the unions and advocacy groups to get to the bottom of the 

problems plaguing the workers compensation program at Hanford? 

A II. The men and women who work at the Hanford Site do incredible work and can be 

exposed to hazardous conditions. The health and safety of the workers, members of the 

public, and protection of the environment is our first priority. I will work with you, labor 

organizations, and other key stakeholders to better understand worker concerns and to 

continue strengthening the Department's safety and training processes. 

With regard to the administration of the workers' compensation programs, the 

Department's Richland Office has initiated a number of actions to strengthen 

implementation ofthe State's workers' compensation program at Hanford. The actions 

include: working with the State to obtain additional medical expertise related to chemical 

exposures and to improve Hanford workers' awareness of the Washington State Labor 

and Industries Office of the Ombudsman for Injured Workers of Self-Insured Businesses. 

These enhancements resulted from Richland's close collaboration with contractors, labor 

unions, state, and federal agencies. The actions are now underway and I look forward 

working with you and my counterparts on further improving this program, while ensuring 

communication with the workers at Hanford. 

Ql2. What specific steps have you taken and are planning to take on worker safety at Hanford? 

13 
63 

A12. We are committed to ensuring a safe environment for workers that is protective of their 

health and allows them to feel comfortable to raise safety or other concerns without fear 

of retaliation. We apply a defense-in-depth approach to safety that builds in layers of 

protection to eliminate, limit or mitigate hazards to workers, the public or the 

environment accomplished through the use of physical and other engineered features; 

safety structures, systems and components; and safety management systems and other 

controls necessary to provide protection. 

The Hanford contractors have implemented a robust integrated safety management 

system (ISMS) that incorporates safety into all aspects of work from planning to 

execution. It includes procedures and adherence to procedures that meet or exceed DOE 

and OSHA requirements, job hazard analyses conducted prior to work, pre-job meetings 

and walkdowns, workplace monitoring, worker training, and continuous improvement 

processes to identify and correct deficiencies and further enhance safety. 

With respect to the concerns that have been raised related to tank vapors at the Hanford 

Site, we have taken a number of actions to address the recommendations we have 

received from NIOSH; the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, the DOE 

Inspector General, and the DOE Office of Environment, Safety, and Health. These 

actions include hiring more than I 00 additional industrial hygiene professionals, 

investing in new detection, analysis and monitoring technologies in the tank farms, and 

improving both personal and area monitoring. We are currently demonstrating an 

integrated suite of chemical monitoring technologies in one of the double shell tank farms 

that allows the real-time detection of chemical vapors that will help us tailor enhanced 

monitoring in other areas of the site. The FY 2018 budget request continues this 

important investment in enhanced capabilities. 

I look forward to making my first visit to Hanford later this summer, and talking with the 

men and women who are doing these difficult, and sometimes hazardous, jobs every day 

to better understand their concerns. I will use the information and the feedback I receive 

from the workers to work closely with labor organizations, the State of Washington, the 

14 
64 

congressional delegation, and others to continue strengthening the Department's safety 

and training processes. 

Q13. Will you commit to working with us to ensure the workers at Hanford are receiving the 

proper training and equipment and that they are not exposed to chemical vapors? 

AJ3. Yes. 

QI4. On May 9, Tunnel I, adjacent to the Plutonium-Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) at 

Hanford partially collapsed. I visited the site within days. On the day of the tunnel 

collapse, you were visiting Idaho National Lab- one state over. Why didn't you visit the 

site following the tunnel collapse? 

A 14. On the date of the Hanford PUREX Tunnel #l partial collapse, I was touring the Idaho 

National Lab. I was immediately notified of the situation, and was in close contact with 

Hanford staff as well as Emergency Operations staff in our Headquarters building. As a 

former Governor of Texas, I have managed through many crises, including hurricanes 

and other natural disasters. Rather than becoming a distraction with a last-minute visit, I 

chose to allow the very capable and knowledgeable local staff to respond immediately 

and get the situation under control. 

Ql5. During your confirmation process, you committed to visiting Hanford. Will you visit the 

site with me in August? When you visit, will you meet with the workers? Will you also 

commit to visiting PNNL? 

A 15. !look forward to visiting Hanford later this summer, and hearing first-hand from the 

workers their concerns. I also plan to visit the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

Ql6. Hanford has been an interim storage site for 70-plus years, but it was not meant to be the 

de facto final resting place for this high-level nuclear waste. Can the people of 

Washington State count on you to provide a disposal option for the Defense Waste that 

has resided at Hanford for 70 years? Will you ensure that any decisions that are made 

about how waste is processed will be done with input from the state of Washington 

Department of Ecology and the entire Washington delegation? 

A 16. Addressing nuclear waste storage and disposal, enhancing national security and 

significantly reducing future taxpayer burdens are priorities for this Administration. The 

FY 2018 budget request proposes funding for nuclear waste disposal while providing 

sound, science-based solutions. 

15 
65 

I will work with the State of Washington, the Washington congressional delegation, and 

others to ensure we are making sustainable, risk-informed, and fiscally wise decisions 

regarding the dispositioning of nuclear waste in this country. 

Q17. During your confirmation process, you wrote in response to a Question for the Record, 

"Our national laboratories are the crown jewels of the nation and I plan to support and 

advocate for their work." However, the President's budget proposal would slash funding 

for the labs, eliminating 7,000 jobs across 12 of the national labs, which is about 25 

percent of the workforce. Do you agree with your earlier statement that the Labs should 

be sufficiently funded, or do you agree with this budget, which seems to not value the 

Labs' work and researchers? 

A 17. Through our 17 national laboratories, the Department engages in cutting-edge research 

that expands the frontiers of scientific knowledge and generates new technologies that 

address our greatest energy challenges. This budget will ensure that the Department's 

national laboratories continue to be the backbone of American science leadership by 

supporting cutting-edge basic research, and by building and operating the world's most 

advanced scientific user facilities-which will be used by over 27,000 researchers in FY 

2018. 

Q 18. Why did you allow these drastic budget cuts despite saying that you would support 

and advocate for the work of the National Labs? 

A 18. My goal is to ensure that the DOE, through its national laboratories, continues to support 

the world's best enterprise of scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive 

American prosperity, security and competitiveness for the next generation. 

The FY 2018 Budget Request refocuses the Department's energy and science programs 

on early-stage research and development (R&D) at our national laboratories to advance 

American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost effective 

manner. The Request will refocus the intellectual prowess of our scientists and engineers 

on the development of technologies that the ingenuity and capital of America's 

entrepreneurs and businesses can convert into commercial applications and products that 

improve the lives and security of all Americans. 

Q19. How are we going to retain U.S.leadership in science and technology development if the 

Department is proposing a budget that will result in a massive brain drain? 

16 
66 

A 19. Our Nation will achieve our economic, energy, and environmental goals simultaneously 

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

and delivery, and by unleashing America's ingenuity to unlock our natural resources. 

The Request refocuses the Department's energy and science programs on early-stage 

R&D at our national laboratories to advance American primacy in scientific and energy 

research in an efficient and cost effective manner including: 

o The FY 2018 Request funds $6.4 billion in early-stage R&D while reducing laterstage research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs by $3 .I 

billion from the FY 2017 enacted levels. 

o The Request includes a $4.5 billion investment in the Office of Science (OS), to 

continue and strengthen American leadership in scientific inquiry with DOE as 

the Nation's largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. 

o The Request also provides $1.9 billion in energy R&D programs, with a renewed 

focus on cutting-edge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the 

private marketplace. 

Q20a. I've toured PNNL and have seen their research which has made them one of the lead labs 

working on grid modernization technologies. DOE's R&D programs seek to improve the 

reliability, security and resilience ofthe grid. Some of this important work is being done 

via the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium, a collection of 14 national labs and co-led 

by PNNL. What is your plan to continue advancements in grid R&D? 

A20a. The Department's FY 2018 budget request focuses funding to national laboratories' early 

stage scientific research efforts related to grid modernization. DOE expects to meet 

commitments concerning the existing Grid Modernization Lab Consortium (GMLC) 

efforts. DOE anticipates private industry will leverage DOE research for innovative 

applied solutions, demonstrations, and pilot projects tailored to market needs and 

opportunities. 

17 
67 

Q20b. How will you keep the Consortium moving forward? 

A20b. In FY 2017, DOE continues to utilize the GMLC to carry out grid modernization, 

including a lab call for integrated field tests and support for institutional studies. DOE 

also expects to meet commitments in FY 2017 and, if necessary, in FY 2018, with respect 

to the existing GMLC efforts. 

Q21. Under the proposed budget, more than 1,000 researchers at PNNL may be laid off, 

despite your assurances to Rep. Newhouse that you will manage the Jab "in a way that 

continues to keep the employment levels at the level to deliver the innovation and 

technology this country is going to need." Would those be the employees working on 

cyber security, nuclear non-proliferation, Hanford clean-up, grid reliability or buildings 

efficiency? 

A21. The FY 2018 Budget Request for DOE's energy and science programs will place a key 

focus on early stage R&D at the national laboratories. Under the request, all DOE 

national laboratories remain open and operational. 

Q22. During your confirmation hearing, you said, "I have no questions at all about whether or 

not the Trump Administration is going to be very supportive of keeping America strong 

and free, and the technologies that come out of DOE in many cases are going to play a 

very, very important role. I will be an advocate for that." I couldn't agree more on the 

important role the Department plays. For example, between 1976 and 2012, $12 billion 

in EERE investments yielded economic benefits of $230 billion, with an annual return on 

investment of20 percent. Study after study shows that federal investments have a 

positive impact stimulating private sector R&D, and yet your budget slashes funding. 

How can you justify a budget that severely cuts investment in R&D across the board at 

the Department? 

A22. The President's FY 2018 Budget refocuses the Department's energy and science 

programs on early-stage R&D at our national laboratories to advance American primacy 

in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Budget 

provides $6.4 billion, $4.5 billion in the OS and $1.9 billion in energy R&D programs, 

with a renewed focus on cutting-edge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to 

the private marketplace. 

Through our National Laboratories, we will continue to support the world's best 

enterprise of scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive American 

18 
68 

prosperity, security and competitiveness for the next generation. The FY 2018 Budget 

positions us to take up that challenge while continuing to ensure our national security. 

Q23. The budget proposal slashes innovation spending across DOE programs. This seems to 

be based on a belief that the private sector will pick up the slack. Yet only two percent of 

venture capital goes to energy startups, and the private sector has no incentive to invest in 

the time- and capital-intensive demonstration projects that are needed to test risky and 

unproven energy technologies. The energy industry itself is risk-averse and, in some 

cases, even disincentivized to invest in R&D. Meanwhile, What specific studies are you 

relying on to assert that the private sector will fill in the gap? 

A23. The Budget Request provides $6.4 billion for research and development programs, with a 

renewed focus on cutting-edge innovation and fostering the transition of those 

breakthroughs to the private sector for commercialization. 

The private sector plays a critical role in bringing innovations into the energy 

marketplace. The FY 2018 Budget refocuses the Department's energy and science 

programs on early-stage research and d~velopment at our national laboratories to advance 

American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost-effective 

manner. It focuses our investments on the basic, early-stage R&D conducted by the 

scientists and engineers at our 17 national laboratories who are constantly on the path to 

developing the next great innovations that can transform society, and bring forth a new 

era of prosperity for the American people. 

In addition to providing $6.4 billion for early-stage research towards cutting-edge 

innovations, including $4.5 billion in the Office of Science and $1.9 billion in energy 

R&D programs, the Budget consolidates programs focused on bringing technologies to 

the market in the Office ofTechnology Transitions (OTT). Through concerted effort and 

coordination with our labs, this will reduce costs to the taxpayer while at the same time 

providing a robust technology transfer program to transfer breakthroughs from the 

national laboratories to the private sector. 

Q24. Countries like China, Korea, and Germany are consistently increasing their public 

investments in energy R&D. How is the U.S. going to retain its leadership role in 

innovation with dramatic cuts to federal R&D spending? 

19 
69 

A24. The FY 2018 Budget Request focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal 

role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. This shift allows the 

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

technologies. 

By focusing on early stage R&D, the budget proposes critical investments necessary to 

sustain America's leadership in transformative science and emerging energy 

technologies-for example, in transportation, coal, renewable power, energy efficiency, 

and cyber-security for the grid. 

This work will support the world's best enterprise of scientists and engineers who create 

innovations to drive American prosperity, security and competitiveness tor the next 

generation. 

Q25. In your testimony before this Committee, you said,"! support the academic and the 

Government mission of basic research, even when you may not see the results of that for 

a generation." And you added that "I am a big believer that we have a role to play both 

in basic research obviously, but also in that applied research, to bring new technologies, 

new commercialization, new economic development opportunities to this country." 

Could you please clarifY your position on the role DOE plays in supporting basic research 

vs. early stage research vs. applied research? 

A25. While the Budget reduces later-stage research, development, demonstration, and 

deployment programs by $3.1 billion from the FY 2017 Enacted levels, it also includes 

$6.4 billion for early-stage R&D with a renewed focus on cutting-edge innovation and 

transitioning those breakthroughs to the private marketplace. The Department's energy 

and science programs will focus on early-stage R&D our national laboratories to advance 

American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost-effective 

manner. 

In the area of basic science research, the DOE is the Nation's largest Federal supporter of 

basic research in the physical sciences, and the President's FY 2018 Budget provides 

$4.5 billion for the OS to continue and strengthen American leadership in scientific 

inquiry. By focusing funding on early-stage research, this Budget will ensure that the 

20 
70 

Department's National Laboratories continue to be the backbone of American science 

leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic research, and by building and operating the 

world's most advanced scientific user facilities-which will be used by over 27,000 

researchers in FY 2018. 

In the area of applied R&D, the Department also supports energy R&D programssupported by $1.9 billion in the President's FY 2018 Budget-with a renewed focus on 

cutting-edge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the private marketplace. 

Finally, we consolidate programs focused on bringing technologies to the market in the 

OTT. Through our focus on early-stage research and concerted efforts to coordinate with 

our labs on technology transfer, the Budget will reduce costs to the taxpayer and spur 

world-leading energy innovation-while at the same time providing a robust technology 

transfer program to transfer breakthroughs from the national laboratories to the private 

sector. 

Q26. How exactly does this budget support basic research, early stage research, and applied 

research, all while slashing spending across the board? 

A26. The Budget focuses the intellectual prowess of our scientists and engineers on the 

development of technologies that the ingenuity and capital of America's entrepreneurs 

and businesses can convert into commercial applications and products that improve the 

lives and security of all Americans. 

The Budget provides $6.4 billion, $4.5 billion in the OS and $1.9 billion in energy R&D 

programs, with a renewed focus on cutting-edge innovation and transitioning those 

breakthroughs to the private marketplace. While reducing later-stage research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment programs by $3.1 billion from the FY 2017 

enacted levels, these investments will ensure that the DOE, through its National 

Laboratories, will continue to support the world's best enterprise of scientists and 

engineers who create innovations to drive American prosperity, security and 

competitiveness for the next generation. 

21 
71 

Q27. During your confirmation process you said, "I believe that the Department of Energy 

should continue to invest in the basic research that will spur the innovation that will keep 

America's economy, including its wind and solar industries, competitive." Earlier this 

week, the American Energy Innovation Council a coalition of corporate leaders 

including Bill Gates, Norm Augustine, and John Doerr- warned that "the U.S. 

innovation system may be in danger oflosing ground to other nations, which are simply 

making greater commitments to innovation than the United States." Meanwhile, the 

United States ranks only 12th in energy R&D intensity, which measures energy R&D 

spending as a percentage of GDP. How can the United States remain a global leader in 

innovation if we slash our investments in it? 

