U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

65–049PDF 2011

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 

2012 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 

REQUEST 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 3, 2011 

Serial No. 112–4 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 3, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 11 

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

Witness: 

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary, Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

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

Biography .......................................................................................................... 32 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 33 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary, Department of Energy .............................................. 80 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted Materials of Ranking Member Johnson, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 282 

Submitted Statement of Representative Jerry Costello, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 286 

(1) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 

2012 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET REQUEST 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012 

Research and Development Budget 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011

10:00–12:00

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE 

On Thursday, March 3, 2011, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2012 Research 

and Development Budget.’’ The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony from 

the Secretary of Energy on the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request for 

energy research and technology development programs at the Department, including 

activities under the Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Loan Guarantee Program Office. 

WITNESS 

Dr. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy. Dr. Chu was confirmed as the 12th 

Secretary of Energy on January 20, 2009. Prior to his appointment Dr. Chu was the 

Director of DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and a professor of Physics and Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California. He was the cowinner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics. 
4 
5 

1 All DOE mission statement quotes come from the cited office’s website. 

BACKGROUND 

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a wide range of research, development, 

demonstration, and commercial application activities. DOE’s primary mission is to 

‘‘advance the national economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.’’ 1 In order 

to fulfill its mission, DOE operations are guided by five strategic themes: energy security, nuclear security, scientific discovery and innovation, environmental responsibility, and management excellence. The overall FY 2012 budget request for DOE is $29.5 billion, which represents a $3.1 billion or 11.8 percent increase over FY 2010 levels. Approximately one third 

of this amount is dedicated to programs within the Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology’s jurisdiction. The balance of DOE’s funding is allocated to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), to maintain our stockpile of nuclear 

weapons, and Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Management (EM) programs, to manage the cleanup of nuclear weapons production and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. 

DOE R&D PROGRAMS AND OFFICES 

Office of Science 

The total FY 2012 budget request for the Office of Science (SC) is $5.4 billion, 

a $452 million or 9.1 percent increase over the FY 2010 levels. The mission of the 

Office of Science is the delivery of scientific discoveries, capabilities, and major scientific tools to transform the understanding of nature and to advance the energy, 

economic, and national security of the United States. In support of this mission, SC 

supports basic research in the following areas: advanced scientific computing, basic 

energy sciences, biological and environmental research, fusion energy sciences, high 

energy physics, and nuclear physics. SC’s operations take place in three main areas: 

selection and management of research; operation of world-class, state-of-the-art scientific facilities; and design and construction of new facilities. SC also supports several ongoing interagency initiatives such as the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program; the National Networking Initiative; the 

United States Global Change Research Program; and the Climate Change Technology Program. SC provides 45 percent of Federal support of basic research in the 

physical sciences and key components of the Nation’s basic research in biology and 

high-end computing. 

Office of Science budget and activities are divided into the following six major program areas: 

Basic Energy Sciences (BES) requests $1.99 billion, an increase of $386 million 

(or 24.1 percent) over FY 2010 levels. BES supports basic research into the fundamental building blocks necessary for advancing new energy technologies, and maintains world-class research facilities to develop new knowledge and facilitate advances in areas such as materials science and chemistry.. The FY 2012 budget reiterates the FY 2011 request for $34 million to fund a new Batteries and Energy Storage Energy Innovation Hub. Additionally, the existing Fuels from Sunlight Hub requests $24.3 million. 

In order to realize significant research gains and advance new research methodology, in 2009 BES initiated the creation of Energy Frontier Research Centers 

(EFRCs.) EFRCs are individually funded between $2-5 million per year to conduct 

focused research from a small team to solve ‘‘grand challenges’’ associated with disruptive scientific advances. DOE requests continued funding of all 46 existing 

EFRCs in FY 2012. 

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) requests $717.9 million in the 

President’s budget, which is $129.9 million (22.1 percent) over FY 2010 funding. 

BER examines fundamental biological systems, climate, and environmental sciences. 

Specifically, BER researches genomics, drivers of climate change, and deeper environmental issues. The request also includes support for the three DOE Bioenergy 

Research Centers, the Joint Genome Institute, and Environmental Molecular 

Sciences Laboratory. 

BER is also a major contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) by providing expertise in climate modeling and simulations. The 

FY 2012 budget request includes notable funding increases for BER given pending 

work on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment. 
6 

The budget would provide $465.6 million for Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research (ASCR), an increase of $82.4 million (21.5 percent) over FY 2010 levels. 

A sizable portion of the increase is slotted for National Leadership Computing Facilities, the nation’s most powerful open resource for capability computing located 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. Continued investigation of a potential exascale computing project to increase computational capacity by a thousand-fold accounts for the remainder of the requested additional 

funds. 

The request for Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) is $399.7 million, a decrease of 

$18 million (4.3 percent) below FY 2010 funding. FES supports research to improve 

fundamental understanding of matter at very high temperatures and densities needed to develop fusion energy. The contribution to the international ITER project, a 

partnership to demonstrate the first fusion prototype, would be reduced by $30 million. 

The FY 2012 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $797.8 million, 

a $6.4 million (0.8 percent) increase from the enacted FY 2010 level. HEP probes 

the basic relationship between space and time, the elementary constituents of matter and energy, and the interactions between them. This effort is concentrated on 

three scientific frontiers: the energy frontier, the intensity frontier, and the cosmic 

frontier. 

Nuclear Physics (NP) would receive $605.3 million, an increase of $82.8 million 

(15.9 percent) over FY 2010 funding. This program supports research to discover 

and understand various forms of nuclear matter. It also supports the production and 

development of techniques to make isotopes that are in short supply for medical, 

national security, environmental, and other research applications. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

The mission of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is 

to ‘‘strengthen the United States’ energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality in public-private partnerships.’’ EERE supports this mission statement by: ‘‘Enhancing energy efficiency and productivity; bringing clean, reliable and 

affordable energy technologies to the marketplace; and making a difference in the 

everyday lives of Americans by enhancing their energy choices and their quality of 

life.’’ EERE participates in many crosscutting activities with other departments, as 

well as within DOE offices, including collaborations with the Office of Science, the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, Office of Electricity, Fossil Energy, 

Federal Energy Management Program, and the Loan Guarantee Program Office. The Administration’s budget request of $3.2 billion for EERE represents a $958 

million (44.4 percent) increase over FY 2010 levels. This reflects the President’s call 

in his State of the Union speech for increased spending on clean energy technologies. The budget requests significant funding increases for most EERE programs relative to the FY10 enacted level. Additionally, EERE is increasing the number of staff in their Washington, DC headquarters, while decreasing field FTEs. 

The proposed funding for the Solar Energy program is $457 million, an increase of $213.6 million (87.8 percent) over FY 2010 levels. This request intends to fund 

the ‘‘SunShot’’ initiative recently proposed by the Administration. As a part of this 

initiative, EERE is advancing a ‘‘Dollar-a-Watt’’ program to make solar energy to 

be cost-competitive with fossil fuels without subsidies. To achieve this goal, solar 

generation needs to reach a four to five cents/kWh equivalent installed price for 

solar photovoltaics (PV) energy by 2020, or reduce the installed cost of solar electricity by approximately 75 percent from current costs. Accordingly, an overwhelming percentage of solar energy’s increased funding is directed to the PV subprogram. EERE will also continue to fund the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) subprogram for further research in CSP development and thermal storage activities. As 

a means to accelerate widespread market adoption of solar energy, the program also 

seeks to improve applicable local codes, permitting, education and training. 

The FY 2012 funding request for the Wind Energy program is $126.9 million, an increase of $47.8 million (60.6 percent) over FY 2010 levels. The request continues 

funding a demonstration project to develop offshore wind technology, and aims to 

address financial, regulatory, technical, environmental, and social issues associated 

with offshore wind. 

The FY2012 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems budget request is $340.5 million, an increase of $124.3 million (57.5 percent) over the FY 2010 level. This program aims to develop and transform domestic, renewable, and abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high performance biofuels, biopower, and bioproducts 

through targeted planning, research, development and demonstration. In FY 2012, 

funding for feedstock production trials will be eliminated. The elimination is offset 

by a major increase of $150 million to expand the Cellulosic Biofuels Reverse Auc-
7 

tion with the intention of rapidly injecting money into the emerging cellulosic 

biofuels industry. Support for integrated biorefinery projects also notably decreases 

with increased focus on R&D for downstream deployment efforts. 

The proposed funding level for the Geothermal Technology program is $101.5 million, an increase of $58.4 million (135.5 percent) over FY2010. This program 

seeks to broaden its focus to include technologies with a near–term impact by confirming undiscovered hydrothermal resources with innovative exploration technologies. Additionally, the Enhanced Geothermal Systems subprogram is aiming to 

advance new technologies to use waste carbon dioxide to capture heat and make 

electricity. The Administration’s budget request provides a total of $38.5 million for the 

Water Power program, which is a $10.2 million (20.9 percent) decrease from FY 

2010 enacted levels. The program funds incremental hydropower development and 

demonstrates marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies. The funding will support full-scale MHK open water demonstration projects to establish the baseline cost 

of MHK generated electricity by 2013. 

The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies (HFCT) program requests $100.5 million; a $70 million or 41 percent decrease from FY 2010 levels. The decrease reflects EERE refocusing of specific R&D on fuels cells for stationary, transportation 

and portable power applications. 

The budget request for the Buildings Technologies Program (BTP) is $470.7 

million, a $252 million (114.9 percent) increase over FY 2010 levels. BTP supports 

efforts to improve the energy efficiency of new and existing homes and buildings primarily through advanced building technologies, controls, systems, and whole-building design; demonstration of integrated approaches for construction; bringing transformational tools to the market place; supporting the ENERGY STAR program; supporting the adoption, training, and enforcement of building codes; and promulgating 

and finalizing efficiency standards as required by law. The Energy Efficient Buildings Systems Design Hub is administered by BTP. 

BTP’s FY 2012 request includes the President’s new Better Buildings Initiative, 

which aims to achieve a 20 percent improvement in commercial building energy efficiency by 2020. In addition to increased R&D funding for building technologies, the 

initiative includes new tax incentives for commercial building energy efficiency 

projects and financing opportunities for state and municipal governments through 

the ‘‘Race to the Green’’ competitive grant program. The initiative would also receive 

funding from the Loan Guarantee Program Office. 

TheVehicle Technologies Program (VTP) requests $588 million, an increase of $283 million (93 percent) over the FY 2010 level. The increase reflects an emphasis 

on the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). Specifically, 

in support of the President’s goal to place one million electric vehicles on the road 

by 2015, VTP is requesting $229 million proposing to fund infrastructure development for transportation electrification, including a major new program of grants to 

communities for upgrading electric vehicle infrastructure. 

The Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) request is $319.8 million, an in- crease of $225.5 million (239.2 percent) over FY2010 levels. ITP seeks to revolutionize industry’s energy and carbon intensity by developing manufacturing technologies, materials, and clean energy manufacturing capacity. The Next Generation 

Materials and Next Generation Manufacturing Processes subprograms are both 

drastically increased to assist in attaining this goal. Additionally, the request proposes the creation of an Energy Innovation Hub on critical materials. A new $50 

million Energy Efficiency Partnership is included to assist industry incorporation of 

energy efficient technologies into existing facilities. 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy (ARPA-E) 

The Administration requests $650 million for the Advanced Research Projects 

Agency - Energy (ARPA-E). 

Established in 2007 by the America COMPETES Act (P.L.110-69), ARPA-E is 

statutorily charged with developing energy technologies that result in ‘‘(i) reductions 

of imports of energy from foreign sources; (ii) reductions of energy-related emissions, 

including greenhouse gases; and (iii) improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic sectors.’’ Initially provided with $400 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (P.L.111-5) funding, ARPA-E did not receive a direct appropriation in FY10, though it was the beneficiary of a $15 million transfer from the 

Office of Science. 

Of the $650 million request, $550 million would be provided through discretionary 

funding for the purpose of sponsoring additional rounds of project funding. Potential 

funding areas include stationary power, electrical infrastructure, end use efficiency, 

embedded efficiency, and transportation systems. 
8 

ARPA-E would also administer an additional $100 million Wireless Innovation 

Fund (WIN) aimed at developing clean-energy wireless technologies, paid for 

through a proposed transfer of wireless spectrum auction revenues. The Administration proposes to establish WIN as a mandatory program. In 2010, ARPA-E issued 

$207.6 million in ARRA funds for 85 projects. The six program areas funded in 2010 

included Electrofuels, Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation 

(BEEST), Innovative Materials & Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies (IMPACCT), Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage 

(GRIDS), Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology (ADEPT), and Building Energy Efficiency Through Innovative Thermodevices (BEET-IT).Fossil Energy R&D 

The DOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE) supports R&D focused on coal (including 

clean coal technologies), gas, and petroleum and also supports the Federal government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President’s total budget request for FE is 

$520 million. Of that, FE’s R&D budget is $453 million, a decrease of $206 million 

(31.3 percent) below FY10 enacted levels. Coal R&D is funded at $291 million, the 

bulk of which focuses on advancing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) efforts. 

Carbon capture research reprioritizes research from pre-combustion capture towards 

post-combustion technologies with the intention of advancing the development of 

commercial technology. The Carbon Storage subprogram is conducting large-volume 

injection testing to examine the feasibility of long-term carbon storage. The Hydrogen from Coal, Coal to Coal Biomass to Liquids, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells subprograms are all eliminated. 

The FY12 budget request proposes to terminate the Natural Gas Technologies and 

Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies programs, including the elimination of 

$50 million for the Ultra-Deep and Unconventional Natural Gas Other Petroleum 

Resources Research Program. 

Nuclear Energy (NE) 

The primary mission of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is to ‘‘advance nuclear 

power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and 

security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.’’ 

The FY12 budget request for NE R&D is $447.4 million, a $39.6 million (8.1 percent) decrease below FY 2010 levels. Approximately 74 percent of that request 

would be dedicated to the Fuel Cycle R&D and Reactor Concepts RD&D programs. 

The Fuel Cycle R&D program conducts research on the three basic fuel cycle technologies: once-through, modified-open, and full recycle. The Reactor Concepts RD&D 

program continues previous activities undertaken by the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems program, including the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project. In addition, advanced Small Modular Reactor (SMR) designs would be examined. 

As reflected in the Administration’s FY 2011 budget request, NE proposes to create the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program. The $97.3 million 

program would investigate crosscutting technologies and transformative breakthroughs applicable to multiple reactor concepts and fuel cycle technologies. NEET 

would also support the Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation Hub, which 

seeks to create a ‘‘virtual’’ reactor by applying existing modeling and simulation capabilities. This would utilize modeling as a means to improve efficiency in existing 

reactors as well as inform new reactor designs. 

The budget also proposes a SMR Licensing Technical Support Program to partner 

with industry to accelerate development and licensing of SMRs necessary for commercial deployment. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is to 

‘‘lead national efforts to modernize the electric grid; enhance security and reliability 

of the energy infrastructure; and facilitate recovery from disruptions to energy supply.’’ Research and development within OE is funded at $193 million in the President’s FY12 budget request. This reflects an increase of $71.4 million (58.8 percent) 

over FY10 levels. 

OE’s R&D programs focus on clean energy transmission and reliability, smart grid 

R&D, energy storage, and cyber security for energy delivery systems. OE concentrates on potential strains on the electric system as electric generation shifts towards low-carbon energy sources, specifically associated intermittency problems 

from wind and solar generation. The effects will require advanced grid modeling and 

extensive technological breakthroughs in energy storage. The President requests $20 
9 

2http://www.energy.gov/hubs/ 

million for the creation of a Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub to be administered by OE within the Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability subprogram. 

Also highlighted within the OE request is $57 million for the Energy Storage subprogram, a 319 percent increase above the FY 2010 level to support demonstrations 

for a new suite of grid level storage projects and further testing on prototype materials. 

Loan Guarantee Program Office 

The President’s FY12 budget request for DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program Office 

(LPO) is $200 million. Funds would be used as a credit subsidy for loans authorized 

under Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The LPO did not receive an 

appropriation for credit subsidies in FY10. This level of appropriation would support 

an estimated $1 to $2 billion in loan guarantees to support energy efficiency and 

renewable energy activities. 

Since its creation, the LPO has awarded over $17.6 billion for 18 projects, in a 

wide variety of areas such as solar and wind power generation and manufacturing, 

geothermal energy, and electricity transmission and energy storage. 

In addition to the Title 17 loan guarantees, the President is requesting $105 million to create a Better Building Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, 

Schools, and Hospitals. This new program would fund loan guarantees to retrofit 

commercial buildings and would subsidize up to $2 billion in total loan principal. 

Energy Innovation Hubs 

The FY12 budget request proposes funding of $146 million for support six Energy 

Innovation Hubs, which are supported through the SC, EERE, and NE accounts. 

This would support the three existing Hubs and as well as the creation of three new 

Hubs, which the President highlighted in his recent State of the Union address. According to the Administration, Hubs are funded at approximately $25 million each 

annually and area intended to ‘‘advance highly promising areas of energy science 

and engineering from the early stage of research to the point where the technology 

can be handed off to the private sector.’’ 2

Existing Hubs include Fuels from Sunlight ($24.3 million, administered by the Office of Science, Basic Energy Services), Modeling & Simulation for Nuclear Reactors 

($24.3 million, administered by the Office of Nuclear Energy), and Energy Efficient 

Building Systems Regional Innovation Cluster Initiative ($24.3 million, administered by EERE, Building Technologies Program)The newly proposed Hubs are Batteries and Energy Storage ($34 million, administered by the Office of Science, Basic 

Energy Sciences), Smart Grid Technology and Systems ($19.4 million, administered 

by OE, Clean Energy Transmission and Reliability Program), and Critical Materials 

($20 million administered by EERE, Industrial Technologies Program). 
10 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Good morning to all of you, and welcome 

to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Department of Energy’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 Research and Development Budget Request.’’ In front of 

all of us are packets containing the written testimony, a biography 

and truth in testimony disclosure for today’s witness, Energy Secretary Steven Chu. I want to welcome everyone here today for this 

hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request. Is everybody ready to roll? I will recognize myself for five minutes for 

an opening statement. I will take less than five minutes. We don’t 

hold you to five minutes. We appreciate you being here very much, 

and you may want to enlarge on some things and you may not 

want to. That will be your decision. 

I want to welcome everyone here today for the hearing on the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of 

Energy. Now, this is the third time that Secretary Chu has appeared before this Committee, and I want to thank you and I want 

to thank all of you for your willingness to be here and meet with 

members on Department of Energy programs and priorities. This 

is also the third DOE budget that the President sent to Congress, 

so it is general priorities and our concerns with them should come 

as no surprise. 

What is notable, however, is the degree to which the President 

is what I guess in a poker game you would call it double down, on 

his energy and climate agenda in light of the continued struggle in 

the economy, trillion-dollar deficits, rising gas prices and fuel supply concerns driven by Middle East turmoil. 

The centerpiece of this legislation is the President’s proposed requirement that the United States produce 80 percent of its electricity from ‘‘clean’’ sources by 2035. While I want to better understand how the Administration intends to reach this goal, and while 

I strongly support an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach to energy security, 

I am concerned that the plan entails spending that we really can’t 

afford and taxes and regulations that would severely raise the cost 

of energy and harm, in my opinion and a lot of our opinions, our 

economy. 

The merits of this proposal seem weakened further by the fact 

that even if such a transition to clean electricity were successful, 

its benefits in terms of the effect it could have on climate change 

appears negligible. 

My concerns regarding misplaced energy policy priorities extend 

to the R&D budget as well. The fossil fuels that drive our economy 

and meet over 80 percent of our energy needs continue to be penalized in favor of cleaner alternatives, but that seems to continue. 

For example, the natural gas and unconventional fossil fuels technology programs are zeroed out while energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D programs would receive $1 billion, or a 44 percent increase above current levels. And these increases come on the 

heels of over $16 billion in stimulus funding and a near doubling 

of the EERE base budget since fiscal year 2006. I am also concerned that much of the clean energy spending is focused on latestage technology development and commercialization more appropriately performed by the private sector. 
11 

The changes called for in this budget are not just trends, they 

represent dramatic shifts that warrant our close review and consideration in the coming weeks and months. While I have many concerns, I look forward to working with the Secretary, Ranking Member Mrs. Johnson and members of the committee to develop a thorough and constructive response to these proposals. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

I want to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy. 

This is the third time that Secretary Chu has appeared before this Committee, 

and I want to thank him for his willingness to be here and meet with our Members 

on Department of Energy programs and priorities. 

This is also the third DOE budget that the President has sent Congress, so its 

general priorities-and my concerns with them-should come as no surprise. 

What is notable, however, is the degree to which the President has ‘‘doubleddown’’ on his energy and climate agenda in light of the continued struggling economy, trillion-dollar deficits, rising gas prices, and fuel supply concerns driven by 

Middle East turmoil. 

