U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–045 2015

S. HRG. 114–44 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

BRIAN HUGHES, Senior Writer and Policy Advisor 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

ALLEN STAYMAN, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

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

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

WITNESS 

Moniz, Hon. Ernest, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ............................... 5 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria 

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

Moniz, Hon. Ernest 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 67 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. We are calling to order the Energy Committee 

this morning. Today we are honored to have the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Moniz, with us. Good morning. 

As we visited yesterday in my office, I alerted you that we were 

going to have a very quick business meeting to conclude some business of the Committee relating to subcommittees and committees’ 

rules. It will take, hopefully, no more than two minutes, and then 

we will be able to proceed with you and the introduction of the 

President’s budget as it relates to energy. 

We do have a sufficient quorum of members here this morning, 

so the transcript will reflect that the Committee is now in session 

in a business meeting. 

[Recess] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now begin with the issues before the 

Committee. Again, welcome, Secretary Moniz. 

We are here to consider the President’s budget request for the 

Department of Energy for FY’16. This marks the first of three 

budget hearings that our Committee will hold before the end of this 

month. This is our first formal review of DOE’s budget since April 

of 2013. 

Mr. Secretary, I think it has been about a year and a half since 

you have been before the Committee. That is a long time. We 

would like to have you here more frequently. 

In fairness and in thanks and appreciation to you, I know that 

you have made the effort to come and visit many of us outside of 

the formal Committee process and to keep us informed of what is 

happening within the Department, so I appreciate that personal 

outreach. 

I do not think it comes as a surprise to anyone on the Committee, but I have been critical of the President’s overall budget as 

it busts through statutory spending caps. It raises taxes by more 

than $2 trillion over the next decade. There has been a lot of disVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Aug 26, 2015 Jkt 095045 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A045.XXX A045

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

cussion by many that the President’s budget is going nowhere. 

Other terms have also been used, but I do think hearings like this 

are useful because it allows us to take a granular look at it and 

see if there aren’t areas that we can be working together on. 

The budget for the Department of Energy is hardly the most controversial part of the President’s budget, and I would credit much 

of that to you, Secretary Moniz. I think you have been a steady 

leader. I think you have been one who is intent on improving the 

Department’s performance. I think you have been successful in 

avoiding, perhaps, some of the drama that we sometimes see 

around here. Again, I have been appreciative of your leadership. 

I am obligated to repeat my usual criticism of DOE’s proposed 

budget. This request embraces the ‘‘all of the above’’ energy policy 

on paper and in words. I think if we look through our packets the 

term ‘‘all of the above’’ is certainly there in the handout that we 

have, but I worry that it is ‘‘all of the above’’ in words and not necessarily in practice. 

We see significant increases for efficiency, vehicles, and renewable technologies, but virtually all the funding for fossil energy 

would be directed to carbon capture, methane, or some other environmental consideration. 

I think we have gotten to that point. We have agreed, and we 

had settled the discussion about whether American energy production can affect global prices. I think it clearly does, and I think we 

recognize that. I think it is a good thing, and we are benefitting 

from it. The question is whether we are going to keep this going 

or instead allow the President to lock down our resources like we 

have seen just recently in the past several weeks in places like 

Alaska. 

DOE clearly has a role here too. It should be researching methane hydrates and other unconventional resources to help ensure 

that energy remains affordable long into the future. 

So as we discuss the budget aspects within the Department of 

Energy, Mr. Secretary, I would hope we can find some common 

ground. I have indicated my support for the opportunities and the 

innovation we see coming out of ARPA–E, that we can be doing 

more there, and we have had an opportunity to talk about that. 

As you continue your leadership there, know this Committee will 

be working with you on those areas where we can advance America’s energy policy. We are also going to be very cognizant and very 

careful as we shepherd taxpayer dollars into these innovations and 

technologies. 

With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, and then we will 

hear from the Secretary. 

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

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Moniz, it is a pleasure to see you again and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 

budget request for the Department of Energy. 

Overall, I am pleased that the proposal calls for more than a 

nine percent increase over last year and the President’s proposal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

demonstrates a strong commitment to investments that we need to 

build a competitive, innovative, energy economy. 

As the overview this budget highlights that the Department is 

entrusted with four critical responsibilities. 

One, maintaining our nuclear arsenal and playing a key role in 

our non-proliferation activities around the globe. 

Two, protecting public health through a long term commitment 

to cleaning up the legacy of nuclear weapons production. 

It is often overlooked that those two responsibilities typically account for more than half of the DOE budget. I should just say, as 

you know, we’ve discussed many times that Washington State is 

home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, one of the world’s largest nuclear cleanup projects. The people in my state fully expect 

the Department of Energy to honor its responsibilities to finish this 

job. 

As Senator Murray noted in our budget discussions that the 

budget contains some mixed news for Hanford in Fiscal Year 2016 

while the Department is devoting significant resources to waste 

treatment plants and tank farms, there is concern that we may be 

giving some of the other clean-up priorities short shrift. So we need 

to make sure the resources are there for DOE to live up to the commitment to clean up this waste. 

It is also the case that workers at Hanford have been exposed to 

chemical vapors with uncertain health effects multiple times, and 

this is certainly unacceptable. So I appreciate your attention to this 

issue. It has been critical. It is critical that we not only establish 

a process that works with this Department and this contractor, but 

that it also works in the future. I very much appreciate the attention to that. 

Besides those two priorities DOE is also responsible through 

your Energy Innovation Agenda for transitioning to a low carbon 

energy future and to providing the backbone for our nation’s research economy. 

I want to commend you for the strong commitment to the advanced energy agenda reflected in the President’s budget. This is 

a research community that has made much of the revolutionary 

change in our energy economy possible. 

Wind and solar production have tripled since 2008. Gasoline consumption has dropped over eight percent since 2005. The electricity 

grid is becoming more resilient with wider deployment of smart 

grid and distributed technologies. Gas prices are lower now, but we 

know they won’t stay that way permanently. 

So DOE and the labs, like the Pacific Northwest lab and many 

others, have led the way in developing transportation alternatives 

such as advances in engine technologies, lightweight materials, 

battery technologies, biofuels, all critical to ensuring that consumers are better insulated from price fluctuations in oil and gasoline that regularly cause hardships. 

The research and development and deployment activities of the 

Department of Energy are driving economic transformation. I’m 

pleased to see that the proposed increase in the Department’s Office of Electricity includes a 94 percent increase in smart grid R 

and D, 75 percent increase for energy storage and 133 percent increase in infrastructure security and energy restoration and a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

strong commitment to cyber security research and development. 

Similarly, I am pleased to see a 42 percent increase proposed for 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy which is 

shepherding innovations in everything from building efficiencies, to 

drop-in biofuels, to new fuel cell applications. 

This budget will boost the Office of Science a modest five percent, 

but we make sure that we are continuing to invest in our key innovation infrastructure which is fundamental to the advances in a 

low carbon energy technology. We need to build on our recent track 

record of success. 

I think the key thing we want to get across about the budget is 

the energy transformation currently underway in our country is 

having a profound effect on our competitiveness as an economy. Decoupling the growth in our economy from energy growth is like 

ushering in a new era of energy productivity. For decades American energy consumption increased as the economy grew. 

In the past seven years, however, we have dramatically decreased that trend. From 2007 to 2014 our economy grew over 

eight percent. At the same time energy consumption actually fell 

by 2.5 percent. This represents a dramatic increase in our energy 

productivity. By contrast during the same period, from 1990 to 

2000 our GDP growth of 40 percent was linked to growth in the 

U.S. energy consumption of 17 percent. This recent decrease in the 

demand for energy represents billions of dollars of savings to American families and businesses each year, resources that can be spent 

or invested in other areas of the economy. De-linking economic 

growth from one of the most expensive inputs to it, energy, will 

help us to continue America’s improved competitiveness for the future. 

I also want to say I am pleased the budget will also continue our 

national commitment to the deployment of efficiency and renewable 

energy technologies—new clean energy technologies. Renewable efficiency and natural gas generated over $50 billion of investment 

in 2014. I look forward to this budget proposal that would put significant influences on modernizing and strengthening our electricity grid. 

Although our nation’s grid is vital to our economy and way of 

life, we need to make sure that it is even more efficient and resilient, and it likewise serves as a platform for innovation. We have 

made good progress as a country in improving this, but now is the 

time to expand our existing efforts to integrate technologies that 

will transform energy transmission and distribution. 

One of the new programs in the budget would accelerate the replacement of outdated transformers and other important grid components with new technology. This would make the grid more resilient, particularly in response to disruptions that could be caused by 

disaster or cyber attacks. The program would also help state and 

local governments as they deploy new transmission and energy 

storage systems to the 21st century. 

So Mr. Secretary, finally I just want to say I look forward to your 

upcoming release of the Quadrennial Energy Review. I expect we 

will have a chance to take an even broader look at the challenges 

we face that can’t be done in just one budget year. I look forward 

to working with Chairwoman Murkowski and my colleagues here 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

on the Committee to ensure the Department of Energy continues 

to play a vital role in meeting our nation’s challenges. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. With that, let’s proceed to you, Mr. 

Secretary. Again, thank you for being here this morning. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and all members of the Committee. 

Let me start by just responding to your statement, Chairman 

Murkowski, that we will continue to be available and our senior 

leadership available to all members of the Committee for discussions on the issues of concern. Of course, when we have even more 

confirmed people, we’ll have more people available to come and talk 

to you. [Laughter.] 

Secretary MONIZ. So we will look forward to that happening as 

well. 

We have submitted a very detailed statement for the record, so 

I’ll try to be brief in these opening comments. 

As already noted, one of the major features of the energy scene 

is the dramatic increase in oil and natural gas production and natural gas liquids across the board. 

This has been, as noted, a major factor in our economic recovery in many dimensions, at the household level. EIA predicts a $750, 

on average, household savings just in gasoline prices this year. 

Jobs and manufacturing, balance of payments, all very, very, very, 

very many facets of this economic recovery tied to energy. 

Second point, I do want to address the ‘‘all of the above’’ energy 

strategy. Again, we feel that we are very strongly committed to 

that. As we drive to lower costs to clean energy technologies on 

the—to just address directly, for example, the coal issue. 

Clearly carbon capture is a major focus but I want to emphasize 

that we have, of course, R and D programs that go beyond fossil 

energy, ARPA–E, for example. But also a new initiative in this 

budget, for example, is not in our budget, but in the Department 

of the Treasury, our investment tax credits for carbon capture 

projects and sequestration tax credits. I think we are bringing 

many tools to the table to address that. 

Clearly I’m going to move on to other areas in these very brief 

remarks. In addition to energy we have major mission responsibilities in our basic science infrastructure for the country, in nuclear 

security and in environmental cleanup. As noted, our overall budget request for $29.9 billion is approximately a nine percent increase. 

In science it’s five plus billion, a five percent increase. I just want 

to note that among many features we continue to build the new 

cutting edge facilities that our research community needs. The 

31,000 researchers that we serve each year in the national laboratories from completing, just dedicating, for example, the new light 

source at Brookhaven, on budget and under schedule, to doing new 

projects, coherent light source, for example, rare isotope beam facility in Michigan, et cetera. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Energy $5.4 billion, an increase of 27 percent. I think we will be 

discussing much of the innovation agenda there. I do want to emphasize, again, other aspects of the program like advancing efficiency standards, a very strong focus on advanced manufacturing 

which will have many impacts throughout the energy technology 

space. For example, our last manufacturing institute on composites 

will influence everything from wind to lighter weight vehicles for 

efficiency and also initiatives that we think are very important 

with international implications like super truck 2 with 100 percent 

efficiency gain in Class A vehicles. 

I do want to single out ARPA–E since the Chair mentioned that. 