A27. Our job is to create innovations to drive American prosperity, security and 

competitiveness for the next generation, and the President's FY 2018 Budget Request 

positions us to take up that challenge while continuing to ensure our national security. 

By focusing funding on early-stage research, this Budget will ensure that the 

Department's National Laboratories continue to be the backbone of American science 

leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic research, and by building and operating the 

world's most advanced scientific user facilities-which will be used by over 27,000 

researchers in FY 2018. The President's FY 2018 Budget provides $4.5 billion for the 

OS to continue and strengthen American leadership in scientific inquiry. 

The Department also supports energy research and development programs-supported by 

$1.9 billion in the President's FY 2018 Budget-with a renewed focus on cutting-edge 

innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the private marketplace. 

Through these investments and by refocusing the Department's energy and science 

programs on early-stage R&D at our national laboratories, the President's FY 2018 

Budget will advance American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient 

and cost-effective manner. 

Q28. As you know, Mission Innovation is a multinational effort to accelerate public and 

private investment in clean energy innovation. Twenty countries, including the United 

States, committed to doubling their clean energy R&D investments over the next five 

years. This budget obviously undermines that commitment. Do you support Mission 

Innovation, and how can the United States live up to its international commitments under 

this budget proposal? 

22 
72 

A28. The United States is committed to supporting the development of affordable and reliable 

energy as a foundation for economic growth and energy security. Indeed, reliable, 

affordable energy goes hand in hand with a strong economy. Innovation in science and 

technology has been a cornerstone of America's economic progress. The private sector 

funds and performs the majority of U.S. R&D, but the Federal government has an 

important role in funding R&D in areas that industry does not have a strong incentive to 

invest. 

Innovation continues to be a top priority for the United States through both strategic 

public funding for early-stage R&D and strong private sector investment to support the 

development and commercialization of the most promising ideas. Novel technologies 

open fresh avenues to expand domestic energy supplies and drive down energy costs. 

Broad access to affordable and reliable energy will further stimulate economic growthbringing jobs and prosperity to millions of U.S. consumers and businesses and throughout 

the global economy. Many of the most innovative technologies shaping global energy 

markets today can trace their origins to public investments in basic science, exploratory 

research, and early-stage technology development. Innovations arising from these 

investments have created new technologies and lowered their cost, which in tum have 

had transformative effects on whole industries. 

The DOE's National Laboratories have worked with American universities, research 

institutions and industry partners, and international collaborators around the world, to 

push the frontiers of basic science and research. They explore novel concepts to meet 

high-priority national needs. They discover new knowledge, share it with private 

partners, and create a wellspring of ideas that help spur technological breakthroughs. 

The U.S. government plans to continue to support investments in early-stage research to 

advance energy technology innovation. The outcomes are expected to feed the innovation 

pipeline, stimulate entrepreneurs, attract investors, and enable U.S. companies to secure 

leadership positions in global energy markets. The United States seeks to nurture an efficient 

research enterprise that will realize the overarching goals of Mission Innovation, namely, to 

make clean and advanced energy technology widely accessible and affordable worldwide. 

23 
73 

Q29. Five months ago, when testifying during your confirmation hearing before this 

Committee you said: "I believe some of [climate change] is naturally occurring. I believe 

some of it is caused by manmade activity. The question is, how do we address it in a 

thoughtful way?"- adding "I am committed to making decisions based on sound 

science." You also promised, "I'm going to protect all of the science whether it's related 

to the climate or to the other aspects of what we're going to be doing." But in an 

interview with CNBC, you stated that C02 is not the "primary control knob" affecting 

climate change, citing ocean waters and other environmental factors. Could you please 

elaborate on the science that underpins that belief? 

A29. I believe the climate is changing and man is having an impact. There are several 'control 

knobs' which contribute to that change. My focus as Secretary of Energy is to utilize 

American innovation and technology to produce energy in an environmentally 

responsible manner that enhances our economic security. 

Q30. Control knob" is an interesting choice of words, because a 2010 report by leading NASA 

climate scientists- titled "Atmospheric C02: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's 

Temperature"- concluded "it is clear that C02 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts 

principal control over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect." That report found 

that "atmospheric C02 control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the 

geological record." I'd like to give you an opportunity, once and for all, to clarify 

whether or not you agree with 97 percent of climate scientists- scientists who conclude 

that the climate is changing and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are the primary 

driver. 

A30. As I have previously stated, the climate is changing and man is having an impact. There 

are several 'control knobs' which contribute to that change. My focus as Secretary of 

Energy is to utilize American innovation and technology to produce energy in an 

environmentally responsible manner that enhances our economic security. 

Q31. Please elaborate on how we can address this challenge in a "thoughtful way" based on 

"sound science" if the budget proposal slashes Biological and Environmental 

Research within the Office of Science- the office that supports climate science- by 

43percent. 

A31. The FY 2018 Budget Request for Biological and Environmental Research implements the 

Administration's decision to shift focus to more fundamental research across DOE. Through 

careful prioritization and ensuring that funding goes to the most promising research, this 

budget will ensure that the Department's national laboratories continue to be the backbone of 

24 
74 

American science leadership by supporting cutting-edge basic research and to advance 

American primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost effective manner. 

In alignment with this, investments in certain areas are discontinued and the Climate and 

Environmental Sciences subprogram is retitled "Earth and Environmental Systems 

Sciences" to reflect its new focus. The FY 2018 Budget Request gives priority to 

supporting specific aspects of earth system models, maintaining current U.S. leadership 

in high-resolution earth system modeling and model development, and other science 

research underpinning ultimate use in energy and infrastructure planning and policy. 

Q32. Please comment on how you will"protect all ofthe science" when, in 2010, you 

referred to climate science as a "contrived phony mess" and blamed a "secular carbon 

cult" of scientists who manipulate data to show evidence of climate change. 

A32. The Department will continue to abide by the OS merit review system to ensure the 

quality and integrity of all funded research. The research will focus on fundamental 

earth system science. 

I have been consistent in my support of our National Laboratories, the crown jewels 

of science in America. They tackle some of the toughest scientific challenges and 

develop mind-boggling technologies. They also keep us safe, through research that 

defends us from terrorism and keeps our nuclear stockpile secure, modern, and 

effective. I fully support the work of the National Laboratories system in all its 

endeavors that cover the spectrum of challenges facing America today. 

Q33. You have stated that we need a "Red Team" approach to examining climate science. 

But that is exactly the nature of the scientific and peer review processes. Are you 

aware that this already exists on a regular basis? 

A33. The OS merit review system ensures the quality and integrity of all funded research, 

and additional review could contribute towards a robust scientific dialogue. The 

specific process for a Red team exercise has not yet been developed. 

Q34. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 by the World 

Meteorological Organization and U.N. to provide policymakers with regular assessments 

of the scientific basis of climate change. These assessments are written by hundreds of 

leading scientists and undergo multiple rounds of drafting and review to ensure they are 

25 
75 

comprehensive and objective and produced in an open and transparent way. How would 

your Red Team exercise possibly expand on what has already been done by the entire 

scientific community? 

A34. Office of Science merit review system ensures the quality and integrity of all funded 

research, and additional review could contribute towards a robust scientific dialogue. 

The specific process for a Red team exercise has not yet been developed. 

Q35. The budget proposes to eliminate ARPA-E. In March, you tweeted, "Innovators like the 

ones supported by our @ARP AE program are key to advancing America's energy 

economy." The National Academies released a report this month stating, "There are 

clear indicators that ARPA-E is making progress toward achieving its statutory mission 

and goals" and "the committee found no signs that ARPA-E is failing, or on a path to 

failing, to deliver on its mission and goals." Do you agree with the Budget's proposal to 

eliminate ARPA-E? If so, what changed your mind from publicly supporting ARPA-E to 

calling for its elimination? 

A35. I support the President's Budget. The Budget will spur world-leading energy innovation, 

while also reducing costs to the taxpayer. 

Q36. The budget proposes to eliminate the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy 

Program, which provide critical technical assistance and state-controlled competitive grant 

funding to all 50 states. The Weatherization Program supports approximately 8,500 direct 

and indirect jobs which can't be outsourced each year, growing the energy workforce. 

Please provide an explanation of the anticipated reductions in homes that will be weatherized 

as a result of terminating DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program. What are the key 

technical assistance functions DOE currently performs that will not be replicated at an 

individual state level? 

A36. In FY 2018, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) will weatherize 

approximately 23,725 homes as the program is closed out, using funds appropriated with 

FY 2017 funds. W AP will weatherize approximately 35,000 homes in FY17. 

Maintenance of the Standard Work Specifications for Home Energy Upgrades, 

accreditation of training centers, and support for the National Energy Audit Tool are 

some specific examples of technical assistance functions that will not be provided 

through W AP. However, states, utilities, and other stakeholder groups may re-prioritize 

resources to support these programs as appropriate. 

26 
76 

Q3 7. The budget proposes to cut funding for the Office of Science by 17 percent. The 

office is the largest federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, 

supporting over 24,000 investigators at over 300 U.S. academic institutions and the 

national laboratories. Their facilities support more than 31,000 researchers from 

universities, national laboratories, industry, and international partners. Do you agree 

that Federal investments in basic research are critical for maintaining U.S. leadership 

in science and technology and creating jobs? If so, why does the Department's 

budget call for cutting Science funding by 17 percent? 

A3 7. The President's FY 2018 Budget Request refocuses the Department's energy and science 

programs on early-stage R&D at our national laboratories to advance American primacy 

in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost effective manner. This includes 

a $4.5 billion investment in the OS, to continue and strengthen American leadership in 

scientific inquiry with DOE as the Nation's largest Federal supporter of basic research in 

the physical sciences. The budget also maintains the most critical core capabilities and 

infrastructure at our national laboratories to support that groundbreaking early R&D. 

With continued construction of cutting-edge projects like the Linac Coherent Light 

Source-II, the Facility for Rare Isotopes Beam, and the Long Baseline Neutrino 

Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, while also supporting our worldleading science and technology workforce at the national labs, we will ensure we 

continue to drive innovation for the Nation. 

Q38. The Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program in the Office of Science 

took nearly a quarter of the office's cuts. As you may know, BER supports basic 

research biological systems and earth systems science. This proposed budget for 

BER appears to target earth systems science, possibly because this administration has 

said it intends to dismantle any program that appears to be affiliated with climate 

science. Do you agree that basic science research programs that help contribute to 

innovation and drive economic growth are important? How do you plan to ensure 

that BER meets its missions at the proposed funding level? 

A38. The FY 2018 President's Request supports priorities within BER in the areas of 

Genomic Sciences, Earth and Environmental Systems, and scientific user facilities. 

The basic science generated from these activities provides the research that drives 

innovation and growth for applications with broad economic benefits to society. 

Q39. A 2016 DOE study found that a portfolio of R&D investments at the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy totaling $12 billion from 1976 to 2012 yielded net 

27 
77 

economic benefits to the United States of $230 billion (nearly 20 times multiplier) with an 

annual return on investment of20 percent. Given this return on investment and the trillions of 

dollars that will be invested globally in renewable energy and energy efficiency, why are you 

undermining U.S. energy leadership by proposing to cut EERE by 70 percent? 

A39. The FY 2018 Budget focuses Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal role is strongest, and reflects an 

increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies. The Budget emphasizes energy technologies 

best positioned to support American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the 

near to mid-term. The Budget maintains America's leadership in transformative science 

and emerging energy technologies in sustainable transportation, renewable power, and 

energy efficiency. 

EERE early-stage research focuses on technology challenges that have the potential for 

high return on investment, but which present a significant degree of scientific or technical 

uncertainty across a relatively lengthy time span, making it unlikely that industry will 

invest significant R&D on their own. Thus, this budget maintains the most critical core 

capabilities and infrastructure at DOE National Laboratories related to sustainable 

transportation, renewable power and energy efficiency technologies. Technology 

solutions derived from EERE early-stage R&D give U.S. industries, businesses, and 

entrepreneurs the competitive edge needed to excel in the rapidly changing global energy 

economy. Industry deployment of these technologies creates jobs, reduces U.S. reliance 

on imported oil, increases energy affordability, improves energy security, ensures 

environmental responsibility and offers Americans a broader range of energy choices. 

Q40. The budget proposal cuts the Building Technologies Office- a program that costs less 

than $2 per household and helps consumers save almost $500 per year- by two-thirds. 

Do you agree that it's critical to use the Department of Energy's capabilities to help 

building owners make retrofit and construction choices that employ smart technologies to 

make dramatic reductions in building energy consumption? 

A40. The Building Technology Office's (BTO) proposed Building Energy Research & 

Development (BERD) subprogram sponsors early-stage R&D in energy-efficient 

building technologies, enabling a range of U.S. industries in fields like building 

28 
78 

construction and renovation as well as appliance and material manufacturing to develop 

and deploy novel building technologies. BERD's technology areas are Buildings-toGrid; Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration (HVAC&R); Windows 

& Envelope; Solid State Lighting; and Building Energy Modeling (BEM). This work 

leverages the National Laboratories' researchers and high performance computing 

capabilities as well as unique National Laboratory facilities needed for BTO to enable 

industry to achieve the goal of reducing the average energy use per square foot of all U.S. 

buildings by 50% from 2010 levels, thus saving consumers money while enhancing 

productivity and comfort. 

Q41. In your opinion, isn't helping energy bill payers cut energy waste in order to unleash 

American productivity an important function ofthe premiere energy R&D agency? 

A41. In FY18, EERE's energy efficiency portfolio will build on the considerable progress 

made over the last 40 years and pursue early-stage R&D targeted at high impact 

technology areas such as advanced lighting, space heating and cooling, building 

envelopes, and manufacturing materials and processes. The overall goal of the energy 

efficiency portfolio is to strengthen the body of knowledge that enables businesses, 

industry and the Federal government to improve affordability, energy security-resiliency, 

and energy productivity of our buildings and manufacturing sectors. The knowledge 

outputs of this research can support a foundation for economic growth and job creation as 

businesses, consumers, and energy managers develop and deploy new energy-efficiency 

and manufacturing technologies and best practices. 

Q42. I'd like to know what's taking so long for the DOE to finalize common-sense energy 

efficiency rules for portable air conditioners, backup battery systems for electronics, air 

compressors, walk-in coolers and freezers, and commercial heating boilers. Together 

these standards would save consumers $11 billion on their energy bills over 30 years. 

These standards were developed through DOE's rigorous rulemaking process and 

completed in December 2016. Can you please explain what the holdup is and when we 

can expect to see these rules finalized? 

A42. The Department of Energy is the Defendant in a lawsuit concerning the subject matter of 

this question. The Department cannot comment on an issue subject to ongoing litigation. 

29 
79 

Q43. The President's budget proposes to reduce DOE's appliance standards work by half. DOE's 

work in this area has cut U.S. electricity usage by 13 percent compared to what it would be 

without energy efficiency standards, so I think crippling the program is the wrong way to go. 

How will DOE continue help Americans billions in energy costs if this program is radically 

scaled back? 