The centerpiece of this agenda is the President’s proposed requirement that the 

U.S. produce 80 percent of its electricity from ‘‘clean’’ sources by 2035. While I want 

to better understand how the Administration intends to reach this goal, and while 

I strongly support an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach to energy security, I’m concerned 

that this plan entails spending we can’t afford and taxes and regulations that would 

raise the cost of energy and harm our economy. 

The merits of this proposal seem weakened further by the fact that, even if such 

a transition to ‘‘clean’’ electricity were successful, its benefits in terms of the effect 

it could have on climate change appears negligible. 

My concerns regarding misplaced energy policy priorities extend to the R&D 

budget as well. The fossil fuels that drive our economy and meet over 80 percent 

of our energy needs continue to be penalized in favor of ‘‘cleaner’’ alternatives. 

For example, the Natural Gas and Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies 

programs are zeroed out while energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D programs would receive a $1 billion, or 44 percent, increase above current levels. And 

these increases come on the heels of over $16 billion in Stimulus funding and a 

near-doubling of the EERE base budget since FY 2006. I’m also concerned that 

much of this ‘‘clean energy’’ spending is focused on late-stage technology development and commercialization more appropriately performed by the private sector. 

The changes called for in this budget are not just trends-they represent dramatic 

shifts that warrant our close review and consideration in the coming weeks and 

months. 

While I have many concerns, I look forward to working with the Secretary, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the Committee to develop a thorough and 

constructive response to these proposals. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. 

Johnson, for as long as she takes for an opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back to the Committee, Dr. Chu. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request for the Department of Energy, even though as the 

fiscal year 2011 budget still dominates the attention of the Congress. For both budget years and likely for years to come, the issue 

remains the same: While we must be fiscally responsible, we also 

must keep America competitive and create a better future for the 

American people. 

I agree with Chairman Hall. We are in a dangerous position as 

it relates to our national deficit. As any responsible American family would do, we have to reconcile how much money the govern-
12 

ment spends and what it brings in. But we are also in danger of 

jeopardizing our standard of living and our future if we allow good 

programs to fall victim to indiscriminate cuts. It is time to set priorities and make choices that do not leave our workforce ill-prepared and hamper the country’s ability to innovate and grow. 

If a family’s budget is squeezed, they don’t solve the problem by 

pulling the kids out of school. We cannot roll back the clock on our 

economy. Our economic woes weren’t caused by too much science. 

At a time like this, we need to make the critical investments to bolster our research infrastructure and our future workforce, advancing our technological capabilities now while sowing the seeds for 

the industries of the future. And let me be clear: I stand with the 

President and a number of respected conservative columnists, numerous policy experts, and I believe the American people when I 

say that these are investments and not just spending. 

With research in science education, there is a guaranteed return. 

If the Continuing Resolution passed by the House two weeks ago 

were enacted, the Department of Energy’s basic science and energy 

R&D portfolios as well as the extensive network of national laboratories and world-class facilities would be devastated. At the same 

time, these cuts would have negligible real impact on our national 

deficit. If this C.R. is enacted, it is known that within months 

STEM education, teacher training, workforce development and activities of DOE will likely cease. Many thousands of research scientists, graduate students, technical and administrative staff, contractors and other support staff across the country will be laid off 

or furloughed. The impact on indirect jobs is expected to even be 

greater. Research projects will be delayed or terminated. Unique 

world-class scientific facilities used by industry and academia will 

have operating times decrease, will be temporarily shuttered or 

even completely closed. Ongoing construction and upgrades at the 

labs and national user facilities will not move forward, costing 

more in scheduling delays and broken contracts, and restricting or 

eliminating access for academic and industrial researchers. 

This is especially worrisome to me because as we know, the last 

hired are often the first fired. Many of the graduate students and 

early career researchers that our future depends on will likely be 

the first to lose their jobs. This strikes at the heart of a generation 

rife with a passion for innovating—young people who are willing to 

work long nights in labs across the country to find solutions to our 

Nation’s economic, national security, energy, and environmental 

problems. 

All of this could happen as countries like China, India, Germany, 

Japan and many others seize on our weakness in this economic 

downturn to invest billions of dollars to build up their own clean 

energy technology sectors to compete with or attract U.S. companies. For example, in 2009 alone, China’s government investment 

attracted $35 billion in private capital for clean energy technologies. The United States came in a distant second, attracting a 

little more than half that much. 

In the President’s recent State of the Union address, he spoke at 

length about the need to reinvigorate the American capacity for innovation, and he highlighted the economic opportunities that lie in 

clean energy technologies. The fiscal year 2012 request for DOE 
13 

proposes increases in a number of critical programs while making 

some tough but prudent decreases in others. This is a direct illustration of the President’s commitment to a clean energy future and 

takes us into the opposite direction from where the C.R. would 

leave us. 

This committee has heard from a number of organizations, industry associations, national labs and academia on the negative impact 

of the proposed C.R. cuts and the important roles these programs 

play in our economy. 

Mr. Secretary, as you testify today, I hope to learn from you how 

the proposed cuts to DOE will impact our country’s innovation 

pipeline and the young people preparing for careers in these exciting new fields, and how the President’s vision will leave us better 

prepared to lead the global economy in this century. I look forward 

to working with you and members on both sides of the aisle on 

these important issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Chairman Hall, and welcome back to the Committee, Secretary Chu. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the 

Department of Energy, even as the fiscal year 2011 budget still dominates the attention of Congress. For both budget years, and likely for years to come, the issue 

remains the same: while we must be fiscally responsible, we also must keep America 

competitive and create a better future the American people. 

I agree with Chairman Hall—we are in a dangerous position as it relates to our 

national deficit. As any responsible American family would do, we have to reconcile 

how much money the government spends with what it brings in. But we are also 

in danger of jeopardizing our standard of living and our future if we allow good programs to fall victim to indiscriminate cuts. It is time to set priorities, and make 

hard choices that do not leave our workforce ill-prepared and hamper the country’s 

ability to innovate and grow. If a family’s budget is squeezed, they don’t solve the 

problem by pulling the kids out of school. 

We cannot roll back the clock on our economy. Our economic woes weren’t caused 

by too much science. At a time like this we need to make the critical investments 

to bolster our research infrastructure and our future workforce, advancing our technological capabilities now, while sowing the seeds for the industries of the future. 

And let me clear; I stand with the President, a number of respected conservative 

columnists, numerous policy experts, and, I believe, the American people when I say 

that these are ‘‘Investments’’, and not just ‘‘spending’’! With research and science 

education, there is a guaranteed return. 

If the Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by the House two weeks ago were enacted, the Department of Energy’s basic science and energy RD&D portfolios, as 

well as its extensive network of National Laboratories and world-class facilities, 

would be devastated. At the same time these cuts would have a negligible real impact on our national deficit. 

If this CR is enacted it is known that within months: 

• Many thousands of research scientists, graduate students, technical and administrative staff, contractors, and other support staff across the country will 

be laid off of furloughed. 

• The impact on indirect jobs is expected to be even greater. 

• Research projects will be delayed or terminated. 

• Unique, world-class scientific facilities used by industry and academia will 

have operating times decreased, will be temporarily shuttered, or even completely closed. 

• STEM education, teacher training, and workforce development activities at 

DOE will likely cease. 

• Ongoing construction and upgrades at the labs and national user facilities 

will not move forward, costing more in scheduling delays and broken con-
14 

tracts and restricting or eliminating access for academic and industrial researchers. 

This is especially worrisome to me because as we all know, the last hired are 

often the first fired. Many of the graduate students and early career researchers 

that our future depends upon will likely be the first to lose their jobs. This strikes 

at the heart of a generation ripe with a passion for innovating, young people who 

are willing to work long nights in labs across the country to find solutions to our 

nation’s economic, national security, energy, and environmental problems. 

All of this could happen as countries like China, India, Germany, Japan and many 

others seize on our weakness in this economic downturn to invest billions of dollars 

to build up their own clean energy technology sectors to compete with, or attract, 

U.S. companies. For example, in 2009 alone, China’s government investment attracted almost $35 billion in private capital for clean energy technologies. The U.S. 

came in a distant second, attracting a little more than half as much. 

In the President’s recent State of the Union address he spoke at length about the 

need to reinvigorate the American capacity for innovation, and he highlighted the 

economic opportunity that lies in clean energy technologies. The FY 2012 request 

for DOE proposes increases for a number of critical programs, while making some 

tough but prudent decreases in others. This is a direct illustration of the President’s 

commitment to a clean energy future, and takes us in the opposite direction from 

where the CR would leave us. 

This Committee has heard from a number of organizations, industry associations, 

national labs and academia on the negative impact of the proposed CR cuts, and 

the important role these programs play in our economy. Mr. Secretary, as you testify today, I hope to learn from you how the proposed cuts to DOE will impact our 

country’s innovation pipeline and the young people preparing for careers in these 

exciting new fields, and how the President’s vision will leave us better prepared to 

lead the global economy in this century. 

I look forward to working with you and Members from both sides of the aisle on 

these important issues. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for a good opening 

statement. 

If there are Members who want to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

I have the privilege of introducing the witness at this time. Dr. 

Chu serves as the 12th Secretary of Energy. Prior to his service as 

Secretary at DOE, Dr. Chu was the Director of DOE’s Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab and a professor of physics in molecular and 

cellular biology at the University of California. He was a co-winner 

of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics, and that is quite an honor. 

As I know our witness knows, spoken testimony is limited to five 

minutes after which the members of the Committee will have five 

minutes each to ask questions. The chair is able to provide and the 

Committee is willing to provide some flexibility to you since you 

are our only witness today and for the important position that you 

hold and the gratitude we have to you for appearing before us. I 

recognize you at this time, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary CHU. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Johnson and members of this Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy. 

Before I begin my statement, I want to acknowledge the absence 

of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who has been a strong voice 

on energy issues, especially solar energy. It has been a privilege to 
15 

work with her over the last two years and I look forward to working with her again as soon as she is ready to return to Washington. 

President Obama has a plan for the United States to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of 

the world while at the same time addressing the deficit. This Committee understands the importance of science to our Nation’s future. We must rev up the great American innovation machine to 

create jobs and secure our future prosperity. 

Federal support for scientific research and our applied energy 

portfolio is critical for our competitiveness. The Department invests 

in early-stage research that the private sector often considers risky, 

and we leverage our resources to stimulate private sector investments in deployment. 

To spur innovation, President Obama has called for increased investments in clean energy research, development and deployment. 

In addition, he has proposed a bold but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of America’s electricity from clean sources by 

2035. The clean energy standard would provide a clear long-term 

signal to industry to bring capital off the sidelines and into the 

clean energy sector. The most competitive clean energy sources will 

win in the marketplace. The government does not need to pick favorites. 

The Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2012 budget request of $29.5 billion supports the President’s goals and strengthens the 

Nation’s economy and security. Through energy efficiency programs, we will save money for consumers by saving energy. In addition, the budget supports the research, development and deployment of renewable energy, the modernization of the electric grid 

and the advancement of carbon capture and sequestration technologies, and it helps reduce our dependence on oil by developing 

the next generation of biofuels and accelerating electric vehicle research and development. 

We are also requesting new credit subsidy to support loan guarantees for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. To jumpstart the nuclear industry, we request up to $36 billion in loan 

guarantee authority while also investing in advanced nuclear technologies. 

The President’s budget also invests in basic and applied research 

and keeps us on the path to doubling the funding for key scientific 

agencies including the Office of Science. The budget invests $550 

million in the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, also 

known as ARPA–E. The Administration also seeks an additional 

$100 million for ARPA–E as part of the President’s Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative. This investment will allow 

ARPA–E to continue promising early-stage research projects that 

aim to deliver game-changing clean energy technologies. 

The Office of Science and ARPA–E play distinct and complementary rules in our research portfolio. The Office of Science supports 

basic research that furthers scientific understanding while ARPA– 

E supports high-risk, high-reward research projects to explore potentially transformative technologies. 

Another piece of our research effort is the energy innovation 

hubs. Through the hubs, we are bringing together our Nation’s top 

scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing energy 
16 

goals but where a concentrated effort over a longer time horizon is 

needed to establish innovation leadership. The budget requests 

$146 million to support the three existing hubs and to establish 

three new hubs. And finally, the budget continues to support the 

Energy Frontier Research Centers which are mostly university-led 

teams working to solve scientific problems that are blocking clean 

energy development. 

To reach our energy goals, we must take a portfolio approach to 

R&D pursuing several research strategies that have proven to be 

successful in the past. But I want to be clear: This is not a kitchen 

sink approach. This work is being coordinated and prioritized with 

a 360-degree view of how the pieces fit together. Taken together, 

these initiatives will help America lead in innovation. 

In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget request 

also strengths our security by providing $11.8 billion for the Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The Department is also mindful of our responsibility to taxpayers. We are cutting back in multiple areas including eliminating 

unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. We are streamlining operations. 

We are making some tough choices like freezing salaries and bonuses for hardworking national laboratory, site and facility management contractor employees. 

The United States faces a choice today: Will we lead in innovation and out-compete the rest of the world or will we fall behind? 

To lead the world in clean energy, we must act now. We can’t afford not to. 

Thank you, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SECRETARY STEVEN CHU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy. 

In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a plan for the United 

States to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest 

of the world, while at the same time addressing the deficit. The President’s budget 

request invests in much-needed programs while cutting back where we can afford 

to. 

Many countries are moving aggressively to develop and deploy the clean energy 

technologies that the world will demand in the coming years and decades. As the 

President said, this is our generation’s ‘‘Sputnik moment.’’ 

We must rev up the great American innovation machine to win the clean energy 

race and secure our future prosperity. To that end, President Obama has called for 

increased investments in clean energy research, development and deployment. In 

addition, he has proposed a bold but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of 

America’s electricity from clean sources by 2035. 

A Clean Energy Standard will provide a clear, long-term signal to industry to 

bring capital off the sidelines and into the clean energy sector. It will grow the domestic market for clean sources of energy - creating jobs, driving innovation and enhancing national security. And by drawing on a wide range of energy sources including renewables, nuclear, clean coal and natural gas, it will give utilities the flexibility they need to meet our clean energy goal while protecting consumers in every 

region of the country. 

The Department of Energy’s FY 12 budget request of $29.5 billion supports these 

goals and strengthens the nation’s economy and security by investing in the following priorities: 
17 

• Supporting groundbreaking basic science, research and innovation to solve 

our energy challenges and ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of science and technology; 

• Leading in the development and deployment of clean and efficient energy 

technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, accelerate the transition to a 

clean energy economy and promote economic competitiveness; and 

• Strengthening national security by reducing nuclear dangers, maintaining a 

safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent and cleaning up our Cold War nuclear legacy. 

While we are investing in areas that are critical to our future, we are also rooting 

out programs that aren’t needed and making hard choices to tighten our belt. Additionally, we are improving our management and operations so we function more efficiently and effectively. 

Leading in the Global Clean Energy Economy 

As the President said in his State of the Union address, investing in clean energy 

will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs here 

at home. The Department’s budget request invests $3.2 billion in energy efficiency 

and renewable energy programs. 

Through programs to make homes and buildings more energy efficient, including 

a new ‘‘Better Buildings Initiative’’ to make commercial buildings 20 percent more 

efficient over the next decade, we will save money for families and businesses by 

saving energy. That is money that can be re-invested back into the economy. In addition, the budget supports the research, development and deployment of renewable 

sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal. It supports the modernization of 

the electric grid and the advancement of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. And it helps reduce our dependence on oil by developing the next generation of biofuels and accelerating electric vehicle research and deployment to support 

the President’s goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. This 

includes a $200 million competitive program to encourage communities to invest in 

electric vehicle infrastructure. 

We’re also focused on moving clean energy technologies from the lab to the marketplace. Over the past two years, the Department’s loan programs have supported 

more than $26 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and conditional commitments to 

guarantee loans for 23 clean energy and enhanced automotive fuel efficiency projects 

across the country, which the companies estimate will create or save more than 

58,000 jobs. Building on this success, we are requesting new credit subsidy that will 

support approximately $1 billion to $2 billion in loan guarantees for innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. These deployment efforts build 

on the substantial investment made in the clean energy sector by the Recovery Act, 

and are supplemented by tax incentives that have also played an important role in 

bringing clean energy projects to market, such as the 48C manufacturing tax credits 

and the 1603 cash grants in lieu of investment tax credits, which the 2012 budget 

also expands. We are also requesting $100 million in credit subsidy for a new ‘‘Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools, and Hospitals,’’ which will guarantee up to $2 billion in loans to support energy efficient retrofits. 

Nuclear energy also has an important role to play in our energy portfolio. To 

jumpstart the domestic nuclear industry, the budget requests up to $36 billion in 

loan guarantee authority. It also invests in the research and development of advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors. 

Supporting Groundbreaking Science 

To spur innovation, the President’s budget request invests in basic and applied 

research and keeps us on the path to doubling funding for key science agencies, including the Department’s Office of Science. As Norm Augustine, former Chairman 

of Lockheed Martin and former Under Secretary of the Army, has said, under-funding R&D in a time of austerity is like removing the engine of an aircraft to reduce 

its weight. 

That is why the budget request increases support for the Department’s comprehensive research strategy to accelerate energy breakthroughs. 

Through $5.4 billion for the Office of Science, we’re expanding our investment in 

basic energy sciences, advanced scientific computing and biological and environmental sciences - all key areas for our future economic competitiveness. 

The budget invests $550 million in the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, also known as ARPA-E. The Administration also seeks an additional $100 mil-
18 

lion for ARPA-E from the Wireless Innovation Fund to support wireless clean energy technologies. This investment will allow ARPA-E to continue the promising 

early-stage research projects that aim to deliver game-changing clean energy technologies. ARPA-E’s projects are generating excitement both in the Department and 

in the private sector. For example, through a combined total of $24 million from 

ARPA-E, six companies have been able to advance their research efforts and show 

the potential viability of their cutting-edge technologies. This extremely valuable 

early support enabled those companies to achieve R&D milestones that, in turn, 

have attracted more than $100 million in private sector funds to the projects. This 

is precisely the innovation leverage that is needed to win the future. 

Another key piece of our research effort is the Energy Innovation Hubs. Through 

the Hubs, we are bringing together our nation’s top scientists and engineers to 

achieve similar game-changing energy goals, but where a concentrated effort over 

a longer time horizon is needed to establish innovation leadership. The Department 

has established three Energy Innovation Hubs in the areas of energy efficient buildings, modeling and simulation for nuclear reactors and fuels from sunlight. The 

budget requests $146 million to support the three existing Hubs and to establish 

three new Hubs in the areas of batteries and energy storage, smart grid technologies and systems, and critical materials. The Energy Innovation Hubs were 

modeled after the Department of Energy’s BioEnergy Institutes, which have established an outstanding three-year track record. 

Finally, the budget continues to support the Energy Frontier Research Centers, 

which are mostly university-led teams working to solve specific scientific problems 

that are blocking clean energy development. 

The Energy Innovation Hubs, ARPA-E, and EFRCs represent three complementary approaches to advance groundbreaking discovery. When you think of the 

EFRCs, think about a collaborative team of scientists such as Watson and Crick 

unlocking the secrets of DNA. When you think of ARPA-E, think about visionary 

risk-takers launching new technologies and start-up companies out of their garages. 

When you think of the Hubs, think of large, mission-oriented research efforts such 

as the Manhattan Project, the development of radar at MIT’s Radiation Laboratory 

during World War II and the research in America’s great industrial laboratories in 

their heyday. We don’t know where the big energy breakthroughs are going to come 

from. To reach our energy goals, we must take a portfolio approach to R&D: pursuing several research strategies that have proven to be successful in the past. But 

I want to be clear - this is not a ‘‘kitchen sink’’ approach. This work is being coordinated and prioritized, with a 360-degree view of how these pieces fit together. Taken 

together, these initiatives will help America lead in science and technology innovation. 

Nuclear Safety and Security 

In addition to strengthening our economy, the budget request also strengthens our 

security by providing $11.8 billion for the Department’s National Nuclear Security 

Administration. The five-year FY 12 to FY 16 request of nearly $65 billion for 

NNSA reflects the President’s nuclear security priorities, as well as his commitment 

to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise and sustain a strong nuclear deterrent for the duration of the New START Treaty and beyond. 

The request of $7.6 billion for Weapons Activities provides a strong basis for 

transitioning to a smaller yet still safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing. It also provides much-needed resources to strengthen 

science, technology and engineering capabilities and to modernize the physical infrastructure of our nuclear security enterprise. The President has identified the danger 

of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or the material to build them 

as the greatest threat to global security. To support the President’s goal of securing 

all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, the budget invests 

$2.5 billion in the NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program. This is part 

of a five-year, $14.2 billion commitment for the program. 

The budget also requests $1.2 billion to support the Navy’s nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers. And it provides $6.1 billion to protect public health 

and safety by cleaning up the nation’s Cold War nuclear legacy. 