There’s just a tremendous amount of innovation going on. We’ve requested an increase from $280 to $325 million, and I want to say 

that the fifth anniversary of the first contracts in ARPA–E is coming up this spring. That’s now enough of a run and we are seeing 

that program blossoming in terms of products going into the marketplace and having spinouts of that now acquired by large companies in terms of investing considerable capital to develop those. 

I will also mention that in addition to the technology programs 

in our budget and frankly, very much tied to what we will be discussing, hopefully soon, on the Quadrennial Energy Review, are 

things like two state grant programs that we propose for a total of 

$63 million, one on reliability planning and one on energy assurance planning. Nuclear security, $11.6 billion for the NNSA, a ten percent increase. This will sustain the loose sight of it sometimes, I think, 

the remarkable science-based approach which has allowed us to 

sustain our deterrent with our testing. We moved 190 kilograms of 

weapons material out of six countries last year, three of them in 

collaboration with Russia. We delivered the first next generation 

nuclear reactor for our next aircraft carriers while in this budget 

continuing for the Ohio class replacements in submarines. Finally, environmental management, $5.8 billion. Again, for perspective, we know we have some very, very tough problems. Senator Cantwell has mentioned some of those at Hanford, but for perspective, the EM program has cleaned up over 85 percent of its 

sites and 90 percent of the land area over its program life. Now we 

still have some of the most difficult projects ahead of us. 

One thing is in terms of in New Mexico, WIPP, a very, very high 

priority to get that back online. We believe we’re on schedule for 

roughly one year from now resuming operations at WIPP. 

I think those are a few of the areas in our budget, and I think 

I look forward to discussion with the Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Moniz follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 01 94045A.001
8 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 94045A.002
9 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 94045A.003
10 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 94045A.004
11 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 94045A.005
12 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 94045A.006
13 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 94045A.007
14 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 94045A.008
15 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 94045A.009
16 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 94045A.010
17 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 94045A.011
18 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 94045A.012
19 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 94045A.013
20 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 94045A.014
21 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 94045A.015
22 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 94045A.016
23 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 94045A.017
24 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 94045A.018
25 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 94045A.019
26 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 94045A.020
27 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 94045A.021
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think we are going 

to have good discussions, because we have got some new members 

here this morning so we will begin. 

You mentioned the Quadrennial Energy Review, as Senator 

Cantwell did. We’re looking forward to that release. We are going 

to have a hearing here in Committee focused on that. 

I hope that we have got your commitment and that of your staff 

at DOE that as we move forward as a Committee in putting together a more comprehensive or a broader energy bill, we can work 

with you building off what we hope to see within this QER. Where 

we may need technical assistance or witnesses coming before the 

Committee, I hope we have your cooperation with that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely, and I know that both in this body 

and in the House as well, there’s a very strong interest in moving 

infrastructure projects forward. We very much look forward to that, 

and I can assure you that we will be able to deliver a lot of analysis 

to back up our infrastructure recommendations. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. As I mentioned to you yesterday and I will mention to my colleagues, I am going to use every 

budget hearing I have, as well as every appropriations hearing I 

participate in as a member of that Committee, to raise the issue 

of what this country is doing to advance the interests that we have 

as an Arctic nation. We are going to be assuming the Chair of the 

Arctic Council in just a matter of months, and this has been something that feels like I am pushing a snowball up a mountain all 

alone. 

I am looking for some help from colleagues, and I have got Senator Cantwell and Senator King willing to do that as well. You 

have to have the focus in the budget as well. 

The Department of Energy is listed as the lead agency within the 

Administration’s implementation plan for the national strategy for 

the Arctic region. You are also designated as a supporting agency 

for some other projects. So I will ask you, as I will ask others, what 

is your Department doing to further the budget request for the integration of Arctic issues? 

I know the DOE has actually been singled out as one of the few 

departments that has actually started to implement some of these 

initiatives, but I would ask you, very briefly, what DOE is doing 

to advance our Arctic issues through the lens of the budget? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. We are very committed to trying to 

advance the Arctic programs. I think I can say, even though it’s not 

finished, in the QER, for example, one of the issues will be to emphasize collaborations with Canada as well in terms of looking at 

Arctic issues. 

We are preparing a ten year plan for renewables, for example. 

We are committed to getting at least five megawatts of solar deployed soon. 

I might go back and mention ARPA–E. Yesterday at the exhibit 

we saw many, many technologies that are appropriate for distributed generation in isolated communities to lower the extreme energy costs there. So on the technology front, we are pursuing that. 

Another thing is last year I charged the National Petroleum 

Council to deliver a report by the end of March that will look at 

what are the R and D needs that we should be addressing for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Arctic region, specifically around the hydrocarbon production possibilities there. In particular, looking at the environmental impacts, 

environmental stewardship, with production. 

We are also doing a lot of work in modeling. Clearly, global 

warming, as you know very well, is impacting Alaska. There are 

permafrost issues we have looked at together. So, I think, we have 

some specific programs going on in technology. And we have 

around both isolated villages and around the hydrocarbon future 

and we are deeply into several planning processes that will define 

the next program. 

The CHAIRMAN. I look forward to visiting with you on these 

items. 

The National Security Strategy that was released last week provides we must promote diversification of energy, fuels, sources and 

routes as well as encourage indigenous sources of energy supply. 

Greater energy security and independence within the Americas is 

central to these efforts. 

We have been talking a lot about energy independence, North 

American energy independence, and what that means with our 

friends to the south in Mexico and our friends to the north in Canada. Yet we see announcements, like we saw a couple weeks ago, 

where within our own borders we are putting off energy supply. 

Taking 22 million acres of great prospects for energy resource development completely offline, offshore and onshore, and done in the 

course of three days. 

I am going to be looking forward to really pushing this Administration when we’re talking about how we work to provide for the 

national security aims, as set out in this Administration’s own policy, when we’re saying no to Keystone. We’re shutting off Alaska. 

I want to make sure that this is meaningful and not just words on 

paper, so I want to focus a little bit more. 

My time is expired, and I want to give the courtesy to my colleagues here, but as we look to our oil exports to Canada, we have 

got about 455,000 barrels per day of exports to Canada. I am hoping that is part of that energy security and independence, and that 

the same would be afforded to Mexico. But that also, when it comes 

to our own resources within this country, we are not shutting them 

off as well. I am not giving you the opportunity to reply to that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Alright. 

The CHAIRMAN. But know that this is a priority of mine. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. I’m happy to engage in the whole 

energy security discussion. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think we—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Which we are doing in the G7 context. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have had those conversations, and I want to 

continue them. I will turn to Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you know we have had multiple conversations 

about the recurring events at Hanford. We have addressed this 

issue prior to your time, in 2004, and when we had incidents in 

2008 and 2010. So 2014 is the newest round of these incidents. 

Every few years we have concerns about worker safety and concerns that as the contractors roll over that we are starting again 

on making sure that we have implemented these kinds of reforms. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

I certainly appreciate your engagement on this, but I want to 

make sure that you continue to take control of the situation and 

that whatever is done under your leadership is actually institutionalized so that we don’t have the same issues happening again. 

These incidents of exposure really are something we don’t want to 

see again in the future. 

Specifically what is DOE doing to implement these new procedures and change things from business as usual to a regime that 

will last no matter who the contractor is? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. Well, first of all, as you know very 

well, with the latest round of incidents we put together, I think, 

a very, very high quality technical team which, I think, has 

brought some new insights. Now we have an implementation plan. 

We are already implementing much of it. 

We have directed the contractor to implement all of the 40 plus 

recommendations. That will be in two phases. All of those that we 

can implement now, we will. There are some that will take, we estimate, about a two year period to get more information before we 

execute. 

In terms of the resource commitments to manage the vapors problem, we estimate at about $20 to $25 million in FY’15 and likely doubling, roughly, in FY’16. 

When it comes to institutionalization, my answer to that on any 

issue is perform. If one demonstrates high performance that’s the 

best way to institutionalize something. So that’s our goal. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about fines or something of that nature? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, that may be part of a high performance 

culture. We want to perform. We are happy to be judged on how 

we perform in terms of implementing the recommendations that 

have now come forward for implementation. And again, I think if 

we succeed that will be the best way of institutionalizing the path 

forward. 

Senator CANTWELL. Can I ask you about the Richland Operations 

Office? It was not funded as well as some of the other offices in the 

DOE complex, and it obviously has hit its milestones. The problem, 

obviously, with the Hanford budget overall is everybody always 

looks at it and thinks we can do with less. In reality, as you pointed out in your testimony, the complexity of the problem at Hanford 

is so great. 

The Richland Office is currently cleaning up two of the most radioactive parts of the Hanford site, buildings 324 and 618, and ten 

burial grounds. What can you tell me about the timeline for the 

cleanup of these two specific sites, and what is going to be accomplished on these two projects in 2015? 

Secretary MONIZ. Senator Cantwell, so first of all, as you said, 

and I’ll just repeat that, of course, the overall site budget is increased in the request by roughly $100 million. The Richland part 

of that, certainly there have been a number of accomplishments. 

And so, we think the budget as requested will allow a strong program going forward. 

I’ll have to get back to you on the specific timeline of that specific 

project. But I want to emphasize that with this budget we will get 

the plutonium finishing plant which has been judged to be, at one 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

point it was the highest risk project, down to slab this year. We 

will be continuing to remediate ground water. So there’s going to 

be a lot of—oh, we will continue the tremendous progress that’s 

been made in opening up the river corridor. So we believe that 

FY’16 there will be very, very strong progress. We’ll get back to you 

on that specific timeline. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, and put in there, when will DOE meet 

the 2018 deadline for cleaning up the 618–10 and 618–11 burial 

sites. 

We are obviously concerned about this reduction. And again, the 

priorities are so mammoth. We just want to make sure we are 

making progress. 

When I get to my next round I am definitely going to ask you 

about separating defense waste. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Mr. Moniz, good morning. 

Secretary MONIZ. Good morning. 

Senator CASSIDY. You mentioned carbon capture sequestration. 

The Mississippi plant, in Kemper, Mississippi, I think that’s 30 

percent over cost. And so, I think, part of the issue is who should 

pay for that? Should that be the ratepayers or should that be the 

ARPA–E or someone else? It seems to be one of the questions behind carbon capture sequestration. What are your thoughts on 

that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, the Kemper plant, of course, is a very, 

very ambitious plant which goes well beyond as a simple carbon 

capture plant. It is, first of all, capturing. Well, with its gasification 

approach it will be capturing roughly two-thirds of the carbon dioxide. But it is also a multi-product plant, so it is producing CO2 for 

enhancing oil recovery. 

Senator CASSIDY. I totally get that, but who should pay for that 

because right now, frankly, it sounds more experimental. Does that 

make sense? 

Secretary MONIZ. I wouldn’t say experimental. Fundamentally 

the Department of Energy made a grant, early on, to help it get 

along. It’s understood that that is capped in terms of the Federal 

contribution, and my understanding is that the cost overrun is 

being shared between ratepayers and Southern Company. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. Now ARPA–E is funding Tesla, right? 

Did I see that was one of the projects that ARPA–E is funding? 

Tesla? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, sir. Tesla was given a loan of roughly $500 

million a few years ago which they have fully paid back many, 

many years ahead of schedule. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. Still it seems like we are subsidizing. I 

presume that it is somewhat of a subsidized loan? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, all of our loan programs—— 

Senator CASSIDY. The fact that it is guaranteed they borrow at 

a lower rate, I presume. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, the terms are generally good, at or slight 

increase to Treasury’s. We certainly don’t—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Well, I just said it to point that out. I never read about a movie star buying $100,000 Tesla and wondering why 

we are, you know, you seem like they are profitable on their own. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

I just make that point because the taxpayer who is in Louisiana, 

going to work in his pickup truck is effectively subsidizing the production of a $100,000 vehicle. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, sir, first of all, getting this kind of an 

electric vehicle with a long range into the market is part of our job 

of pushing the technology envelope. 