A43. DOE is committed to meeting its legislatively mandated deadlines for covered appliances 

and equipment. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (as amended) mandates the 

Department's test procedure and standards rulemaking activities. The rulemaking 

schedule, and thus the level of program activity, is determined by existing statute. 

In FY 2018, the Appliance and Equipment Standards subprogram will fund all necessary 

and feasible steps to finalize legally required efficiency standards and test procedures, 

and meet all applicable judicial and statutory deadlines. DOE will, as appropriate, 

undertake activities regarding the certification and enforcement of existing energy 

conservation standards. 

Q44. Previous Administrations, Republican and Democrat, have advanced energy saving goals for 

our federal government. What will you do to further reduce the energy waste in our federal 

buildings? 

A44. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) FY 2018 Budget Request of$10 

million supports federal agencies in meeting statutory energy and water management 

related goals and requirements. In FY 2018, FEMP will focus on reducing the operating 

costs of the government by assisting Federal agencies in identifying, designing, and 

completing energy-savings projects, building upon previous accomplishments. FEMP 

works with our stakeholders to enable federal agencies to meet energy related goals, 

identify affordable solutions, facilitate public-private partnership and provide energy 

leadership to the country by identifying government best practices. FEMP provides 

technical project development assistance for energy savings performance contracts 

(ESPC), utility energy savings contracts, and power purchase agreements in pursuit of 

energy and water efficiency improvements and demand reduction services. 

FEMP will provide technical assistance that leverages performance contracting and 

power purchase agreements, helping agencies meet their statutory requirements, and 

30 
80 

enhancing workforce development. In conjunction with technical assistance, FEMP will 

provide portfolio planning guidance to promote strategic integration of advanced 

technologies into power supply and master facility planning, helping DOE as a whole 

strengthen national energy security by increasing energy supply, diversity, resiliency, and 

reliability. FEMP will also foster Federal building and fleet optimization by providing 

guidance and tools focused on metering, auditing, operations and maintenance, and water 

use. As part of this support request by Federal agencies, the Federal Energy Management 

subprogram, working directly through experts at the DOE National Laboratories, will: 

• Offer portfolio planning guidance to promote strategic integration of advanced energy 

technologies (such as renewable energy, micro-grids and advanced battery storage) 

into site/facility power supply and master site planning; 

• Develop best practices for implementing resilient energy management strategies in 

Federal facilities; 

• Develop best practice approaches to address the challenges and risks organizations 

face from cyber threats to the energy management platform; 

• Standardize steps agencies can take to secure their energy-related hardware and data 

while integrating effective energy management; and 

• Improve facility resiliency through enhanced energy management technologies and 

tools focused on optimization and cost reduction. 

FEMP will continue to work with agencies to fulfill energy management performance 

statutory requirements through proactive engagements and enhanced 

workforce development services and opportunities. 

Q45. Public Private Partnerships are a key way to advance energy savings. Please let us know 

what PPP tools you will be encouraging at the Department of Energy and how? 

A45. The Department utilizes a variety of public-private partnership models in the FYI8 

Budget Request to address critical early-stage R&D challenges. Additionally, DOE 

31 
81 

anticipates private industry will use the results of DOE-funded research to conduct later 

stages of applied research as well as provide investments to fund industry demonstrations 

and pilot projects. The publically available Report on Technology Transftr and Related 

Technology Partnering Activities at the National Laboratories and Other Facilities for 

Fiscal Year 2014 provides many examples of past public private partnership models DOE 

has utilized. The Fiscal Year 2015 report is forthcoming. 

Q46. Forty years ago, we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to prevent economic 

and security impacts of crude oil supply disruptions. It is our most important federal 

energy security asset. Yet the President's Budget proposes to sell approximately half the 

SPR crude oil by 2027. Do you agree that we should auction off our energy security by 

selling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? 

A46. The United States now produces oil and gas at historically high rates, which is our first 

and best way to build our energy security. The SPR was created in the 1970s, when the 

United States imported 5-6 million barrels of oil per day from OPEC countries. Today, 

the United States imports roughly half that from OPEC countries despite a significantly 

larger economy. Independent projections from the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) indicate that I 0 years from now, U.S. net petroleum imports will be 

even lower, putting even less of a strain on the U.S. economy in the event of a petroleum 

supply disruption. While the SPR continues to remain a vital national energy security 

asset, given increased reliance on and availability of domestic sources of production, the 

Administration believes the U.S. can meet its energy security requirements with a smaller 

SPR. 

Q47. If we sell the additional amounts from the SPR, how will the United States meet its 

international obligations? 

A47. The United States has two primary oil stockholding requirements to meet obligations 

under the International Energy Program: (I) To hold stocks equivalent to 90 days of net 

petroleum imports, and (2) To contribute a proportionate share of the total required stock 

release (currently approximately 43%) in the event of a collective action response by the 

International Energy Agency (lEA) to a global oil supply disruption. 

32 
82 

For requirement (I) -At the conclusion of required sales in 2027, the SPR would be able 

to meet its requirement to provide 90 days of net petroleum import protection, based on a 

projected SPR crude oil inventory level of250-260 million barrels and U.S. EIA 

projections of U.S. net petroleum imports of 1.72 million barrels per day (EIA 2017 

Annual Energy Outlook Reference Case). An SPR of this size would accordingly supply 

roughly !50 days of net petroleum import protection. 

For requirement (2)- The half liquidation sale would result in a projected SPR crude oil 

Inventory of 250-260 million barrels and would also close two ofthe four SPR storage 

sites, reducing the SPR's design drawdown rate from its current level of 4.415 million 

barrels per day to a maximum of2.8 million barrels per day. The United States would be 

able to meet its proportionate share for any lEA collective action response, provided that 

the United States proportionate share requirement of the daily flow rate and total volume 

of oil released does not exceed the above parameters after the half liquidation sale is 

completed. Further, if, as the EIA projects, the US's demand for petroleum products 

continues to hold steady or decrease slightly while other lEA Member Countries demand 

increases and/or new Members Countries join the lEA- the US contribution to a 

collective action could decrease. 

Q48. Do you believe oil markets are subject to price volatility that affects U.S. consumers? 

A48. As globally traded commodities, crude oil and petroleum products are subject to price 

volatility on a daily basis for a variety of reasons. In the world's spot markets, prices for 

petroleum can be reflective not only of current views of supply and demand fundamentals but 

also of longer term political stability in producing countries and economic growth in 

consuming countries. In addition, spot markets are located in different parts of the globe and 

trade different qualities of petroleum such that price volatility can also be caused by more 

localized factors such as ship loading restrictions or pipeline and storage constraints. 

Petroleum product prices at wholesale terminals typically change only once during the 

day so that distributors can properly plan truck shipments and pricing for their fuels on 

delivery to end use sellers. Retail prices at the consumer level are also affected by oil 

price volatility, as gasoline price changes are significantly driven by crude oil price 

33 
83 

changes. However, due to large, visible price signage and the ability of retail consumers 

to readily switch stations, retail gasoline prices move more slowly than crude oil prices, 

as gasoline retailers are reluctant to change prices often given that they are unsure of their 

competitors' potential responses. 

Q49. Do you believe the core policy reasons for the establishment of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve still exist today? 

A49. The SPR was established to protect the United States from the impacts of severe 

petroleum supply interruptions. At the time of the SPR's establishment, Organization of 

the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) dominated global oil production, the Arab oil 

embargo had just ended, and the primary energy threat to the United States was a 

physical curtailment of oil imports. The reduction in crude oil imports in recent years, 

stemming from increased domestic production and stagnant consumption, has reduced 

U.S. exposure to physical oil supply shortages. However, crude oil is a globally traded 

commodity and supply disruptions anywhere in the world result in price increases that 

can harm the U.S. economy. The SPR remains an important national energy security 

asset, protecting the national economy from potential GDP losses caused by shocks to the 

world 'oil market. 

Q50. As you well know, our energy sector is changing and we need to ensure we have a skilled 

energy workforce that can keep up. The most recent Department of Energy employment 

report found that 73 percent of energy companies found it difficult to hire skilled 

employees. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that "we need to equip our 

workforce with what they need to succeed." Then why did the Administration not 

request funding for workforce training at the Department'? And how will you ensure 

workforce training is a DOE priority? 

A50. The DOE's core mission is to support early-stage R&D leading to cutting-edge 

innovation. The FY 2018 Budget focuses its investments on the basic, early-stage R&D 

conducted by the scientists and engineers at our 17 national laboratories who are 

constantly on the path to developing the next great innovations that can transform society, 

and bring forth a new era of prosperity for the American people. 

Workforce training is not within the Departments' core missions and is better left to 

mission agencies and the private sector. However, we recognize the importance of the 

34 
84 

next generation of America's science and technology workforce, and our budget request 

supports targeted programs like the Solar Decathlon which will continue to attract 

students to science and energy technology fields. In addition, the FY 2018 budget 

continues to support students and post-doctoral researchers at our national laboratories. 

QSI. Although we have mandatory cybersecurity standards for electric utilities, natural gas 

pipelines are subject to merely voluntary guidelines issued by the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA). DOE's most recent Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) suggested 

that DOE should assess whether any additional or mandatory cybersecurity guidelines are 

necessary for natural gas pipelines given the increased dependence between the electric 

and natural gas sectors. Given your statements in response to a Question for the Recordthat "cybersecurity is a critical issue and a significant part of DOE's mission. I will 

prioritize it with the incoming Administration and Congress"- do you agree with the 

QER recommendation? 

AS!. Cybersecurity is indeed a critical issue and a significant part of DOE's mission. As 

consumption of natural gas for electric power production has increased, the cybersecurity 

of the natural gas infrastructure has grown in importance. 

For the past 15 years, the Department has engaged in an active, voluntary public-private 

partnership with the natural gas industry through the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector 

Coordinating Council. This forum helps develop priorities and share best practices for 

cybersecurity for natural gas infrastructure. The Department continues to support 

cybersecurity solutions for natural gas infrastructure as part of its ongoing cybersecurity 

program. 

Q52. One week before your budget testimony, the Washington Post reported that "[h]ackers 

allied with the Russian government have devised a cyber-weapon that has the potential to 

be the most disruptive yet against electric systems that Americans depend on for daily 

life." During your confirmation hearing, you reassured the committee that cybersecurity 

was one of your top two priorities, but your budget slashes cyber funding by 32 percent. 

How can cybersecurity be a top priority if you have cut its funding by 32 percent? 

A52. Securing our Nation's power grid remains an urgent concern. 

The $20 million, or 32%, decrease to Cybersecurity for Energy Delivery Systems 

(CEDS) primarily results from the completion of funding for several activities; base 

CEDS funding is maintained. 

35 
85 

A $5 million reduction is for the Virtual Energy Sector Advanced Digital Forensics 

Analysis Platform, which was initially funded in FY 2016, and will complete 

implementation and begin transitioning to the private sector in FY 2017. 

The industry-scale electric grid test bed was a congressionally directed project 

initiated in FY 2014 as a 3-year project. The FY 2017 appropriation provided an 

additional $9 million, which will fund preparation for construction of a dedicated 

transmission line feed during FY 2018, and also fund construction of the feed, which 

may not begin until FY 2019. 

The FY 2016 and FY 2017 appropriations included congressional direction of 

$5 million for each year to develop cyber and cyber-physical solutions for advanced 

control concepts for distribution and municipal utility companies. 

Q53. How can you and DOE keep our country safe from Russian cyberattacks if you do not 

have the funds to do so? 

A53. DOE takes the cybersecurity threats to the grid seriously, and has put together a multiyear 

plan based on a successful public-private partnership that leverages technical and 

financial resources from industry and government. This strategy enjoys strong support 

from energy companies due to our dedication to collaboration with the industry, our 

understanding of electric sector system needs, and our ability to help the sector develop 

and deploy the innovative tools, technologies, and other expertise of the DOE national 

laboratories. 

DOE's cybersecurity budget focuses on three tenets to support the security of the 

Nation's energy sector: 

Strengthen electric sector cybersecurity preparedness-DOE will continue its close 

coordination with the private sector through the energy sector coordinating councils, 

trade associations, manufacturers, utilities, and individual companies to facilitate 

information sharing programs, deploy systems for real-time situational awareness, 

support self-assessments of cyber-risk and cybersecurity maturity, and implement best 

practices such as response readiness. 

Coordinate cyber incident response and recovery-DOE will continue its incident 

response program, which aligns with the industry-led cyber mutual assistance 

36 
86 

programs and includes information sharing and rapid adoption of lessons-learned to 

help detect and mitigate cyber incidents at the earliest stages, thus decreasing their 

potential impact. 

Support game-changing R&D of resilient energy delivery systems-DOE will 

continue its innovative R&D program to prevent, detect, and mitigate a cyber incident 

in today's systems, and develop next-generation resilient energy delivery systems that 

can survive a cyber incident. 

The Department helps ensure program success by sustaining strategic core capabilities 

throughout its national laboratories. These capabilities are called upon as needed, and 

conducted in close partnership with the private sector, to develop innovative technologies 

that reduce the risk of a cyber-incident disrupting energy delivery. 

Q54. In regards to your ongoing grid study, it is troubling that the Administration appears to be 

suggesting that adding more renewable energy threatens grid reliability, especially when 

our National Labs have repeatedly found this is not true. Are you aware that NREL has 

found that the eastern grid and the western grid could each reliably accommodate 30 

percent renewable energy rates without grid changes, and that a separate NREL study 

concluded that renewable energy will be able to reliably generate 80% of U.S. power 

needs by 2050 if we invest in increased grid flexibility? 

A54. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory studies, which were in part funded by DOE's 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, are important building block studies 

showing the potential to handle large amounts of variable renewable energy within the 

grid structure. The studies, however, did not conclusively model the impact of high 

penetrations of variable renewable energy. For example, the study indicating the 

potential for 80 percent renewable generation showed modeling feasibility only ifthere 

were also grid changes equivalent to building over 40 new 1,000 megawatt transmission 

lines across the Nation and grid operations managed by a single balancing authority over 

the 48 contiguous states. 

By 2020, sections of the transmission system are scheduled to operate with over 

60 percent wind energy in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Grid operators in those and 

other states are searching for real world solutions to reliably manage the grid; it is not yet 

proven that they will be able to do so on a consistent, reliable basis under a highly 

37 
87 

variable, highly distributed generation mix. Part of the work being done in the GMLC is 

to further model and understand how to bridge the gap between our ability to model and 

the ability to operate the grid. 

Q55. Do you agree with the fact that low natural gas prices, not renewable energy, are making 

coal and nuclear power uncompetitive? 

A55. EIA has tracked trends in electricity generation from coal and nuclear power plants over the 

last several years. The declining share of coal generation results from a number of separate 

factors. Low natural gas prices have been a leading factor during recent shifts in the 

generation mix, and in reducing the competitiveness of coal and nuclear power. Increasing 

generation from renewables, stagnant demand for electricity, excess electric generating 

capacity, and new electric power-sector emission regulations have also played a role. EJA has 

not specifically analyzed the relative importance of each of these factors. 

Q56. As a former governor of Texas, you know the enormous potential of wind power and the 

benefits it provides. Do you believe that wind harmed the grid in Texas, and that it poses 

a threat to the grid in general? Please provide a "yes" or "no" answer. 

A56. The Department, in response to my direction, has undertaken an internal review to 

examine the state of electricity markets and grid reliability and produce a study aimed at 

ensuring that our electric grid remains reliable, resilient, and affordable. The study is an 

impartial review of the state of electricity markets and related policies, and there are no 

preconceived notions as to the findings and recommendations that will result from this 

review. 