Fiscal Responsibility 

Through our investments, we are laying the groundwork for the nation’s future 

prosperity and security. At the same time, we are mindful of our responsibility to 

the taxpayer. We are cutting back in multiple areas, including eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies, reducing funding for the Fossil Energy program and reducing funding for the hydrogen technology program. We’re streamlining operations to 
19 

reduce administrative costs. And we’re making some painful cuts, including ending 

operation of the Tevatron accelerator and freezing salary and bonuses for hardworking National Laboratory, site and facility management contractor employees. 

Finally, we continue to make progress on a management excellence agenda to improve our operations. 

The United States faces a choice today will we lead in innovation and out-compete 

the rest of the world or will we fall behind? To lead the world in clean energy, we 

must act now. We can’t afford not to. 

Thank you, and now I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST 

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said that America faces ‘‘our 

generation’s Sputnik moment’’ and that we need to out-innovate, out-educate and 

out-build the rest of the world to capture the jobs of the 21st century. ‘‘In America, 

innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make our living.’’ Through innovation in promising areas like clean energy, the United States will win the future 

and create new industries and new jobs. To lead in the global clean energy economy, 

we must mobilize America’s innovation machine in order to bring technologies from 

the laboratory to the marketplace. The Department of Energy (DOE) is on the front 

lines of this effort. To succeed, the Department will pursue game-changing breakthroughs, invest in innovative technologies, and demonstrate commercially viable 

solutions. 

In addition to energy advances that spark economic growth, national security remains fundamental to the Department’s mission. Through bipartisan ratification of 

the New START treaty with Russia, America and its global partners are leading by 

example in implementing the focused expansion of domestic and international activities to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation, and unsecured or excess weapons-usable materials. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) supports the international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear 

materials around the world within four years. The NNSA also fulfills the President’s 

commitment to modernize the nation’s nuclear stockpile until a world without nuclear weapons can be realized. 

The Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request is $29.5 billion, an 11.8 

percent or $3.1 billion increase from FY 2010 current appropriation levels. The FY 

2012 request supports the President’s goals to increase America’s competitiveness 

by making strategic investments in our nation’s clean energy infrastructure and to 

strengthen our national security by reducing the global threat of nuclear materials. 

The President has called for advancing research on clean energy technologies and 

manufacturing, doubling the share of electricity generated from clean energy supplies by 2035, and putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. The 

Department’s request prepares for a multi-year effort to address these interconnected objectives and prioritizes research and development of renewable energy 

technologies to expand sustainable energy options for the United States. 

The FY 2012 budget builds on the intense planning, execution, and oversight of 

the $35.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. By the 

end of FY 2010, the Department successfully obligated $32.7 billion of Recovery Act 

funds, including all funding that was set to expire. In developing the FY 2012 budget request, the Department has taken these investments into account and will oversee execution of these funds with value to the taxpayer in mind. Recovery Act investments are focused on energy conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8 

billion), environmental cleanup ($6 billion), loan guarantees for renewable energy 

and electric power transmission projects ($2.4 billion), grid modernization ($4.5 billion), carbon capture and sequestration ($3.4 billion), basic science research ($1.6 

billion), and the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy ($0.4 billion). The Department’s Recovery Act activities are strengthening the economy by providing 

much-needed investment, saving or creating tens of thousands of jobs, cutting carbon pollution, and reducing U.S. dependence on oil. 

The President’s FY 2012 Budget supports three strategic priorities: 

• Transformational Energy: Accelerate the transformation to a clean energy 

economy and secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies. 

• Economic Prosperity: Strengthen U.S. science and engineering efforts to 

serve as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity and lead through energy efficiency and secure forms of energy. 

• Nuclear Security: Enhance nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, naval reactors, and environmental cleanup efforts. 
20 

As the President has articulated, innovation is essential to America’s economic 

competitiveness. To meet the challenge of ‘our generation’s Sputnik moment,’ the 

Department supports a coordinated strategy for research and development across all 

of its programs. With every initiative the Department undertakes, sound science is 

at the core. In FY 2012, we will increasingly emphasize cross-cutting initiatives to 

link science throughout the Department, specifically with energy and national security programs in order to deliver results to the American taxpayer. In the Office of 

Science, the Department requests $5.4 billion, a 9.1 percent or $452 million increase 

over the FY 2010 current appropriation levels, to support an elevated focus on the 

advancement of the United States’ leadership in fundamental research. Advanced 

Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) is building on established gains since 

its initial funding in FY 2009 through the Recovery Act to perform transformational 

research and create game-changing breakthroughs for eventual market adoption. 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $550 million for ARPA-E to sustain investment in new energy technologies. 

Energy Innovation Hubs play a key role in solving specific energy challenges by 

convening and focusing top scientific and engineering talent to focus on those problems. The Hubs bring together multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to 

speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies. 

The Department is proposing to double its commitment to this research approach 

by requesting three new Hubs to focus on batteries and energy storage, critical materials, and Smart Grid technologies and systems. The Department will continue 

funding the three Energy Innovation Hubs introduced in FY 2010 to focus on developing fuels that can be produced directly from sunlight, improving energy efficient 

building systems design, and using modeling and simulation tools to create a virtual 

model of an operating advanced nuclear reactor. Complementing the Hubs, the Department plans in FY 2012 to continue coordination with the Office of Science’s Energy Frontier Research Centers, which exemplify the pursuits of broad-based science 

challenges for energy applications. 

Energy Security: Promoting America’s Energy Security through Reliable, 

Clean and Affordable Energy 

In his State of the Union address, the President outlined clearly to the American 

people his roadmap for transforming our nation’s energy economy to meet the demands of future generations. ‘‘Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest 

in tomorrow’s,’’ he said. To meet the President’s challenge, the Department must recruit the sharpest research minds and build on its aggressive discovery agenda 

across all programs to achieve breakthroughs on the most pressing energy challenges facing the United States. 

In his address, President Obama laid out a goal for clean energy sources to account for 80 percent of America’s electricity by 2035. In FY 2012, the Department 

requests funds to help achieve this Presidential objective and address many of the 

energy delivery challenges facing American families and energy providers. 

• Applied Research, Development and Deployment: Meeting the President’s goal of making America the first country to have one million electric 

vehicles on the road by 2015, the Department will research cost competitive 

methods to develop electric vehicles, increase the adaptability and capacity of 

the grid to enable vehicle charging, incentivize communities to invest in electric vehicles and infrastructure and send these vehicles to the nation’s roadways. The Department will also launch competitive manufacturing research 

for breakthrough technologies in energy efficiency diagnostics and retrofits to 

help business owners around the country save money on energy costs. 

• Loan Guarantees: The Loan Programs Office (LPO) is a vital tool for promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio of clean and 

efficient energy technologies. In FY 2012, the Department is requesting credit 

subsidies to support approximately $1 to $2 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy deployment and up to $36 billion in additional authority to 

loan guarantees for nuclear power projects. The Department will also continue to streamline and prioritize the issuance of loan guarantees to leverage 

private sector investment in clean energy and energy efficiency projects that 

will save and create jobs. 

• Better Buildings Initiative: Last year, commercial buildings consumed 

roughly 20 percent of all energy in the U.S. economy. Improving energy efficiency in our buildings can create jobs, save money, reduce our dependence 

on oil, and make our air cleaner. The President’s Better Buildings Initiative 
21 

will make commercial buildings 20 percent more energy efficient over the 

next decade through initiatives that include: re-designing the current tax deduction for commercial buildings and upgrades to a credit that is more generous and that will encourage building owners and real estate investment 

trusts (REITs) to retrofit their properties; improving financing opportunities 

for retrofits through programs including a new Better Buildings Pilot Loan 

Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools and Hospitals, for which the 

Department of Energy requests $100 million in credit subsidy to guarantee 

up to $2 billion in loans for energy efficiency retrofits for these facilities; creating a $100 million Race to Green competitive grant program for state and 

municipal governments to implement innovative approaches to building codes, 

performance standards, and regulations so that commercial building efficiency 

will become the norm in communities across the country; and calling on CEOs 

and university presidents to join the Department of Energy and other Federal 

partners in a Better Buildings Challenge to make their organizations leaders 

in saving energy. The Better Buildings Initiative builds on our investments 

through the Recovery Act and our continued commitment to passing 

‘‘HOMESTAR’’ legislation to encourage American families to make energy 

saving upgrades in their homes. 

• Electricity Reliability and Energy Management: Reliable, affordable, efficient, and secure electric power is vital to expanding economic recovery, protecting critical infrastructures, and enabling the transition to renewable energy sources. The FY 2012 request invests $238 million to bring the next generation of grid modernization technologies closer to deployment and commercialization, to assist states and regional partners in grid modernization efforts, and to facilitate recovery from energy supply disruptions when they 

occur. The request includes a new Smart Grid Technology and Systems Hub 

that will address the total electricity system, covering applied science, technology, economic, and policy issues that affect our ability to modernize the 

grid. The FY 2012 request also plans an expansion of the Home Energy Score 

program that provides homeowners with information on how their homes can 

be more energy efficient and guidance for saving on home energy costs. This 

is in addition to the President’s support for passage of the Home Star rebate 

program in 2011. 

Investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy generation, and grid modernization are fundamental steps necessary for creating a clean energy economy. We must 

also invest in the improvement of existing sources of energy that will provide a 

bridge between current and future technologies. These technologies are already a 

major segment of the energy mix and will play a critical role in providing a solid 

foundation that will make possible the creation of a new energy economy. 

• Leadership in Nuclear Energy: Nuclear energy currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity and 70 percent of the Nation’s 

clean, non-carbon electricity. The request for the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $380 million for research and development, in addition to key investments in supportive infrastructure. In addition, the Department is engaging 

in cost-shared activities with industry that may help accelerate commercial 

deployment of small modular reactors. The request includes funding for costshared design certification and licensing activities for small modular reactors, 

the deployment of which holds promise for vastly increasing the generation 

of clean energy on a cost competitive basis. The Department will also promote 

nuclear power through the Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting up 

to $36 billion in additional loan guarantee authority in FY 2012. 

• Advanced Fossil Energy: Experience in Carbon Capture and Storage: The 

world will continue to rely on coal-fired electrical generation to meet energy 

demand. It is imperative that the United States develop the technology to ensure that base-load electricity generation is as clean and reliable as possible. 

The Office of Fossil Energy requests $452.9 million for research and development of advanced coal-fueled power systems and carbon capture and storage 

technologies. The Budget focuses resources within the fossil energy program 

on activities that can reduce carbon pollution and have potential benefits for 

both the existing fleet and new power plants specifically, post-combustion capture R&D and geologic carbon storage R&D. 

• Ending Tax Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Producers: In accordance with the 

President’s agreement at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels so that we can transition to a 21st century energy economy, the Administration proposes to repeal a number of tax preferences avail-
22 

able for fossil fuels. Tax subsidies proposed for repeal include, but are not 

limited to: the credit for oil and gas produced from marginal wells; the deduction for costs paid or incurred for any tertiary injectant used as part of a tertiary oil recovery method; the ability to claim the domestic manufacturing deduction against income derived from the production of oil and gas and coal; 

and expensing the exploration and development costs for coal. 

Economic Security: Sharpening America’s Competitive Edge through a 

Clean Energy Economy 

To meet ‘‘our generation’s Sputnik moment’’ and promote economic competitiveness, the U.S. must demonstrate leadership in clean energy technologies. ‘‘We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology and especially clean energy 

technology - an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and 

create countless new jobs for our people,’’ said President Obama before Congress in 

the State of the Union address. President Obama outlined his comprehensive vision 

to lead our nation’s clean energy economy and provide economic security to Americans. As the Administration seeks to reduce federal government spending, the Department recognizes its role and has tightened its expenditures in several areas 

such as oil and natural gas. The FY 2012 budget request acknowledges the Department’s missions to achieve these imperative goals while setting forth a clean energy 

economy for entrepreneurs and manufacturers to reclaim their competitive edge in 

clean energy innovation. 

The Department plans to promote economic security by building on the progress made through the over $32 billion in grants and contracts under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which made historic investments in the nation’s economy and has put the country on target to double renewable energy generation by 2012. The Recovery Act helped create tens of thousands of jobs and, combined with the FY 2012 request, will help the Department accelerate the transition 

of our nation to a clean energy economy. 

The President’s FY 2012 Budget supports the plan to rebuild our economy 

through clean energy research and development by: 

• Expanding ARPA-E to spur innovation–The President’s request proposes $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) 

program, plus an additional $100 million for the program from the Wireless 

Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative for a total of $650 million. ARPA-E 

performs transformational and cutting edge energy research with real-world 

applications in areas ranging from grid technology and power electronics to 

batteries and energy storage. The budget also supports programs with significant promise to provide reliable, sustainable energy across the country, such 

as the SunShot initiative aimed at making solar energy cost competitive. 

With focused investment in manufacturing innovation and industrial technical efficiencies, the President’s proposal will move private sector capital off 

the shelves and into the marketplace. 

• Targeting investments for future economic growth–To secure a competitive advantage in high-tech industries and maintain international leadership 

in scientific computing, we will invest in core research activities for energy 

technologies, the development of general biological design principles and new 

synthetic molecular toolkits to improve understanding of natural systems, and 

core research activities to advance the frontiers of high performance computing. Underlying these investments in research is the education and training of thousands of scientists and engineers who contribute to the skilled scientific workforce needed for a 21st century innovation economy. 

• Doubling the number of Energy Innovation Hubs to solve key challenges–Innovation breakthroughs occur when scientists collaborate on focused problems. The FY 2012 budget request proposes three new Energy Innovation Hubs that will bring top American scientists to work in teams on 

critical energy challenges in areas such as critical materials, batteries and energy storage, and Smart Grid technologies. These will join three existing 

Hubs that focus on fuel generation from sunlight, building efficiency, and nuclear reactor modeling and simulation. 

• Integrating Research & Development–The Department has identified 

areas where coordinated work by discovery-oriented science and applied energy technology programs hold the greatest promise for progress in achieving 

our energy goals. The Energy Systems Simulation to increase the efficiency 

of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) will produce a set of modern, validated computer codes that could be used by design engineers to optimize the 
23 

next generation of cleaner, more efficient combustion engines. An initiative on 

extreme environments will close the gap between actual and ideal performance of materials in nuclear environments. And the Department’s Exascale 

Computing initiative will allow the Department to take the lead in developing 

the next generation of scientific tools and to advance scientific discoveries in 

solving practical problems. 

• Pursuing the passage of HOMESTAR–Enactment of this program will create jobs by providing strong short-term incentives for energy efficiency improvements in residential buildings. The HOMESTAR program has the potential to accelerate our economic recovery by boosting demand for energy efficiency products and installation services. The program will provide rebates of 

$1000 to $3000 per household to encourage immediate investment in energyefficient appliances, building mechanical systems and insulation, and wholehome energy efficiency retrofits. This program will help middle-class families 

save hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs while improving the comfort 

and value of their most important investment - their homes. In addition, the 

program would help reduce our economy’s dependence on fossil fuels and support the development of an energy efficiency services sector in our economy. 

• Extending access to tax credit and tax grant programs–Two provisions 

of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act have been extraordinarily 

successful in spurring the deployment of renewable energy projects and building advanced manufacturing capabilities: Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program and the Section 1603 Energy Cash Assistance 

program. The Administration is pursuing an additional $5 billion in support 

for the Section 48C program, which, by providing a 30% tax credit for energy 

manufacturing facilities, will continue to help build a robust high-technology, 

U.S. manufacturing capacity to supply clean energy projects with U.S. made 

parts and equipment. The Section 1603 tax grant program has created tens 

of thousands of jobs in industries such as wind and solar by providing upfront incentives to thousands of projects. The Administration is seeking a oneyear extension of this program. 

• Promoting efficient energy use in our everyday lives–Currently, weatherization of more than 300,000 homes of low income families has been 

achieved, providing energy cost savings and financial relief to households. The 

FY 2012 request of $320 million continues residential weatherization, while 

increasing the focus on new innovative approaches to residential home weatherization. 

National Security: Securing Nuclear and Radiological Materials, 

Maintaining Nuclear Deterrence, and Advancing Responsible 

Legacy Cleanup 

A pillar of President Obama’s national security agenda for the United States is 

to eliminate the global threat posed by nuclear weapons and prevent weapons-usable nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. As part of this agenda, 

the Administration and Congress worked tirelessly toward the December 2010 bipartisan ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) 

with Russia, which cuts the number of strategic nuclear weapons each country can 

deploy to 1,550. After signing this agreement in April 2010, President Obama said, 

‘‘In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, 

and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we’ve taken another step forward 

in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future 

for our children. We’ve turned words into action. We’ve made progress that is clear 

and concrete. And we’ve demonstrated the importance of American leadership—and 

American partnership—on behalf of our own security, and the world’s’’. 

The Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), through 

work with global partners and efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials, 

achieved significant milestones during FY 2010 and FY 2011 to reduce the risk of 

proliferation and leverage science to maintain our nation’s nuclear deterrence. Additionally, the Environmental Management program made progress advancing responsible nuclear cleanup from the Cold War. The Department’s FY 2012 request seeks 

to build upon these successes and advance the President’s nuclear security agenda. 

Reduce the Risk of Proliferation 

In 2009, President Obama committed the United States to an international effort 

to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide in four years. To solidify international support for this effort, and to address the threat of nuclear terrorism, the 
24 

President convened leaders from 47 countries at the Washington Nuclear Security 

Summit in April 2010. The Summit resulted in a Communique ́ which stated, ‘‘Nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security, and 

strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, 

criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.’’ 

The FY 2012 budget for the NNSA Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program will 

help advance further work that is needed to meet the goals of President Obama and 

the Nuclear Security Summit, recognizing the urgency of the threat and making the 

full commitment to global cooperation on nonproliferation. The budget provides $2.5 

billion in FY 2012, and $14.2 billion through FY 2016 to detect, secure, and dispose 

of dangerous nuclear and radiological material worldwide. This request is a decrease 

of five percent, or $138 million, from the FY 2011 request, which reflects completion 

of accelerated efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within the President’s 

stated timeframe. The decrease also reflects our decision to await agreement between the United States and Russia on detailed implementation milestones prior to 

requesting additional U.S. pledged funding to support Russian plutonium disposition. The FY 2012 budget request follows through on securing vulnerable materials 

and supports efforts to design new technologies in support of treaty monitoring and 

verification, which will contribute to implementation of New START. The budget 

also broadens cooperative nonproliferation initiatives with foreign governments and 

international organizations in support of the President’s objective of a world without 

nuclear weapons. The budget continues the provision of security upgrades at selected sites, both within the United States and in foreign countries, to address outsider and insider threats, and accelerates the pace of research reactor conversions 

from use of highly-enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel. 

Leverage Science to Maintain Nuclear Deterrence 

The FY 2012 budget request advances the Department’s commitment to the national security interests of the United States through stewardship of a safe, secure 

and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without the use of underground nuclear 

testing. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report calls for the United States to reduce nuclear force levels. As the United States begins the reduction required by 

New START, the science, technology and engineering capabilities and intellectual 

capacity within the nuclear security enterprise become more critical to sustaining 

the U.S. nuclear deterrent. NNSA continues to emphasize these capabilities, including functioning as a national science, technology, and engineering resource to other 

agencies with national security responsibilities. Through the NNSA, the Department 

requests $7.6 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation, an 8.9 percent, or 

$621 million, increase from the President’s FY 2011 request. It also is an 18.9 percent, or $1.205 million increase from the FY 2010 enacted appropriation. This increase reflects an investment strategy that provides a strong basis for transitioning 

to a smaller yet still safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile without additional 

nuclear testing, strengthening the science, technology and engineering base, modernizing the physical infrastructure, and streamlining the enterprise’s physical and 

operational footprint. These investments will further enable the Nuclear Posture Review’s comprehensive nuclear defense strategy, based on current and projected global threats that rely less on nuclear weapons, while strengthening the nation’s nuclear deterrent through completing major stockpile system life extensions, stabilizing the science, technology and engineering base, and modernizing the infrastructure. 

The Naval Reactors program ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor 

plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers, constituting 45 percent 

of the U.S. Navy’s combatants. The FY 2012 request for Naval Reactors of $1.2 billion, is an increase of $83.2 million or 7.8 percent over the FY 2011 request and 

$209 million or 18.1 percent above the FY 2010 enacted appropriation. Funding for 

this program is ramping up for reactor design and development efforts for the Ohio 

Class Replacement Submarine ($121 million), refueling of the Land-Based Prototype 

($99.5 million), and recapitalization of the naval spent nuclear fuel infrastructure 

for the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization program ($53.8 million) at the Naval 

Reactors Facility located at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

Advance Responsible Environmental Cleanup 

The FY 2012 budget includes $6.13 billion for the Office of Environmental Management (EM), to protect public health and safety by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. This funding will 

allow the program to continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing 

on activities with the greatest risk reduction. Acceleration of cleaning up sites where 
25 

funding would have immediate impact was established as the overarching objective 

of the $6 billion in Recovery Act funding. EM will use the remaining $309 million 

of Recovery Act funding during FY 2012 as it completes footprint reduction and 

near-term completion cleanup activities. 