Again, frankly, we made money on the loan to them. Indeed, and 

not a broadly known fact, is that in the 30 plus billion dollar loan 

portfolio the fees collected by the government already exceed the 

losses in the small number of loans that did not perform. So the 

portfolio has worked very well. We project there will be a $5 billion 

positive, in the black from the program. 

Senator CASSIDY. Can I pause you just for a second? I don’t mean 

to be rude, it’s just I only have two minutes left or a minute thirty. 

I think I spoke about this with you when I was in the House last 

year, but you had given a lecture at MIT speaking about the future 

of the energy supply of the United States. I think you predicted 

that gas would fall off around 2060 as an energy supply, coal at 

some point, perhaps prior to that and then nuclear or other low 

CO2 generation would take over after that. Do you still see that as 

the likely scenario? 

Secretary MONIZ. I should clarify, in the scenario, of course, 

which was constrained by a substantial CO2 reduction in that picture, not surprisingly, first coal and then gas without carbon capture would, of course, go down to meet the low carbon targets. That 

does not exclude any of the low carbon technologies including coal 

and gas with capture playing a role along with nuclear and renewables and demand side management. 

Senator CASSIDY. So—— 

Secretary MONIZ. So, it’s really, it’s almost a tautology in the 

sense of if you—if the model requires a low carbon future you have 

to go to low carbon sources. 

Senator CASSIDY. So in the President’s Clean Energy plan, I think I’ve read that my state will cost $5.7 billion to comply with. 

Now I look at that $5.7 billion as basically forcing manufacturers 

overseas for anything that is energy intensive. Important, of 

course, because energy intensive industry is what creates jobs for 

blue collar workers. 

Do you see a problem with that? Do you see where I’m going 

with that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, today the facts are that there’s enormous 

construction in the Gulf. In fact the problem—— 

Senator CASSIDY. Well, absolutely, but somewhat in danger, potentially, by the rule that would require 40 percent reduction in 

CO2 production from coal-fired plants. 

Secretary MONIZ. We don’t see, I mean, we don’t see really the 

low carbon future as in any way being negatively impactful to the 

overall economy. We see continuing low prices, especially in the 

natural gas arena. And as you know that has been a major driver 

of what is happening in the Gulf region and elsewhere in terms of 

increased economic activity. 

Senator CASSIDY. I am out of time, but I will finish by saying it 

does seem if you raise the cost of that energy production by these 

measures ultimately you increase the input and change the model 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

so companies are more likely to move overseas. But I’m over time, 

so I must yield back. 

Secretary MONIZ. I’d be happy to discuss that privately, but I 

would just add one thing, of course, that the other side of the equation is work on the demand side and higher energy efficiency including in our industrial processes. There’s a lot of continued 

progress there as well. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to Senator Manchin, and he will be followed by Senator Portman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

thank you for being here again. We have had some great discussions. Dr. Cassidy brought up some things I am very much concerned with. 

I just want to get to the facts that we are dealing with. I have 

always said we are all entitled to our opinion, just not our own 

facts. The fact that we have right now is the United States of 

America continues to rely on fossil fuels for about 68 percent, and 

it seems to be for the next 25 years that the EIA, your own division, estimates that to be factual. 

Reliability is a big factor with me. The reliability in the grid system, of what we have right now, can we maintain it? We came extremely close to having serious problems last year in the PJM system, with the polar vortex. And we are going to rely, I think that 

makes us about 32 percent coal up through 2040 and 35 percent 

natural gas. I think these are your figures. Are you? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Just to clarify though, I believe is in 

what’s called the business as usual scenario. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator MANCHIN. And then it says in 2013 renewables provide 

about 13 percent. Renewables are providing about 13 percent. 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, in business as usual. 

Senator MANCHIN. And you’re expecting that to go to 16 percent, 

I guess business as usual, by 2040? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. Although again, with greater carbon constraints there’s a good chance that will be higher, and certainly 

solar is going up very, very fast. 

Senator MANCHIN. Here is the thing that I have a question about 

in your budget request. It is before us right now. I think it has a 

request for $2.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy, 

of that amount? 

Secretary MONIZ. And sustainable transportation. So it’s really 

three different programs. 

Senator MANCHIN. Okay, but only $560 million for fossil energy 

in research and development? The only thing I am saying is about 

a five to one ratio of what you are spending on the different forms 

of energy and actually what you are expecting those different energies to produce. Basically you want fossil or you expect fossil to 

give you five times more the energy to make the system run in 

America, to make the economy run in America, to keep the system 

in the grid alive. But you are putting all your eggs, it looks like, 

in a basket. I am not asking for a reversal, but I am asking for a 

level playing field. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

If you want us to do the job, help us find that technology that 

we are able to continue to produce the energy depended upon. 

As we know right now there are only two base loads, correct? Is 

that what we have? Gas is not quite a base load yet, but it will 

be, I think. It is getting there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator MANCHIN. Nukes and coal, 24/7, rain or shine, that is 

what you have got. 

With that being said, don’t you think it is awfully dicey for us 

not to be moving further is what Dr. Cassidy said, to find that 

technology and not put the burden on? Because we do not have a 

commercial plant other than the Kemper plant coming on. One 

proven commercial plant as far as carbon capture sequestration. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, if I may comment. First of all, again, I 

think on the EERE budget it’s a little bit artificial to compare that 

whole budget to the fossil number. Again, it’s really practically 

three distinct programs. 

Senator MANCHIN. But it’s not balanced. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, so it’s not balanced, but so the renewables budget is about $600 million, I believe, something like that. 

Transportation around 800 and efficiency around a billion, roughly 

speaking, I think. That’s the first point. 

Secondly, there’s no question that, I mean, our job is to prepare 

for the future, as you said. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that future is going to depend upon clean 

energy and lower carbon emissions. So therefore, we are doing all 

the above for that world. For coal, in particular, we have other 

parts of the agenda, but for coal the number one focus is around 

carbon capture utilization sequestration. The budget for that, as I 

have already indicated, has many features beyond that R and D 

budget. 

Secondly, there is also the ARPA–E budget which contributes to 

this. 

Third, there is the loan guarantee program. 

Fourth, there is the new tax incentive program proposed for 

Treasury, et cetera. 

So it’s a—and the loan program is $8 billion for fossil technologies. 

Senator MANCHIN. It hasn’t been—my time is running short. I 

just will say this. The facts of what we are dealing with right now. 

There is not another coal-fired plant being built or even in the 

planning stage of being built in America that I know of. You might 

have one or two somewhere, I don’t know, but there is going to be 

1200 being built around the world, 450 in India, 350 in China, and 

it goes on and on and on. And the bottom line, what I am saying 

is we should be the leader in technology. That is all I have said. 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we will be, in particular, for lower carbon emission coal. And for example, I would note if one takes, I 

mean, you know, let’s put it on the table. 

If you take the proposed EPA rule for new plants requiring sequestration. The demonstration plants that we are putting forward 

are really pushing the edge and they’re 90 percent capture, et 

cetera. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Senator MANCHIN. But they are not cost effective, not cost efficient. 

Secretary MONIZ. If you—yes, but on the other hand, in the proposed EPA rule if you build an ultra super critical coal plant which 

is available. 

Senator MANCHIN. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. It’s only 30 percent capture required to meet 

that. So it’s a whole different level of challenge to that coal plant. 

So I think this is a discussion we need to—— 

Senator MANCHIN. We will continue. I know we have had it before. We will continue. I just think that it is unbalanced the way 

our Administration and country is approaching an inevitable. We 

are going to use it. We need it. We depend on it. Do you follow me? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator MANCHIN. Why not be the leader in technology since the 

rest of the world is using it? 

Secretary MONIZ. I agree with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

I appreciate that dialogue and the one point that maybe is obvious to everyone is we have more coal in the ground than all those 

other countries that are continuing to develop coal-fired plants at 

a time when we’ve got the ability to take the leadership role in the 

technology. So I agree with my colleague from West Virginia. We 

ought to be taking advantage of that. 

Three questions quickly. 

First on energy efficiency. You were very helpful in the legislation that we worked on in the last few years together, pretty good 

at providing technical advice. We hope that you will continue to do 

that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Senator PORTMAN. Senator Shaheen and I are reintroducing a 

bill that has gone through this Committee twice, as you know, with 

a large vote within the next few weeks, and we are talking to your 

folks. But if you could, again, make a personal commitment to this, 

we would appreciate it. 

Secretary MONIZ. We will support that efficiency bill in any way 

we can. 

Senator PORTMAN. Excellent. As you know we happen to have a 

few little amendments on the Keystone bill. Though I am sure that 

will influence your thinking on that and convince the President to 

sign it. 

That’s not a question. [Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. But an outstanding remark. [Laughter.] 

Senator PORTMAN. Hoeven liked it. ACP, the American Centrifuge Project. 

You all had a report issued last year and I understand part of 

it was classified so I won’t ask you to talk about that, but it was 

about alternatives. My understanding is it said that the centrifuge 

project going on now, in other words, developing these new centrifuge technologies is the right way to go and that we need them. 

Centrifuge technology, to be able to enrich uranium in this country. We only have one place we do it and that under our international treaties, as you have said in your previous testimony, we 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

have to have a U.S. source for this. Can you talk a little about, to 

the extent you can, that report where we are on ACP? I noticed in the budget that you have $100 million dedicated to 

it for FY’2016. I also noticed that with regard to the international 

nonproliferation efforts that you continue to say that this is an important element to our strategy, to be able to tell other countries, 

look if you don’t go down this route of enriching uranium, we can 

provide you enriched uranium for your peaceful purposes. Could 

you comment on that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. There are two different aspects I would 

emphasize. 

First of all the United States really has the strongest standards 

in terms of nonproliferation issues globally for the nuclear fuels 

cycle. And so, we do feel that having the United States companies 

engaged in that fuel cycle is very important for our nonproliferation 

aims. So that’s one aspect. 

The second aspect is specifically for national security. We have 

two needs in particular. The nearest term one being tritium for our 

nuclear stockpile and then eventually AGU, for example, for our 

nuclear Navy. 

To do that, as you have said, we need to have American origin 

technology to produce the LEU from American origin uranium 

placed into an American reactor. So from that point of view the 

ACP, Advanced Centrifuge Project, is the technology at hand. So 

the $100 million is to maintain that as we are finishing up, over 

these next months, a very intensive, multi-agency study on the 

exact needs, including schedule needs, to meet those national security obligations. 

Senator PORTMAN. I appreciate that very much, and the report 

on tritium, I understand, is due out in April. I believe that will confirm what you are saying which is that we need to have this low 

grade, enriched uranium for tritium which is critical to our nuclear 

arsenal. We appreciate your continued support of ACP. I know taxpayers have already spent about $6 billion toward this effort. I appreciate the fact that we are going to follow through on this and 

have this domestic source. 

Clean up. The Piketon plant used to use this gaseous diffusion 

model, and you all made a commitment to clean it up and do it in 

an accelerated way. Once again I am disappointed the budget does 

not keep that promise. If I look at the budget, I think it is $49 million below even what we did in Fiscal Year 2015. This is a commitment the President made way back in 2008. 

I look at these sites in a very simple way. As you know, I was 

very involved in one of the sites, the Fernald site outside Cincinnati. But also look at what’s happened at Rocky Flats and so on. 

To the extent you can continue this accelerated clean up. 

One, it is safer for the community, obviously. 

Second, you save the taxpayers billions of dollars. We believe we saved somewhere between $3 and $7 billion at Fernald alone in a 

bipartisan way supporting that, so I again have to express my concern about the fact that we are not getting the commitment here 

from the Administration. 