I appreciate the value of all energy sources. My track record speaks for itself. As 

Governor of Texas, I helped oversee an enormous increase in wind energy such that 

Texas is now the largest wind energy producing state in America. Texas has to date had 

a successful integration of wind energy. This has been due to extensive planning; 

implementation of supporting legislation and alternative grid system support, like 

demand response and distributed generation; constant vigilance as the grid operations 

went into practice; and continued planning and modeling as some areas try to manage 

large amounts of variable renewable energy. 

38 
88 

Q57. Can you commit that the Department will not attempt to preempt state renewable energy 

programs, such as renewable portfolio standards, in an attempt to bolster less competitive 

sources of energy, such as coal? 

A57. There is no national renewable portfolio standard authority that could serve as a basis 

under which the Department could preempt state renewable portfolio standards. 

Q58. The President and DOE cannot ignore statutory requirements or funding direction 

provided by appropriations legislation for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017. I am glad there 

seems to be progress on these issues, particularly at ARPA-E and the small business 

grants. Will you commit that DOE will follow the law to fund projects as directed by 

Congressional intent and appropriations for the current and previous fiscal years, despite 

what is included in the Administration's budget proposal? 

A58. Yes, the Department of Energy will follow the law. 

Q59. Are you aware that the budget proposal triggers the national labs, universities, and 

businesses to begin planning for this worst-case scenario, including creating workforce 

reduction plans? 

A59. DOE takes very seriously its responsibilities under Section 3161 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, codified at 50 U.S.C. 2704, to develop plans when it 

becomes necessary to restructure the workforce at its defense nuclear facilities. DOE has 

plans in place at all of DOE's defense nuclear facilities, including many of the national labs, 

universities, and businesses you reference. DOE contractors are responsible in the first 

instance for managing their workload and workforce in an effective and fiscally responsible 

manner, consistent with their contracts with the Department. To that end, DOE contractors 

continuously re-evaluate their priorities, and certainly in the case of budget proposals. DOE 

actively works with its contractors, especially in these circumstances, to ensure that the 

contractor employees, and key stakeholders, are kept abreast of any developments. 

Q60. In my home state of Washington, the proposed budget request would result in a cut 

of approximately $190 million and a loss of over I ,000 jobs to the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, a powerhouse of innovation. With these cuts, how will you 

ensure that the Department and its National Labs continue to make significant 

contributions to our global leadership in science and energy? 

A60. All DOE national laboratories remain open under the FY 2018 Budget Request and with 

available funding, the budget prioritizes funding to mitigate impacts at the national labs. 

39 
89 

Through careful prioritization and ensuring that funding goes to the most promising 

research, the Department of Energy will continue to be a world-leading science and 

technology enterprise that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the 

Nation's security and prosperity. 

Q61. The Department of Energy's Title 17 Loan Program, which was signed into law by 

President George Bush in 2005, is one tool that can help fill the infrastructure investment 

gap. The Department of Energy's loan programs have a significant amount of money 

remaining in loan authority that can be utilized for investments in a broad range of new 

energy infrastructure. Why would the Administration, which has pledged to invest in 

rebuilding our infrastructure, eliminate a program that has a track record of success and 

existing funding that can be used for energy infrastructure? 

A61. To support the Administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has 

become a sprawling Federal Government and reducing deficit spending, the President's 

FY 2018 budget reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage 

research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses 

resources toward early-stage R&D. 

Q62. In response to a Question for the Record, you wrote, "I commit to reviewing the loan 

guarantee program and evaluate its successes and failure. I am committed to both 

investing in energy innovation and using taxpayer dollars responsibly." Does this mean 

you conducted a full review of the loan guarantee program and concluded that it should 

be eliminated? 

A62. In the development and preparation ofthe FY 2018 Budget, all ofthe Department's 

programs and priorities were reviewed. In order to support the Administration's 

commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has become a sprawling Federal 

Government and reducing deficit spending, the President's FY 2018 budget reflects an 

increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage 

R&D. 

Q63a. President Trump has continually pushed auto executives to build more manufacturing 

plants in the United States. The Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle 

Loan Program is one tool that could provide the financing to make that happen. Since 

2009, 18 facilities in 8 states were retooled or built with ATVM loans that directly 

employ almost 38,000 people. But the Administration's budget would eliminate the 

40 
90 

A TVM program. In response to a Question for the Record, you wrote, "! will review the 

ATVM program to makes sure it achieves it goals. I will be committed to transparency 

and accountability with respect to government investments." Have you completed this 

review prior to supporting the President's budget? 

A63a. In the development and preparation of the FY 2018 Budget, all of the Department's 

programs and priorities were reviewed. In order to support the Administration's 

commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has become a sprawling Federal 

Government and reducing deficit spending, the President's FY 2018 budget reflects an 

increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage 

R&D. 

The President's FY 2018 budget proposal calls for the cancellation of all remaining loan 

volume and appropriated credit subsidy for the Advanced Technology Vehicles 

Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. 

Q63b. How does eliminating the ATVM program help support American manufacturers and 

autoworkers? 

A63b. To support the Administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has 

become a sprawling Federal Government and reducing deficit spending, the President's 

FY 2018 budget reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage 

research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses 

resources toward early-stage R&D. 

Q64. I was particularly disturbed to see the proposed cuts to the Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability's R&D programs. At a time when we require more advanced and 

integrated R&D to improve the security, resiliency and reliability of the grid, why in the 

world would the administration propose these deep cuts? 

A64. The FY 2018 budget request focuses funding on early stage research efforts to improve 

the security, resiliency and reliability of the grid, allowing for private industry to leverage 

this research for innovative applied solutions, demonstrations, and pilot projects tailored 

to market needs and opportunities. R&D programs focused on activities where the 

41 
91 

private sector has substantial incentive to invest are better conceived and managed 

through market-based disciplines. 

Q65. In response to a Question for the Record, you wrote, "I assure you that lam committed to 

energy reliability and to fulfilling this important mission of the Department." 

Nevertheless, the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018 cuts the non-cyber 

programs at the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability by 46 percent, 

including an 80 percent cut to the Resilient Distribution Systems program. These cuts 

would eliminate critical advanced modeling, research into new synchrophasor 

applications, evaluation oftransactive controls, microgrid demonstrations, and grid-scale 

storage demonstration projects. If the Department ceases to fund the important work 

described above, what other entities have demonstrated a willingness and financial ability 

to pick up the slack? 

A65. The FY 2018 budget request focuses funding on early stage research efforts, allowing for 

private industry to leverage this research for innovative applied solutions, 

demonstrations, and pilot projects tailored to market needs and opportunities. Some 

states are also supporting technology demonstrations to support their grid modernization 

goals. In general, activities where there are sufficient and substantial incentives for 

market-based investment are better facilitated by the private sector. 

Q66. The President's budget proposes to auction-off to the highest bidder the Bonneville 

Power Administration's transmission facilities and the transmission assets owned by the 

other Federal power marketing administrations (PMAs). This proposal would increase 

rates for BPA customers between 26 and 44 percent, allowing private companies to 

substantially raise transmission rates and thus increasing power prices for consumers in 

more than 30 states. Is the Department seriously going to pursue this proposal to auction 

off the PMA transmission lines? 

A66. While the Budget proposes to divest the PMAs of their transmission assets, privatization 

of the PMAs has been proposed by Administrations in the past, and I recognize your 

concerns regarding the proposal. 

As Secretary of Energy, l want to assure you that I value the goals of affordable, reliable 

power and transmission services to ratepayers and consumers. I understand how 

important those goals are, particularly to rural communities, and the significance of 

transmission systems to your region's economy. I commit to work with you as the 

discussion of this proposal continues. 

42 
92 

Q67. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the Department can justifY pursuing this 

proposal to auction off the PMA transmission lines, including those owned by the 

Bonneville Power Administration. 

A67. Divestiture of Federal assets can encourage private capital investment in the Nation's 

infrastructure and relieve long-term pressure on the deficit related to future capital 

investments. The vast majority of the Nation's electric infrastructure is owned and 

operated by for- profit private utilities. Ownership of transmission assets is best carried 

out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives. 

Eliminating or reducing the PMA's role in electricity transmission and increasing the 

private sector's role will encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and 

mitigate risk to taxpayers. 

As Secretary of Energy, I want to assure you that I value the goals of affordable, reliable 

power and transmission services to ratepayers and consumers. I understand how 

important those goals are, particularly to rural communities, and the significance of 

transmission systems to your region's economy. 

Q68. By eliminating ARPA-E, the proposed budget would also have an adverse impact on 

DOE's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR) programs, reducing funding for these successful public-private 

partnerships by 25%, or nearly $57 million, when compared to FY 2016 numbers. 

What is the impact of the budget cuts on the SBIR and STTR programs compared to 

FY 2017 numbers by dollars and percent? 

A68. The table below summarizes the FY 2017 Enacted level and FY 2018 President's 

Budget Request for the DOE SBIR and STTR programs. 

FY 2018 

FY 2017 President's 

Enacted Request Change Change 

($M) ($M) ($M) (%) 

SBIR 222 152 -70 -32% 

STTR 31 21 -10 -32% 

Q69. You have the discretion not to cut SBIR/STTR programs. Have you considered 

transferring the SBIRISTTR funding that would have been administered through ARPA43 
93 

E to the Office of Science to administer, and therefore not reduce, public-private 

partnerships with small firms? Will you review this option and provide details on your 

decision, including why you made the decision? 

A69. DOE has historically determined the budgets for the SBIR/STTR programs administered 

by the OS and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by applying the 

congressionally-mandated percentages for SBIR and STTR to its extramural R&D 

budgets. DOE values the contribution made by small businesses through the SBIR and 

STIR programs, but also values the extramural R&D performed by the DOE national 

laboratories, universities and other organizations. Increasing SBIR/STTR allocations 

beyond the minimum required, decreases the amount of research funding that goes to 

these other groups. In some years, based on the quality of applications received, DOE 

has elected to contribute more than the minimum required by statute to the SBIR and 

STIR programs. DOE has not considered a policy change to permanently fund the SBIR 

and STTR programs above their minimum levels and does not anticipate doing so in the 

near future. 

ARPA-E will continue to administer its own SBIR/STTR program. ARPA-E fully funds 

its SBIR/STTR projects at the time of award and therefore those projects funded from a 

given fiscal year appropriation will be supported as long as they continue to demonstrate 

technical success. 

Q70. Can you commit to ensuring that all future SBIR and STIR funds will be made in a 

timely fashion? 

A 70. DOE works to ensure that SBIR and STTR obligations are made in a timely fashion 

each fiscal year. Obligation of SBIR and STTR funds are impacted by the 

appropriation process. In some years, late enactment of appropriations have resulted 

in SBIR and STTR obligations being delayed until the next fiscal year. 

Q71. Some small businesses fear DOE will move away from the Congressional mandate to 

review proposals based on technical merit and move towards proposals that are based 

more on an ideology, reducing exploration of technologies regarding clean 

technology or mitigating climate change. Will you commit to preserve merit-based 

reviews ofSBIR and STTR applications, and ensure transparency in any process 

changes? 

44 
94 

A 71. As stated in DOE's Guide to Financial Assistance: "It is DOE policy that all 

discretionary financial assistance, competitive or noncompetitive, be awarded through a 

merit-based selection process. Merit review means a thorough, consistent, and objective 

examination of applications based on pre-established criteria by persons independent of 

those submitting the applications and knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which 

support is requested." SBIR and STTR applications have been and will continue to be 

subject to merit-based reviews. The merit-based review criteria are published in each 

SBIR/STTR Funding Opportunity Announcement. 

45 
95 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RON WYDEN 

Q 1. The president's budget calls for auctioning off the transmission assets of the Department 

of Energy's Power Marketing Administrations, including the Bonneville Power 

Administration in the Northwest. 

Selling off BPA would amount to highway robbery for families in the Northwest, whose 

dollars are already stretched too thin without the administration trying to raise their 

monthly utility bills. Public power customers in the Pacific Northwest have paid for the 

system, which runs successfully without interference from the federal government. Their 

investment should not be put up for sale. 

Can you explain how the administration's proposal to sell off the transmission assets of 

power marketing administrations like BPA is in the best interests of families in the 

Northwest? 

AI. The Administration's proposal seeks the best operation of these transmission assets with 

appropriate market and regulatory incentives in the private sector. As Secretary of 

Energy, I understand how important the goals of affordable, reliable power and 

transmission services are to Pacific Northwest families. 

Q2. The National Energy Technology Laboratory campus in Albany, Oregon has been an 

integral part of the Energy Department's national energy research since it was created in 

1943. Scientists in Albany have contributed valuable research on the Department's 

classified national security programs and a broad range of research for the public. 

On what basis, in the few short months that you have been in charge of the department, 

did you decide to close it? I want to see the actual, written analysis that you used to make 

this decision. Please provide that to the Committee and to me within a week. 

A2. As part of the Department's effort to operate more efficiently, the FY 2018 Budget 

Request proposes a phased approach to consolidation ofNETL's Albany research 

operations into NETL's Eastern sites. The Department has funded a Mission Alignment 

study to begin in FY 2017 to evaluate this approach. The study will: (I) Evaluate 

alternatives for locating NETL's Alloy Metallurgy Capabilities; (2) Study of 

Environmental Impacts Responsibility & Remediation at the Albany site; and (3) 

Analysis of Alternatives for Configuration ofNETL's Eastern Sites. 

In looking at consolidation of the Eastern sites, the Department will consider factors such 

as the cost of operations at each site, percentage of the workforce that is located at each 

46 
96 

site, mobility of functions, and proximity to regional resources and partnerships. It is 

likely that this activity will take several quarters to complete, at which time a final report 

will aid informing next steps regarding the long-term configuration ofNETL's footprint. 

This is a process that will include input from our workforce and other stakeholders. Any 

decisions made are to ensure the long-term strength and sustainability of the 

Department's science and technology enterprise. 

Q3. It's been over a month since a tunnel holding railroad cars full of radioactive waste 

collapsed at the Hanford site. That collapse is yet another reminder that decades of 

environmental missteps and shortcuts are coming home to roost. 

Residents and workers in the Pacific Northwest are tired of being put at risk. During 

your confirmation hearing, you committed to working with members of the Senate to 

clean up the site and move forward on a Hanford cleanup plan. So it defies explanation 

that your department's budget cuts funds from the very account at Hanford that funds the 

cleanup of this tunnel, other contaminated sites at Hanford. 

Last month, Sen. Cantwell and I joined with a bipartisan group of senators and 

representatives from Oregon and Washington. We asked the Government Accountability 

Office to literally get to the bottom of radioactive sites at Hanford and give us a report 

card on what DOE needs to do to clean up this mess. Cleaning up Hanford is not a 

partisan issue. It's DOE's issue. And now as Energy Secretary, it's your issue. 

What are you going to do to restore funding for clean-up at Hanford, and what are you 

going to do to restore the confidence of citizens and workers in the Northwest in the 

DOE's ability to make Hanford safe? 

A3. The Department takes its regulatory commitments seriously and is actively working to 

meet its cleanup commitments. The safety of our workers, the public and the 

environment are overriding values in performing our cleanup mission. 