As the Department continues to make progress in completing environmental cleanup, the FY 2012 budget request of $170 million for the Office of Legacy Management supports the Department’s long-term stewardship responsibilities and payment of pensions and benefits for former contractor workers after site closure. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2012 PROGRAM OFFICE HIGHLIGHTS 

Office of Science: Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science (SC) delivers scientific discoveries 

and major scientific tools to transform our understanding of energy and matter and 

advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States. SC is the 

largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences, supporting programs in areas such as physics, chemistry, biology, environmental sciences, applied 

mathematics, and computational sciences. In FY 2012, the Department requests 

$5.4 billion, an increase of 9.1 percent over the FY 2010 current appropriation, to 

invest in basic research. The FY 2012 request supports the President’s Strategy for 

American Innovation, and is consistent with the goal of doubling funding at key 

basic research agencies, including the Office of Science. The FY 2012 Office of 

Science budget request supports the following objectives from the Strategy, including: 

• Unleash a clean energy revolution 

• Strengthen and broaden American leadership in fundamental research 

• Develop an advanced information technology ecosystem 

• Educate the next generation with 21st century skills and create a world-class 

workforce 

In FY 2012, SC continues to support fundamental research for scientific discovery, 

but today our country needs to move strongly to solve our energy problems. Therefore, the central theme of this year’s budget in SC is research in new technologies 

for a clean energy future that address competing demands on our environment. 

These efforts, coordinated with the DOE applied technology programs and with 

input from the scientific community and industry, will emphasize research underpinning advances in non-carbon emitting energy sources, carbon capture and sequestration, transportation and fuel switching, transmission and energy storage, efficiency, and critical materials for energy applications. 

In the area of advancing non-carbon energy sources, the FY 2012 budget request 

will provide for new investments in the science of interfaces and degradation relevant to solar photovoltaics, basic actinide chemistry research related to advanced 

nuclear fuel cycles, and research in materials under extreme environments relevant 

to extreme nuclear technology environments, and genomics-based research on biological design principles and synthetic biology tools to underpin bio-based energy solutions. Carbon capture and sequestration research will focus on novel molecular design for materials and multiscale dynamics of flow and plume migration, respectively. SC will initiate an energy systems simulation research effort focused on predictive modeling of combustion in an evolving fuel environment in support of the 

Department’s efforts in transportation and alternative fuels. Also underpinning 

transportation and fuel switching, as well as energy storage, the FY 2012 request 

will support an Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries and Energy Storage. The Fuels 

from Sunlight Hub, established in FY 2010, as well as the Energy Frontier Research 

Centers and DOE Bioenergy Research Centers also continue. Research in enabling 

materials sciences will support needs of future electricity transmission systems and 

novel building materials to improve building efficiencies. 

The FY 2012 budget request also provides for foundational science in condensed 

matter and materials physics, chemistry, biology, climate and environmental 

sciences, applied mathematics, computational and computer science, high energy 

physics, nuclear physics, plasma physics, and fusion energy sciences; and provides 

for research facilities and capabilities that keep U.S. researchers at the forefront of 

science. The FY 2012 request supports targeted increases in areas such as computational materials and chemistry by design, nanoelectronics, and advanced scientific 

applications and integrated application-hardware-software co-design for exascale, 

which position the U.S. to secure a competitive advantage in high-tech industries 

and maintain international leadership in scientific computing. Underlying these investments is the education and training of thousands of scientists and engineers 
26 

who contribute to the skilled scientific workforce needed for the 21st century innovation economy. 

The Office of Science supports investigators at about 300 academic institutions 

and from all of the DOE laboratories. Over 26,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry, and international partners are expected to use the Office of Science scientific user facilities in FY 2012. 

Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy: Transformational Research and Development 

The FY 2012 budget request includes $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), plus an additional $100 million for the program 

from the Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative for a total of $650 million. ARPA-E was launched in FY 2009 to sponsor specific high-risk and high-payoff 

transformational research and development projects that overcome the long-term 

technological barriers in the development of energy technologies to meet the Nation’s energy challenges, but that industry will not support at such an early stage. 

An essential component of ARPA-E’s culture is an overarching focus on accelerating 

science to market. Beyond simply funding transformational research creating revolutionary technologies, ARPA-E is dedicated to the market adoption of those new 

technologies that will fuel the economy, create new jobs, reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related emissions, and ensure that the U.S. 

maintains a technological lead in developing and deploying advanced energy technologies. 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Investing in Breakthrough 

Technology and a Clean Energy Future 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) supports research, 

development, demonstration, and deployment activities on technologies and practices essential for meeting national security goals by reducing dependence on oil, 

meeting environmental goals by minimizing the emissions associated with energy 

production and use, and stimulating economic growth and job creation by minimizing the cost of energy services. The EERE portfolio emphasizes work areas 

where the potential impact is largest, where Federal funds are most critical. It balances investments in high-risk research with partnerships with private firms that 

speed the translation of innovations into practical business opportunities. The diverse set of technologies supported helps ensure that the U.S. has many options for 

meeting its energy goals. Program management is designed to identify the best 

groups in the country to address these challenges and supports work in universities, 

companies, national laboratories, and consortia. 

The FY 2012 budget request of $3.2 billion, the increase of 44.4% over the FY 

2010 current appropriation, is aimed at accelerating innovation and change in the 

Nation’s energy economy. The request includes programs associated with meeting 

the President’s goals of investing in the next generation of clean energy technologies, vehicles and fuels, and energy efficiency measures that reduce energy use 

in Federal agencies and the industrial and building sectors. 

Clean, Renewable Energy Generation 

The FY 2012 budget request continues to work to transform the Nation’s energy 

infrastructure by investing over $1,164.9 million in a variety of renewable programs 

including solar ($457.0 million), wind ($126.9 million), water ($38.5 million), hydrogen ($100.5 million), biomass ($340.5 million), and geothermal ($101.5 million). Research, development, and deployment of these technologies will reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize an economy built on the next generation of domestic production. The request includes the solar SunShot program 

which will invest in transformative research focusing on achieving radical cost reductions in photovoltaic modules, balance of systems, and power electronics. 

Energy Efficiency 

The Department implements a number of efforts to increase energy efficiency in 

homes, transportation, and industry. The FY 2012 budget requests $1,805.3 million 

to accelerate deployment of clean, cost-effective, and rapidly deployable energy efficiency measures in order to reduce energy consumption in residential and commercial buildings, and the industrial and Federal sectors. The Department will invest 

$470.7 million in the Building Technologies program and $33.0 million for the Federal Energy Management Program. Federal assistance for state-level programs such 

as State Energy Program ($63.8 million), Tribal ($10.0 million) and Weatherization 

Assistance Program ($320.0 million) will continue to help citizens implement energy 
27 

efficiency measures, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and build a 

technical workforce. ($319.8 million) for Industry will provide a balanced portfolio 

of advanced R&D and pursuit of near-term low cost opportunities with the objectives of increasing U.S. competitiveness, enhancing clean energy manufacturing, and 

improving energy productivity. There will be a focus on next generation manufacturing processes and materials, activities for clean energy manufacturing, and refocused efforts for Industrial Technical Assistance to achieve greater results with 

less funding through more effective leveraging of funding for deployment partnerships. A new Energy Innovation Hub on critical materials will be competed through 

the Industrial Technologies program. The FY 2012 request also includes $588 million to accelerate research, development and deployment of advanced vehicle technologies, working in concert with biomass RD&D to reduce the use of petroleum and 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Better Buildings Initiative for Commercial Energy Savings–The President’s 

Better Buildings Initiative is focused on achieving a 20 percent improvement in 

commercial buildings’ energy use by 2020. The initiative will include many new 

components to achieve this goal. The following are supported in the Department’s 

FY 2012 request: launch of the Race to Green competitive grant program for states 

and municipal governments to encourage higher standards for commercial energy 

efficiency, which is funded within the Buildings Technologies Program; a new pilot 

loan guarantee program to support energy efficiency retrofits for buildings that 

serve as community assets; and increased R&D funding for building technologies. 

The Department intends to work with the business and academic communities to 

make their organizations leaders in saving energy. 

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Enabling a 

Clean Energy Economy 

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is responsible for 

leading national efforts to modernize the electric grid, enhance the security of energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy supply. 

The Department’s FY 2012 budget request for OE of $238 million, a 38% increase 

over the FY 2010 appropriation, represents a clear and determined effort to accelerate the transformation of one of the Nation’s key enablers of a clean energy economy - the electricity delivery system. 

The U.S. electricity delivery system was built on technology that was developed 

early in the 20th century and designed for the demands and challenges of that era. 

Today, this aging and often congested system is facing many new and complex challenges that require considerable improvements in the physical and technological 

components of the system. In order to alleviate the stress on the system from increasing demand for electricity and to enable greater use and integration of renewable and distributed resources, all while maintaining the reliability, security, and 

affordability of electric power, research and development breakthroughs and new energy management approaches are critical in the areas of transmission and distribution, energy storage, and cyber security. 

OE’s FY 2012 budget request provides $193 million for research and development 

in these critical areas to bring the next generation of grid technologies closer to deployment and commercialization. The increased investment reflects the President’s 

vision and OE’s role in competing in a worldwide technological race. As such, with 

$20 million in FY 2012, OE will establish a new Energy Innovation Hub, or in the 

words of President Obama, one of ‘‘the Apollo projects of our time.’’ The Smart Grid 

Technology and Systems Hub will bring together a diverse, multi-disciplinary group 

to develop an integrated approach to enhancing smart grid technologies and systems. OE will also expand its advanced modeling capabilities to include other system layers in order to provide a more in-depth system understanding. The energy 

storage program will expand to aggressively support the deployment of grid-scale 

energy storage technologies with new demonstrations, and the cyber security program will continue to focus on the development and integration of secure control 

systems. 

The budget request continues to support Permitting, Siting, and Analysis (PSA) 

with $8 million to develop and improve policies, state laws, and programs that facilitate the development of electric infrastructure needed to bring new clean energy 

projects to market, and to provide technical assistance to states and regions. It also 

supports Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration (ISER) with $6.2 million 

to enhance the reliability and resiliency of critical energy infrastructure and to facilitate recovery from energy supply disruptions. 
28 

Office of Environmental Management: Meeting Commitments and Making Progress 

The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to complete the 

safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from over six decades of nuclear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy 

research. This cleanup effort is the largest in the world, originally involving two million acres at 110 sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man. EM continues to pursue its cleanup objectives within the overall framework of achieving the greatest comparative risk reduction benefit and overlaying regulatory compliance commitments and best business practices to maximize 

cleanup progress. To support this approach, EM has prioritized its cleanup activities: 

• Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex 

• Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal 

• Spent nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition 

• Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and disposition 

• High priority groundwater remediation 

• Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition 

• Soil and groundwater remediation 

• Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning 

The FY 2012 budget request for $6.13 billion will fund activities to maintain a 

safe and secure posture in the EM complex and make progress against program 

goals and compliance commitments by reducing the greatest risks to the environment and public health, using science and technology to reduce lifecycle costs, and 

reducing EM’s geographic footprint by 90 percent by 2015. EM continues to move 

forward with the development of the capability for dispositioning tank waste, nuclear materials, and spent (used) nuclear fuel. The budget request includes the construction and operation of three unique and complex tank waste processing plants 

to treat approximately 88 million gallons of radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. It will also fund the solid waste disposal infrastructure needed to support disposal of transuranic and low-level wastes generated by high-risk activities and the 

footprint reduction activities. 

EM carries out its cleanup activities with the interests of stakeholders in mind. 

Most importantly, EM will continue to fulfill its responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a ‘‘Safety First’’ culture that integrates environment, safety, and health 

requirements and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the workers, public, and the environment, and adheres to sound project and contract management principles. EM is also strengthening its project and planning analyses to 

better assess existing priorities and identify opportunities to accelerate cleanup 

work. Working collaboratively with the sites, EM continues to seek aggressive but 

achievable strategies for accelerating cleanup of discrete sites or segments of work. 

In addition, functional and cross-site activities such as elimination of specific 

groundwater contaminants, waste or material processing campaigns, or achievement 

of interim or final end-states are being evaluated. 

After the EM program completes cleanup and closure of sites that no longer have 

an ongoing DOE mission, post closure stewardship activities are transferred to the 

Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM also receives sites remediated by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) and 

private licensees (Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Title II sites). Post 

closure stewardship includes long-term surveillance and maintenance activities such 

as groundwater monitoring, disposal cell maintenance, records management, and 

management of natural resources at sites where active remediation has been completed. At some sites the program includes management and administration of pension and post-retirement benefits for contractor retirees. 

Loan Programs Office: Helping Finance Clean Energy Deployment 

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program -To encourage the early commercial deployment of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects, the 

Department requests up to $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for nuclear power 

facilities and $200 million in appropriated credit subsidy to support an estimated 

$1 to $2 billion in loans for renewable energy system and efficient end-use energy 

technology projects under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The additional loan guarantee authority for nuclear power projects will promote deployment 

of new plants and support an increasing role for private sector financing. The additional credit subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative renewable and effi-
29 

ciency technologies that are critical to meeting the Administration’s goals for affordable, clean energy, technical leadership, and global competitiveness. The FY 2012 budget also requests $38 million to evaluate applications received 

under the eight solicitations released to date and to ensure efficient and effective 

management of the Loan Guarantee program. This request is expected to be offset 

by collections from borrowers authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (P.L. 109-8). 

Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program -The Department requests $6 million to support ongoing loan monitoring activities associated with the program 

mission of making loans to automobile and automobile part manufacturers for the 

cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the 

United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and 

for associated engineering integration costs. 

Better Buildings Pilot Loan Guarantee Initiative for Universities, Schools, and 

Hospitals -To spur investment in energy efficiency retrofits for buildings which 

serve as assets to our communities, the Department requests $100 million for loan 

guarantee subsidy costs to support up to $2 billion in loan authority for universities, 

schools, and hospitals. This pilot program is one component of the President’s Better 

Buildings Initiative and would fund cost-effective technologies and measures to assist universities, schools, and hospitals save on energy usage and associated energy 

costs. The Department also requests $5 million for administrative expenses to carry 

out the program. The request is subject to the enactment of legislation authorizing 

this program. 

Office of Nuclear Energy: Investing in Energy Innovation and Technical Leadership 

The Department is requesting $852.5 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy 

(NE) in FY 2012 - a decrease of 0.6 percent from the FY 2010 current appropriation. 

NE’s funding supports the advancement of nuclear power as a resource capable of 

meeting the Nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate. Currently, nuclear energy 

supplies approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity and over 70 percent of 

clean, non-carbon producing electricity. Over 100 nuclear power plants are offering 

reliable and affordable baseload electricity in the United States, and they are doing 

so without air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. NE is working to develop 

innovative and transformative technologies to improve the competitiveness, safety 

and proliferation resistance of nuclear energy to support its continued use. 

The FY 2012 budget supports a balanced set of research, development, and deployment (RD&D) activities. This program is built around exploring, through its 

R&D technology and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the 

safety, and extend the life of current reactors; improvements in the affordability of 

new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration’s energy security and climate change goals; development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and 

minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. 

NE is requesting $125 million for Reactor Concepts Research, Development and 

Demonstration. This program seeks to develop new and advanced reactor designs 

and technologies. NE is also requesting $67 million for the Light Weight Reactor 

SMR Licensing Technical Support program, which will support cost-shared design 

certification and licensing activities for two light water reactor-based designs. Small 

modular reactors are a technology that the Department believes has the promise to 

help meet energy security goals. Work will continue on R&D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to support demonstration of gas-cooled reactor technology in the 

United States. The program also supports research on Generation IV and other advanced designs and efforts to extend the life of existing light water reactors. 

The FY 2012 request includes $155 million for Fuel Cycle Research and Development to perform long-term, results-oriented science-based R&D to improve fuel cycle 

and waste management technologies to enable a safe, secure, and economic fuel 

cycle. The budget also requests $97.4 million to support the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies program, focused on the development of cross-cutting and transformative technologies relevant to multiple reactor and fuel cycle concepts. The 

Crosscutting Technology Development activity will focus on a variety of areas such 

as reactor materials, creative approaches to further reduce proliferation risks, and 

establishing advanced modeling and simulation capabilities to complement physical 

experimentation. The Transformative Nuclear Concepts R&D activity supports, via 

an open, competitive solicitation process, investigator-initiated projects that relate 

to any aspect of nuclear energy generation ensuring that good ideas have sufficient 

outlet for exploration. Modeling and Simulation Energy Innovation Hub, supported 

within this program, will apply existing modeling and simulation capabilities to cre-
30 

ate a ‘‘virtual’’ reactor user environment to simulate an operating reactor and is a 

prime example of the type of crosscutting, transformative activity that will enhance 

many research areas within NE. NE will also continue its commitments to investing 

in university research, international cooperation, and the Nation’s nuclear research 

infrastructure - important foundations to support continued technical advancement. 

Office of Fossil Energy: Sustaining American Energy Options through U.S. Inge- nuity The FY 2012 budget request of $521 million for the Office of Fossil Energy 

(FE) will help ensure that the United States can continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic fuel resources. The United States has 25 percent of the world’s coal reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply over 80 percent 

of the Nation’s energy. 

The Department is committed to developing technologies and providing technology-based options having public benefits including enhanced economic, environmental and energy security impacts. In FER&D, the emphasis, in keeping with 

Presidential priorities, is in supporting long-term, high risk initiatives targeted at 

carbon capture and storage as well as advanced energy systems and on cross-cutting 

research. 

In addition, $122 million of FE’s $521 million request will be to provide for national energy security through the continued operations of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve. The budget proposes to sell $500 million of SPR oil in order to provide 

operational flexibility in managing the Reserve. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration: Leading Global Partners on Nonproliferation by Securing Vulnerable Nuclear Materials; Reaffirming Commitment to 

Stockpile Modernization The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues significant efforts to meet Administration and Secretarial priorities, 

leveraging science to promote U.S. national security objectives. The FY 2012 President’s budget request for NNSA is $11.8 billion; an increase of 5.1 percent from the 

President’s FY 2011 Request. The five-year FY 2012-2016 President’s Request for 

the NNSA reflects the President’s global nuclear nonproliferation priorities and his 

commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and sustain a strong 

nuclear deterrent, as described in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report, 

for the duration of the New START Treaty and beyond. The NNSA’s defense and 

homeland security-related objectives include: 

• Ensure that the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and effective 

while implementing changes called for by the 2010 NPR and the New START 

Treaty 

• Broaden and strengthen the NNSA’s science, technology and engineering mission to meet national security needs 

• Transform the Nation’s Cold-War era weapons complex into a 21st century 

national security enterprise 

• Work with global partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around 

the world and implement the President’s nuclear security agenda expressed 

in the May 2010 National Security Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review 

report 

• Provide safe and effective nuclear propulsion for U.S. Navy warships 

The FY 2012 budget request of $7.6 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of programs. Requested activities include providing direct support for the nuclear weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual assessments, life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement. 

Science, Technology and Engineering programs are focused on long-term vitality in 

science and engineering, and on performing R&D to sustain current and future 

stockpile stewardship capabilities without the need for underground nuclear testing. 

These programs also provide a base capability to support scientific research needed 

by other elements of the Department, the federal government national security community, and the academic and industrial communities. Infrastructure programs support facilities and operations at the government-owned, contractor-operated sites, including activities to maintain and steward the health of these sites for the long term 

and construct new facilities that will allow the United States to maintain a credible 

nuclear deterrent. The unique nuclear security expertise and resources maintained 

by NNSA are made available through the National Laboratories to other Departmental offices, agencies and to the Nation for security and counterterrorism activities. 

The Weapons Activities request is an increase of 8.9 percent over the President’s 

FY 2011 Request. This level is sustained and increased in the later outyears. The 

multi-year increase is necessary to reflect the President’s commitment to maintain 

the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground 
31 

nuclear testing, consistent with the principles of the Report on the Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, and Delivery Platforms 

(known as the ‘‘1251 Report’’) and the Stockpile Management Program as stipulated 

in Sections 1251 and 3113(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 2010. Increases are provided for direct support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for scientific, technical and engineering activities related to maintenance assessment and certification capabilities, and for recapitalization of key nuclear facilities. The President’s Request provides funding necessary to protect the national resource of human capital at the national laboratories through a stockpile stewardship 

program that exercises and retains these capabilities. 

The FY 2012 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) is $2.5 billion; 

a decrease of 5.1 percent from the President’s FY 2011 Request. This decrease reflects completion of long-lead procurements for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication 

Facility (MOX) and Waste Solidification Building (WSB). It also reflects our decision 

to await an agreement between the U.S. and Russia on detailed implementation 

milestones prior to requesting additional U.S.-pledged funding to support Russian 

plutonium disposition. The Administration prioritizes U.S. leadership in global nonproliferation initiatives as directed through the National Security Strategy and has 

advanced this agenda through commitments from global partners during the 2010 

Nuclear Security Summit. In addition to the programs funded solely by the NNSA, 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs support interagency and international 

efforts to protect national security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and 

nuclear materials to terrorist organizations and rogue states. These efforts are implemented in part through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the G8 Global 

Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, and 

the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. 