Again, I would like to reissue my invitation to you to come out 

to the site and see it. Extraordinary. Thanks for sending two of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

your senior officials out last year, but we have got to have this ability to clean up this site. As you know, we saved 700 people from 

losing their jobs just before Christmas by—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator PORTMAN. At the last minute, again, figuring out some 

ways to move some funds around here on the hill through our appropriators. I appreciate them doing that, but a much better solution is to set a schedule and keep to it. 

Secretary MONIZ. By the way, I might add that General Klotz 

was there, I think, last week in fact for a visit. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you for sending him. 

Secretary MONIZ. The request this year is roughly what the request was last year. And then, as you say, the Congress was able 

to add about $50 million to that. I would just add that the unresolved issue as well is the question of the uranium. 

Senator PORTMAN. Fail. 

Secretary MONIZ. And as you know we are, yes, and we are involved in some litigation right now. And we are in the middle of 

doing a new secretarial determination in terms of how much uranium we can barter to help support the clean up. So—— 

Senator PORTMAN. We would like that support, but we really, 

really need the support in the budget. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yup. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now go to Senator Manchin. Just for 

clarification, there has been some discussion back here about the 

early bird rule. 

The early bird rule, as has been the norm or the practice here 

on the Energy Committee, has been based on who gets here first. 

As my list is right now, Senator Heinrich is next, followed by Senators Capito, Warren, Gardner, King, Daines, Stabenow, Barrasso, 

Hirono, Hoeven, Franken, Flake, and Sanders. 

So just to give members a heads up, that is how we are operating 

today. Given the lengthy list, I am going to encourage members to 

try to stick to their five minutes. Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, I want 

to thank you again for coming out to the WIPP facility last August. 

That meant an enormous amount to the community and especially 

to the workers. 

You mentioned early in your testimony the goal of getting that 

facility working in terms of interim operations in about a year. I 

wanted to ask you a little more specifically what you think the Department’s current best estimate is of when normal operations 

might resume at WIPP? 

Secretary MONIZ. We are targeting 2018, but I have to admit 

that it remains a little bit uncertain. The key project is the new 

ventilation system. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that is still undergoing engineering analysis. To give you an idea of the uncertainty, until the engineering 

analysis is completed, is going to be a less than $100 million 

project or a $300 million project, and we do not want to set numbers until we have confidence. We are moving towards the engiVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Aug 26, 2015 Jkt 095045 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A045.XXX A045

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

neering design completion, and that will give us both a budget and 

a schedule of certainty. Our target is two years after, two plus 

years after. 

Senator HEINRICH. I would just ask if you would please keep me 

posted in terms of as soon as we have some certainty. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Senator HEINRICH. Of how we are going to move forward in 

terms of the ventilation, what that means after the subsequent 

schedule and if those schedules should slip at all if you can let me 

know as well that would be much appreciated. 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. 

Senator HEINRICH. And thank you again for coming out for that. 

It was very important for that community. 

We have talked a little bit about base loads and the change in 

the utility and grid systems in this country. I want to ask you a 

little bit about grid tied energy storage. 

One, if you could talk a little bit about what some of the places 

in the budget that focuses on that, the priorities of the Department. 

Two, I wanted to ask you more of a policy question of what you 

see as the greatest impediments to more widespread and sooner deployment of some of those technologies, if you see that just as a 

cost curve issue or if there are some particular regulatory rate 

making or other policy issues that we can address that would move 

adoption along at a faster rate. 

Secretary MONIZ. Interesting, yes. So on the storage, as you 

know, Senator Wyden a couple of years ago asked us to do a storage report which we did which we now are trying to implement. 

In the budget this year, first of all, in the Office of Electricity we 

have a 75 percent increase in our request. It’s not a huge number. 

It’s $21 million but very important both for technology, but also for 

system integration. How would you actually integrate it into the 

system? 

The—we also, of course, not for stationary applications so much, 

but in the EERE budget there’s also about $100 million for battery 

development there. And there, of course, again in cost reduction 

has been very dramatic. So cost is certainly an issue, the cost performance curve is certainly an issue. 

I might also add ARPA–E has quite a bit of work in terms of batteries and new chemistries and of course, we have our hub which 

is based out of Argonne which, I think, is doing some terrific work, 

again, on advanced chemistries for lowering costs, higher energy 

density, et cetera. 

The other question you asked is very interesting, I think, about 

the regulatory side. It’s not obviously an authority that we have. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. It would be FERC and state commissions, but 

I think there’s a theme about storage and other aspects in which 

we still don’t have regulatory structures that value auxiliary services, if you like. 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. To the grid. 

Senator HEINRICH. Conservation storage. 

Secretary MONIZ. Capacity. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

Senator HEINRICH. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Markets, et cetera. Storage is certainly one of 

them. So I think regulatory design, going forward, is going to be 

very, very important. And that would be something between FERC 

and the states. 

Senator HEINRICH. Alright. 

Secretary MONIZ. And NARUC is in town next week. You should 

talk with them. 

Senator HEINRICH. We will follow up. Thank you very much, Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you understand the importance of the 

NATL to West Virginians and Pennsylvanians because of the 

unique role that they fill with the technology and also, it is the one 

facility, I think, that the Federal Government actually runs as opposed to being run by contractors. I was pleased yesterday that, I 

know you were asked about this in the House, and you mentioned 

because there have been rumors of consolidation which always is 

of great concern to those of us who represent the state. 

Secretary MONIZ. The rumors are unchanged for years. [Laughter.] 

Senator CAPITO. Pardon? 

Secretary MONIZ. The rumors are unchanged for years. 

Senator CAPITO. Unchanged for years. I am just double-checking 

that it is just a rumor, so I appreciate that. I guess I am asking 

you, again, to repeat what you said yesterday in terms of, as far 

as you know, consolidation is not a—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. In particular, as you implied, our laboratories are generally management and operating contracts. 

NATL is unique in being a Federal facility. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that reflects two points. One is that it does 

do, let’s call it, laboratory-based research. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. But it also plays a major role in managing all 

the contracting for our fossil energy office and others. We have no 

intention of changing that arrangement. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. It is a major contributor to our economy too. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator CAPITO. In the northern part of the state. 

Secretary MONIZ. Also, you may know we are upgrading right 

now. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. The computational capacity at NATL. 

Senator CAPITO. Great. Great. Yesterday in the EPW hearing we 

had Janet McCabe from the EPA testifying on the carbon rules in 

the Administration, and the NSPS will mandate any new coal 

plants that have CCS technology. We have talked a little bit about 

this, and we all know that the technology is not yet perfected or 

commercially available. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

My question is are the various agencies, DOE, FERC and EPA, 

are you working through your budgets to make sure that you’re coordinating this and putting great emphasis because for those of us 

more deeply affected there’s a reliability of the grid issue, but also 

the continuation of the use of coal which is important to a lot of 

states in this country. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. If I may differ on one issue? 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. And that is that the, actually, the capture technology, the standard capture technology which came out of the petrochemical industry, is commercially available and you can get a 

warranty on it. As with all of these technologies, carbon capture or 

renewables, my view is the goal of innovation, what we support in 

innovation, is in fact cost reduction across the board. That applies 

here as well. So—— 

Senator CAPITO. But would you say the sequestration portion of 

CCS is commercially viable? I mean, I think that is where the rub 

is more, isn’t it? 

Secretary MONIZ. So yeah, carbon capture for sure. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. That technology is available. In terms of the 

sequestration side, of course, we are storing about 60 megatons per 

year in enhanced oil recovery. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. Most of that is natural CO2 as opposed to captured CO2, but that is being done. 

The regulatory structures around commercial scale, saline aquifer sequestration are still in development. 

Senator CAPITO. Right, because we had the plant in the mountaineer plant in Mason County in West Virginia that they, the 

DOE, was very involved with, but basically walked away from it. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator CAPITO. Because the sequestration issue was. 

Secretary MONIZ. But that’s where I believe the—see, most of our 

current demos and I believe in the EPA proposed rule the enhanced oil recovery can be used as the storage direction. And that’s 

quite commonly done. 

Senator CAPITO. So, I guess my question—— 

Secretary MONIZ. In fact—— 

Senator CAPITO. My base question is are you working in a coordinated way to make sure that the dollars that are put towards this 

are moving in the same direction? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Clearly we have the technology development part of that, but also for example, our people, you know, 

we’re in the discussions to shape the Treasury proposal on the tax 

credits for carbon capture and sequestration. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator CAPITO. Quick question on the budget. It appears as 

though you’re requesting a larger budget for coal CCS and power 

than has been in the past, but this increase, it appears to come at 

the expense of coal and moving more towards moving CCS toward 

natural gas. Is that a correct assessment of the direction that 

you’re going? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Secretary MONIZ. Again, because in the coal plants, and in, I 

might say, also in other industrial facilities, refineries and cement 

plants and ethanol plants, we have a substantial portfolio of both 

pretty basic research for breakthrough technologies and for large 

demonstrations. In this budget we propose a pretty modest amount 

of money to start the planning towards a gas CCS pilot demonstration. 

Senator CAPITO. And that’s a new direction? 

Secretary MONIZ. That would be a new direction, right. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warren. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, we talk a lot about energy, and most people think 

of oil and gas and coal and solar and wind. But a huge part of our 

energy structure is the electric grid, the system we use to transmit 

electricity to our homes and businesses. 

Now our electrical grid has been so reliable that for the most 

part no one even thinks about it, but the grid is aging. The basic 

design elements of the grid date back to Thomas Edison, and major 

parts of today’s grid were built right after World War II. One report indicates that utilities will need to spend between $1.5 and $2 

trillion by 2030 just to maintain reliable electric service. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, your budget request includes what you call 

cross-cutting initiatives to improve the reliability and the resiliency 

of the grid. Could you walk us through these new initiatives and 

talk, just a little bit, about the Department’s plans for improving 

the grid? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, thank you, and of course not surprisingly 

this will be one of the major focus areas for the Quadrennial Energy Review that we hope to be discussing with you soon. 

So in the budget we propose $356 million for the grid and modernization initiative. It’s a substantial increase because of the importance that we attach to it, as do you. The program, it’s crosscutting in the sense, in two senses, or maybe three senses. 

One is that within DOE there are multiple program offices that 

contribute in different ways to the project, the Office of Electricity 

and Reliability, of course, but also the Renewable Energy Office because of the integration issues, our Policy Office, et cetera. 

So the program will span everything from very fundamental 

technology development, like new wide band gap semiconductors 

for power electronics to system analyses. How do you integrate over 

large geographical areas? 

Senator WARREN. So, let me ask just a little bit. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator WARREN. Let me push down on one part of that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Sure. 

Senator WARREN. One threat to the reliability of the grid is extreme weather. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Senator WARREN. You know, heat waves make electric generation, transmission, distribution more difficult. They create potentials for brown outs and black outs. A recent report from the GAO 

focused on the risks that severe weather posed for our power grid, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

and the report goes on to say that two broad ways that we can reduce the impact of extreme weather on energy infrastructure is to 

invest in hardening and resiliency so we can harden the infrastructure by making physical changes so it stands up better to extreme 

weather, and we can make it more resilient by making changes so 

that it recovers more quickly when some components are damaged 

and damage to the external systems. 

Now a new study from the World Bank also suggests that when 

there’s more diversity of energy sources, including more renewable 

energy connected to the grid, it will improve the resiliency of our 

electricity sector even in the face of weather extremes. And a Commonwealth of Massachusetts climate change adaptation report 

from 2011 also recommended diversifying energy supplies as a potential strategy to make our system less prone to failures. 

Can you explain a little bit to us about why that is and what 

DOE is doing here? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. So, again, two different issues. 

One is the issue in terms of the high voltage transmission grid. 

And there, for example, using Recovery Act money we worked with 

the utilities to deploy at some scale a new technology called 

synchrophasors. 