The FY 2018 budget positions the Department to continue making progress at the 

Hanford Site, which includes continued progress in safely removing the K Basin sludge 

from near the Columbia River to the central plateau, continuing pump and treat activities 

to remediate contaminated groundwater, and the maintenance, repair, and replacement of 

failing infrastructure, facilities, and systems. This includes a focus on addressing risks 

posed by those that are specifically clean-up related and those that support our cleanup 

activities. 

47 
97 

The FY 2018 budget request was slightly greater than $2.3 billion. This funding is 

greater than one-third of the entire budget for Department of Energy's Office of 

Environmental Management. 

As a former governor, I have a strong appreciation and understanding of the role of 

elected officials. I am committed to working with you, the state of Washington, the 

Washington delegation and our other important stakeholders to continue to make steady 

cleanup progress and develop new and innovative solutions to our cleanup challenges at 

the Hanford site. 

Q4. During your confirmation hearing, you indicated that you would support investments in 

"the basic research that will spur innovation that will keep America's economy, including 

its wind and solar industries, competitive." 

When this administration withdrew from the Paris agreement, you promised the United 

States would remain "the world leader in the development of next generation 

technology." You said that "instead of preaching about clean energy, this Administration 

will act on it." 

Apparently, acting on it means slashing support for research and innovation. You have 

proposed cutting clean energy research by 70 percent. You've proposed gutting funding 

for the National Labs, including a 35 percent cut to the Pacific Northwest National Lab. 

You've proposed eliminating DOE's advanced research division. Meanwhile, China and 

Germany are investing billions in clean energy research. 

Clean energy presents an opportunity for good paying, red-white-and-blue jobs, here in 

the United States. 

How does this administration intend to be a world leader in clean energy research and 

innovation while gutting funding for research and innovation? 

A4. Through careful prioritization and ensuring that funding goes to the most promising 

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

that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the Nation's security and 

prosperity. 

48 
98 

The FY 2018 Budget Request focuses resources on early-stage research and development 

(R&D), where the Federal role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to 

enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. 

This shift allows the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies. By focusing on early stage R&D, the budget 

proposes critical investments necessary to sustain America's leadership in transformative 

science and emerging energy technologies. 

Q5. If you haven't discovered already, the DOE is a very secretive place. Often, the only way 

Americans and their elected officials learn about problems at DOE is from 

whistleblowers. Nowhere is that more true than at Hanford. Last year the Government 

Accountability Office sent a report to me and Sen. McCaskill and Sen. Markey 

documenting DOE's repeated failure to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. In 

March, we wrote you two urgent letters aimed at addressing problems raised by GAO. 

The first asked you to immediately reinstate regulations making sure DOE could take 

action against its contractors for retaliating against whistleblowers. It's unfortunate that 

suspending those rules was one of the very first things the new administration did. 

We are still waiting for a response to that letter. The second letter asked you to protect a 

whistleblower at Savannah River who was fired for cooperating with the Government 

Accountability Office on its investigation into whistleblower abuses at the Energy 

Department. 

Again, we are still waiting for a response. 

First, when can I expect your response to these letters, and second, what are you going to 

do as secretary to end DOE's culture of retaliation against whistleblowers? 

A5. As Secretary of the DOE, I am committed to promoting a strong safety culture across the 

Department that ensures that federal and contractor employees are able to speak out, raise 

issues, and share concerns about safety without fear of retaliation. Retaliating against an 

employee who reports violations of law, mismanagement, waste, abuse, or 

dangerous/unsafe workplace conditions is prohibited by statute, regulation, and 

contractual provisions. The Department currently has robust procedures in place for 

investigating-and remedying if appropriate-any and all claims of retaliation. 

49 
99 

To further the commitment to whistleblower protection, the Department recently issued a 

final rule, which became effective in March 2017, clarifying that the Department may 

issue civil penalties against certain contractors and subcontractors for instances of 

whistleblower retaliation that concern nuclear safety. 

In recent years, a small number ofwhistleblower claims against the Department or its 

contractors have been substantiated-both relative to the size of the DOE workforce and 

in absolute terms. Nevertheless, I, and DOE as a whole, take these claims very seriously. 

A notable example is the case of Sandra Black, a contractor employee at the Savannah 

River Site. The Department recently issued a final decision in her case and determined 

that there was a sufficient basis to conclude that she was subject to reprisal. 

Q6. The United States has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which establishes a 

global moratorium on nuclear testing. Although the US has not ratified the treaty, Presidents 

from both parties have followed George H. W. Bush's moratorium on new testing. Do you 

support continuing this bipartisan moratorium on nuclear testing? 

A6. The United States is continuing to implement our long-standing moratorium on nuclear 

testing. Through National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Stockpile Stewardship 

Program, we're able to confidently certify that the nuclear stockpile is safe, secure, and 

effective without nuclear explosive testing. On CTBT itself, the Administration is conducting 

a thorough review of U.S. arms control and nonproliferation policy, including the CTBT, and 

this review is not yet complete. 

Q7. The President's budget requests $1.79 billion for Department of Energy Nuclear 

Nonproliferation priorities. That's about $90 million less than Congress provided last year 

and almost $150 million less than the year before that. Do you agree that preventing the 

spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials should be one of the top U.S. priorities? If 

yes, then can you explain to this Committee why you asked Congress to cut funding this year 

rather than to increase funding? 

A 7. Yes, the Administration agrees that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear 

materials should be one of the top U.S. priorities. The $87 million ( 4.6 percent) reduction in 

the DNN budget in FY 2018 relative to the FY 2017 enacted is misleading because the 

reduction is driven by a decline in University of California (UC) Legacy pension costs and a 

50 
100 

shift in DOE's strategy in its plutonium disposition program. Specifically, the $87 million 

reduction is a result of three things: 

$56 million less requested for MOX construction; 

$42 million less requested for UC Legacy Pension; and, 

• $11 million in increases to other DNN activities. 

This Administration is committed to pursuing an aggressive nonproliferation agenda, even in 

this tight budget environment. NNSA is requesting more money in FY 2018 for its core 

nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and counterproliferation work than requested in FY 2017. 

NNSA is effectively asking for the same amount as enacted in FY 2017, excluding UC 

Legacy pension payments and the MOX construction program: 

• Compared to the FY 2017 request, the core non-proliferation program (NA-20) is 4.0 

percent higher; DNN is 3.6 percent higher including both the core nonproliferation 

program and National Counterterrorism and Incident Response (NCTIR). 

• Compared to the FY 2017 enacted, the core non-proliferation program (NA-20) is 0.4 

percent ($4.9 million) lower; DNN is 0.04 percent ($0.6 million) higher including 

both the core nonproliferation program and NCTIR. 

51 
101 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW 

Q I. In your written testimony, you mention that you wish the Senate confirmed you earlier so you 

could have been "a full participant in crafting this (budget) proposal." I am assuming this 

means you would have sought changes to the budget request. 

How would the budget look differently had you been confirmed by the Senate earlier? Would 

it not be proposing a $920 million cut to the Office of Science or a $1.5 billion cut to the 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office? Would it not be proposing to zero out the 

SuperTruck program and many other programs administered by the Vehicle Technologies 

Office? 

A I. The FY 2018 Budget refocuses the Department's energy and science programs on earlystage research and development (R&D) at our national laboratories to advance American 

primacy in scientific and energy research in an efficient and cost effective manner. This 

includes a $4.5 billion investment in the Office of Science, to continue and strengthen 

American leadership in scientific inquiry with Department of Energy (DOE) as the 

Nation's largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. 

The FY 2018 Budget focuses Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal role is strongest, and reflects an 

increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies. The Budget emphasizes energy technologies 

best positioned to support American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the 

near to mid-term. The Budget maintains America's leadership in transformative science 

and emerging energy technologies in sustainable transportation, renewable power, and 

energy efficiency. 

EERE early-stage research focuses on technology challenges that have the potential for 

high return on investment, but which present a significant degree of scientific or technical 

uncertainty across a relatively lengthy time span, making it unlikely that industry will 

invest significant R&D on their own. Thus, this budget maintains the most critical core 

capabilities and infrastructure at DOE National Laboratories related to sustainable 

transportation, renewable power and energy efficiency technologies. Technology 

solutions derived from EERE early-stage R&D give U.S. industries, businesses, and 

52 
102 

entrepreneurs the competitive edge needed to excel in the rapidly changing global energy 

economy. Industry deployment of these technologies creates jobs, reduces U.S. reliance 

on imported oil, increases energy affordability, improves energy security, ensures 

environmental responsibility and offers Americans a broader range of energy choices. As 

we move forward over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to working with 

you and your colleagues to finalize the funding for the DOE. 

Q2. Thank you for your commitment to visit the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams project 

at Michigan State University. When completed, it will be the world's most powerful 

radioactive beam facility and advance new defense, environmental science, and 

medical technologies. The project will generate $1.7 billion in wages and $4.4 

billion for Michigan's economy. 

I was surprised that you would mention in your written testimony that the budget 

includes $80 million for the FRIB when that amount is $17.2 million less than what 

is required to keep the project on track and when your department acknowledges 

these cuts would drive up the project's cost by $20 million. 

I appreciated your comments to me last week that you are committed to ensuring 

FRIB remains on budget and on schedule for completion. How will you work with 

me and the Congress to ensure this objective is achieved when the budget does not 

include the resources necessary to make this happen? 

A2. Construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), which will provide worldleading capabilities for nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics, is a high priority for 

the Department and strongly supported within the FY 2018 President's Request. The 

project has made impressive progress since it started in FY 2014 and it is over 70% 

complete. The project will be re-baselined to reflect an increased Total Project Cost and 

schedule delay as a result of a decrease in its funding in FY 2018 relative to the current 

funding baseline profile. Even in the context of competing priorities, the Department is 

committed to supporting the project through to its successful completion, enabling U.S. 

world-class nuclear structure and astrophysics research. 

Q3. I was very disappointed to see that the Department's budget proposes to zero out the 

SuperTruck program, along with most other programs in the Department of Energy's 

Vehicle Technologies Office. 

53 
103 

SuperTruck is a 50/50 cost-shared, public-private partnership that promotes the research, 

development, and demonstration oftechnologies that improve the efficiency of tractor 

trailer trucks by more than I 00% by 2020. 

Trucks, which include Class 8 vehicles, haul as much as 80% of the goods transported in 

the country. Although they only make up 4% of vehicles on the road, they use about 

20% of the fuel. Adoption of technologies because ofSuperTruck will save millions of 

gallons of fuel per day and significantly reduce carbon emissions. 

I understand budgeting requires hard choices. However this $20 million program that 

creates strategic public-private partnerships seems to exemplifY the type of projects your 

Department should be engaged in, and moreover, reflect the programs you spoke 

favorably about to this Committee and with me personally. Why then is the budget 

eliminating funding for SuperTruck? 

A3. SuperTruck II builds on the success of the SuperTruck I program and seeks to achieve 

greater than I 00 percent improvement in freight efficiency (ton miles per gallon) as well 

as 55 percent engine brake thermal efficiency, with a focus on technologies with realistic 

potential for cost effectiveness. 

The FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided a second year of SuperTruck II 

funding at $20M and specified adding a fifth award. The Department plans to comply 

with this direction over the next few months, consistent with the competitive bid process. 

Since FY 2017 would be the final year of funding for this work, all awards will be 

modified to accommodate the $40M in enacted funding ($20M in FY 2016 and $20M in 

FY 20 17) while increasing the program to five awards. The Department will continue to 

work with the five awardees and reflect DOE's overall commitment to focusing on early 

stage R&D. 

Q4. During our conversation in January we discussed the Iran Deal and nuclear 

nonproliferation. At that time, you mentioned needing to learn more about the agreement 

and that one of your first actions as Secretary would be to meet with former Secretary 

Moniz to get more information. Have you met with Secretary Moniz and with experts at 

the International Atomic Energy Agency? If yes, are you confident that the Department 

of Energy has the tools necessary to enforce the agreement? 

A4. Yes, I have met with former Secretary Moniz. DOE does not "enforce" the Joint 

Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, but we play a leading role in 

developing and supporting the tools necessary for the United States to assess Iranian 

54 
104 

compliance. For example, through technical support and training, DOE supports the 

International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) ability to monitor and verify Iran's 

nuclear activities. Since 1980 every IAEA inspector receives nuclear material 

measurement training at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 

I met with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano in March and look forward to meeting 

with additional IAEA experts in the future. Close collaboration with the IAEA is central 

to maintaining U.S. confidence in the IAEA's monitoring and verification activities and, 

by extension, Iran's continued compliance with the deal. 

Many of the tools and capabilities available to the IAEA for JCPOA monitoring were 

also developed through DOE safeguards cooperation. For example, the On-line 

Enrichment Monitor, jointly developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 

LANL and the IAEA, allows the IAEA to determine if Iran enriches uranium above 

permitted levels. I am confident that the Department of Energy has the tools necessary to 

assess Iranian compliance with the JCPOA. 

Q5. In your nomination hearing and in our conversations, you shared your commitment to 

sound science and the Department of Energy's essential role in supporting critical 

research and development. As you stated in January before this committee, research and 

development carried out at DOE has the potential to change the world and make a real 

positive difference in quality of life and the economy in our country- a sentiment I agree 

with. 

However, multiple programs such as the Advanced Manufacturing Program and ARPA-E 

are severely cut or eliminated in this budget proposal. This budget does not seem to 

reflect the essential role you have described that DOE plays in technological 

advancements that improve people's lives and drives our economy. 

According to a report from Ranking Member Cantwell, the cuts in your budget would 

result in 420 scientists in Michigan losing their jobs and future annual economic growth 

in my state being reduced by nearly $165 million annually. What impacts on 

technological advancements for our Country would you anticipate in the coming years as 

a result of the proposed cuts? 

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

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

55 
105 

that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the Nation's security and 

prosperity, 

The FY 2018 Budget Request focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal 

role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. This shift allows the 

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

technologies. By focusing on early stage R&D, the budget proposes critical investments 

necessary to sustain America's leadership in trans formative science and emerging energy 

technologies. 

Q6. Secretary Perry, in your interview with CNBC on Monday morning, you were asked 

whether you thought carbon dioxide was the 'primary control knob' for the temperature 

of the Earth and the climate. You responded: "No, most likely the primary control knob 

is the ocean waters and environment that we live in." 

You went on to say that being a skeptic about the causes of climate change was "quite all 

right" and that if someone does not believe the science on climate change is settled, that 

person is wrongly treated as a "Neanderthal." 

I don't have a problem when an individual has questions about anything. What I do find 

concerning is when someone holds a position that seems to disregard near scientific 

consensus- be it from NASA, NOAA, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. 

Given this scientific consensus, what information appears to have led you to think human 

activities are not the leading cause of climate change? 

A6. I believe the climate is changing and man is having an impact. There are several 'control 

knobs' which contribute to that change. My focus as Secretary of Energy is to utilize 

American innovation and technology to produce energy in an environmentally 

responsible manner that enhances our economic security. 

56 
106 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR AL FRANKEN 

Q 1. Mr. Secretary, I believe there is an important federal role in helping Tribal Nations 

develop electricity projects. Congress created the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 

Program in the Energy Policy Act of2005 to help tribes overcome challenges in securing 

financing for electricity projects by allowing the DOE to guarantee loans. But until this 

year, the program had never received funding. Thanks to the help of many of my 

colleagues on this committee from both sides of this aisle-including Chairman 

Murkowski and Senators Hoeven and Barrasso--the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus provided 

$9 million. Now the Department needs to set up the program and start issuing loan 

guarantees. This program can help develop energy resources and bring high-quality jobs 

to Indian Country, where they are badly needed. Will you commit to me that you will set 

up the program and expend the funding that Congress provided the Department? 