DNN supports the President’s goal to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around 

the world within four years. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s emphasis in 

FY 2012 is to convert domestic and international nuclear reactors from weaponsusable highly enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU); while preserving our capability to produce the critically needed Molybdenum 99 isotope. The 

FY 2012 President’s request for International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation reflects selective new security upgrades to buildings and sites in accordance with the President’s goal to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the 

world within four years, as well as enhancements and sustainability support for previous work. The Fissile Materials Disposition program continues domestic construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility scheduled to come online in 2016; and 

design for the pit disassembly and conversion capability to provide it with plutonium oxide feedstock. 

The President’s request of $1.2 billion for Naval Reactors is an increase of 7.8 percent over the President’s FY 2011 Request. The program supports the U.S. Navy’s 

nuclear fleet, comprised of all of the Navy’s 72 submarines and 11 aircraft carriers, 

which constitute 45 percent of the Navy’s combatants. The U.S. relies on these ships 

every day, all over the world, to protect our national interests. The budget provides 

funding increases for the Ohio Class Replacement submarine to design and develop 

required submarine reactor plant technologies. R&D is underway now, and funding 

during this Future Years Nuclear Security Program is critical to support the long 

manufacturing spans for procurement of reactor plant components in 2017, and ship 

construction in 2019. Resources are also requested in FY 2012 to support design 

work for the recapitalization of the spent nuclear fuel handling infrastructure and 

refueling of the Land-based prototype. 

The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides for federal program direction and support for NNSA’s Headquarters and field installations. The FY 2012 request is $450.1 million; a 0.4 percent increase over the President’s FY 2011 Request. 

This provides for well-managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountable organization 

through the strategic management of human capital, enhanced cost-effective utilization of information technology, and integration of budget and performance through 

transparent financial management practices. The increase reflects additional federal 

oversight for construction of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion project, the Uranium Processing Facility, and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement 

Facility. 
32 

BIOGRAPHY OF SECRETARY STEVEN CHU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Dr. Steven Chu, distinguished scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics (1997), was appointed by President Obama as the 12th Secretary of Energy and 

sworn into office on January 21, 2009. 

Dr. Chu has devoted his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions 

to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change—a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy. He is charged with helping 

implement President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and 

create millions of new jobs. 

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Chu was director of DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and professor of Physics and Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California. He successfully applied the techniques he developed in atomic 

physics to molecular biology, and since 2004, motivated by his deep interest in climate change, he has recently led the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in pursuit 

of new alternative and renewable energies. Previously, he held positions at Stanford 

University and AT&T Bell Laboratories. 

Professor Chu’s research in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics includes tests of fundamental theories in physics, the development of methods to laser cool and trap atoms, atom interferometry, and the manipulation and 

study of polymers and biological systems at the single molecule level. While at Stanford, he helped start Bio-X, a multi-disciplinary initiative that brings together the 

physical and biological sciences with engineering and medicine. 

Secretary Chu is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American 

Philosophical Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academica Sinica, the Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology and numerous other civic and professional organizations. He received an A.B. degree in mathematics, a B.S. degree in 

physics from the University of Rochester, a Ph.D. in physics from the University of 

California, Berkeley as well as honorary degrees from 10 universities. Chu was born 

in Saint Louis, Missouri on February 28, 1948. He is married to Dr. Jean Chu, who 

holds a D.Phil. in Physics from Oxford and has served as chief of staff to two Stanford University presidents as well as Dean of Admissions. Secretary Chu has two 

grown sons, Geoffrey and Michael, by a previous marriage. 

In announcing Dr. Chu’s selection on December 15, 2008, President Obama said, 

‘‘the future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy. Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator, and has recently led the Berkeley National Laboratory in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies. He is uniquely suited to be our next Secretary 

of Energy as we make this pursuit a guiding purpose of the Department of Energy, 

as well as a national mission.’’ 
33 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, Dr. Chu, and I will recognize myself for five minutes. 

My first question, and I may not have enough time to ask the 

second question, but the centerpiece proposal in President Obama’s 

State of the Union address is his plan to require 80 percent of U.S. 

electricity to be derived from so-called clean energy sources, actually not defined anywhere that I can find so far. A study by economists at Suffolk University found that the cost of a clean energy 

standard similar to what the President is proposing would be almost $200 billion a year and over $4 trillion over a 20-year period, 

and that is, to be fair with you, a study of a similar plan, not this 

identical plan but of a similar plan. Other studies might estimate 

these figures to be higher or lower but as a matter of basic economics, doesn’t the President’s proposal amount to mandating Americans to pay significantly higher electricity costs? And in terms of 

restricting fossil fuel usage and raising electricity prices, wouldn’t 

the clean energy sources have the same impact as the Administration’s now-defunct cap-and-trade proposal? 

Secretary CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not aware of 

that study, but first let me define what we mean by clean energy. 

Solar, wind, new hydro, nuclear, those are all clean energy, and we 

get full credit. If you looked at combined-cycle gas which generates 

about twice the electricity for the same amount of carbon emission, 

we would get half credit. If one develops coal with carbon capture 

and sequestration and suppose you capture 90 percent of the carbon emissions, that would count was 90 percent credit. So based on 

that rough definition, we are now currently generating 80 percent—40 percent of our energy as clean. Nuclear is—20 percent of 

the electricity is nuclear. Hydro is about 6–1/2, seven percent. The 

rest is a little bit of solar but the rest is predominantly wind and 

a little bit of geothermal. 

So the President’s goal of reaching 80 percent from 40 percent by 

2035 anticipates, number one, that there will be a new investment 

in nuclear energy, and this is something we would like to grow as 

part of the portfolio. We project that more solar and photovoltaic 

and solar thermal will be in play and also more natural gas. When 

we develop clean coal technologies and we are going to be working 

very hard over the next decade to bring it down to affordable price, 

we think investments in clean coal technologies will kick in. So it 

is very important that that longer date, 2035, allows for the development of clean coal technologies, allows for the long planning 

process and construction process of nuclear. 

In terms of how much it costs, we don’t really know but I will 

tell you that I talk to the utility companies, in the coming decades, 

for example, Duke Energy tells me, Jim Rogers at Duke says in the 

next 50 years every power plant that they now own will have to 

be replaced and so the issue is when you have a long time horizon 

going from 2011 to 2035, you will have to replace a large fraction 

of these power plants and so it is in this replacement and building 

up as you—because, for example, many of our coal plants are over 

40 or 50 years old. They are on their last legs. As you replace them 

with newer options, this is a very natural thing and so we want 

to give credit to get this going. 
34 

Now, my last comment about the clean energy standard is that there are estimates of $1 trillion to $2 trillion of capital sitting on 

the sidelines because of the uncertain conditions of what the 

United States should invest in, and what the clean energy standard does is, it tells companies, utility companies, it tells finance 

companies, this is the direction we are going, you will have a market. If you build an efficient, cost-effective way of generating electricity, you have a market, we can invest in you, and all that capital can come off the sidelines and immediately create jobs. 

Chairman HALL. Do you agree that it will cost significantly more 

than that, or have you had that opinion? 

Secretary CHU. I would want to get back to you on that and 

have, for example, the EIA and other analyses and give you a synopsis of what we think the costs will be. I would be happy to do 

that. 

Chairman HALL. I appreciate it. I want to follow up. A core objective of the President’s clean energy proposal is obviously addressing 

climate change. We look for that all the time. If the President’s 

plan is significantly or successfully, I might say, implemented and 

we do indeed achieve the 80 percent, just double what you set out 

as 40 percent clean energy goal, how much effect could it have on 

climate change? 

Secretary CHU. Well, the purpose of this is twofold. The major 

purpose of this clean energy standard is to unleash capital off the 

sidelines to allow for the private sector investment in clean energy 

technologies and also in energy efficiency which is turning very 

rapidly into a worldwide race for the development of these technologies. So the primary driver for what we are doing is, we are 

in a race now but the world is going to need newer, cleaner sources 

of energy, a more energy-efficient infrastructure. And this creates 

an incentive for business to invest their capital, private sector capital, in order to win in this race. 

Now, having said that, if you look at what the President is proposing as a goal, 80 percent by 2035, this is more or less equivalent 

to a decrease in carbon dioxide that would put us on a path by midcentury 2050 of reducing the carbon dioxide by 50 percent. So it is 

in line with the original goal of doing that but the most important 

thing I want to return back to and emphasize is that we are now 

in a worldwide race. You see China, Japan, India, South Korea, 

European countries racing to develop these technologies because 

they know there is going to be a world market for them. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. I have gone over my time by a few 

seconds. I would like to ask how much effect do you really believe 

it will have, but I don’t have the right to ask that because I am 

out of time. I thank you. 

Now I recognize Mrs. Johnson for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Chu, as we attempt to cooperate in cutting some of the needed spending, one of the first things that we try to do is look at duplication. There is a lot of concern about duplicative programs both 

within DOE and other agencies. In terms of research, how would 

you define duplication? 

Secretary CHU. Well, how would I define duplication? If certain 

research programs, for example, within Energy or within the Office 
35 

of Science or ARPA–E are funding more or less the exact same type 

of research. You would not define it as there is solar research that 

could be short-term solar research tied to ARPA–E funds. You only 

have two years to get the private sector to pick it up. Very, very 

different than the solar research being funded in the Office of 

Science where you are mostly tackling basic fundamental science 

problems that can go to the next new thing. And so it sounds like 

the same, solar research, but it is a very different type of funding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. There is also a growing sentiment that a number 

of the proposals for cuts will be applied to R&D. To me, that is one 

of the most important things that we can do in order to stay in the 

world race. What do you consider the most dangerous and growing 

sentiment for wasteful spending or investment in the future? How 

would you categorize some of the suggestions or recommendations 

or even what was passed in the C.R. two weeks ago? 

Secretary CHU. Sure. All right. The President recognizes and certainly Congress recognizes that we are going to have to make such 

tough choices. The deficit is a huge problem and it has to be tackled. But having said that, if you just do across-the-board uniform 

cuts, this is not the way to run the country, this is not the way 

to manage the multiple varied programs. You have to make tough 

choices on what you want to invest in, and in this I am reminded 

of what Norm Augustine, a very legendary CEO and chair of Lockheed Martin had said, also well known in Congress on both sides 

of the aisle, very well respected, and he was CEO of Lockheed Martin and he said in his all experiences as an engineer, as a CEO and 

chair, if you have an overweight—in times of austerity, it is much 

like if you design an airplane and you realize the airplane is overweight and the way to trim the weight is to cut off an engine, that 

that would not do well. 

And so you have to recognize what are going to be the engines 

that are driving the prosperity of our country, and the President 

has said very clearly that there are two engines. One engine is education, particularly science, engineering and mathematics education, STEM education, and the other engine is energy because it 

is no secret that many other countries around the world, most notably China, have recognized that this is a hugely growing technology opportunity and the country that leads in energy technologies in this multi-trillion-dollar market will be a very wealthy 

country, that you can wait and let other countries go first and we 

can be importing those technologies that we will need or we can be 

the front leader and be exporting those. And so in this race for 

prosperity that will create high-value manufacturing jobs in the 

United States. The President has said we have to pay attention to 

this. This is an internationally competitive race that we are in, and 

that was our Sputnik moment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time is up, but I need to ask one 

more question. Could you describe any type of impressive research 

that might be going on in China right now or India or any place? 

Secretary CHU. If the chairman permits. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

Secretary CHU. All right. Thank you. I would say if you look in 

terms of impressive research, they are superb in taking some existing technology and driving it better, so for that reason they now 
36 

have the highest speed rail service in the world. They have captured that lead from France and from Japan. They now can 

produce the highest voltage and highest capacity transmission lines 

in the world, and they want to sell it to the United States. They 

are building about half of the nuclear reactors in the world today, 

over 25. They are the dominant force in silken photovoltaics or 

photovoltaics of any kind in the world. They have now taken over 

the leadership in exports of solar cells. They build the highest-efficiency coal plants with all the scrubbers and are now beginning to 

export them. Their coal plants are now 46 percent efficient of energy into electricity out. Our most advanced coal plants, I don’t 

even think break 40 percent. And so I would say in every energy 

sector that I know, they are either getting into the lead or have become the leaders, and they see a worldwide export market. 

Chairman HALL. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for five minutes. 

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

You just mentioned the President’s characterization of the Sputnik moment, and let me just note, we are not in a Sputnik moment, 

we are in a deficit spending moment when you see that for the last 

two years straight and now for a third year in a row this Administration is proposing a level of deficit spending that is a shock to 

the system. We are talking a trillion and a half dollars a year more 

in debt for our children to pay, and I am suggesting to you that 

shock has had a major impact and has to make a major impact on 

our decision-making. 

The answer that you just gave to the Ranking Member’s question, of those technologies that you have just outlined for us that 

China is racing ahead in terms of putting them into place and into 

practice, how many of them are based on research that the Chinese 

did rather than research that was done in the United States or 

other countries that they have taken advantage of that research? 

Secretary CHU. Okay. Thank you for the question. Well, let me 

go down the list. In nuclear technology, the United States made the 

first nuclear reactor as part of the Manhattan Project but leadership and very quickly in the 1970s and early 1980s constructed a 

fleet of roughly 100, a little over 100 civilian nuclear reactors but 

we don’t own that leadership today and have not owned it for the 

last couple of decades. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Secretary CHU. France—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But in terms of China, how much of those 

which you just suggested, you had a list, are any of them based on 

the research that was done in China and not in the United States 

or what we are seeing here is vast amounts of research and—basically what we do is research and development here but we are unable to actually put it in place while our adversary in China takes 

it and runs with it. The problem isn’t research and development 

and the creativity of the American people. Our problem is that we 

have got government in the way of people, entrepreneurs and investors and people who would like to use this technology here, and 

I would hope that perhaps the Department of Energy would put 

some of its effort into breaking through some of these barriers, one 

I would like to bring up with you today, and that is, we need to 
37 

make sure if—the President’s goal of having pollution-free energy 

sources is a wonderful goal. Whether we agree with you on global 

warming or not, that is irrelevant. The fact is, all of us should 

want less pollution in the air and cheaper energy. 

So with that understanding, nuclear energy seems like something we could all come together on because at least the liberal left 

in this country has at least accepted the fact that nuclear energy 

needs to be something we look at. We have got new gas-cooled reactors that offer great promise, small gas-cooled reactors. How much 

money is being spent or how much emphasis, should I say, is being 

put on gas-cooled reactors as compared to light water reactors, 

which are the reactors of the past? 

Secretary CHU. Yes, we are—we run a program called Next Generation Nuclear Reactors, and those are the gas reactors we are 

talking about. We are funding that very steadily, and I think in 

2012 we hope to make a decision as to whether we go forward with 

building a prototype of those reactors. I share your enthusiasm in 

the sense that those gas-cooled reactors used as heat sources instead of electricity generation could be a very valuable source of energy that could supplement some of the energy we use, for example, natural gas in order to generate heat. And so we are very supportive of also small modular reactors, right size reactors where 

you can plop them down in places which don’t have the infrastructure—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. With that said, we need help from the Department of Energy in breaking down the licensing process that is 

preventing the technology that we already—we have a capability of 

building those reactors right now. There are several companies that 

come to mind. We could go into production of this now except the 

licensing process will take a decade. We need to cut that down because we are spending a trillion dollars a year more than we are 

taking in, and this would certainly contribute to wealth creation in 

the United States. So I would hope that we can work together in 

breaking down that licensing process. 

Secretary CHU. Thank you. Part of our 2012 budget request is for 

monies to help in the engineering to get licensing which is NRC, 

it is their job, but we will help those companies license the small 

modular reactors. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let us make sure the Chinese don’t end 

up in production of these things that we are inventing right here 

when we could go into production ourselves and we just break 

down these governmental barriers. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Chu. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, sir. The chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Chu. You probably don’t remember, but I do, the first time 

I met you, I happened to be on the Stanford campus the day you 

won the Nobel Prize, and the last time I think I saw you was also 

on the Stanford campus when we toured the Stanford linear accelerator. 

I ask this not just to you as the Secretary, but as the really respected scientist that you are what the impacts of the C.R., if extended throughout the year, would have on the science that is in 
38 

the Bay area. When we toured the Stanford linear accelerator, we 

saw what they were doing in terms of understanding at an atomic 

level, photosynthesis, for example. I think about the National Ignition Facility over in Lawrence Livermore, and it is a major scientific experiment; but, obviously if it is successful, it will have a 

profound impact on the energy picture for the world. Persis Drell 

has indicated that basically she thinks that the linear accelerator 

would have to simply shut down under the C.R. budget. What 

would the impact be on our science future if that were to occur, Dr. 

Chu? 

Secretary CHU. Well, if you are speaking of the current 2011 

C.R.—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

Secretary CHU. —and if you look at what the proposed 2011 

budget is, what the C.R. was going to bring it back to, in fact, that 

we are halfway through the year, it would be something on the 

order of 40, maybe as high as a 50 percent cut in the Office of 

Science. At that level, and in some parts of the Office of Science 

it could be far more, so at that level I think Persis Drell’s assessment is correct, that many of the user facilities like the new free 

electron laser, X-ray laser that SLAC has would have to be shut 

down for some time. A lot of graduate students and postdocs might 

have to be let go. This would—so as Ranking Member Johnson 

said, it would have a devastating impact on the number of jobs but 

the ripple effect would be much deeper because if the students, the 

engineering and science students see that federal funding of science 

can go up and down, bouncing like a yo-yo, they could easily assume—because most of the research dollars in science and engineering are ultimately at the Ph.D. level and master’s level ultimately come from federal government. They would say this is not 

the career for me, or if they have a Ph.D. they perhaps look abroad 

to other countries. 

So the ripple effect of unsteady up-and-down and certainly draconian cuts in science would be far more devastating than just the 

many thousands of jobs that would be lost or the accelerators that 

would be turned down and those accelerators, as you well know, 

are really engines of innovation. It is those accelerators which have 

changed the paradigm of how we do medical research and it is 

those accelerators that have changed the paradigm of how we do 

materials research. In those accelerators, we have made discoveries 

that have allowed us to improve upon the lithium ion battery in 

such a dramatic way. You know, the United States is—this is another one of these good stories where the United States of America 

invents the lithium ion battery, the dominant battery for plug-in 

hybrids and electric vehicles. Very quickly technology leadership 

went first to Japan, Sony, and now it is a big race between Japan 

and Korea. The year 2000, we made some basic science discoveries 

that all of a sudden say we can improve those batteries, we can improve the lifetime of the batteries, the energy density of the batteries, the safety of the batteries and it is less expensive to 

produce. 

So we are in the process of recapturing that technology lead, and 

this is going to be a multi-billion-dollar business and so we need 

those science facilities. You don’t want to ship them out. 
39 

Ms. LOFGREN. On the NIF, we have made a huge investment 

over the years in the NIF. What would this do if we project the 

C.R. across as the budget for the year, what would it do to that 

project? 

Secretary CHU. Well, NIF comes from a different bucket of 

money. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Secretary CHU. This is funded not by the Office of Science. It is 

funded actually by the NNSA. And I think the NNSA in the C.R. 

is more protected because it is seen—its major mission is nuclear 

security, and to that extent, there would be less of an impact. I 

think the Office of Science impact would be pretty devastating. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will just say that I know my time is almost up, 

Mr. Chairman. My daughter was an undergraduate at Stanford 

and her roommate was a science major and my daughter was an 

English major, and when they graduated my daughter decided to 

go to law school where after three years she was able to earn more 

than a Member of Congress; whereas, her science roommate is still 

toiling away earning very little trying to get her Ph.D., and unless 

we incent science, the people who love science really won’t stay. I 

also think the impact you said, the devastating impact this would 

have on the future of science, which is on the young scientists, is 

something that very much needs to be considered. I am glad that 

you raised it. 

I yield back, Mr. Hall. 

Chairman HALL. I hope your daughter is as fine and helpful to 

her profession as you have been to this Committee. 

Now at this time I recognize Mr. Bartlett, one of the senior members of this Committee from Maryland, for 5 or 10 minutes, whatever he wants. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Chu, thank you very much for your phone conversation yesterday. I have a couple of questions relative to the super-duty truck 

that I will submit for the record, sir, but I want to turn to your 

attention to some slides, the first of which I hope will show up on 

the screen. 

[The information follows:] 
40 
41 

Mr. BARTLETT. Next slide. 

[The information follows:] 
42 
43 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. I would like you to take a look at this slide, 

sir. This is a 2008 slide from the World Energy Outlook. Several 

interesting things about it. By 2030, they show the total amount 

of liquid fuels that we will have as about 106 million barrels a day. 

They show the crude oil that we will have from the fields that are 

now producing crude oil producing only about less than a fourth of 

that and they show huge contributions of oil from fields that we 

have now discovered but are too expensive to develop, and then a 

big red wedge there of crude oil from fields yet to be found. There 

is a dark red wedge there of enhanced oil recovery. 