Senator WARREN. Sounds cool. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. So the idea—it is cool and it really gives 

you a lot of information about the status of the grid. The idea is 

we have to still work to get those data to become a decision making 

tool, real time, to prevent issues. But then if you go to the distribution end that’s where, for example, distributed generation, that 

would include, for example, solar is a good example. Distributed 

generation and microgrids are themselves a resiliency tool. 

Senator WARREN. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay? I’ll give you one example where we actually did something concrete. Following Hurricane Sandy and of 

course, we have a lot of energy infrastructure that is coastal and 

susceptible to storm surges, et cetera. So in Hurricane Sandy, in 

the recovery, rather than trying to recover what we had, we spent 

a very small amount of money, cost-shared with New Jersey, to design a very substantial, so-called microgrid, not so micro. But a 

microgrid that would provide a resilience for a key, electrified 

transportation corridor so that even if the big grid was going out 

you might be able to isolate this. And of course, having a transportation corridor available is really important for public safety. 

Senator WARREN. Good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The impact of extreme weather on the grid reliability is a problem for everybody who uses electricity, and we’re facing more extreme weather events. As of this morning we are at more than 77 

inches of snow in Boston. 

Senator KING. I knew she was going to get to that. 

Senator WARREN. You knew I was going to get to this, and that 

it’s due to start snowing again this afternoon. 

These extreme weather events threaten our electricity infrastructure and make it even more important that we invest in upgrading 

and protecting the grid. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

Secretary MONIZ. I’ll have a firsthand view of that snow this 

weekend. 

Senator WARREN. I know you will. 

Secretary MONIZ. And actually I just said that one of the contributing things here is the extraordinarily high temperature right now 

of the water around Boston is contributing a lot of the moisture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to Senator Gardner and then Senator 

King. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank 

you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today and the opportunity to discuss this. 

I, first of all, wanted to say thank you and talk about something 

that I’ve been working and will continue to work and pursue on 

this Committee and that’s the matter of energy savings performance contracts. Looking at some of the work the Department of Energy has done over the years on energy savings performance contracts, I’ll just point out one example from the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratories in Golden, Colorado where for $3.3 million 

worth of ESPC investment, the total savings to the Department of 

Energy to the federal taxpayer will be $12.6 million. 

Again, I think that highlights the work that we can do on energy 

savings performance contracts investing into energy efficiency and 

measures that reduce the amount of energy we consume and saving the taxpayer dollars. Now the problem, of course, with the Congressional Budget Office, in their wisdom, is only in Washington, 

DC. Can savings equal mandatory spending? I hope that you will 

work with me and others interested in this issue of the Army, whoever has been very diligent in pursuing billions of dollars worth of 

savings to the taxpayers will help me get the Congressional Budget 

Office to recognize savings when they see it. So, thank you for the 

work that you do, Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. We’d be happy to support you on that. We are, 

I think, past to the $2 billion mark in terms of ESPCs and there’s 

billions more to get. 

Senator GARDNER. There is. Thank you very much for that. 

Speaking of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, I just wanted to ask a few questions. 

As you know water is the lifeblood of the West. In Colorado it’s 

an incredibly important resource. Energy production and water are 

closely linked. 

What do you see as the Department of Energy’s role with respect 

to energy and water challenges and what priorities does the Department have in this area? Would you talk about ways that we 

can work together, perhaps, with NREL to highlight this? 

Secretary MONIZ. So NREL has, in fact, been part of our laboratory team that has designed an energy/water nexus cross-cutting 

initiative. We are proposing that in this budget for, I believe, it’s 

$38 million. And of course, other agencies have lots of work in 

terms of the water arena, well, EPA and Interior and others. 

But we really have a special kind of focus on the energy for 

water issues, and that goes everywhere from advanced desalination 

technologies to system design, big modeling programs for integrating the energy and water systems. That’s an area, actually, 

where NREL has been very, very helpful. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

We do have a substantial report that we published last year on 

this. And we’d be happy to supply that and discuss it with you, if 

you’d like. 

Senator GARDNER. Very good. 

And maintaining the conversation, gearing it toward NREL. 

High performance computing data center, NREL, helped the lab 

earn a 2013 DOE sustainability award. How is the HPC data system being used today on grid infrastructure to get more natural 

gas and renewables on to the system? 

Secretary MONIZ. First of all, the Peregrine, I believe it’s called, 

computer at NREL—it’s over at PetaFLOP and is by far, the largest computational engine for the kind of portfolio that NREL has. 

I don’t know if you know, it’s also had a very, very novel design 

for its energy usage which has been really, really, path breaking. 

Then in terms of your question. The model—first of all NREL 

has been very critical already, for example, something called the 

ReEDS Model came out of NREL. It is a standard tool used in the 

policy world, including our policy world, for looking at grid issues. 

So the issue is really to keep expanding that and looking at the 

interdependencies of infrastructures, gas and electricity being one 

of them, the IT system being another, with computational models 

that ultimately will allow us to integrate the new kinds of large 

databases we can get from sensors. Ultimately you’d like to be able 

to go to, kind of, distributed decision making capability so you can 

do real time addressing of any reliability issues, for example. 

Senator GARDNER. Yeah, I would love to continue that conversation as well. Just a couple of quick questions before I run out of 

time here. 

Last week, I believe, or it was a few weeks ago, Christopher 

Smith, your Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy at DOE testified 

on Senator Barrasso’s bill, S. 33, the LNG Permitting Certainty 

and Transparency Act. He talked about how he believed that the 

Department would be able to comply with the 45 day timeline for 

approval under that bill. 

From your perspective and from a budget perspective have you 

included sufficient funding in this budget to ensure the 45 day review of these LNG applications for final approval would be 

achieved under the bill, S. 33? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes. First of all, I do want to—the prologue, of course, is that I think we’re doing quite well already. But 

certainly with that bill, as Chris said, we believe we can work with 

those deadlines. And we think we have the resources to do that, 

yes. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that confirmation, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

First, Madam Chairman, I would like to say this is the first 

hearing I have been to since I have been here that I have heard 

sequestration spoken of positively. [Laughter.] So I appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. I’d be happy to speak about it negatively in the 

other sense. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Senator KING. That’s the other—let’s keep it on the positive. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator KING. Mr. Secretary, I have to complement you. I once 

heard an official in Washington characterized as being at the highest level where they still know anything. [Laughter.] 

You are above that level, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a witness with a better grasp of policy, but also the detail of the budget 

that you have exhibited here today. I really want to thank you, for 

what I am sure was significant preparation and work to grasp 

what is going on. That is the essence of leadership and I want to 

thank you for that. 

The second thing I want to say is I don’t think your budget is 

big enough. I did some calculations. Your research and development, the sort of energy and science part, is about $10 billion. 

That’s one percent of our total discretionary budget. It’s two-tenths 

of one percent of the total Federal spending. 

Just to give an example, the Federal support for the development 

of the fracking technology has produced benefits that are just immeasurable in terms of our society. Lower energy prices are enormously important. 21 percent of the average family budget goes to 

energy. A one dollar drop in the price of gasoline saves American 

taxpayers $138 billion a year. It’s like a gigantic tax cut. It is over 

$1 billion a year in my state of Maine. 

So, I don’t think we are spending enough on research and development, and all we’ve got to do is point to the experience of the 

support for fracking over 30 years which has brought us to this energy boom that we’re enjoying today. The work you are doing with 

Tesla, for example, on batteries. The work you are doing on carbon 

sequestration. The work you are doing on base load research, storage, all of those are enormously important, way beyond the rather 

small level of Federal support. 

So put me down as saying let’s keep going with the research and 

development. I think it is an essential Federal function that this 

Department has done well over the years. 

I am going to submit a series of questions for the record on 

things like offshore energy which I think is very important, wind 

and tidal. 

One thing I do want to touch on is nuclear waste storage. As you 

know we have been through a long period, 50, 60, 70 years, of not 

figuring out what to do with nuclear waste. I understand there is 

a company based in Dallas, Waste Control Specialists, that is looking toward at least an intermediate level storage. That would be 

a big improvement. 

We have now got what amounts to 100 plus, high level, nuclear 

storage sites all over the country. One of which is in Maine, and 

we would like to get rid of that stuff. So I argue, is this a priority 

to work toward a high level waste storage facility? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely, it is a priority to work towards a 

whole nuclear waste disposal system. I might add, both, from the 

commercial nuclear power plants and from our own defense waste 

from the weapons program. 

The Chairman, Senator Murkowski, knows, in fact last year we 

worked together with this and the Appropriations Committee leadership to try to advance a particularly, an initial pilot storage facilVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Aug 26, 2015 Jkt 095045 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A045.XXX A045

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

ity. We remain convinced, actually, that moving in this direction of 

getting a storage facility out there, functioning, move fuel away 

from reactors, would be a very, very good first step. Even as we in 

parallel, work to develop the geological isolation capability that we 

will, that we absolutely need for the long term. So the answer is 

yes. [Laughter.] 

Senator KING. Well, the other piece, don’t forget about transportation and getting it there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes. Well—— 

Senator KING. Find a site, but we also have to figure out how to 

get it there and there is a lot of planning involved in that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. And in fact, I was on the National Academy Committee, probably now ten years ago that did the study on 

the whole transportation system for nuclear waste. Another advantage, in my view, of getting that kind of storage facility going, 

whether it’s a federal one which is what we had in mind or potentially this private sector approach, consent based process, number 

one. 

Number two, it will also exercise the transportation system 

which would be another major step forward. 

Senator KING. I am out of time, but I have to ask one question 

that I think can get a one word answer. And that is, can you assure me that in your determination of the national interest when 

approving LNG exports that effect on consumer prices is a major 

factor? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes. 

Senator KING. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. That was two words—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. That was two words, oh and yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines and then Senator Stabenow. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here this morning. 

I come from Montana, and when you think of Montana you probably might envision fly fishing and our—— 

Secretary MONIZ. I do. 

Senator DAINES. Great national parks. The Yellowstone Park is 

about an hour from where I went to kindergarten through college. 

Glacier National Park, some of the great outdoors. In fact, I was 

fly fishing before Brad Pitt discovered it for the rest of the world 

in the famous movie, A River Runs Through It, which was filmed 

at the river I grew up, literally, fishing on. 

Montana is also known for coal. We have more recoverable coal 

than any state in the Union. It is very important for our economic 

future. 

I need to remind, I think, all of us that coal remains the single 

largest source of electricity supply in America. As a father of four 

children I sometimes wonder if we ought to give them their smart 

phones with a little sticker which says, ‘‘this device likely powered 

by coal’’ on it, just as a reminder of the important role that coal 

does play in our energy supply? 

Tesla was mentioned earlier. Similarly, I wonder if we ought to 

have stickers on the back of Tesla automobiles that say, ‘‘this elecVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:16 Aug 26, 2015 Jkt 095045 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A045.XXX A045

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

tric automobile likely powered by coal’’ just as a reminder of how 

important it is to our supply? 

I was out on the Crow Reservation recently. That reservation, 

they mine coal there. The unemployment rate on that reservation 

is 50 percent as we look at the poverty they are dealing with. It 

would be 90 percent without the coal mining jobs. They see a direct 

threat right now on their futures and livelihood as it relates to 

these regulations we are seeing, not coming from the DOE, but 

more so from the EPA. $120 million of tax revenues come from our 

coal industry in Montana that fund our teachers and our infrastructure. Again, it is really a significant foundation for our tax 

base in our state. 

In fact, Detroit Edison receives their electricity from coal from 

Montana. So our manufacturing base, in fact, a good friend, Senator Peters, newly elected from Michigan, explained the importance 

of low cost electricity to keep our manufacturing base of automobile 

industry there in Michigan. 