A I. The FY 17 omnibus was enacted shortly before the FY 2018 Budget was released. The 

Budget proposes to terminate the Loan Programs, and the Department is currently in the 

process of evaluating how the credit subsidy provided in the omnibus fits within the loan 

program proposal in the budget. 

Q2a. Secretary Perry, in April you ordered a 60-day review of U.S. electricity policy to 

determine whether coal and nuclear plants are being "unfairly" pushed off the grid. You 

suggested that renewable resources-like wind and solar-were threatening grid 

reliability and that because of that, we need to prop up coal and nuclear plants. What do 

you expect this study to find? 

A2a. The Department, at my direction, has undertaken an internal review to examine the state 

of electricity markets and grid reliability and produce a study aimed at ensuring that our 

electric grid remains reliable, resilient, and affordable. The study is an impartial review 

of the state of electricity markets and related policies, and there are no preconceived 

notions as to the findings and recommendations that will result from this review. 

I appreciate the value of all energy sources. My track record speaks for itself. As 

Governor of Texas, I helped oversee an enormous increase in wind energy such that 

Texas is now the largest wind energy producing state in America. The study raises 

important and timely questions about the electric grid. For example, it asks why so many 

57 
107 

base load plants-like coal and nuclear-have closed, whether wholesale energy and 

capacity markets are adequately compensating important resilience and reliability 

attributes, how electric markets have evolved, and whether regulatory burdens, subsidies, 

and mandates have forced premature retirements. I have directed the Department to 

conduct rigorous analysis to answer these questions and to recommend sound policies to 

protect the Nation's electric grid. 

Q2b. How will you use the findings? 

A2b. The study is an important step toward determining how to ensure a well-functioning 

electric grid for the long term. We expect that the study will show that many actors 

outside the Federal government have an important role in grid resilience and reliability. 

We plan to articulate a wide range of possible actions, ranging from immediate actions 

falling within the scope and authority of the Department to broader solutions the 

Department cannot undertake alone. The study is intended to inform and motivate further 

discussion and action within and across the electric stakeholder community. We look 

forward to a fruitful dialogue once the study is completed. 

Q2c. Are you familiar with an extensive two year study, completed by the Department of 

Energy last year, which found that the U.S. energy grid could accommodate up to 80 

percent wind and solar power with no loss of reliability? If so, why do you need an 

additional study? 

A2c. This important building block study, which was in part funded at National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory by Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Electricity Delivery and 

Energy Reliability, showed the potential to handle large amounts of variable renewable 

energy within the grid structure. It did not, however, conclusively model the impact of 

high penetrations of variable renewable energy. For example, the study showed modeling 

feasibility only if there were also grid changes equivalent to building over 40 new 

1,000 megawatt transmission lines across the Nation and grid operations managed by a 

single balancing authority over the 48 contiguous states. 

58 
108 

Q2d. In justifying the study, you claim that centralized power from coal and nuclear must be 

preserved as a matter of national security, yet DOD is moving toward a more diverse set 

of power sources precisely to increase reliability and security, in the U.S. and abroad. 

Why are these two agencies moving in what appears to be opposite directions? 

A2d. American families and businesses deserve a power system that is affordable, supports 

national security through fuel diversity and fuel assurance, and is technologically 

advanced, resilient, reliable, and second to none. Because these goals may conflict and 

require delicate balancing by policymakers-for instance, high levels of reliability can 

become expensive, which works against afford ability-and given growing levels of 

uncertainty and volatility from technology, finance, world threats, environment, etc., it is 

prudent to compile diverse portfolios that can provide a variety of important attributes. 

The study essentially asks how we should go about building and maintaining such 

portfolios, and seeks to understand the consequences for the Nation's electric resource 

portfolio options should significant amounts of coal and nuclear resources become 

unavailable to serve in current and future portfolios. 

Q3. Secretary, during the hearing you said, "Is ARPA-E the holy grail of how government 

needs to be structured? I will suggest to you, maybe not." What did you mean by this 

statement? Other than proposing to end the program, are you planning on proposing 

reforms to ARPA-E, and if so, when will you share them with Congress? 

A3. The Administration remains committed to responsible spending that supports early-stage 

energy research and is prioritizing high-impact early-stage research that the private sector is 

unlikely to undertake. There is concern about the potential for Advanced Research Projects 

Agency-Energy's (ARPA-E) efforts to overlap with Research & Development (R&D) being 

carried out, or which should be carried out, by the private sector. The proposed elimination of 

ARPA-E reflects both a streamlining of Federal activities and a refocusing on the proper 

Federal role in energy R&D. 

Q4. According to DOE's FY 2018 budget submission, the MOX project has "experienced a 

350 percent cost growth and a 32 year schedule slip since 2007." The MOX approach to 

plutonium disposition is now projected to cost approximately $50 billion, while the dilute 

and dispose alternative is less than half that-at about $17 billion. I commend you for 

proposing termination of the MOX project and instead pursuing the dilute and dispose 

alternative to plutonium disposition. I would also like to know, does DOE's current cost 

estimates for MOX include the decontamination and decommissioning of the facility at 

59 
109 

end of the project? If current cost estimates do not include this, what is a rough order of 

magnitude estimate of the cost of decontaminating and disposing of the MOX facility 

once the project is finished? 

A4. DOE's current cost estimates for the MOX project does not include decontamination and 

decommissioning of the facility. We do not have a rough order of magnitude estimate for 

these costs since this will be dependent on the negotiated final end state of the facility. 

Q5. Recent news reports have revealed a series of safety violations at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, in particular a lack of safety culture and repeated violations of safety rules 

involving plutonium. According to the Washington Post story, almost all of the people 

hired to enforce the safety procedures have quit in frustration. Apparently, these 

problems have been going on for 4 years, if not longer. What is DOE doing to 

immediately improve the handling of plutonium at Los Alamos and to insure that any 

safety procedures are enforced? 

A5. The Washington Post article discussed a series of safety infractions at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) dating back to 2011. The article characterizes these events 

as on-going occurrences. However, most of the events described in the Post article 

happened prior to 2014. Regardless of the timeframe, corrective actions and 

improvements have been underway during the past, approximately, four years. Though 

we have made substantive progress, we understand that we need to continue to make 

improvements since the Lab has not yet attained the level of excellence DOE expects. 

As a result of the issues identified in 2011, initial improvements in staff training were 

completed in 2012. Those improvements, however, did not resolve all the underpinning 

issues that ultimately led to significant criticality safety staff attrition by 2013. The 

Laboratory Director paused plutonium operations in 2013 principally due to problems in 

work execution, which was compounded by insufficient criticality safety professional 

staffing. The Laboratory began a corrective action plan to improve the Laboratory's 

safety culture and staffing. Actions under that plan continue today. 

Initial efforts focused on improving plutonium handling processes. Improvements 

included revising procedures used to handle plutonium, enhanced training in plutonium 

60 
110 

handling, and strengthening and increasing senior management reviews up to and 

including reviews with the Laboratory Director on actions and progress. 

The Laboratory Director resumed lower risk operations in 2014. DOE federal staff 

reviewed the resumption process and the operations as they were restarted. Higher risk 

operations were resumed using a very structured process requiring federal verification 

that procedural and operational improvements were institutionalized within the 

Laboratory. Federal and contractor staff collaborated to ensure stockpile surveillance and 

production mission milestones were adequately managed. NNSA deployed resources 

from headquarters to assist the on-site field office in addressing these issues. 

The result of this multi-year effort is a demonstrated improvement in plutonium handling 

processes and procedures. Six extensive federal assessments have verified that 

operational improvements and the underpinning training and culture are in place to 

support safe handling of plutonium in support of the mission. 

The Laboratory has also strengthened the criticality safety division. The management 

that contributed to the staff attrition was replaced, and aggressive hiring to rebuild the 

criticality safety division continues. The division has been elevated within the 

organizational reporting structure to improve visibility and quickly obtain senior 

management help when needed. Currently, the criticality safety division staffing 

numbers are reaching the levels needed to fully support all Laboratory operations where 

significant quantities of nuclear materials are handled, although several staff remain in 

training. These efforts will continue until the LANL criticality safety division is a 

sustainable, world-class safety department. 

Q6a. NNSA is reportedly considering alternatives for facilities to produce pits for nuclear weapons 

and earlier this month implied that pit production might be moved out of Los Alamos. One 

alternative being considered is the Savannah River Site. Is NNSA considering moving pit 

production to the Savannah River Site? 

A6a. NNSA is conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate all plausible options 

that could provide enduring plutonium infrastructure capable of supporting pit production 

61 
111 

capacity of 80 pits per year. Multiple sites within the Nuclear Security Enterprise, 

including Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Savannah River Site, are being 

considered within the analysis. The AoA itself is not a decision, but a tool used to gather 

and analyze pertinent data as needed to inform the decision-making process. The AoA is 

expected to be complete in the summer of2017. 

Q6b. Is NNSA considering repurposing the MOX building for pit production? 

A6b. Repurposing the MOX building for pit production is one of the alternatives being 

considered in the Analysis of Alternatives. The AoA itself is not a decision, but a tool 

used to gather and analyze pertinent data as needed to inform the decision making 

process. The AoA is expected to be complete in the summer of2017. 

Q6c. Is the Administration still committed to disposing of the excess weapons plutonium intended 

for MOX fuel or does it now intend to use this plutonium in the production of new nuclear 

weapons pits? 

A6c. The Administration remains committed to disposing of our excess weapons-grade plutonium. 

Q7a. In contrast to previous years, the FY 2018 budget request does not contain any 

information about the estimated appropriations necessary for the five year period of the 

Future Years Nuclear Security Program. This five year projection is helpful for 

understanding future implications for today's spending decisions and helps Congress 

better understand how to prioritize scarce resources. This is especially important with 

respect to the Weapons Activities account because, as you are aware, there is substantial 

disagreement and uncertainty over the cost of nuclear modernization. 

Why did the FY 2018 budget submission include information about costs for FY 2018 

only? 

A 7a. Estimates for the FY 2019- FY 2023 base budget top line for the NNSA reflect FY 2018 

levels inflated by 2.1 percent annually. This outyear topline does not reflect a policy 

judgement. The Presidential Memorandum on Rebuilding the Armed Forces, released on 

01/27117, directed a series of defense reviews including the initiation of a new Nuclear 

Posture Review, to ensure that the U.S. nuclear deterrent is modern, robust, flexible, 

resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our 

allies. Once the National Security Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review are completed, 

62 
112 

the Administration will make a policy judgement on amounts for the NNSA's FY 2019 

FY2023 topline in the FY 2019 Budget. 

Q7b. When can Congress expect to receive information about the remaining years of 

the Future Years Nuclear Security Program? 

A7b. The Administration will make a policy judgement on amounts for the NNSA's FY 2019-

FY 2023 topline in the FY 2019 Budget, in accordance with the National Security 

Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review that are currently under development. 

Q8. I am concerned that the budget request for the Department of Energy proposes severe 

reductions to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, cutting funding by 

65 percent for wind power, 66 percent for solar power, and 76 percent for water power 

technologies. These reductions, if implemented, would reduce progress made over the 

last several decades in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and increasing our 

clean energy. Additionally, I am concerned that these cuts would negatively impact 

DOE's efforts to bring high-risk/ high-reward research in renewable power like that 

conducted at the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory in Minnesota- across the innovation 

"valley of death." Can you explain to me how this budget supports, in your view, 

American innovation, clean energy, and a sustainable energy future? 

A8. Through careful prioritization and ensuring that funding goes to the most promising 

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

that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the Nation's security and 

prosperity. 

The FY 2018 Budget Request focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where the Federal 

role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. This shift allows the 

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

technologies. By focusing on early stage R&D, the budget proposes critical investments 

necessary to sustain America's leadership in transformative science and emerging energy 

technologies. 

Q9. The DOE employs advanced computing and simulation to accomplish its core mission of 

advancing scientific frontiers and safeguarding Americans. While the budget request 

increases funding for Advanced Scientific Computing Research, sufficient funding is not 

provided for important areas of fundamental research, such as applied and computational 

63 
113 

mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. Meanwhile, other countries, including China, are 

increasing investments in these areas. What is DOE's strategy for this research? Does 

the Department have plans to engage the current community of university researchers in 

applied mathematics and similar fields? 

A9. The decrease in the math and computer science research budgets from FY 2016 

reflects a transfer of exascale related funding to the Office of Science Exascale 

Computing Project. The base research budgets continue to support fundamental 

research in areas such as data intensive science, Artificial Intelligence, and 

computing beyond Moore's Law. For example, ASCR currently supports a handful 

of small-scale research projects for exploring potential growth areas at the 

intersection of applied mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AI). These will be 

used to spark larger-scale University and DOE national laboratory research 

investments and computational efforts involving AI. This effort engages universities 

as performers of research either directly funded by ASCR or in partnership with our 

national laboratories. 

Q I 0. As you know may know, Minnesota experienced a serious propane shortage a few years 

ago due to pipeline outages, a large com crop that needs propane for grain drying, and an 

extremely cold winter. This shortage caused the price of propane to skyrocket, making it 

very expensive for over 200,000 Minnesotans to heat their homes during an extremely 

cold winter. Although changes have been made, I'm concerned that propane stocks are 

falling again this year. What is being done to prevent another shortage? 

AJO. As the U.S. Government's provider of energy statistics and analysis, the Energy 

lnformationAdministration (EIA) provides data and projections that can be used to 

inform the public. In response to the propane shortage experienced during the 2013/14 

winter and current developments, EIA has taken the following actions: 

Starting with the 2014/15 heating season, EIA issues the Propane Situation Update 

briefing deck every Wednesday afternoon, from the first Wednesday in October to the last 

Wednesday in March. Michigan and Kansas are reported individually and the remaining 

Midwestern states are reported in groups, 

hltps://www.eia.gov/special/healingfuels/rcsources/Propane Brieting.pdf 

In October 2014 EIA expanded, in cooperation with participating states, the number of 

states covered in its State Heating Oil and Propane Program (SHOPP). The SHOPP 

64 
114 

program surveys and reports average propane and heating oil prices at the state level, 

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/heatingoilpropane/ 

In January 2017 EIA began reporting rail movements of propane, in addition to pipeline 

and waterborne movements, at the regional level, 

htlps://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet move railNA a EPLLPA RAIL mbbl m.htm 

EIA is tracking propane inventories in the Midwest and sub-regions within it on a weekly 

basis. 

EIA has already engaged in discussions with industry and staff from Senate offices 

regarding current propane markets. 

EIA will brief staff from the offices of Senators Franken (MN) and Baldwin (WI) on 

issues affecting supply of propane in the Midwest at the end of July, when they will have 

additional data on propane inventory builds. Delegations from other states and 

associations have also been invited. 

65 
115 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOE MAN CHIN III 

Q I. Secretary Perry, as you know, the United States is entirely far too dependent on other 

nations for our supply of rare earth elements. These elements, also called "REEs" or 

"critical minerals", are used in countless consumer products such as cell phones, 

televisions, and medical equipment. And these elements are increasingly the subject of 

national security concerns because our supply is imported from China. In fact, the 

Congressional Research Service reports that "refined rare earth metals are almost 

exclusively available from China. The United States has the expertise but lacks the 

manufacturing assets and facilities to refine oxides into metals ... " That wasn't always 

the case. So, it's time we took a hard look at how to redevelop a domestic industry for 

these. West Virginia University is doing a lot of great work on extracting these materials 

from coal mine byproducts. Once commercialized, these processes could be a critical 

means of standing up a domestic market for rare earth elements. In the FY 2017 

spending bill, we included a $15 million plus-up for R&D into the extraction and 

recovery of rare earth elements and minerals from U.S. coal and coal byproducts. 