Now, if we can see the next chart. 

[The information follows:] 
44 
45 

Mr. BARTLETT. And this is from exactly the same organization, 

and it is just two years later and some very remarkable differences 

occur. First of all, they no longer project that we are going to have 

106 million barrels of oil a day by 2030, they now say we are going 

to have 96 million barrels a day by 2035, five years later, and they 

have only about a fourth of the conventional oil production coming 

from fields that we now pump. They have increased amounts of oil 

coming from fields yet to be developed and fields yet to be found. 

If you will look at the total amount of crude oil that they say will 

be available, it rises only very slightly between now and 2035. 

[The information follows:] 
46 
47 

Mr. BARTLETT. If you look at the next slide, and if you have only 

one slide that you could look at to inform you about oil, it would 

be this slide. It is an old slide. You can see that it was a 2004 slide. 

And it shows the discoveries of oil through the past and you see 

them in the horizontal bars—I am sorry, in the vertical bars there, 

huge discoveries starting back in the late 1930s and the 1950s and 

1960s, and notice from 1980 on we have always pumped more oil 

than we found, and they were projecting in this chart that we were 

going to reach peak oil production—that is that dark blue one in 

the previous two slides—we were going to reach that about when 

we did, about 2006 or 2007 or so, and that is exactly when it happened. That is now generally conceded to by just about every authority in the world. 

Look over on the left over there at the ordinate, you see 10 billion barrels. That is a pretty big find of oil. We need to put that 

in perspective. It has been a long time since we found very many 

fields with more than 10 billion barrels of oil. Every 12 days, sir, 

as you know, the world uses a billion barrels of oil. Every 12 days, 

a billion barrels of oil. That is about 6th-grade arithmetic. Which 

means that if you have a 10-billion-barrel find, which is a big find, 

that will last the world 120 days. Big deal. 

[The information follows:] 
48 
49 

Mr. BARTLETT. And now if you look at the fourth slide, sir, and 

this shows the world according to oil, and Saudi Arabia needs to 

be diminished of it because Wikileaks a couple weeks ago indicated 

they have been fibbing about how much oil they have. I suspect 

much of the OPEC world has been fibbing about it. But, you know, 

there we are using a fourth of the world’s oil, and we have only 

two percent of the world’s oil. We are pumping eight percent of the 

world’s oil, which means we are going to pump down very quickly. 

Sir, isn’t this pretty much the perfect storm at just the time that 

the world has reached its maximum oil production? And sir, if you 

believe that we are going to fill in those wedges with oil to be 

pumped from fields that we have now discovered and fields yet to 

be found, you probably believe you are going to solve your personal 

economic problems by winning the lottery. I think the odds are 

about the same. This is kind of the perfect storm, sir. We now have 

peak oil and we have the developing world leading it, trying to recover from a recession. We have the developing world, China and 

India, using hugely increased amounts of oil. We have the 

Wikileaks a couple weeks ago indicating that there is considerably 

less oil out there than we thought was out there, and now we have 

this unrest in the Middle East. Shouldn’t there be a plan B, sir, 

in case the wildly optimistic projections of the World Energy Outlook and the EIA and the IEA are not true? 

Secretary CHU. Okay. I think there should be a plan A. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I don’t even see a plan A. Plan A is business as 

usual, and that ain’t going to work, sir. 

Secretary CHU. So let me make a few comments. First, thank you 

for the slides. If you go back three slides at the world—that one. 

I will agree with you. We are near the peak of peak conventional 

oil. I think most oil companies will acknowledge that. What that 

means is, conventional oil is oil on land, easy-to-access oil, and 

what this projects is that there are—what it is doing is, it is logging in current reserves. Current reserves are bankable assets. I do 

feel that—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. That is the next chart, sir. It shows the reserves. 

Secretary CHU. Right. But in this one, it essentially shows just 

a very slight increase if you include all forms of oil, oil yet to be 

discovered, oil produced in fields and unconventional oil meaning 

tar sands oil, very thick bituminous oil, things of that nature. And 

so certainly what this shows is that the oil supplies are plateauing 

at best and they are going to be plateauing and yet we see a dramatic rise in the world wealth of countries, especially in developing 

countries like China and India, where people—China is now the 

biggest car market in the world, 14, 15 million cars a year being 

sold in China, maybe 16 by now. 

So what does that tell you? And as you go to harder-to-access oil, 

deep offshore oil, oil in the Arctic, more inconvenient oil, the lifting 

costs increase, so what that tells me is that the price of oil in the 

following decades because of the increased demand, because of our 

higher lifting costs of oil, the price of oil will go up. So our plan 

A is to recognize the price of oil will go. It will become a commodity 

in higher demand and so we should do whatever we can to decrease our dependency on oil, certainly our dependency on foreign 

oil but oil, period, because oil is, you know, as you noted, we con-
50 

sume 25 percent of the oil of the world. We only have two percent 

of the reserves. 

So from that alone, you say so what do we do. Our plan A is to 

increase the fuel efficiency of cars and really push the pedal to the 

floor on that one. For the first time in 25 years, we have improved 

the EPA mileage standards but we have to do better in the following years. 

Point two: We can electrify the vehicles. If you begin to electrify 

vehicles using batteries which I have a very strong belief that within four to five years we will be testing batteries to be put in cars 

that can enable us to drive 300 miles on a single charge in a 

midsized car and a battery that costs maybe a third of what it costs 

today. Okay. Under those conditions, you don’t think about buying 

an electric car. Pure economics tell you, you just go buy an electric 

car. An electric car you plug in, you are using energy generated in 

the United States to charge your car, so you offset the oil dependency that way. 

And finally, we are doing very promising research in biofuels. Already work done in the national labs is being licensed by companies in the private sector. They are doing testing demos of this, and 

we think, you know, the first thing is you use sugars and starches 

to get to ethanol but well beyond ethanol drop-in substitutes for 

diesel fuel and for gasoline for jet fuel. A company, Amers, is developing—is building a pilot plan now for a drop-in diesel fuel substitute. You feed it sugar, bacteria, make diesel fuel. They think 

they can sell it at $4 a gallon, diesel fuel, but that is just the beginning. Four dollars a gallon is still a little bit high, at $4 a gallon, 

a profit. You know, when you sell it at $3 a gallon, it is profit and 

now we are talking. And as you know, diesel fuel is about $3.50 

a gallon now. 

So the combination of biofuels made from woody material and agricultural waste, the electrification of vehicles. We also have gas 

supplies and so a number of companies are looking at delivery vans 

running off of natural gas. That could be a big player too. And all 

those things decrease our dependency on oil, and this is what I call 

our plan A. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Sir, that is all true. Just one moment more, Mr. 

Chairman. That is all true, sir, but your government paid for four 

studies, two of them in 2005, two of them in 2007. They all say the 

same thing, that peaking oil was imminent with potentially devastating consequences. The Hirsch report, the big one, said if you 

didn’t start planning for that 2 decades before it occurred there 

were going to be meaningful economic consequences. 

Sir, we have run out of time. You don’t really believe those two 

blue wedges are going to occur, do you? 

Secretary CHU. Well, actually, I do believe some of it will occur, 

but be that as it may, I think you and I are in total agreement. 

We should be pushing as hard as we can to reduce our dependency 

on oil. We are—you know, $400, $300 billion a year is leaking out 

of our shores to bring in oil. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Sir, I am way over time. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
51 

Chairman HALL. The senior citizen asked good questions and we 

got good answers. I don’t believe you all are totally in agreement 

but your 20 minutes is up. 

Secretary CHU. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. It was good. You were giving good answers and 

it is in the record and I think if we can keep anybody awake that 

long they are going to enjoy reading everything we do. 

Is Mr. Wu back? All right. Then I think we ask Mr. Miller, and 

I understand Mr. Miller has a request of the Committee. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I know that Representative Giffords has the affection and respect of every member of this Committee. She has been a very engaged, conscientious member. Her 

office has asked that I ask a question on her behalf, and I certainly 

want to accommodate her. And then if I could have perhaps not the 

full 20 minutes but a little more than five so I could ask the questions I intended to ask. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, you know you can do that. 

We want her questions asked, and she is living proof that prayers 

are answered, and thank you for representing her. 

Mr. MILLER. And our prayers continue. 

Secretary Chu, you have already mentioned that Ms. Giffords 

was a great advocate for solar power. President Obama at his State 

of the Union spoke of a ‘‘Sputnik moment,’’ and 50 years ago President Kennedy called for an effort to go to the moon by the end of 

the decade. You called that the ‘‘moon shot’’ and you called for an 

effort that you called the ‘‘sun shot’’ to make solar electricity much 

more competitive in the next decade, specifically to bring down the 

cost by 75 percent, and to raise our once-dominant position in the 

market for solar voltaics. It was 43 percent in 1995. It is now six 

percent. 

Ms. Giffords was a great advocate, as you have said. She, a couple years ago in the last Congress, pushed forward the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, which Congress, following her lead, this Committee and Congress adopted, and I am sure that she would like 

to know how the SunShot Initiative does compare to her Solar 

Technology Roadmap Act that she advocated for so effectively a 

year or two ago and how you plan to implement that SunShot Initiative. 

Secretary CHU. Okay. Thank you for the question. I think in our 

SunShot Initiative, what we did is, we looked at what industry’s 

own roadmaps were and we canvassed many companies both here 

and abroad, and where they think they could drive down the prices, 

and this is the full price, the cost of electricity. It is not the cost 

of the module itself but the electronics, the mounting, the land use, 

everything, insulation. And they found that within a decade one 

could reduce the cost, the full all-in cost by a factor of two, 50 percent reduction. And we thought that that was not quite good 

enough, and we began to talk with them and asked the question 

what could we do in the Department of Energy and what could 

they do in industry to bring that cost down more aggressively before the end of this decade, would it be possible to reduce the cost 

by 75 percent. Why 75 percent? That is the cost where solar power 

becomes competitive with any form of energy that we have today, 

the cheapest fossil fuel, and at that point the country that develops 
52 

that has all of a sudden got a clear winner that you can export all 

over the world, the country and companies that develop that technology. That price point will be a very magical price point. 

Remarkably, in this game plan that we started developing—and 

we didn’t know which technologies would win. There is silken, 

there is crystal and silk and various thin-film technologies. There 

is even solar thermal. And all of these we looked and we said okay, 

what we can do is construct a program to give everyone a shot at 

this. They can all apply for grants. But where you see a clear driver down to this magical price. And the reaction in industry was actually amazing. I was talking with the CEO of Sun Power, a former 

professor of Stanford, Dick Swanson, who is now making the most 

efficient solar modules in the world, over 20 percent efficient, and 

he said, you know, you were great because after your guys started 

talking to us and we went and we started talking to our engineers, 

they began to realize yes, they can do better. This is amazing, that, 

you know, your spurring us and the back and forth between our 

scientists and their scientists, you know what, we can do better 

than we were planning to do. And so what this is now is a technological race among various approaches in the United States where 

the winner will reap many rewards. And so this is a very exciting 

thing. 

When President Kennedy following President Eisenhower’s 

speech about Sputnik and, you know—I might remind this committee, by the way, when Sputnik was first launched, his reaction 

to Sputnik is to say we have to invest in science and technology 

and education in science. He did not say let us put more money 

into rocket science and the military. It was a very long, far-reaching goal and said this is what it is about, the Russians have more 

scientists and engineers and the quality of their education is increasing and for the long-term benefit of the country this is what 

we have to invest in. It helps to have a five-star general to say this. 

And that started the National Science Foundation and all these 

other things. 

So now returning back to the sun shot, we are very excited about 

this so going back to Kennedy, when Kennedy said before the end 

of the decade we will have a man on the moon, I am sure there 

are people in the audience and in America and worldwide who said 

that guy is nuts, how are we going to do this, but he wasn’t. Before 

he made that announcement, he had a lot of detailed discussions 

with his scientific team, with the engineers and with the NASA 

folks to say no, this is bold, this is a long reach but it is achievable. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. With my remaining 15 minutes, I wanted to ask about research generally. 

Obviously energy research fared very badly in the Continuing 

Resolution passed by the House three weeks ago, and the argument 

by those who oppose the research was that it was really applied research, not basic research. I am not sure they are really any more 

favorably disposed towards basic research. But it is not like there 

is a bell that goes off when basic research crosses over into applied 

research, and the horizon of when some of this stuff may be commercially practical is pretty far out there, even if it is strictly 

speaking basic research. 
53 

What would happen to energy research generally if DOE was out 

of the mix of doing what would be called applied research, and is 

it really true that energy research by your department is crowding 

out—is it skewing—the marketplaceis it picking winners or losers, 

is it really crowding out research the private sector would otherwise be doing? 

Secretary CHU. The short answer is no but let me follow up by 

giving you a few examples. If you look, for example, at what we are 

funding in the applied research area in things like better air conditioning or better manufacturing practices for photo cells, this is in 

our ARPA–E program. We made our first tranche of funds. We invested in, I think, something like 37 projects, 37 companies, and 

these companies already half a dozen receiving grants on the $3 

million to $4 million for two years and then after that it is over. 

You have to go get money from another program, the private sector 

somewhere. Half a dozen companies have already done the research that they can then go back to the investment community 

and say look, it is working, and those half a dozen companies have 

received over $100 million of private sector funding because they 

proved using our research dollars to do first-stage proof of principle, the private investors said we think it is going to work, here 

is some more money. 

This is exactly what we want to do in the private sector. Were 

we crowding out the money? No. In fact, if they couldn’t prove to 

the private sector, the investment community, the VC people that 

this is actually viable by doing that first little experiment, they 

wouldn’t have gotten the money. But as soon as they get the 

money—I mean, we well imagined that in many of these companies 

that first $100 million will actually be generating hundreds and 

hundreds of millions of dollars as it looks more and more likely 

that it will be a winner. 

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Chair for his indulgence. 

Thank you, Secretary Chu. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, and thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I might remind the Members that we are even and even now on 

time, and if we can kind of stick to our five minutes out of respect 

to the other Members who are waiting. I will recognize the chairman of I&O, Dr. Broun, for his five minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Chu, thank you for being with us here today. This 

Committee requested documents regarding the Administration’s decision to cancel the Yucca Mountain projects on May 7, 2009, February 3, 2010, July 20, 2010, and again on February 14, 2011. 

Until I became chair of the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee, I received little more than press releases from your department and copies of letters from other Members of Congress in 

response to these requests. Understanding that I have requested 

these documents since May of 2009, when can I expect a full and 

a final production of these documents, and do you intend to withhold any of these documents? 

Secretary CHU. No. My understanding is, we have now turned 

over thousands of pages of documents to you and your staff. 

Mr. BROUN. Sir, we have not gotten the documentation and I 

would appreciate your doing so as quickly as possible. 
54 

Secretary CHU. I will look into it but we—— 

Mr. BROUN. If you intend to withhold documents, would you provide an index to identify each document withheld, to state the exemption claimed and explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption? 

Changing courses a little bit, in September 2008, you stated, 

‘‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline 

to the levels in Europe.’’ Well, gas is projected to go to $5 or $6 

a gallon just this summer. We have an unstable Middle East with 

potential of having a marked reduction of Middle East oil being 

available. This will increase the price of all goods and services and 

especially food and other necessary things. It is going to destroy 

jobs here in this economy and hurt our economy tremendously. 

Sir, when is this Administration going to stop prohibiting the development of our own God-given natural energy resources here in 

the United States and start to pursue an all-of-the-above energy 

policy and develop those particularly here in the United States 

such as ANWR, OCS and those onshore? 

Secretary CHU. Well, first, in my role as Secretary of Energy, everything we are doing is to develop alternative fuels to help drive 

down the price of oil because as we are developing those—— 

Mr. BROUN. Sir, that may be true, but we have got a lot of oil 

available and it is not just about oil, it is natural gas, it is coal, 

it is everything that we have, and this Administration has been 

prohibiting the development of our own resources. Congressman 

Bartlett showed us some slides that I have seen and you have seen 

and all of us on this Committee have seen, but this Administration 

is focusing on alternative sources of energy, and I applaud that. We 

all applaud trying to have more nuclear energy and that sort of 

thing but we have energy sources that are available here today, 

and this Administration is blocking the retrieval of those energy 

sources. 

I just beg of you, sir, work to start allowing us to tap into all 

these energy resources including the oil and gas we have today, 

and this Administration has been blocking the production and development of those energy resources. It is critical for our economy, 

it is critical for jobs, it is critical for everything. So please, please, 

continue to look for alternative sources, I applaud that, but we 

need an all-of-the-above energy policy, not just looking to solar and 

wind and battery production and those types of things. We have oil. 

We have gas. We have coal. We have other sources. We have nuclear energy. It is very difficult to get licensing. We need to pursue 

an all-of-the-above energy policy, and I don’t see this Administration pursuing that, and I hope and pray for the good of all the 

United States’ citizens, for employees and employers that we do so. 

My time is up. Thank you so much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for staying within your five minutes. 

The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Dr. Chu. 

Dr. Chu, I have one question for you. One of the issues that I 

am most concerned with is the effects of energy generation on public health which disproportionately affects low-income urban communities like my district in Cleveland, Ohio. Congress has spent 
55 

time recently debating EPA regulations and the Clean Air Act. One 

way to keep our air healthy is by developing new and cleaner 

methods for energy generation. Could you please describe for me 

within my five minutes some of DOE’s research and development 

activities that have contributed to cleaner technology with a focus 

on public health? 

Secretary CHU. Sure. Thank you. If the chairman would permit, 

if I could spend maybe 30 seconds answering the last question that 

Mr. Broun asked me? 

Chairman HALL. Well, he—— 

Secretary CHU. He is still here, so it is good. I think developing 

oil and gas resources in the United States is part of the Administration policy, and the President did announce opening access to 

more drilling in the Gulf with impeccable timing. He announced 

that two weeks before the Macondo well blowout. And we see that, 

and I agree with you. I think we do need an all-of-the-above. You 

can develop oil and gas in the United States but remember that is 

two percent of the known reserves in the world and we are 25 percent. So as part of an integrated policy, we feel that that is appropriate. And so—— 

Mr. BROUN. I meant ANWR, and further putting out—— 

Ms. FUDGE. I just want you to know this is not on my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. We are going to start your time all over again. 

Secretary CHU. Okay. So—and—so as long as it is part of an integrated policy, we see it is part, and all-of-the-above is needed. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you. 

Secretary CHU. So in response to your question, Congresswoman, 

I think if you look at the methods we are doing, first, the Department of Energy has done a lot of research in the capture of sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury particulate matter. We were very 

helpful in the Clean Air Act of 1992, I believe it was, in helping 

develop those technologies that actually made it possible to capture 

the pollutants that were creating the acid rain that was killing a 

substantial part of our forests and lakes and rivers, particularly in 

the Northeast, and that has been very successful. The costs are 

about one-quarter, one-fifth of what they initially were estimated 

to be and they are still plunging. So the initial costs were overestimates because we tend to underestimate how good technology becomes when given a task. 

Going forward, if you look at the types of technologies we are 

now investing in research both the oxycombustion were you burn 

it in carbon dioxide atmosphere and capture that both in gasification, you are creating power plants that are essentially pollutionfree. The amount of particulate matter, the mercury, SOx and NOx 

that are going to be released is going to be near zero. And so this 

will go a long way to helping with all the respiratory illnesses and 

deaths we now suffer in the United States from those pollutants 

and the mercury that has clearly invaded our rivers and lakes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. I would just ask that as you go forward, 

though, that you pay particular interest to what goes on in minority communities because I believe that you will find the incidence 

of the effects of these things that you just talked about are higher 
56 

in communities that are minority communities. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you for yielding back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Fleischmann. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, Chuck Fleischmann. I represent Tennessee three, 

which has the great national treasure of ORNL and Y12. Thank 

you for being here today. 

Mr. Secretary, it is encouraging to see your support for nuclear 

power, specifically for small modular reactors or what we call 

SMRs, which will be an important source of energy for the increasing electricity demands of our country. Recently I met with Deputy 

Secretary Poneman. He visited with me and we talked about the 

importance of an American nuclear industry. In my district, the 

Tennessee Valley Authority is looking to add additional nuclear 

power to its system using SMR technology. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y12 weapons complex are big energy 

consumers and require safe, affordable and reliable power for major 

science and national security needs. It is impressive that your department is making progress on a cost-share program but there is 

also a regulatory hurdle which has been brought to my attention. 

The Department of Energy apparently is prohibited by a federal 

directive from long-term contracts with utility companies on power 

purchase agreements. This is a serious roadblock. How will DOE 

handle the need for long-term power purchase agreements, sir? 