So that is the background, and I would like to talk a little bit 

about the clean coal technology portions we see there and what you 

are supporting in your budget. How much money does the DOE 

have in proposing and investing in the clean coal technologies? We 

look forward here now to ensuring we protect coal, but also continue to improve, produce, the clean production of coal. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, again, the fossil energy R and D budget 

is in the $500 million scale, a bit more than that. The vast majority 

of that is in coal research. As I’ve said the other investments like 

ARPA–E, a $30 million program, I believe if they ran on carbon 

capture technologies, advanced technologies. 

But again, as I’ve said before, we have an $8 billion active loan 

guarantee solicitation for fossil fuel technologies that lower emissions. And once again in this budget request, not ours, but in the 

Administration budget request out of Treasury, a $2 billion investment tax credit for anything related to carbon capture sequestration, including it could be for the infrastructure like CO2 pipelines, 

et cetera, and an additional tax credit for sequestered carbon dioxide. So it’s a pretty big program. 

Senator DAINES. Yeah. I am going down the path here on the 

coal-fired plants, and I am aware that investment is going to be 

made in the R and D. How much of those dollars would be targeted 

towards helping, maybe, U.S. coal-fired operations verses assisting 

other countries, perhaps, like China and India? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well it is all aimed at the United States. Now 

we do collaborate with China, for example. 

So, for example, we have a clean energy research center which 

has several dimensions. One of which is around coal. But so we, 

the United States, we spend $10 million a year on that program. 

That’s spent in the United States. 

China matches that, and then both of those are matched by industry. So it’s actually our $10 million is part of a $40 million program, but we are supporting the American researchers in collaborative projects. 

Everything we’re doing is—now we hope, of course, that ultimately there will be technologies that we may be able to put into 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

an export market to create more jobs here. But we’re focusing on 

the United States. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. 

Secretary MONIZ. If in terms of the carbon issue we all recognize 

that China is using three, three and a half times as much coal 

right now as we are. 

Senator DAINES. And lastly, Madam Chairman, I am out of time, 

but in terms of the IP creator in this research. Who is going to control and own that IP? 

Secretary MONIZ. We will—in that program, that collaborative 

program, we have a very, very, active IP program to make sure 

that we keep all of our fair share, certainly, of the IP. A lot of it 

is not IP rich, like sequestration stuff, but some is technology stuff. 

And then we have a very active program to control IP. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, 

Secretary Moniz. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. First, a big thank you for your support of the 

funding levels for the nuclear physics programs. I know you mentioned Michigan State University and the Facility for Rare Isotope 

Beams, and that’s a very important basic science project, as you 

know. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, it is. 

Senator STABENOW. We are very proud of the effort that is going 

on there, and not only the science and the ability to compete globally that that will relate to, but also the jobs that are involved in 

that. 

Secretary MONIZ. And great state support with that. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes, absolutely. It’s been a wonderful partnership, public and private partnership, as are the other parts of 

the DOE budget as it relates to science. 

I just want to underscore the importance of that research innovation that you do in every area, including helping to bring things 

from a pilot to commercial stage which is where it is also so important that partnerships around loan guarantees and so on. 

A couple of questions because other colleagues, earlier, talked 

about making sure that we keep costs down for energy intensive 

manufacturers. Certainly in Michigan, I certainly agree with that. 

And one of the big things we’re hearing about is to make sure that 

we move forward in a thoughtful way as it relates to natural gas. 

So, a boon thrust in America and I appreciate those that are in 

states with a lot of natural gas that they want to export. They 

want to get the best price that they can get. China will pay a whole 

lot more than the price right now in America, but if we look at 

American jobs and the fact that studies have shown that they’re 

eight times more jobs created by keeping prices reasonable and 

keeping the jobs here, our energy intensive manufacturers that we 

need to thoughtful. 

I appreciate the fact that you have a balancing act to do. You are 

certainly moving forward on exports, but I also know that you have 

undertaken it to update the study in the Department regarding the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

impacts of increased or wide open LNG exports with no regard to 

the American economy. 

It is important that we make sure that American consumers and 

American manufacturers are benefitting from this great natural resource, and that we get the edge that we need in order to creating 

manufacturing jobs in America. 

I wonder if you might talk about the update of the study that 

you are undertaking and how it is going to evaluate the impact on 

costs for American consumers and American businesses. 

Secretary MONIZ. Certainly. As I mentioned in response to Senator King’s question, clearly, impact on domestic markets is very 

explicitly one of the criteria for the public interest determination. 

The—and so where we are, as we said last year when we put out 

our modified procedure. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. Which I think has provided more clarity for the 

situation that we feel we have the analytical base for up to 12 billion cubic feet per day of exports. I might say that most of the independent economic analyses predict that we are unlikely to export 

more than around ten would be the standard, the most, the average at least projection. So we did commission studies which are due 

later on this year in terms of if we were to get beyond that kind 

of number what would be the economic impact to make sure we understand. 

The EIA does predict, certainly in the current range, very, very, 

very small impacts in terms of price and partly because when exports start and of course, we have no exports yet. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. When they start the expectation is that for 

every unit exported the elasticity is that there would be about twothirds of a unit additional production, so that would also keep a lid 

on any price increase. 

So anyway, we will just keep looking at this all the time. We’re 

currently up to 5.7 authorized for export to non-FTA countries. 

Senator STABENOW. You would agree, though, that other countries are paying more than we are for natural gas? Last year China 

was paying $16. 

Secretary MONIZ. Ah, yes. Although that has changed dramatically with the oil price drop because in general—— 

Senator STABENOW. Sure. 

Secretary MONIZ. These contracts are indexed to oil, and frankly 

that’s another issue. We have seen, formally and informally, some 

withdrawals of consideration because right now the price structure 

is not adequate. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. A colleague of mine mentioned Detroit 

DTE Energy and their reliance on coal. I just also want to put a 

plug in that they are very aggressively moving toward wind. They 

have a wind farm in what we call the thumb of Michigan, and I 

encourage you to continue to focus on clean energy. There are 8000 

parts in one of those big wind turbines, and those have to be manufactured by somebody. That is a lot of jobs, and we think we can 

manufacture one of those in Michigan but they can be manufactured across the country. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

In fact, a few years ago when I was in Alaska I went to a spot 

where there is wind, and they told me the wind turbine came from 

Michigan. So there are a lot of jobs there. So I would encourage 

you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Senator STABENOW. To continue to be focused. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Also I’ll just add on about manufacturing focus 

on composites, for example. 

Senator STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Secretary MONIZ. Could lead to even larger blades and much 

more efficient turbines. 

Senator STABENOW. And we are glad to be involved in that as 

well. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great. 

Senator STABENOW. Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to Senator Barrasso and then Senator 

Hirono. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

welcome back. Good to see you again. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Before I begin with a question I do want to 

thank you and your staff for working with me on the Barrasso/ 

Heinrich, bipartisan LNG export bill. I was very encouraged by Assistant Secretary Smith’s responses to our questions. As of yesterday we had six Democrat co-sponsors, six Republican co-sponsors, 

so I look forward to working again with you on this bipartisan bill. 

I would like to discuss crude oil, the crude oil market. 

Over the last several months OPEC has decided not to cut oil 

production. Many have speculated about the motives for this. Some 

say that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members are trying to rein 

in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Others have stated OPEC is trying to 

encourage Vladimir Putin to abandon his support for Syria’s President Assad. I am sure you have heard all the different theories behind this. Others say OPEC is trying to undermine America’s crude 

oil production. Regardless of their motives, OPEC’s decision has 

forced American oil producers to cut some investment and then lay 

off workers in states such as my state of Wyoming. 

Currently American producers are not allowed to export crude oil 

from the United States, so we have American producers who are 

not allowed to sell to Asia, to Europe, to Latin America, so American producers run out of customers. To me this is, obviously, hardships for folks in my state, but in other states as well. So in light 

of what is happening worldwide, isn’t now as good time as any to 

lift this ban of exporting crude oil from the United States? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, Senator, as you know, that’s, of course, 

in the Department of Commerce’s jurisdiction. We do provide, kind 

of, technical support when requested. 

But a few points I will make without judging the answer to that 

question is one, first of all we are an enormous oil product exporter. We must be, I don’t know, three and a half to four million 

barrels a day, something like that. Probably, I think we’re net two 

and a half million barrels a day exporters now of product. 

That’s an enormous change. It’s almost a reversal of sign from 

a few years ago. So we are exporting, effectively, through products. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

We are also exporting things like natural gas liquids, you know, 

propane, et cetera. 

In terms of crude oil, the other perspective is that we are seven 

million barrel per day importers still of crude oil. So I think this 

question of exports also is to be taken on the context that we are 

actually enormous importers. I understand the next level of argument about matching refineries and this kind of issue. 

Senator BARRASSO. The mismatch of refineries. 

Secretary MONIZ. But those are the kinds of analyses that will 

be forthcoming. 

I will just mention one that the EIA did and published are 

around impacts on gasoline prices, and their conclusion was probably none to possibly minor decreases in domestic prices, largely 

because the gasoline price is indexed more to the Brent benchmark. 

Senator BARRASSO. Have you been in touch with the Secretary of 

Commerce on this issue? As you said, it’s in that jurisdiction. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. So we have supplied a number of technical 

briefings in terms of processing. For example, I mean, of course as 

you know, the Secretary of Commerce did or the Department of 

Commerce did issue a clarification in terms of what lightly processed condensate was for export which I think provided some additional clarity to the companies. 

Senator BARRASSO. In terms of communication I do want to 

switch to Keystone XL now. I know that your Department has been 

involved with issues related to the President and his making his 

decision that’s been six and a half years for a 1.2 mile segment of 

pipe, essentially, crossing the border. 

Last Monday was the deadline for the Federal agencies to submit 

comments to the State Department on the Keystone XL pipeline, 

and I understand your agency did submit comments to the State 

Department. So would you publicly disclose what the Department’s 

comments were to the State Department? 

Secretary MONIZ. We did submit comments, Senator, but regrettably we just don’t comment in terms of active decisional processes 

going on so I think the State Department would have to address 

that. 

Senator BARRASSO. So the public is not entitled to the agency’s 

comments? I want to know how this is consistent with the President’s claim that this is the most transparent Administration in 

history. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well again, I think it’s quite conventional in 

active decisional processes where things can change. But again, the 

Department of State, I think, would have to be the one to do that. 

I mean, I can say that what we submitted certainly provided, I 

would say, up to date information of relevance to the decision. 

Senator BARRASSO. But the Department is still going to withhold 

sharing with the public what that information may be? I mean, 

that’s—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, that’s our intent that we believe the 

State Department should control the information with regard to an 

active decision making process. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank your Department for your support 

for various projects in Hawaii. In fact while I was sitting here I 

was informed that there was a collaboration with your renewable 

energy lab and our electric utility, HECO. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. And solar city basically that will result in our 

electric company being able to accept a lot more solar energy into 

the grid. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. A big deal for Hawaii as we move toward our 

clean energy goals. 

I wanted to ask you a question about commercialization of new 

technology to get us to a clean energy economy. As you know there 

is an issue of as we support R and D and the technology to really 

get us to a clean energy future, the technology transfer aspects of 

it is a huge hurdle. And then you’ve heard of the valley of death 

where there’s a lack of funding support to get from the research to 

the commercial scale of the research. 

So yesterday you announced a new Office of Technology Transfer 

with, albeit, modest funding of about $20 million, I believe. Can 

you explain how that new office will complement or enhance existing efforts in support of technology transfer and whether this office 

will be focused solely on national lab technology or will it also pay 

attention to initiatives that are in the private sector or that come 

out of universities? 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. By the way, first of all, let me say 

that I was very pleased to sign the MOU to extend our collaboration with Hawaii. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Just over a year ago. And Exxon might say Hawaii, it may not always be comfortable, but Hawaii as an island, 

set of islands, of course, provides a very, very good place also to 

look at the development of new technology integration. 