Can you please comment on the national security concerns associated with these 

elements? 

How would you address these concerns in the context of this budget which would put 

constraints on this type of research? 

A 1. The U.S. is now largely import dependent for rare earth elements (REEs), which are 

needed in manufacturing in the communications, defense, information technology, 

medical, and renewable energy sectors. Billions of dollars are now spent on imports of 

these technologies, which include components made from REEs, that could instead be 

manufactured in the United States if the needed minerals can be supplied domestically. 

The potential economic benefits are substantial. Some of the raw materials for fiber 

optics systems, lasers, carbon fibers, and products needed for U.S. infrastructure 

improvements can be produced domestically. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil 

Energy is working within the current budget to establish the technical and economic 

feasibility of producing these key materials domestically from coal and coal products. 

Our current focus is production of REEs in coal country to reduce our import 

dependence, to help insulate these U.S. regions from swings in markets for conventional 

coal products, and to attract advanced manufacturing facilities to one source of the 

materials - U.S. coal country. This research on extracting rare earth elements from 

domestic resources like coal is a complement to the research at the National Labs like 

Idaho, Ames, Oak Ridge and Livermore that focus on new approaches to subsequent 

66 
116 

chemical separation and processing of rare earth materials into technologies like magnets, 

phosphors (forTVs, lighting and cell phones) and other items important to our strong 

domestic energy and manufacturing sectors. 

Q2. West Virginia is known for coal. But what we're less known for is the work we've done 

to burn that coal more cleanly. The DOE's fossil energy research is headquartered at the 

National Energy Laboratory in West Virginia, where NETL has worked with the private 

sector on the technologies we use to remove particulates and other harmful substances 

from coal. The National Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown, West Virginia is an 

extraordinary complex that is near and dear to my heart and employs 612 people. Your 

budget proposes consolidation of the 3 lab facilities that make up NETL in a phased 

approach. First, Albany would be consolidated in to the Eastern sites and, as your written 

testimony notes, the Department will "evaluate alternatives for the consolidation of 

NETL's eastern sites" in Pittsburgh and Morgantown. I believe that research and 

development is critical to the Department of Energy mission and the national lab system 

is vital to ensuring that we are on the cutting edge of energy technology development. 

The Morgantown facility is seen as a mainstay of fossil fuel technology development. 

Their projects on carbon capture, efficient utilization of coal, and how to integrate fossil 

fuel systems with renewable energy are vital to our energy future. 

What is the goal behind this consolidation of the NETL facilities in Morgantown, 

Pittsburgh, and Albany, Oregon as proposed? 

Can you provide additional details? 

A2. The Department's goal is to ensure we deliver cutting edge research that meets the needs 

of the energy industry and the American public by ensuring we have aligned and 

streamlined our scientific talent, physical assets and capabilities to serve this mission in 

the most cost-effective manner. To achieve this goal, we are launching a comprehensive 

study to analyze the costs and benefits of the National Energy Technology Laboratory 

three-site configuration as well as options to maximize its capabilities. The results of this 

comprehensive study will inform the best approach to achieving this goal. 

Q3a. West Virginia is hurting. The decline of the coal industry has been devastating. We are 

losing businesses and population. So, in addition to doing everything we can to stop the 

bleeding and help our people in the near-term, we are also looking for ways to revitalize 

our home state economy. I recently introduced the Capitalizing American Storage 

Potential Act which will help create an Appalachian Storage Hub. It would maximize the 

opportunities associated with our vast reserves of natural gas liquids (NGLs). According 

to the Mid-Atlantic Technology Research & Innovation Center, about 20% of the value in 

the Marcellus Shale alone is ethane, propane, and butane- also known as natural gas 

67 
117 

liquids, attracting investments and creating jobs. So, the Hub will attract manufacturers 

that need reliable affordable access to these products. With safety and the environment 

top of mind, I'd like to see the Storage Hub move forward and that's why I introduced a 

bill making the storage hub eligible for Title XVII- to provide access to low cost 

financial capital to help overcome private sector concerns about risk. 

Putting aside that the President's budget proposes the elimination of the loan program, 

what is your perception of this program which has a 97.78% repayment rate? 

A3a. To support the Administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has 

become a sprawling Federal Government and reducing deficit spending, the President's 

FY 2018 budget proposal reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund laterstage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses 

resources toward early-stage research and development. Consequently, the budget 

reflects terminating loan originations after September 30, 2017. 

Q3b. Can you commit to work with me on how the Department of Energy can help the 

Appalachian Storage Hub? 

A3b. I look forward to continuing our dialogue on the Appalachian Storage Hub. Our 

roundtable discussion on the project was very productive, and I look forward to engaging 

you and your staff further. 

68 
118 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MARTIN HEINRICH 

Ql. I am pleased to see the Office of Technology Transitions is again funded in your budget. 

Last year, DOE successfully piloted a new approach to promote technology transfer from 

the DOE labs using a voucher program that pairs businesses with lab scientists and 

engineers to help speed up commercialization of technologies. I've been an advocate for 

voucher programs that help move technologies from the labs. What are your specific plans 

to promote tech transfer from the labs using the funding set aside in the Technology 

Commercialization Fund, and will you support a second round of vouchers to bolster the 

commercial application of lab-developed technologies? 

A 1. DOE is aware that it is a statutory requirement to provide funding to support the 

Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF) and will adhere to that policy. We are in the 

final stages of selecting the 2017 TCF awardees, having recently completed the merit 

review process for the proposals submitted in response to our FY 2017 request during the 

first quarter of the fiscal year. I am pleased to report that there was increased interest and 

we received an increase of almost 25 percent in the number of proposals submitted for 

funding by the TCF in 2017 versus 20 I 6. 

As required under the statute, all TCF awards require matching private funds. In order to 

promote tech transfer from the labs, those labs that are contractor operated may use nonappropriated funding to submit proposals in two topic areas: Topic Area I: Projects for 

which additional technology maturation is needed to attract a private partner; and Topic 

Area 2: Cooperative development projects between a lab and industry partner(s), designed 

to bolster the commercial application of a lab-developed technology. All labs are eligible 

to submit and receive awards in Topic 2. All projects selected for the TCF must receive at 

least an equal amount of non-federal funds to match the federal investment. 

There have been two separate voucher type programs that have been pursued by DOE on 

a pilot basis over the past two years. One is a Small Business Voucher program in which 

funding and lab mentoring is provided to small businesses that are developing promising 

technologies that may or may not have originated at a National Lab. That pilot was begun 

in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program and has expanded to the Nuclear 

Energy program. The other pilot is the Energy !-Corps (previously known as Lab-Corps), 

69 
119 

which partners national lab scientists and engineers working on energy technologies that 

have shown potential for commercial application with industry mentors. This activity 

provides a two-month intensive hands-on training for our lab scientists and engineers to 

learn how the private sector approaches decision making on technologies and products so 

the technologies (and companies licensing them) can successfully compete in the 

marketplace. This is accomplished using the energy technologies that have already been 

developed at the lab. The opportunity for training and mentorship by private sector experts 

enhances the ability of the national labs to successfully identify technologies with high 

potential for commercialization. Both the Small Business Voucher and the Energy J-Corps 

programs are under evaluation to determine their effectiveness and whether they merit 

continuation. 

Q2. You committed to the president your 60-day internal study of grid reliability and energy 

markets would "provide concrete policy recommendations and solutions." You indicated 

today your study is now due in early July. Given this is an internal report that could have 

wide-ranging implications on future markets, will you consider providing an opportunity 

for public review and comment on a draft of the report before the recommendations are 

finalized? 

A2. We intend to publish the report, and we recognize the great interest that this internal 

review has garnered. In the spirit of transparency, we will welcome stakeholder input on 

the finished product. We are establishing a mechanism now to catalog those comments. 

All interested stakeholders will have ample opportunity to comment on the actual 

contents of the study. 

While the Department receives a great deal of input from its stakeholders, we see this 

study as an important step in determining how to ensure a well-functioning electric grid 

in the long term. The Department has no preconceived notions as to the findings and 

recommendations that will result from this review. We look forward to a fruitful dialogue 

once the review is completed. 

70 
120 

Q3a. In responding to my question today, you indicated your forthcoming internal grid study 

would address issues of reliability in states such as Texas. As you well know, wind 

generation in West Texas has grown dramatically over the last few years and now 

accounts for about 23 percent of power generation for the Electric Reliability Council of 

Texas (ERCOT). Further, ERCOT believes close to 100% of new electricity generation 

that will be added in Texas over the next 10 years will likely be either solar and wind 

power. Do you agree with ERCOT's technical assessment that it can accommodate such 

high penetration levels of renewable energy? 

A3a. It is technically feasible to do many things on the grid that may not be economic or 

prudent to do on a large scale or an extended basis, so changes such as you describe 

require careful study and planning. When large amounts of variable renewable 

generation capacity (such as wind and solar) are added to the grid, they typically have to 

be backed up by some combination of highly flexible alternatives, such as gas-fired 

generation, energy storage devices, or demand response capacity, all of which need to be 

economically viable so that they will continue to be available when needed. 

Increasingly, given the design oftoday's wholesale electricity markets (including 

ERCOT), the addition of large amounts of zero-marginal cost wind and solar (and 

sometimes even negatively-priced wind because of the Federal production tax credit) into 

the markets can conflict with the economic viability of the generation resources necessary 

when the electricity from wind or sun are not available. Further, the addition of large 

amounts ofrenewables often requires the development of substantial additional 

transmission capacity, which typically takes significant time and capital investment, the 

cost of which generally falls to ratepayers. IfERCOT and the Texas electric power 

industry are able to bring on significant amounts of additional renewables while also 

doing the other things necessary to keep their system reliable and economic, that would 

be a welcome outcome. 

Q3b. If not, what federal policy remedies will you recommend to correct Texas's decision to 

increase its share of competitive renewable generation? · 

A3b. It is unlikely that we will make specific recommendations to Texas (or any other state) 

about how it should balance its generation portfolio. 

Q4. In a letter dated July 25, 2014, the Nuclear Weapons Council gave Congress its 

commitment to build modular structures to maintain plutonium production and associated 

71 
121 

support capabilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory consistent with section 3114 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, as amended by section 3117 ofNDAA 

for 2014. The NWC also stated the modular building strategy at LANL met the 

requirements for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile over a 30-year period. The 

plutonium strategy endorsed by the Nuclear Weapons Council and required by the 

NDAA will require substantial new investments at LANL over the next five years. 

understand CD-0 was approved in August 2015 to construct two new modular structures 

for plutonium research at LANL not later than 2027. What is the status and time line to 

complete the required Analysis of Alternatives? When do you now expect CD-I and CD2 to be approved? 

A4. Critical Decision (CD)-0 approval recognized NNSA's need to provide high-hazard, 

high-security laboratory space for conducting plutonium operations required for the 

enduring stockpile stewardship and management activities over the long term. Consistent 

with DOE Order 413.3B, and GAO best practices, an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is 

'being conducted after CD-0 approval. The AoA evaluates options to address that need, 

and is expected to be complete in the summer of2017. 

Once the AoA is complete, and a preferred alternative is selected, National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) will initiate conceptual design and other activities to 

prepare for Critical Decision (CD)-1 submittal, which is anticipated in FY 2018. NNSA 

anticipates achieving CD-2 in FY 2020. 

Q5. I understand as governor you were interested in hosting temporary storage of high-level 

commercial nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel in Texas. In 2012, the Blue Ribbon 

Commission's report on nuclear waste made very clear that the only possible path 

forward is through a consent-based approach to siting both temporary storage and 

permanent disposal facilities for high-level waste. Will you continue DOE's policy of 

consent-based siting? What in your mind constitutes "local consent" for siting nuclear 

waste facilities? 

AS. As Secretary, I continue to see the benefits that consolidated interim storage could 

provide in removing waste from some 120 sites around the country to one or a few 

consolidated storage facilities as we work towards a permanent disposal solution. With 

regards to an interim storage facility, it would need to be sited in accordance with local, 

state, and federal laws and regulations. Currently, the procedures for pursuing geologic 

disposal are prescribed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

72 
122 

Q6. Interstate energy transmission projects take significant investments and have long lead 

times. For project developers, it is critical to have some certainty in the timing and scope 

of federal permitting reviews. Under the energy Policy Act of2005, the Department of 

energy was given multiple authorities to facilitate the timely construction of interstate 

electric transmission facilities. What steps is the Department taking under its existing 

authorities to facilitate the required reviews of multi-state high-voltage transmission 

lines? 

A6. On September 23, 2016, Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Final Rule for 

Coordination of Federal Authorizations of Electric Transmission Facilities establishing an 

Integrated Interagency Pre-Application (liP) process. The liP process was developed 

under the specific authorities found in section 2 I 6(h)(3) of the Federal Power Act, which 

requires the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable under Federal law, to 

coordinate the Federal authorization and review process with any Indian tribes, multistate entities, and state agencies that have their own separate permitting and 

environmental reviews. Section 216(h)(4)(C) also requires the Secretary to establish an 

expeditious pre-application mechanism to allow project proponents to confer with 

Federal agencies involved and for each such agency to communicate to the proponent any 

information needs relevant to a prospective application and key issues of concern to the 

agencies and public. The Final Rule went into effect on November 23, 2016. 

The IIP is voluntary and timing for the process is driven by the transmission community. 

The liP allows perspective transmission project proponents to engage in DOE-facilitated 

early project information sharing to inform any subsequent environmental review by 

Federal agencies under National Environmental Policy Act. An important strength of the 

process is that other agencies (Federal, regional, state, local, and tribal) with 

authorizations or permit decisions for a proposed transmission project are invited to 

participate so the information is shared at one time. This provides a transmission 

developer an opportunity to substantively discuss a proposed project with all agencies, to 

ensure that potential issues are identified by permitting agencies and tribes before a 

project proponent files an application, and to enjoy time savings through better early 

project planning. The deliverable of the liP process is a Final liP Resources Reportessentially an applicant-prepared Environmental Assessment-that is submitted to the 

lead agency conducting subsequent environmental review following application for 

73 
123 

Federal authorizations. This document and its contents, which are vetted by the 

participating agency and tribal staffs, is incorporated into agencies' administrative record 

for permitting decisions, thereby using this early information to inform Federal agency 

decisions. 

DOE's implementation of Section 216(h) authorities is on-going and DOE is currently 

developing policy and guidance with the Administration's focus on increased electric 

infrastructure development to effectively and efficiently meet the reliability and 

resiliency needs of the Nation's electric grid. 

Q7. The FYI8 budget request for Science and NNSA provides increases in funding to 

accelerate the development of exascale computing. Exascale technology is important 

to the United States' national interests: With exascale technology, we can fight 

diseases, better maintain our nuclear stockpile and analyze the potential of foreign 

threats against the United States, and catalyze industry to produce products faster, 

cheaper, and more safely. Previous agency plans have called for exascale 

development in the 2023 timeframe, but the President's budget has included funding 

to accelerate its development to 2021. What specific factors led to your decision to 

accelerate the project de livery of at least one exascale-capable system in 2021? 