Secretary CHU. All right. I will certainly look into that. There are 

numerous roadblocks like that. I think it has to do with utility 

companies and traditional power providers protecting their turf, 

and so we will look into it and see if we can come to some accommodation. I certainly know within the TVA, I have met with the 

head of the TVA, that they are very keen. They have a number of 

very old coal plants that are really at the end or past the end of 

their life, very inefficient plants, highly polluting plants, and they 

look at small modular reactors as a possible substitute solution to 

that. They are small enough that they can be dropped in substitutes for these coal plants because the electricity transmission 

distribution infrastructure is matched to the smaller reactors. 

And so we are very keen on that. In fact, in Oak Ridge there is 

the Cinch River site, which could be an ideal first adopter of small 

modular reactor there that could power all of Oak Ridge, and as 

you know, we are investing—in the fiscal year 2012 budget we are 

asking for funds, and we hope Congress can give us these funds so 

that we can help a number of companies accelerate the licensing 

and processing, to help them with their engineering drawings that 

the NRC would demand, but I plan to look into that and get back 

to you on the regulatory hurdles of what would prevent us from 

generating power. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you. I have one follow-up question in 

my time remaining. Recently I visited the Oak Ridge National Lab 

and I had the pleasure of a district tour and saw the Jaguar, which 

was I think until recently the world’s fastest unclassified computer. 

It was a wonderful tour. Last November, though, the Chinese 
57 

edged out the United States in supercomputing speed. China holds 

the record on two of the top five fastest computers of the world. 

That one measurement, Mr. Secretary, doesn’t tell the full story 

since the United States maintains an impressive lead, I think, in 

supercomputing with half of the world’s top 500 supercomputers located in the United States. 

My question, Mr. Secretary, is, what is the Department’s longterm strategy to ensure that we don’t cede our Nation’s premier 

leadership position in advanced computing? 

Secretary CHU. Yes. We in our 2012 budget are requesting funds 

to start a new sustained project in going to the next level. The Jaguar computer is what we call a petaflop. A petaflop is 10 to the 12 

floating point operations per second or more. That is a lot of floating point operations, 10 to the 12. No, this is 10 to the 15. Sorry. 

And so the next thousandfold development of a computer that is a 

thousand times faster than the Jaguar is something that we would 

like to develop in our 2012 budget. We have culled money from 

other parts of the Department including the National Security 

Agency as well as Office of Science to develop a roadmap and a 

plan to get us to this new exascale, so called exascale computer. 

We believe that these high-performance computers are not only 

incredible—we need them for our nuclear security and for the 

science but we have also found recently in the last, certainly in the 

last half decade that these simulations are so good, you can actually design things like a new diesel internal combustion engine and 

you can simulate the very complex dynamics of what is happening 

in this diesel engine and all the chemical reactions that are occurring at this, you know, thousandth of a second and shorter time 

scales and so Cummins Diesel was able to use our supercomputers 

to design an engine to skip the prototype design and they went 

right to manufacturing, and saved the development of a new engine 

15 percent of the cost. 

We are using these supercomputers to design the next generation 

of nuclear reactors the same way because we are looking towards 

the next generation in carbon capture and sequestration but what 

we are finding is that the simulation ability of these computers is 

so good now, you begin to skip design stages where you make it, 

see if it works, twiddle around with it, make it, see if it works, 

twiddle around with it. You make it on a computer, see if it works 

on a computer and you can twiddle a lot better on a computer. And 

so this is a real economic opportunity and we do not want to lose 

that leadership. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. 

I now know how you won the Nobel Prize. When they asked you 

a question, by golly, you answered it. And I am going to give a 

Nobel Prize for patience to Mr. Sarbanes but he left. If he comes 

back, we will recognize him first next time, okay? At this time I 

recognize Mr. McNerney, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us. Your discussion on the lithium batteries hit home personally because of my experience in industry. I spent 20 years developing wind energy tech-
58 

nology, and because of poor government policy, I saw that technology go overseas, particularly to Germany at first and then to 

India and produce jobs in those countries, real jobs that should 

have been produced here in this country. So I am very concerned 

about that de ́ja` vu happening again with our current Continuing 

Resolution. 

Now, I have always thought that our universities are the premier—University of California, University of Texas, University of 

North Carolina and so on, Stanford and Harvard—for producing an 

environment of innovation and technology development and so on, 

and I would like to see what your opinion is in terms of how this 

sort of budgeting will affect those institutions vis-a`-vis comparison 

to universities in other countries. 

Secretary CHU. Yes. Thank you for that question, very much so 

thank you. The research universities in the United States are still 

the greatest research universities in the world, bar none. There is 

still something very, very good about the way we educate our graduate students. It may be deeply in our culture because in research 

it is very different than textbook learning. You don’t know what 

the answer is. There is no authority to tell you this is right and 

that is wrong. And so you actually have to be probing and you are 

constantly questioning, being able to question authority, and for 

whatever reason, the American research universities are very good. 

So the most innovative, creative things, and the world recognizes 

this. But they are also working very hard to try to duplicate those 

atmospheres in other countries. 

Now, specifically your question, if we start throttling back in 

funding for not only the Department of Energy but the NSF, the 

NIH and others but the Department of Energy, I think most people 

don’t realize is the largest funder of the physical sciences in the 

United States. It has funded the work of more Nobel laureates 

than any other funding agency in the world, and it has trained 

scores of Nobel laureates. When I was a graduate student at Berkeley, a postdoc at Berkeley, I was also a member of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. That lab alone helped start the careers of 30 people that went on to get Nobel Prizes, a national laboratory. And so 

the funding cuts that we see, I see the whole thing being put at 

risk where the real engine driver for all this innovation, which is 

the research universities and those national labs, are then put at 

risk. And so one can come back 10 or 20 years from today and say 

oops. 

Now, China is working very, very hard to develop their universities. They have now begun to lure back Chinese who have gotten 

their Ph.D.s and postdocs and have been professors here or work 

in companies here to come back now in their 30s and 40s to assume leadership positions in academia and industry and so these 

are not the people who are 65 but these are the people in their— 

because they see great opportunity there, and there is great opportunity there. So we cannot take for granted all the people that 

came to get educated in the United States. If they see oh, no more 

research funding in the United States, they are going to have to 

look elsewhere. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I have time to ask at least one more question. 

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories is adjacent to my district and 
59 

many of the employees that work there live in my district. I have 

been following the National Ignition Facility progress with great 

interest. Could you talk a little bit about the potential for fusion 

technology and our leadership in that area? 

Secretary CHU. Sure. The NIF facility, it was initially funded for 

defense so that if you wanted to actually test what is happening 

at these very high energies and implosions, this is a way of doing 

it without nuclear testing. And so we can—and it is part of our 

stockpile stewardship program. Now, having said that, the fact is 

that these lasers, what they do is, there is a little pellet, really 

small, hundreds of microns, huge laser power then generates Xrays that compress this. The Office of Science has now gotten very 

interested in this because to be able to bring this fantastic amount 

of energy and power to actually create a microthermonuclear explosion. If—now, many things have to happen. That means that you 

are now creating fusion energy, and NIF within a very short time 

will go what they call where you get a huge output, much more 

power out than in, and you will get a thermonuclear implosion of 

these little itty bitty pellets. And so there is a group there at Livermore who thinks that it may be possible that this could lead to a 

source of fusion power. 

Now, having said that, I think this is still very researchy. You 

have to develop a laser system that is economical, that can work 

10 or 20 times a second instead of one or two times a day but it 

has to work very reliably at that rate because this is turning on 

our lights and keeping our lights on. And so it is in the future but 

we have that possibility and so again, in this vein of research, 

there is another approach to fusion energy. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to dedicate the negative balance to the other side. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. You are pretty close and I respect 

you for it. 

At this time I recognize Mrs. Biggert, the gentlelady from Illinois, for five minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. It is nice to see 

you again, and I apologize for not being here for your testimony as 

I have been in a markup and we haven’t even gotten through the 

first amendment of the first bill. 

But I just wanted to ask you a couple questions, and I think that 

you know my long history of support for the Office of Science and 

I have always maintained that scientific leadership in this country 

will create the jobs of the future and keep our country competitive, 

and I know you agree with that. But considering the budget decisions that we face, how would you strategically conserve spending 

with the department while preserving programs that are integral 

to our scientific enterprise and international leadership? And specifically basic energy sciences and computing come to mind. And 

China’s latest supercomputer is a threat to our leadership computing capabilities and we are on the cusp of outpacing them unless U.S. research is not prioritized responsibly. So do you have any 

suggestions that might help us strategically prioritize our basic research programs within the budget constraints that we face? 
60 

Secretary CHU. Sure. First of all, you know, whatever Congress 

decides to give the Department of Energy, I hope I would be asked 

to be a partner in the funding decisions, but I will tip my hand and 

tell you what my leanings are. If we have a diminished budget, I 

would tend to push to make less investments on the deployment 

side, the very applied side, the parts where we are helping industry 

get it out in the field. We would just hope that we can structure 

policies that would induce private investments. I think the most 

precious part of our budget is the part that will be continuing to 

lay the seeds that give you the innovations five years and ten years 

and 15 years, and that is the Office of Science. And next to the Office of Science is ARPA–E but ARPA–E is not in competition with 

the Office of Science. ARPA–E is an applied research program, a 

much shorter term, and it should be seen as part of the applied 

area, okay. The Office of Science does investment in a different 

time scale. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I am glad to hear that you say that because I 

think that the risk science really is in the Office of Science. 

Secretary CHU. Yes. You weren’t here when I was bragging about 

an event that happened in Argonne National Laboratory. I didn’t 

identify it as Argonne National Laboratory but the research in the 

Singatron facility there that led to the new lithium ion battery and 

the addition of manganese was research done at Argonne National 

Laboratory and it was done and was considered basic research but 

within a very short time it was licensed and its findings went into 

the Chevy Volt battery. And so that is a beautiful example of how 

science can actually deliver the goods, sometimes in much shorter 

time scale than one would ever expect. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, I just had the opportunity to drive a Chevy 

Volt this morning, so it is quite a car. I didn’t drive it too fast or 

too far away. They wouldn’t let me put it on the road for racing. 

Secondly, I wanted to ask about the term ‘‘energy efficiency.’’ It 

is something that many of us have embraced as an all-of-the-above 

energy approach, and I understand the department is trying to reduce its energy and emissions footprint as part of a departmentwide initiative, an Executive Order across all sectors of the government. So under those guidelines, is there any concern for our largescale user facilities and the amount of power that they would consume? 

Secretary CHU. Yes, there is a great deal of concern for those because in many instances, they do consume a lot of power. Now, the 

good news is, for example, going to supercomputers, the Jaguar 

computer at Oak Ridge, for example, or the supercomputer at Argonne consume tremendous amounts of power but the Department 

of Energy is very focused on developing research so the next generation of supercomputers on a per-unit calculational basis should 

be consuming several hundred times less power per operation, and 

we think this is possible. In fact, it is not only possible, if you don’t 

decrease the energy appetite a hundred fold, 300 fold, you can’t actually get to the next level of computing which we think we will 

need. And so we think it is going to—so a large part of what we 

do now when we design new accelerators, new computers that consume a lot of power is, the power management and the energy consumption is a very integral part of what is going on. 
61 

Mrs. BIGGERT. And would that affect the advanced photon source 

too? 

Secretary CHU. Yes, but remember, the other thing we would like 

to do is, we would like to get a few of these things. We would like 

to get a few small modular reactors going, so all of a sudden now 

you have clean power than can deliver as well because there are 

certain things—but even in accelerators, the last generation built 

accelerators, for example, the Large Hadron Collider at Cern, it is 

superconducting and it actually consumes less power than one of 

the little injectors. And so again, this attention to—we can’t use 

our entire science budget to run the electricity is very much part 

of the culture now. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank you. My time is expired. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentlelady. 

I will now quickly recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Clarke. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and I want to thank the 

gentlelady from Illinois for that great transition regarding the 

Chevy Volt. I represent the district that produces the Chevy Volt, 

and your department has helped promote that technology in vehicle 

electrification that is going to put Detroit back on the map. In fact, 

it is already on the map in terms of now developing the best electrified vehicles in the world. 

Your department through its basic materials science for battery 

chemistries, your applied research for onboard power electronics 

and also the modeling for preparation of the electric charging infrastructure all happens within different offices within your department. I am thankful for your support. But others might say that 

this may not be an efficient way to allocate department resources. 

The Government Accountability Office, I know they have looked in 

areas of government where we can be more efficient, where we can 

reduce or eliminate waste and duplication. How has your department fared under this GAO review? 

Secretary CHU. So far we have fared very well but there is no 

telling what will happen, you know, next week or next month. I 

think the GAO review was very kind to us, but to your point about 

duplication, let me tell you what we are doing. 

You mentioned the battery program. The battery program is supported in three major areas. There is the more basics physics chemistry part of the batteries which is in the Office of Science in the 

energy efficiency renewable section, we have a very strong battery 

group, and now ARPA–E has a battery group. And so in the last 

half year and going forward forever on—and I was in a review for 

about an hour, a little over an hour looking at the detailed things 

they were planning and what they were supporting and what the 

prospects were, but all three groups were in the room, and going 

forward what we are doing is, we—if you think any sector, batteries, transmission distribution, biofuels, advanced biofuels, 

photovoltaics, what we are doing is, we are putting into teams that 

cut across the formal organizational lines. For example, in our 

SunShot, we hired a young engineer, youngish engineer, Ramesh. 

We got him to come to the Department of Energy, give up a little 

of his life to be in charge of SunShot. He just got elected to—you 

know, he is in his 40s. He just got elected to the National Academy 
62 

of Engineering. He had a very good situation. Why would he ever 

want to come to the government? Because he could then cut across 

all these organizations and said we are going to have a unified plan 

to develop how are we going to help industry get there and be the 

winner, and what can we do in the Department of Energy, what 

can we do in the research to fill in the spaces where industry might 

not want to invest in but industry tells us this is the most important thing, okay, but it may be too forward-looking for them to invest in it, given the constraints of their shareholders or their 

founders. 

So we are tackling this in a very different way because what I 

found when I became the Secretary is there would be a very good 

group in a certain area but they wouldn’t even know what the 

groups in another area were doing. Biofuels were in the applied 

area I was looking at—they brought in a very good guy who was 

developing a program. They gave me his plan. You know, I take 

these and I put all sorts of comments and type all over it. But then 

what I did is, I took that plan and I gave it to the three directors 

of the biofuel centers that are supported by the Office of Science 

because they hadn’t—this is the plan they have, these are my comments, what do you think about this, where do you think industry 

is, where do you think this is going. Within two days they come 

back to me. I take those plans and give them back to the applied 

area and I said from here in we are going to be doing it that way. 

Biofuels has now become an integral part of all the areas, and also 

ARPA–E, so that all the expertise then comes together in a room 

and figure out a unified plan and so this is a new way of doing 

business. I think it is the right way of doing it. 

They still have their own particular things, whether short-term, 

very short-term applied research or helping with deployment or the 

longer term. They still have their own parts but at least they will 

know intimately what everybody is doing and they will coordinate 

it. And there is actually a very nice buzz about that because what 

people are finding is, there is excellence in little bits and pieces 

that they hadn’t known before. This I something I learned when I 

was a young science nine years at Bell Labs because as a manager 

at Bell Labs, that was my job: find out what everybody is doing in 

the whole organization and then link up a scientist in my group 

with someone else far away and then let the sparks fly, and so that 

is what is happening. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Secretary, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CLARKE. I wonder if I could make one brief point regarding 

Michigan State University. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate this very 

much. This is just very brief. It is just a transition on how we can 

balance, you know, our efforts between research and development 

and your department has supported—your Office of Science has 

supported researchers around the country, especially in Michigan. 

I want to commend the progress of one of the greatest land-grant 

universities in this country, Michigan State University, its work on 

the facility for rare isotope beams, and thank you again for your 
63 

support. How does this proposed budget strike a balance between—— 

Chairman HALL. The Secretary will give a brief answer. 

Secretary CHU. Very, very briefly, the proposed budget wants to 

support that and get the construction going on that but, you know, 

it depends on what Congress gives us for the budget. I mean, 

projects like that would be at risk. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Hultgren of Illinois. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Chu. 

I am concerned about the funding for DOE’s Office of Science and 

specifically the high-energy physics program there, which is clearly 

in a period of transition right now. The Administration has notified 

Congress it intends to shut down the Tevatron at Fermilab. I met 

with—and that is ending here in fiscal year 2011. I met with 

Fermilab many times, and I know that with that record-breaking 

machine and all that has been accomplished there, Fermilab is 

ready to transition to new programs, one of them including the 

Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment. The LBNE is to be the anchor 

project for the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at the Homestead Mine of South Dakota, as you know. It is 

my understanding that the President has proposed $32 million for 

DUSEL and for LBNE in is fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

DOE. I also understand the department stepped in when it became 

clear that a new stewardship agreement would be needed between 

DOE and NSF while a study is conducted and decisions are made 

on the path forward for these projects. 

A couple questions I had just on the situation, and we have 

talked quite a bit about it, of really the importance of having basic 

research and all that our laboratories have brought to us. The 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request total is $797.2 million 

for high-energy physics overall. It really does amount to a freeze 

at the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels when other projects within 

the Office of Science are slated to increase from 21 to 24 percent. 

My question is, why is there such an imbalance in the basic research portfolio of the Office of Science? 

Secretary CHU. Yeah, that is a tough decision but let me explain 

what our thinking was on that. First, it does not mean we want 

to see an end to high-energy physics and also fundamental nuclear 

physics and cosmology. Those are very, very basic things, and out 

of that research came amazing things. Just the fact that we have 

particle accelerators that gave us Singatrons and light sources and 

neutron sources, actually its roots were in high-energy physics. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Right. 

Secretary CHU. And so it is a very, very direct connection between what you do in research in one area and how it can transform into science or medical research. Right now, yes, we are closing down the Tevatron. There was a move to keep it open for three 

additional years because the Large Hadron Collider at Cern had a 

mishap with their magnets, and they thought that if you keep that 

machine running for another three years, maybe you can—you 

know, they are looking for the higs and maybe you can square it 

under and perhaps discover the higs while they are fixing their machine, and in the end what happened was, the Large Hadron 

Collider got their machine up and running and in the last several 
64 

months it was—they were able to tweak it up and tune it up far 

faster than we thought they could actually get it up. And then if 

you look at the flots and the number of vents coming out of that 

machine and the higher energy, then the decision became very 

clear. You know, you are not on the verge of—they weren’t on the 

verge of anything, and the Large Hadron Collider would blow them 

away. 

So the Department of Energy and the director of the laboratory said we shouldn’t do this because this is about $35 million a year 

to keep it running, we would rather take that money and invest it 

in the high-intensity frontier, which you also spoke about. This is 

using a new machine to create a lot of neutrinos to look at the neutrino sector, and we think that that is the right decision because 

this other machine in Europe is just—would smoke us. 

And so we want to continue high-energy research in the United 

States. I mean, the sad part, as you know, is, you know, we could 

have maintained leadership in this field had we built the Superconducting Super Collider, the SSC, in Texas, but that is water 

under the bridge. We still think high-energy physics—and the 

questions in physics and cosmology are asking the most primal 

roots of science, what is matter, what is energy, okay, and we think 

that this is still some of the most exciting frontiers in physics but 

right now we are trying to figure out, okay, given this big investment in Cern, which we then fund American universities and researchers to go over there, we still need something here in the 

United States that we can call our own, and we think that this 

high-intensity frontier is that. 

But we are going through a tough decision. The high-energy 

physics community is wrestling with it themselves, what is the 

best—we don’t want just—you know, this is an austere budget time 

so we can’t just continue funding on a certain level. When the great 

new thing comes along, then I could easily see us coming back up. 

But right now, that is the plan. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Just quickly, I don’t—I think it is—I hope that 

happens but I think it is difficult now when the top scientists are 

going to Cern rather than staying here, and I hope that is what 

could happen. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could have just 30 seconds quickly specifically 

on the LBNE? 

I just want to ask you the current status and the commitment, 

are the resources there to be able to continue with LBNE and also 

with DUSEL? 

Secretary CHU. Well, as you know, very quickly, the NSF actually started this project and we became partners and then the NSF 

decided not to, and there were three critical experiments that we 

felt we wanted to have continue but again in these very hard budget times, we are going to try wrestle with—we would like to—it 

can’t be the underground laboratory that was envisioned with both 

NSF and DOE support but we have a committee now that is assigned to look at what is the best—given whatever budgets we get 

from Congress, what are the things we can and can’t do. And so 

that committee has just been appointed and they will be reporting 

back, but they have just been formed. But we would like to see it 

continue the best we can. Again, this is about money. 
65 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, thank 

you so much, Dr. Chu, and I do really appreciate your statements 

earlier when times are tight, I do think we have to make sure that 

we still have that commitment to basic research where the private 

sector won’t necessarily do that work, but this is an important 

function of government. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I was hoping for a yes or no answer but I didn’t 

get it. 

Mr. Luja ́n, we recognize you at this time. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I believe that the 

appropriate answer would be yes, Mr. Chairman. 

With that, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for being here as 

well, and if you will indulge me, I am going to try to get through 

most of this, Mr. Secretary, and there are a few questions within 

my remarks, and if we are not able to get to them, if I could ask 

that maybe we just get a response in writing. 