Senator HIRONO. Very much so. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. On technology transfer, so yesterday we 

announced the Office of—actually we call it the Office of Technology Transitions. And the head of which will also be the statutorily required technology transfer coordinator for the Department. 

Over the last six months or so that role has been played by Dr. 

Ellen Williams, who this Committee moved to confirmation as 

ARPA–E Director last December. So we now have an acting director and are searching for a permanent director. 

In terms of the program, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 called for 

establishment of a technology commercialization fund at 0.9 percent of the applied energy R and D programs. Up until now the Department has interpreted the cost shared CRADA agreements at 

our national laboratories as satisfying that requirement. What we 

are doing now is we are, of course, continuing that CRADA approach, Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, approach as a tech transfer approach. But we are, in fact, adding to 

it now the technology commercialization fund as I think it was 

asked for by the Congress. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

As you said that would be about $20 million. It will be used in 

a cost sharing way, a minimum of—well, the program design is still 

a bit of a work in progress, but at least 50 percent cost sharing, 

focused on technologies that the Department, the development of 

which, the Department has funded. This will be a competitive program for getting grants out of that $20 million matching fund pot. 

Senator HIRONO. So in other words at universities, for example, 

that have gotten some grants, they will be able to access this technology transfer? 

Secretary MONIZ. I think we still need to get the design, but I 

hear your suggestion, and I think it’s one that we will definitely 

look at. 

Senator HIRONO. I appreciate it. 

Secretary MONIZ. I have to admit, just thinking mainly of the 

laboratories, but it could be potentially DOE-sponsored work at 

universities. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. So they said there is a lot of work in this 

area. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yup. 

Senator HIRONO. Being done at universities. 

Secretary MONIZ. It’s a good suggestion. 

Senator HIRONO. My time is running out, but I do want to focus 

on your new proposal for state energy reliability and assurance 

grants. I just wanted to know whether the intention of this new 

grant program which appears to be totaling about $60 million, 

again, a modest amount, whether the term reliable delivery of 

newer types of energy would also include intermittent renewables? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes, for sure. I might just clarify that the $63 million is actually the sum of the two grant programs. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes, I added it up. 

Secretary MONIZ. Energy assurance and reliability. Yeah. Yeah. 

Senator HIRONO. Alright. I think my time is up. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In the last couple of days we’ve seen a lot of attention about the 

President’s upcoming cyber security conference at Stanford University. There are going to be a number of Federal agencies and tech 

companies involved. Noticeably absent has been the Department of 

Energy, although obviously, in the utility sector. This is an extremely important area with regards to cyber security. Was that an 

oversight? Will you be participating? Can you tell us about that? 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh, yes. The Deputy Secretary, Sherwood-Randall, is part of the program and she will be there tomorrow, in fact. 

And the Deputy Secretary, starting with Mr. Poneman, when he 

was Deputy Secretary, now Liz Sherwood-Randall, the Deputy Secretary chairs the ongoing group of utility executives that meets 

with us, I think, quarterly, to discuss cyber security. So it’s a very 

strong program. 

All the feedback has been very, very positive from the industry, 

and indeed we have even taken the step of providing security clearances for a select number so that we can share some of the more 

sensitive information with them. The Deputy Secretary runs that 

and will be in the program tomorrow. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. Good to hear. 

Earlier this week a rooftop solar company in Arizona called 

Stealth Solar admitted to illegally marketing services related to installation and leasing of rooftop solar systems. This issue appears 

to be gaining attention. I can tell you in Arizona a lot of these units 

there, as people now go to sell their homes, after entering into 

these long term agreements a lot are in for a surprise. Some have 

already received that surprise when they realize they have to pay 

off or have a lien put on their house. 

What role, if any, can or does DOE plan to play in ensuring that 

these companies, who access federal tax credits, in particular, and 

these incentives for rooftop solar systems aren’t misrepresenting 

what they’re doing for their customers? 

Secretary MONIZ. Senator Flake, thank you for telling me about 

that. I was not aware of this. I don’t know what certainly authorities we would have. I can’t think that we would, but I think we 

should look into this and discuss with others in the government if 

there is a role for us to play or whether it’s a purely state issue. 

We have been engaged, just in a convening sense, on issues like 

rooftop solar and some of the discussions about net metering, et 

cetera, but I wasn’t aware of this issue. 

Senator FLAKE. Well, it is a big issue and a growing issue in Arizona. It is pretty competitive out there and the attractiveness in 

large measure is due to the Federal incentives that go along with 

these units, so I just wonder what role DOE plans to play. A lot 

of these programs—— 

Secretary MONIZ. At a minimum we’ll try to understand the issue 

and be happy to get back to you with a discussion. 

Senator FLAKE. I greatly appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

Senator FLAKE. With regard to green building programs, some of 

those programs are run by DOE. GAO has done a study showing 

that we need to eliminate waste of taxpayer dollars in this regard. 

What is DOE doing in that regard concerning the green building 

programs that you administer? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well we have a variety of those. Some of them, 

of course, are technology based in terms of new technologies. We 

also do convening programs which do not involve appreciable budget, like the Better Buildings Challenge. I don’t know if they were 

referring to that or not. 

But in the Better Buildings Challenge there are, in particular, 

it’s more businesses make commitments in terms of energy intensity reduction, typically 20 percent by 2020. What we do is we use 

our convening power, a certain branding, for the companies meeting these goals while they share best practices with others. But 

that’s not a major budgetary issue so I’d have to look into that in 

more detail. 

Senator FLAKE. Specifically in 2011, GAO recommended that 

DOE, HUD and EPA lead an effort to collaborate with other agencies assessing the results of green building initiatives for the nonFederal sector. I think there are 17 such programs under your purview and there are 94 programs across 11 Federal agencies. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

So this is a problem. There has been a lot of waste identified by 

GAO, but it does not seem that the agencies are very excited about 

moving on the recommendations that have been made by GAO. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay, again, I’m not familiar with that 2011 

report, and we will look at it and get back to you. 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. I appreciate that. 

Secretary MONIZ. The same answer. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you much. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We will go to Senator Franken and then Senator Sanders. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to talk a little bit about nuclear weapons and cost. 

According to the CBO the Administration’s plans to operate, 

maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces will cost about $350 

billion over the next ten years. Credible studies have concluded 

that the Administration’s plans for our nuclear arsenal will cost 

over $1 trillion over the next 30 years. 

What is worse is that CBO goes on to say that in its recent report that it’s estimated the cost of the nuclear arsenal could grow 

if these programs see cost overruns, and that brings me to the part 

of the nuclear weapons budget for which your Department is responsible, the nuclear complex. 

One example of over spending is the B61 bomb modernization 

program. As I understand it the life extension program was supposed to cost $4 billion, and it’s now looking to exceed $10.5 billion. 

This is only one example of a systemic problem of egregious cost 

overruns at NNSA. 

In fact for more than a decade and in numerous reports the GAO 

has consistently found that many of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s major projects have experienced significant cost 

and schedule overruns. According to one of GAO’s reports NNSA 

and NSA does not have and I quote, ‘‘a sound basis for making decisions on how to most effectively manage this portfolio of projects 

and other programs and lacks information that could help justify 

future budget requests or target cost savings opportunities.’’ 

Secretary Moniz, as I indicated we’re on a path to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years on our nuclear arsenal. I don’t believe 

that we should be doing that nor do I believe that we will spend 

that much money and at some point we’ll make a course correction 

and have wasted a lot of money. And these cost overruns are only 

making problems worse. 

What are you doing to address these cost overruns and these 

skyrocketing costs? 

Secretary MONIZ. Obviously I’m not going to get into nor do I 

have responsibility for the bigger policy issue as opposed to our responsibility for maintaining the deterrent that we have, even has 

its trinks. 

Senator FRANKEN. But there have been a lot of cost overruns 

and—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. So now on the projects, let me first just 

note a fact that the, including for NNSA, the GAO has taken us 

off of the high risk list for projects below $750 million. Frankly, in 

the Department as a whole, especially in NNSA and environmental 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

management, there’s about a half of dozen projects that are in the 

multibillion dollar stage where there have been issues, shall we 

say. 

Now part of that is that the cost overruns are measured against 

baseline numbers that were put out long before they should have 

been, long before real engineering design was available. These are 

all unique projects. There’s no baseline of experience to compare 

with. And one of the issues is there has to be better discipline in 

not putting out numbers that just have no grounding in reality. 

Now, what have we done? We have just made a major change 

after over a year of work by a very senior team in terms of changing our project management approach across the entire Department including the NNSA. There are many features of it. 

One is we took the successful principles that have been applied 

in the Office of Science which has built many multibillion dollar 

projects, generally very successfully. We have taken those principles. It starts with things that sound simple, a clear project 

owner, who has his or her budget at risk in a non-performing 

world. And there are a few others. So we’ve put those in place 

across the board. 

Secondly, above the Under Secretaries we have had something 

called the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board, ESAAB. It 

has been a completely episodic event where this group gets together whenever there’s a decision to be made on some project, but 

no continuing situational awareness of what’s going on. That’s 

changed. 

The Deputy Secretary will chair that. It will meet a minimum of quarterly for projects above $100 million. It has another group now 

established under it, a project risk management committee that 

will be meeting every two weeks which contains senior project people from across the Department, including my own, kind of, senior 

advisor on finance, et cetera, et cetera. 

So they have started operating. It’s a new system. We will insist 

upon discipline in terms of base lining costs so that if it’s an overrun, it’s going to be an overrun or an under run against a real 

baseline number and not some number that was put out there with 

no, frankly, almost no basis. 

Senator FRANKEN. I’m way over my time, and that’s because you 

gave an answer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken, we are going to have to move 

on. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yeah, I just want to say that I will submit— 

I was acknowledging that. I want to submit—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You have been very patient, and I appreciate 

that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Haven’t I? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you have. 

Senator FRANKEN. So I just want to say I am going to submit for 

the record some questions on the MOX plant in South Carolina. 

This is an issue which really—we are talking about spending a ridiculous amount of money, as far as I am concerned, on upgrading 

our nuclear arsenal. I know that the Secretary is not responsible 

for the overarching program. 

Thank you. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. We did note the problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know that was an issue Senator Scott was really focused on when he was on the Committee as well, so thank you. 

I promised Senator Sanders he would go next, followed by Senator Risch. 

Senator SANDERS. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for the excellent job that 

you are doing. And Vermont is very proud—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

Senator SANDERS. Of having a wonderful working relationship 

with you and Secretary Chu before you. And we appreciate the 

work you’re doing covering enormously important areas for our 

country and for the world. 

Mr. Secretary, I happen to be one of those who believes in 

science. I know it’s a radical idea, but what the heck. I happen to 

think that the scientific community is right in telling us that climate change is real. 

It is caused by human activity. It is already causing devastating 

problems in our country and around the world, and we need to 

transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. I know that 

view is not unanimously agreed to by members of the Committee. 

That is my view. 

Secretary MONIZ. I agree with you. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay, I appreciate that. 

Very briefly, tell us what you and I know the President agrees 

with that. Tell us what your agency is doing, in fact, in trying to 

have the United States lead the world in terms of reversing the 

devastating problems we face through climate change? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, fundamentally it’s following the President’s Climate Action Plan and its three pillars. 

So one is the mitigation through decreased greenhouse gas emissions and there, without going into all the details, clearly, our clean 

technology development programs and our efficiency programs are 

the heart of, what I think, is going to be the solution. 

Senator SANDERS. I agree. Now in terms of energy efficiency and 

weatherization I represent the state which has a whole lot of older 

homes and older buildings. We have already received very helpful 

grants from the DOE in which we have cut emissions by 30, 40, 

50 percent and cut people’s fuel bills by 30, 40, 50 percent. 

Would you agree with me that it is eminently sensible to make 

a massive investment in weatherization so people can save money 

on their fuel bills and we cut carbon? And that in a few years time 

people can repay the loans or the cost of the program? Does that 

make sense? 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely, and enhance comfort at the same 

time. 