A 7. The 2021 date is result of a request for information issued in early 2017 and subsequent 

discussions with U. S. computing vendors. Based on this work, it was evident that results 

of previous high performance computing activities yielded sufficiently innovative 

technologies that, with the appropriate investments, make exascale achievable in 2021. 

Achievement of exascale requires new hardware and software designs and technologiesnot just more of the same technologies strung together- to overcome challenges in 

parallelism, energy efficiency, and reliability. We and our private-sector partners will be 

pushing our state-of-the-art fabrication techniques to the limit to achieve exascale. 

Significant one-time investments in engineering ("non-recurring engineering") and 

design by the vendors in conjunction with DOE's team must be started as soon as 

possible in order to deliver an exascale system in 2021. Considerable concurrent 

investments are needed to develop software and applications to effectively use an 

exascale system on scientific problems and nuclear weapons applications. The 2021 

delivery of hardware is aligned with the timeframe for completion of the necessary 

software and application development. 

74 
124 

Deploying at least one exascale system in 2021 will keep the U.S. competitive in the 

international exascale race. As the Council on Competitiveness stated, "A country that 

wishes to out-compete in any market must also be able to out-compute its rivals." 

Exascale computing is critical to the national security, scientific, and energy missions of 

the Energy Department. Exascale also is critical to ensure U.S. primacy in computing to 

advance economic competiveness in technological and manufacturing processes. 

Achievement of exascale will deliver breakthrough computer performance to both the 

Federal and private sectors. The accelerated investments in design and engineering over 

the next 3-4 years will keep the U.S. at the forefront of computational platforms. This 

will allow us to continue to lead in: scientific and engineering progress; advances in 

manufacturing techniques and rapid prototyping; nuclear security missions including 

stockpile stewardship without testing; and, the ability to explore, understand and harness 

natural and engineered systems that are too large, too complex, too dangerous, too small, 

or too fleeting to explore experimentally. 

Q8. Your 2018 budget request provides for a substantial decrease in funding for the 

Department's Office of Electricity (OE). OE is one of the most critical parts of DoE 

because of its role in funding a wide range of grid modernization research and 

deployment programs, as well as leading-edge grid security and reliability programs. 

Grid modernization is especially important to help propel the US economy forward. Is 

there a way that these programs can be shielded from such severe funding damage so that 

these valuable efforts can continue? 

A8. DOE agrees that grid modernization is critical to our economy and security, however the 

current fiscal environment requires thoughtful prioritization of Federal investments. The 

FY 2018 budget request focuses Federal funding on early stage research efforts, allowing 

for private industry to leverage this research for innovative applied solutions, 

demonstrations, and pilot projects tailored to market needs and opportunities. Where 

market incentives exist to undertake research and development activities like those 

previously supported by OE, such activities may be better initiated and managed by the 

private sector. 

75 
125 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO 

Q I. During your confinnation hearing in January, I asked you how the Department of Energy 

under your leadership would be able to effectively pursue an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy- as you testified the Department would do if the Trump Administration held 

true to its threat to completely eliminate a core program like the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) which focuses on transitioning to a cleaner, 

renewable energy economy. You said, "Well, Senator, maybe they'll have the same 

experience I had and forget that they said that." While this was a humorous response, we 

now know that the Trump Administration did not forget. The President's budget 

proposes to cut the EERE program by 70 percent. The program was funded at $2.1 

billion in FY 2017 and is proposed to be funded at $636 million in FY 2018. How can 

the Department lead an all-of-the-above energy strategy if so much of the Department's 

all-of-the-above capabilities are being eliminated or marginalized through drastic funding 

cuts? I recognize that work on this budget proposal was underway before you were 

confinned, but do you support actually making these cuts? 

AI. I support the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Budget which refocuses the 

Department's energy and science programs on early-stage research and development at 

our national laboratories to advance American primacy in scientific and energy research 

in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

The FY 2018 Budget focuses its investments on the basic, early-stage research and 

development (R&D) conducted by the scientists and engineers at our 17 national 

laboratories who are constantly on the path to developing the next great innovations that 

can transform society, and bring forth a new era of prosperity for the American people. 

These investments span technologies across the entire energy sector, including coal, 

natural gas, unconventional fossil energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy, energy 

efficiency, advanced transportation, the electric power grid, and basic science research. 

Across all of these areas, the Budget provides $6.4 billion, $4.5 billion in the Office of 

Science and $1.9 billion in energy research and development programs, with a renewed 

focus on cutting-edge innovation and transitioning those breakthroughs to the private 

marketplace. These comprehensive and focused investments will allow the Department, 

through its National Laboratories, to continue supporting the world's best enterprise of 

scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive American prosperity, security 

and competitiveness for the next generation. 

76 
126 

Q2. Hawaii has relied on imported fossil fuels for over 90 percent of our energy production. 

Thanks in large part to a memorandum of understanding signed first under President 

George W. Bush, the DOE has been a key supporter of Hawaii's efforts to shift towards 

sustainable locally produced renewable energy. Technical assistance and grants from 

DOE's State Energy Program have played a crucial role in accelerating the shift away 

from imported oil. ln calling for the elimination of the State Energy Program, you assert 

in your testimony that "later-stage R&D, demonstration, and deployment responsibilities" 

should be shifted to the private sector and the States. Please explain to me your rationale 

for cutting offHawaii's access to what you describe in your testimony as the "world's 

best enterprise of scientists and engineers who create innovations to drive American 

prosperity, security and competitiveness for the next generation." 

A2. The Administration is committed to energy policies that lower cost for hardworking 

American's and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on 

foreign oil. The President's FY 2018 Budget Request for the Department of Energy 

(DOE) demonstrates the Administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role for 

what has become a sprawling Federal Government and reducing deficit spending. It 

reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, 

development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources 

toward early-stage research and development. The DOE anticipates that the states, to the 

extent practicable, will re-prioritize state budgets and resources to support these programs 

as appropriate within their states. 

Q3. On June 20, the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Hawaiian Electric Light Company 

and others announced their plans to install an advanced flow battery using the element 

vanadium order to test its ability to provide long-duration grid-scale energy storage in a 

warm weather environment. DOE's Office of Electricity and the Sandia National 

Laboratory offered expertise, coordination, and financial support in helping this project 

happen. Energy storage technologies like this can help the whole country make use of 

greater amounts of energy from renewable sources like solar and wind and help Hawaii 

reach its goal of 100% renewable sources electricity by 2045. Given the promise of 

energy storage technologies and the reluctance of electric utilities to be the first to try out 

a new and capital-intensive technology on its own, do you agree with me that it is 

incredibly short-sighted to for this budget to propose cutting the Office of Electricity's 

energy storage program by 60 percent? 

A3. Energy storage is a promising technology for grid modernization. It provides the 

flexibility for variability in electricity supply and demand, enhances asset utilization, and 

contributes to electric system reliability and resilience. The FY 2018 budget request 

focuses Federal funding on early stage research efforts, allowing for private industry to 

77 
127 

leverage this research for innovative applied solutions, demonstrations, and pilot projects 

tailored to market needs and opportunities. States may choose to support these efforts 

based on local priorities. DOE will continue to work with the private sector and the 

states to ascertain technological needs. 

Q4. The budget targets electric transmission and reliability, smart grid research and 

development, and energy storage for deep cuts, ranging from 64 to 80%. Hawaii has 

been on the leading edge of grid modernization, benefitting our residents, businesses, and 

military installations with a more reliable electricity supply. Why is the Administration 

trying to cut support for work that makes our grid more efficient, affordable, reliable, and 

less vulnerable at a time when cyber threats and threats from extreme weather and 

climate change are increasing? 

A4. DOE agrees that efforts to make our grid more efficient, affordable, reliable, and less 

vulnerable are important. However, the current fiscal environment requires thoughtful 

prioritization ofFederal investments. The FY 2018 budget request focuses Federal 

funding on early stage research efforts, allowing for private industry to leverage this 

research for innovative applied solutions, demonstrations and pilot projects. States may 

choose to support these efforts based on local priorities. DOE will continue to work with 

the private sector and the states to ascertain technological needs. Moreover, where 

market incentives exist to undertake R&D activities like those previously supported by 

OE, such activities may be better initiated and managed by the private sector. 

78 
128 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BILL CASSIDY 

Q I. As you know, many of my constituents and I, have an interest in the Lake Charles 

Methanol project. The project received a conditional commitment from DOE for a loan 

guarantee last December. While the Department recommended in its budget for FY 2018 

that the Loan Program be terminated, the budget recommendation did not rescind budget 

authority for projects that received a conditional commitment prior to October I, 2017. 

My reading of DOE's proposal is that the Department will honor the conditional 

commitment for the Lake Charles project when the project is presented for financial 

close. 

Given this budget was already written by the time you were confirmed, are there specific 

reforms you would like to implement to the DOE Loan Program that would give you 

greater confidence that taxpayers are being protected, while at the same time making 

financing available for first of a kind innovative energy projects? 

A I. The Loan Programs Office underwrites and structures its loans and loan guarantees to 

protect the interests of taxpayers and maximize prospects for full repayment. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated in one of their past reports that 

some private lenders have noted that the Department's due diligence is as rigorous- or 

more so- than that performed in the private sector. 

However, to support the Administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role of 

what has become a sprawling Federal Government and reducing deficit spending, the 

President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget reflects an increased reliance on the private 

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

technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development. 

Consequently, the budget reflects terminating loan originations after September 30, 2017. 

Q2. The President's budget calls for a significant reshaping of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve. The budget requests additional sales of approximately 270 million barrels of 

crude by 2027, on top of the sales included in legislation last Congress. The budget also 

calls for the closure of2 of the 4 SPR sites. While I do not support such a drastic 

reduction in the SPR, Congress will ultimately decide if additional sales are appropriate. 

What I am most interested in hearing are your plans on utilizing the Energy Security and 

Infrastructure Fund to modernize the SPR facilities. What is your assessment of the 

readiness and condition of the SPR facilities? 

A2. While the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) remains operationally capable and ready to 

drawdown its crude oil inventory if directed to do so, a significant amount of 

79 
129 

infrastructure is approaching or has exceeded its 25 year design life and is in need of 

replacement. To address this issue, the SPR has initiated the Life Extension Phase II 

project as part of its SPR Modernization program. This project is on schedule, with an 

anticipated completion date between FY 2022 and FY 2024. Section 404 of the 

Bipartisan Budget Act of20 15 (Public Law 114-74) authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

sell up to $2 billion of SPR crude oil over four fiscal years commencing in FY 2017 

through FY 2020. Receipts from these sales are deposited to the Energy Security and 

Infrastructure Modernization Fund to fund SPR Modernization program activities. In FY 

2017, the SPR sold 6.28 million barrels of crude oil resulting in receipts of$323.2 

million, to be applied towards the Life Extension Phase II project. 

Q3. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is decades old, and there have been recent reports of 

tank roof collapses and water pipe damage. What specific steps do you plan to take to 

ensure that this vital national resource is maintained and is fully operational if needed? 

A3. While the SPR remains operationally capable and ready to drawdown its crude oil 

inventory if directed to do so, a significant amount of infrastructure is approaching or has 

exceeded its 25 year design life and is in need of replacement. To address this issue, the 

SPR has initiated the Life Extension Phase II project as part of its SPR Modernization 

program. The purpose of this project is to modernize aging SPR infrastructure, SPR 

storage sites and the St. James marine terminal through systems upgrades and equipment 

replacement to ensure the SPR's operational readiness to meet mission requirements. The 

project is on schedule, with an anticipated completion date between FY 2022 and FY 

2024. 

Q4. Southwest Louisiana and Texas have been leading the way on development of LNG 

Export facilities. Louisiana is expecting its second facility to begin exporting globally 

next year. According to Shell, global LNG demand is expected to increase 4-5% 

annually until 2030. We need to be in a position to fill that demand with U.S natural gas 

as the demand grows. 

Unfortunately, the past Administration prolonged the export approval process for several 

projects, including one project which waited 1,642 days for approval. In the current 

competitive market, foreign buyers are looking for certainty before agreeing to long-term 

offtake agreements. 

80 
130 

Do you believe exporting natural gas is in the national interest of the United States, and if 

so, what specific actions can you take as Secretary to ensure these approvals do not 

languish at DOE, as they have in the past? 

A4. To date, Department of Energy (DOE) has issued 28 final Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

export authorizations to any country in the world where trade is not prohibited by law, in 

a cumulative volume of exports totaling 21.33 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural 

gas. In these orders, DOE has discussed the many benefits of exporting U.S. LNG, 

including environmental benefits, improved energy security for our allies and trading 

partners, and economic growth as measured by U.S. gross domestic product. DOE has 

found that these benefits are consistent with the public interest. DOE has acted on all 

applications ready for final DOE action. Thus far in 2017, DOE has granted the 

applications to export LNG from the proposed Golden Pass, Delfin and Lake Charles 

LNG export projects. DOE intends to continue taking prompt action on all applications 

that are ready for final action at DOE. 

DOE's review of applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries 

requires a public interest review under the Natural Gas Act, as well as an environmental 

review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For large-scale LNG 

projects, the NEPA reviews are led by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FER C) or U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD), with 

DOE acting as a cooperating agency. Given the size and scope of LNG projects, NEPA 

reviews that include issuing a Record of Decision or a Finding ofNo Significant Impact 

can take more than two years. Once the lead agency (FERC or MARAD) completes the 

NEPA review and issues a Record of Decision or Finding ofNo Significant Impact for a 

particular LNG export project, DOE typically acts within days or weeks to complete its 

public interest review and issue a final order. 

Ultimately, the market will determine how much U.S. LNG export capacity is built and 

utilized. The most recent long-term forecast by the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, the Annual Energy Outlook 2017, sees U.S. LNG exports reaching a high 

of 12 Bcf/d of natural gas by 2040. According to data submitted to DOE, LNG export 

81 
131 

projects accounting for nearly half of the total LNG volume approved to date for export 

to any country in the world (I 0 Bcf/d of the 21.33 Bcfi'd total) are currently under 

construction. In addition to promptly reviewing LNG export applications as part of our 

regulatory responsibility, DOE is working with the Administration, industry, other 

Federal and state government agencies, and our international partners to help U.S. 

companies maximize opportunities in the global LNG market. 

Q5. In the President's FY18 Budget, the Administration proposes to spend $279 million to 

terminate the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX). This is a position that was 

shared by your predecessor Secretary Moniz but Congress has continued to reject this 

approach. The issue that has come up time and time again is the "re-baselining' of the 

project, or in other words figuring out what the project would likely cost to finish. I am 

told that your Agency "re-baselined" the MOX project without consulting with the 

contractor, which appears to go against the clear intent of Congress. 

If it is true that the "re-baselining" of the MOX facility was done improperly, without 

consulting those who would actually be working on the project, then why would the 

Department of Energy make a final determination to terminate the project with 

incomplete data? 

AS. In response to the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act requirement, the 

Department updated the performance baseline for the MFFF project. This detailed 

estimate, which was prepared in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and included consultation with the Contractor, was transmitted to Congress on September 

14, 2016. The GAO has determined that the estimate is reliable. The estimated cost to 

complete the facility is roughly $12 billion. The project would bring total construction 

costs to $17 billion, when including $5 billion in sunk-costs to date. 

0 

82