I very much agree with your and President Obama’s drive to invest in education and research and development and innovation in 

order to better position our Nation for the future. Investing in R&D 

is key. We have heard it time and time again, and especially building off of the closing of my friend that just shared some remarks 

with us. We know that our Nation’s competitiveness and our national security depend on it, and I know you are very well aware 

of the significant role that the people in my district and the people 

of the State of New Mexico play in both of these areas. Still, the 

future benefits and the full benefits of R&D can only be realized 

by coupling R&D with innovation in the marketplace so that there 

is a seamless transition from the advances in basic science and new 

technical capabilities all the way through to new technologies that 

generate new businesses and new jobs. Other countries are making 

good use of our scientific advances and we must do better. 

I therefore commend you on your efforts with ARPA–E and the 

hubs to promote innovation in targeted areas of national importance. But there is a need to promote innovation and technology 

transfer more broadly from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top. I along with co-chair Frank Wolf have started the 

Congressional Technology Transfer Caucus to help educate Members on the important issues and barriers to technology transfer. 

The Department is home to our Nation’s national laboratories 

which serve as an incredible resource for both developing new technologies from which new businesses and new jobs can spring as 

well for providing technical assistance to businesses. Yet listening 

to small business owners and entrepreneurs leads me to believe 

that there is much room for improvement in the Department’s technology transfer activities. 

For example, a very few of the Department’s Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, otherwise known as 

CRADAs, which is a common mechanism for private equity to work 

with the national laboratory to mature technology, are supported 

even in part by Department funds. Most are 100 percent funded by 

private equity, which is prohibitively expensive for many small 

businesses. Furthermore, the private entity is often required to pay 

out a significant fraction of the cost to the project up front before 

the work will even begin. This too is prohibitive, and I understand 
66 

that there is more need for us to support maturation and seed programs by the Federal Government to help spur this innovative and 

ingenuity aspect of the private sector. 

I know that your Technology Transfer Coordinator has been 

working with Technology Transfer Working Groups on ways to improve the Department’s tech transfer activities. One question I 

have, Mr. Secretary, what specific actions do you expect the Department to take in the next year to invigorate tech transfer activities and to do any of them including dedicating more funds and reducing barriers to small businesses? 

Mr. Secretary, recently, as you may be aware, in New Mexico we 

experienced record-breaking freezing temperatures that caused a 

significant increase in the peak for natural gas. The increase in demand led to severe disruption in our natural gas distribution system, causing outages across the state. This was coupled with outages in ERCOT and the Texas energy markets. Over 30,000 homes 

were left without power to heat their homes. Currently FERC is 

conducting an investigation into this. Considering this crisis, I 

would like to emphasize the importance of supporting the R&D of 

natural gas technologies to ensure that the overall security of natural gas deliverability to systems in New Mexico and across the 

country, especially when we talk about powering our vehicles with 

this important fuel source. 

The recent National Academy of Sciences report, ‘‘Expanding 

Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and 

Technology Talent at the Crossroads,’’ makes clear that we must 

continue our efforts to increase minority participation in STEM. In 

2007, underrepresented minorities comprised 33.2 percent of the 

U.S. college-age population and 26.2 percent of undergraduate enrollment yet only 17.7 percent of those were earning science and 

engineering bachelor’s degrees. I would be interested, Mr. Secretary, on hearing on DOE’s plans to develop a diverse pipeline of 

STEM professionals in the energy sector, especially in light of correspondence both myself and Senator Bingaman’s office have 

shared. 

And lastly, Mr. Secretary, I apologize. I am going to have to sit 

to listen to some other responses. In closing, in your remarks you 

highlight the need to accelerate creation of jobs from R&D investments by increasing the pace of movement from discovery to the 

marketplace, and I applaud those. What is the DOE doing to improve and streamline the mechanisms for technology transfer from 

the national labs, especially to small entrepreneurial companies, 

other than ARPA–E, which has targeted investments in a small 

number of companies and technologies? What is DOE’s strategy to 

improve the success rate and engaging in the private sector in a 

technology transfer earlier in the R&D cycle? 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence there. 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to getting those responses but applaud you on your efforts on the emphasis with making sure that 

we are taking this seriously. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cravaack, who is going to receive the Nobel Prize for patience, he has been here the entire time, I recognize you, sir. 
67 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate it, and 

thank you, I appreciate you coming here today. 

I appreciate your comments regarding austere conditions. We are 

as a country definitely in austere conditions, and I am finding it 

very difficult to find the relationship between the Department of 

Energy and Tinkerbell. Put up the ad, please. Thank you very 

much. 

[The information follows:] 
68 
69 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You have an extensive website geared towards 

educating children and putting out a pretty extensive website having children talk to their parents about making sure they have Energy Star appliances, programmable digital thermostats and home 

improvements in animated videos. I think it is called Save Energy 

with Tinkerbell and Her Friends, which is, you know, I understand 

it. I am a dad. I get it. But unfortunately, we are at a $1.6 trillion 

deficit, national debt, and $14 trillion in debt. Right now in your 

budget you are requesting a 44 percent increase in the office to 

fund these efforts, according to my calculations. You may be telling 

me I am wrong here by your face. If these are funded, how do we 

think—you know, I question your putting a 44 percent increase in 

a budget on these type of programs when we are in such austere 

conditions as you noted. Do you have any empirical evidence that 

would provide that these advertisements actually change habits, 

parents’ behavior and attitudes towards energy consumption? 

Secretary CHU. You meant 44 percent increase in this budget? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Correct, in advertising. 

Secretary CHU. That I wouldn’t know about. Is there empirical 

evidence? No. We do have backward empirical evidence that advertising to kids to try to get their parents to stop smoking was effective. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, like I said, in these austere times I just 

question whoever put this in the budget, and I question what other 

things are in the budget. 

Switching gears here, what actions do you see, especially with 

the rise of the Chinese developing a deep-water fleet, if our supply 

lines were shut down? Would we have enough domestic energy production to be able to counter any type of advancement of foreign 

power? 

Secretary CHU. I am trying to interpret your question. I think 

your question might have been what would happen if we didn’t 

have access to imported oil or was your question—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Correct me if I wrong. Isn’t 70 percent of our oil 

coming from out of state? 

Secretary CHU. No, actually not. The latest number I saw was 

about 51 percent. It is hovering between 50 and 60 percent. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. My question is, if our shipping lanes were shut 

down, Communist-bloc countries, we believe in maintaining free 

lanes, they believe in shutting them down. So if we had our free 

lanes shut down, our sea lanes shut down, would we be able to 

wage an effective war? Do we have the domestic oil supplies ready 

to go? Do we have the domestic reservoirs ready to go? Do we 

have—can we gear up in enough time to defend this country? 

Secretary CHU. Well, actually, I think that I don’t see that as a 

real possibility. The United States Navy is by far the most powerful Navy in the world, and so—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. You didn’t believe in Pearl Harbor, sir, so I would 

question—— 

Secretary CHU. No, I believe in Pearl Harbor. I believe it happened. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I am a naval officer, retired, 24 years. This is an 

option. 
70 

Secretary CHU. But I do think certainly keeping the lanes open 

is part of the Navy’s job and it is because of our dependency on foreign oil, and that is actually part of the embedded price of oil, if 

you will, as you well know. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yes, sir. My question, though, is if the sea lanes 

were shut down, would we be able to man our fleet, making sure 

that we would be able to be mobile enough to counter any threat? 

And if not, why are we not developing our domestic resources to 

a point where we can be at that point? And for the record, sir, I 

would like to submit this for the record. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection. 

[The information appears in the Appendix:] 

Secretary CHU. So very quickly to respond to that, you know, as 

has been pointed out by numerous people here, we consume 25 percent of the oil and we have two percent of the reserves, and so the 

way we change this situation is to actually transition and get substitutes for oil in the sense that—and this is a long-term thing so 

we have got to start immediately but the electrification—— 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Sir, in our current situation right now, would we 

be able to man and fuel our fleets if the sea lanes were shut down? 

Chairman HALL. A yes or no answer would do. 

Secretary CHU. We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 

intended for emergencies like this. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Is it sustainable? 

Secretary CHU. I think it is sustainable in enough time for our 

Navy to clear and open up the sea lanes. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. I would beg to differ. Thank you very much for 

your time. 

I appreciate the indulgence. I will yield back my negative balance. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. You don’t have a bad negative balance. Some 

good questions. Thank you. 

Mr. Tonko, the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chairman Hall, thank you, Ranking 

Member Johnson, for holding today’s hearing, and thank you, Secretary Chu for your leadership and that of our President on clean 

energy and what you have both described as our ‘‘out-innovating’’ 

our competitors in a global clean energy race and the need to win 

that race. 

We cannot win the future, however, if we pull the rug out from 

under our Nation’s feet. We cannot afford to go backward, and yet 

it seems as though that is certainly what the new Majority in this 

House intends for us to do. According to Mark Zandy, former Presidential candidates John McCain’s economic advisor, the C.R. or ‘‘so 

be it’’ spending bill would destroy some 700,000 jobs. Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said yesterday that it would cost at 

least a couple of hundred thousand jobs, a number called ‘‘not trivial.’’ So it is with that background that I approach you in this hearing today. 

Mr. Secretary, skyrocketing gasoline prices are deeply hurting 

the American public. In the capital district of New York, consumers 

are paying at the pump about $3.57 per gallon. Nationally, the average price is about $3.38 per gallon and it continues to rise. Due 

to the continued conflict in North Africa and the Middle East, oil 
71 

is now over $100, as you know, per barrel. For every $10-per-barrel 

rise in the price of oil, America sends an additional $40 billion 

overseas yearly. Plain and simple, we must start thinking outside 

the barrel so as to create jobs and protect our national security. We 

are better than the ancient fuel that we put into our vehicles, and 

I believe that with Representative Bartlett’s presentation he reinforces the efforts to look outside the barrel. Using 19th and 20th 

century oil subsides in this 21st century economy is outdated and, 

in my opinion, foolish. We are literally giving away hard-earned 

taxpayer money to big oil companies, and what we get in return 

is sticker shock at the pump. 

And so instead of cutting subsidies to Big Oil and CEOs that are 

making record profits, we are cutting funding to science, funding 

to innovation, to entrepreneurs and to our middle class. The C.R. 

would slash funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget by more than 35 percent, rescind American Recovery and Reinvestment Act loan guarantee funding for renewable 

energy projects and cut funding for energy efficiency programs that 

create jobs and reduce homeowners’ energy costs and carbon pollution. 

Mr. Secretary, do you think it is wise to continue to provide 

handouts to big oil companies, especially as prices at the pump continue to skyrocket at a time when we must address our debt and 

deficit? 

Secretary CHU. No, I don’t think it is wise. The President has 

called for an end to the oil subsidies, which by his reckoning is 

about $3.5 billion a year. But you also have to put that in context, 

so these are tax break subsidies where the profits of the oil companies in 2010 of just the four or five major oil companies $75 billion. 

That is the profit, so the revenues are in the hundreds of billions 

of dollars. So this $3.5 or $3.9 billion subsidy is a little dimple on 

the overall economics of oil and the cost of oil that I think the 

American people should recognize. If you are making $75 billion— 

and those are only the five majors. If you are making $75 billion, 

if you add them up in total, it could be $100 billion. Three point 

nine is not a big deal. 

And so it won’t have an effect on prices, and this is what our program has been in the past two years, you know, higher mileage 

standards, electrification of vehicles, do everything you can to develop biofuels that would be substitutes for the oil. So we diversify 

our transportation fuel supply. And when we get electric vehicles 

or gas vehicles, natural gas-powered vehicles, this is energy produced in the United States so wealth remains in the United States, 

another big plus. So this is the plan. We have got to decrease our 

dependency on oil and diversify. Our transportation needs are almost exclusively dependent on oil and we have got to diversify that, 

otherwise we still will be hostage to these very unstable prices. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And according to the office of EERE, the 

number of fuel cell and hydrogen megawatts shipped by nine U.S. 

companies has increased by 40 percent in just one year, and yet in 

my opinion the budget does not provide enough funding for this 

critical technology. It is a proven technology including some companies within the United States such as those used for forklift applications that are commercially deployed today. In your opinion, is 
72 

there a role for fuel cells in complementing renewable and traditional fuels? 

Secretary CHU. Yes, there are, and we are trying to—these are 

decisions—especially if you look at forklifts, there are three alternatives. There is natural gas power for forklifts, there is electric vehicles and then there are fuel cells. And so we are looking very 

closely. All those are lower pollution so especially in a city environment or building environment, they are very clean. 

In the longer range, and we are also looking very closely what 

the automobile manufacturers are doing in fuel cells. It all depends 

on what the battery technology is because for the longer range, a 

fuel cell is an option. Ultimately we still have to solve the hydrogen 

source problem. Right now, most of our hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas, and then you still have the carbon dioxide 

from that natural gas, and so we are also investing in research 

that says—very innovative research—sunlight directly into hydrogen in a very low-cost application. If you can do that, then the 

major hurdle is where are we going to get the hydrogen. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple other questions that 

I will enter through the Committee after the hearing. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you for it. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. I would like to submit this article from the Wall 

Street Journal that describes how companies like Whirlpool and 

GE have banked enough green energy credits so that they will not 

have to pay corporate taxes for years. I offer this as a response to 

the claim that the Administration is not picking winners and losers, particularly when the President suggests increased taxes on oil 

and gas. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 
73 
74 
75 

Chairman HALL. The chair recognizes Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You saved the best 

until last. 

Dr. Chu, I appreciate all your work, especially in these especially 

difficult times at this point. I know you share my concerns about 

the rapidly rising costs of our dependence on imported oil, and I 

think part of the solution to our energy problems is the use of nuclear power along with vehicle electrification. That is why I was 

particularly interested in a portion of your written testimony that 

discusses cost-shared activities with industry. It might help accelerate commercial deployment of small modular reactors, and I 

know that you have answered a number of questions on this and 

addressed this already, so I just want to say specifically on SMRs, 

I think the budget is a good start, though I would like to see an 

even greater commitment to SMRs, but I know this is the first time 

that DOE has actually—really put an effort and put the funding 

behind helping to move these forward, and I would like to see more 

of that in the future. 

One other area, though, when it comes to nuclear power that I 

am concerned about is that much of our skilled workforce is near 

retirement and this includes skilled tradesmen and -women, technicians as well as scientists and engineers including thousands that 

work in your agency. So I just want to ask what action is DOE taking to ensure that there is sufficient skilled craftsmen and technicians to build America’s clean energy facilities and staff U.S. manufacturing facilities? Do you think that we are doing enough on this? 

Secretary CHU. I don’t think we are doing enough but I think 

people enter into job training and enter into, you know—make 

choices in undergraduate, graduate school based on where they 

think they can get jobs so ultimately it is very important that the 

United States show signs that it can restart the nuclear industry 

domestically at home, which means you build more reactors. We 

were able to build—over a 20-year period, we essentially started 

the entire fleet of nuclear reactors we have today, over 100 were 

started within a 20-year period. There was a long tail of finishing 

but never mind that. So I think it is clear that the United States 

is willing to make the investments in nuclear reactors here in the 

United States, and again, the clean energy standard would be a 

major driver to allow that to occur because it is a form of clean energy. 

Then I think the supply lines, the trades people you talked 

about, the engineers that would be needed in order to do this, that 

all becomes part of the process. As long as you see that—and that 

is why other countries want to stimulate the production of new energy and new energy infrastructure because all those things, then 

all the manufacturing capabilities are usually built domestically 

because it doesn’t make sense to set up a very long supply chain, 

especially for the heavy products. 

And so the clean energy standard would be the single-most important thing you could say we are serious about reinvesting in the 

United States power infrastructure and that would include nuclear 

reactors, and all the other training and everything will follow suit 

because they say I have a job. 
76 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I would like to go further with you on that, but at 

this moment with the time I have left, I want to ask about one 

other area. I was excited to see that the President’s budget shows 

a clear commitment to developing a more sustainable industrial 

sector in the United States as evidenced by the significant increase 

in the Industrial Technologies Program, which helps manufacturers 

become more efficient. I know the ITP program, especially the Industries of the Future subprogram, has helped the American steel 

industry dramatically reduce its energy consumption while increasing production. How would the proposed increase in ITP and similar programs contribute to the long-term viability of manufacturing 

in our country? 

Secretary CHU. I think it would be a great help. I think a number of companies have bitten the bullet either with help from the 

Federal Government or they did it on their own where energy-intensive companies—Dow Chemical is a perfect example of that 

where here is a company that—it takes carbon in the form of oil 

and natural gas typically and converts it into another form of carbon turns plastic, and it is a very heavily energy-intensive transformation from one form of carbon to the other, and so they are 

able to save tens of millions of dollars a year now by driving to 

very high efficiencies, Dupont similarly. So many, many companies 

are realizing you make investments in energy efficiency in their industrial practices and it is really good for the bottom line. I don’t 

know whether it is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, I forget, 

but it is a tremendous amount of money, very rapid return in capital, all good things. 

And so anything that the United States can do to help companies 

make the transition to save money by saving energy, it would be 

a very good thing. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. One last thing. As the author of the H-Prize, I was 

very happy to hear what you said in the answer to the last question about the great potential advances in producing hydrogen besides from natural gas. Thank you again for all your work. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for your yield back, and I certainly 

thank Dr. Chu for his very valuable testimony and the members 

for their questions. I apologize for not running a more youthful 

chair. I will try to do better. And I am going to give Mr. Sarbanes 

half of my time when we meet on the next occasion here, half of 

my opening statement to him where he will be assured that he will 

get to ask questions. 

And you have been so generous with your answers. The members 

of the Committee may have additional questions for you, and if you 

will, we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will 

remain open for two weeks for additional comments. 

Dr. Chu, you and your fine staff are to be certainly thanked for 

your accommodation of your time and the time it took to prepare 

and the time it took for you to come over here. I know you have 

been away from a very valuable job now for the last couple of hours 

with us, and we thank you. This hearing is—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. —not adjourned until Mrs. Johnson gets to say 

what she wants to say. 
77 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr. 

Chu, but I would like to request unanimous consent to enter two 

articles in the record, one by George Will in reference to a scientific 

engine and one by Morton Kondracke, who talks about the American’s seed corn. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, they are admitted. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

[The information appears in the Apendix:] 

Chairman HALL. We are adjourned. Thank you. 

Secretary CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(79) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
80 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary, Department of Energy 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
(281) 

Appendix II: 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
282 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS BY RANKING MEMBER JOHNSON
283 
284 
285 
286 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE JERRY COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) research and development budget request. 

The DOE’s FY12 budget requests $29.5 billion, an 11.8% increase over the enacted Fiscal Year 2010 levels. One-third of this funding is requested for R&D programs across the department to develop, demonstrate, and deploy new energy technology. While I have concerns about some proposed cuts, overall this budget will 

keep the U.S. on a path to achieving energy independence and maintain our leadership in energy innovation. 

First, I am pleased to see DOE’s expansion of the Energy Innovation Hubs to pursue energy research from its earliest stages to commercial deployment. The FY12 

budget would add a new Batteries and Energy Storage Hub, which will build on the 

remarkable energy storage work done by Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. 

The development of new energy storage is critical to improving the efficiency of our 

vehicle fleet, buildings, and national grid. This new investment, combined with a 

substantial increase in funding for the Energy Storage subprogram, will ensure we 

continue to lead the world in the development of energy storage technology. 

Second, DOE’s budget provides nearly $1 billion in new funding for the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In particular, the FY12 budget provides 

$340 million, a 56% increase, for the ongoing development and deployment of cost 

effective and high-performance biomass fuels, including $150 million for new cellulosic ethanol demonstration projects. This funding reflects a shift in DOE’s focus 

from integrated biorefinery projects and feedstock production trials to larger-scale 

demonstration projects and commercial deployment. Improving and expanding the 

use of biofuels will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower our emissions, and 

create millions of American jobs. I am interested in hearing from Dr. Chu what impact these changes in funding will have on the use of ethanol, biodiesel, and other 

biomass fuels. 

Finally, I have concerns about the administration’s 31 percent decrease in funding 

for fossil energy R&D. I am a strong supporter of investing in renewable fuels, but 

it is imperative that we develop a balanced energy policy that continues to invest 

in the clean use of coal. In 2010, President Obama announced his strong support 

for clean coal technology and committed to establishing at least 10 clean coal demonstration projects by 2016. Further, in August 2010, a multi-agency task force released a report indicating there were no insurmountable roadblocks to deploying 

carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology on a commercial scale. Despite this 

support for moving clean coal forward, the FY12 budget cuts funding $100 million 

from coal R&D and eliminates three ongoing clean coal research programs at DOE. 

Coal is and will remain our major energy source for years to come, and we must 

demonstrate we can cleanly use it. Investing in clean coal now is imperative to continue providing dependable, affordable, and efficient energy while we bring new 

sources of energy online. 

I welcome Secretary Chu, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you again, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Æ