Senator SANDERS. Exactly. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator SANDERS. I understand you have financial constraints, 

but one of the issues that I have always believed in is making sure 

that people who don’t have a lot of money are able to receive loans 

or grants and they can repay it on the bill financing concept. Does 

that make sense to you? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

Secretary MONIZ. Absolutely. I think there’s an enormous return, 

again, and certainly helping the less well off is important in so 

many dimensions. 

Senator SANDERS. I know there are financial limitations to what 

you and every other agency can spend, but are we investing 

enough, frankly, in weatherization in this country? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well we did request in this budget, I don’t remember the numbers exactly, but I think we asked for an increase 

of $40 or $50 million. Maybe one of my—— 

Senator SANDERS. $40 or $50 million? 

Secretary MONIZ. Increase, an increase up to 230 something I 

seem to remember? 

Senator SANDERS. Whatever. 

Secretary MONIZ. Somebody? 

Senator SANDERS. Between you and me—— 

Secretary MONIZ. But anyway, but there’s an enormous need, of 

course, and—— 

Senator SANDERS. It would seem to me that we should be investing a heck of a lot more because this is going to pay for itself. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator SANDERS. It’s going to create jobs. It’s going to lower fuel 

bills, cut carbon emissions. It is a win/win/win situation. Do you 

agree? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, and again and help families and their—— 

Senator SANDERS. Exactly. Exactly. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this. Some of my friends have 

noted this or that problem in terms of sustainable energy projects 

or concerns about loans to Tesla, et cetera. Is it my understanding 

that in fact we provide in this country today, over a ten year period, about $100 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? 

Does that sound right to you? 

Secretary MONIZ. I really could not give a sound answer to that. 

Senator SANDERS. Alright. Let me ask you this one. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator SANDERS. My friends, often some of my colleagues, talk 

about nuclear energy as being something that we should radically 

advance or move forward on. Is it true that without the Price-Anderson program, which basically says to the nuclear industry that 

God forbid there’s ever a nuclear disaster in this country that taxpayers, depending on the nature of the disaster, would pick up a 

substantial part of the liability? That without that program the nuclear industry would not be able to function? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, I think it’s a little bit more complicated 

in a sense that the industry, the individual utilities are required—— 

Senator SANDERS. To pay a certain amount. 

Secretary MONIZ. To have a few hundred million dollars of insurance. 

Senator SANDERS. But why aren’t they going to Wall Street? Why 

aren’t my friends who are—well, believe in the private sector? Why 

don’t—— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Secretary MONIZ. And then what is unique as well in Price Anderson is that then all the nuclear operators must self insure up 

to roughly $10 billion. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. And the total judgments for public impact of 

nuclear power over its history, the last I knew, it was about $200 

million over all those years. 

Senator SANDERS. The truth is if God forbid—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator SANDERS. If there were ever a disaster, Fukushima, in 

this country, the taxpayers would have to pick up, depending on 

the nature of the disaster, a substantial part of that cost. 

Secretary MONIZ. Well,—— 

Senator SANDERS. That is true. 

Secretary MONIZ. If it were above $10 billion—— 

Senator SANDERS. Yeah. 

Secretary MONIZ. For one event, correct. 

Senator SANDERS. That’s right. That’s right. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator SANDERS. And so my only concern is that I say to my 

friends who always want to get the Government out of this or that. 

Do you want to support getting the Government out of Price Anderson in the nuclear industry? 

Let’s work together on it. I don’t think I am going to have too 

many takers on that. Point being, the Government does play a role 

in various forms of technology and energy. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to Senator Risch then Senator Hoeven. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, as you might guess I come at this a little different, from a different perspective, than Senator Sanders. You 

were so good to visit the nation’s lead nuclear energy laboratory in 

Idaho Falls. People are still talking about that. We certainly appreciate your visit, and we look forward to continuing to do great 

things there. 

One of the issues, of course, is the clean up there. We know that 

it was really unfortunate that WIPP had the problem that it had, 

a view of outline here for us here today, a timeline for getting 

WIPP up and running. I think we should all be pulling a wagon 

in the same direction on that. 

One of the questions I have for you is once that gets up and running there is going to be, I think, a bottleneck of trying to get 

things in there. For instance, in Idaho we continue to process and 

the workers do a great job of doing that. They have got 473 packages ready to go. 

This probably drove them a little deeper than where you are so 

you may want to take this for the record, but what can we anticipate as far as shipments? How are they going to prioritize shipments that go into WIPP once it opens back up? Because we do 

have these backed up and there’s obviously going to be more by the 

time we get there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes, Senator Risch, I really don’t have a detailed answer to that right now because one doesn’t exist, to be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

honest. We’re going to have to work through our prioritization. 

Work with our stakeholders to see how we’ll do this. 

There is one other possibility to help, of course, as you know, we 

had started to use a commercial site in Texas as, kind of, a relief 

valve. That’s also been stopped for the moment, but maybe that 

will also revive, to help that. But we’ll have to work that through 

I think when we have a clearer idea of when we can actually start 

shipments. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that, and I appreciate that this is on 

your radar screen. It is important to all of us, and I think everybody is working in good faith to try to get this done so we can move 

forward. 

Again, we sincerely appreciate that. Those people do a great job 

out there with the contractors with what they are doing for all of 

us, for Idaho, for the DOE, for America. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Senator RISCH. I want to talk just a minute about the electric 

grid. It was raised here in the hearing by Senator Warren. I come 

at it from just a little different aspect. She was concerned about 

weather and the fiscal security. 

As you and I know there are other threats to the grid. Some of 

it is classified so we can’t talk about it here, but some of it we can. 

As you know Idaho has been, really, on the cutting edge of that. 

I hope you will keep that in mind as we move forward because 

clearly there has been identified by Senator Warren, by virtually 

everyone, that the grid is a real vulnerability of America, particularly in the cyber aspects of it. 

You had the opportunity to look at that in Idaho. You know what 

we’re doing there. And again, those people out there are really on 

the cutting edge and doing great things. 

Let me just close with this. 

Secretary MONIZ. May I say, including the DHS facility, yeah. 

Yeah. 

Senator RISCH. Right, exactly. 

Let me close with this. I appreciated your answer to Senator 

Franken about the issues regarding our nuclear inventory. Those 

are absolutely critical to America. No one wants to spend money 

on it, but because of the world the way it is today, we have to. 

I will look forward to hearing from you in a classified setting a 

little more detail in how you are going about what you generally 

described here because that is really critical for America and for 

America’s security. So thank you for what you are doing there. 

Thank you for recognizing the issues and the dollars and cents 

are huge when you are dealing with that, and thank you for generating what we hope will be a real pragmatic approach to this and 

how we are going to get this done and do it as effectively and reasonably cost effective as possible. 

Secretary MONIZ. We can certainly arrange that classified briefing for you and maybe other colleagues, if they’d like, if they’re interested in the broader—— 

Senator RISCH. Yeah. There are many other colleagues, my colleagues—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Nuclear security issues. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

Senator RISCH. Right. There are many of my colleagues who are 

interested in that, some of whom are on this Committee, but some 

are also on other Committees that I sit on. My time is up and I 

thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. Great, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Moniz, thanks for being here. Thanks for your good 

work. 

I want to echo Senator Risch’s comments. Your visit to our state 

was much appreciated, and I think was very good, very valuable. 

Thank you for that. 

Secretary MONIZ. I was pleased actually to visit all of the states 

of the members here. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well it is important, and we appreciate how 

you have approached that. 

First question, and this may have come up with Senator Barrasso, but he is a primary sponsor in the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. I am also a sponsor on that bill. It 

would require approval or it would require a decision by the DOE 

within 45 days from approval of the environmental impact statement on an application for LNG export. 

As you know, you and I have had negotiations of this issue which 

I appreciate. Do you feel we have got that in a format that is workable? 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah, as we’ve described, I mean, I think we’re 

doing a good job but with the parameters put forward. We can 

work with those dates. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

The second question I have is about the Advanced Fossil Energy 

Loan Guarantee Program. You have got some outstanding applications to do some exciting things with utilizing natural gas. Of 

course, we are flaring off a lot of natural gas. 

Secretary MONIZ. I’m surprised you used the plural. [Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, I want to be fair. 

I am just wondering how that is progressing and do you feel you 

are getting close to another round of approvals? And if so, when? 

Secretary MONIZ. Well, yes. First of all, we do feel we have, for the $8 billion fossil program, 

in particular, although as well as the other programs, we feel we 

have a very good proposal stream. We cannot discuss any, of 

course, individual proposal. I would just say that, of course, as you 

well know, one of them that you may have in mind has certainly 

gone to the financial part of the discussion, to part two. Yeah. And 

so we’re moving along a whole bunch of our proposals. 

Senator HOEVEN. I think that is a program where we are doing 

some exciting things in terms of, as you said, your core mission of 

technology development. I appreciate that, and I appreciate working with you on it. 

The last point I want to go to is are you aware—— 

Secretary MONIZ. May I just—I’m sorry, Senator, just interrupt 

you to say that for any of our projects, once they have gone to part 

two it means they have passed the threshold test on the technology 

side. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

Senator HOEVEN. Good, yeah, thank you. 

Are you aware of the Shell Company’s Quest project in the oil 

sands and the Exxon’s Kearl project in the oil sands? Both of them 

are projects that are investing billions to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with producing oil from the oil sands. Are you 

familiar with those? 

Secretary MONIZ. No, I am not actually. 

Senator HOEVEN. In both cases I see they are making huge investments in carbon capture and storage technology. In fact in the 

case of Quest, by the end of this year they will be storing a million 

tons a year of CO2 which they will pipe further north and store in 

rock formations. 

Isn’t that exactly the kind of investment in technology that is 

going to help us get carbon capture and storage or sequestration 

to a commercially viable point? Both Senator Manchin and Senator 

Capito pressed you on this issue. The key is yes, we can do CCS 

on a technologically feasible basis, but we have got to get it to a 

commercially viable basis. 

You said driving down the cost is your number one parameter. 

Here are projects that are investing hundreds of millions and billions along with the Province of Alberta and the Canadian Federal 

Government with huge private investments in CCS. Isn’t that the 

kind of thing that can help us drive this technology forward? 

Secretary MONIZ. Sure. Again, I don’t know these particular 

projects, but absolutely. We’re CCS across the board, we think, is 

really, really important. And I might add there is a little facility 

in North Dakota, I think it is, that has sent 20 megatons of CO2

into Canada for enhanced recovery. 

Senator Hoeven: Exactly. The Dakota Gasification Company and 

DOE was an integral part of developing that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Correct. 

Senator HOEVEN. I would like to get to your people the Quest 

and the Kearl which are Shell and Exxon’s projects so you—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Please do. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you can see how important it is in terms of 

developing CCS. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. Which is what you want to do. 

Secretary MONIZ. Terrific. In fact the person in our office, Julio 

Friedmann, is the expert in this area. I’ll bet he knows about them, 

but—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, I would really like to take—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Yup. 

Senator HOEVEN. Like you to take a look because I understand 

from your earlier comments to Senator Barrasso that you were not 

going to comment on Keystone internal deliberations, which I understand. You and I have talked about that issue many times. But 

I think it would be good for you to take a look at this project. 

Secretary MONIZ. I would be happy to. 

Senator HOEVEN. I think you will be impressed. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. Alright. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yup, you bet, yup. 

Senator HOEVEN. Great. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you. You have been very 

generous with your time. It has been almost two and a half hours 

you have been sitting here. 

I want to echo the comments, I believe it was of Senator King. 

Clearly this is not something where you studied up quickly to come 

before the Committee to speak to the President’s priorities within 

your budget. You know the details in and out of what is happening 

within DOE. I think that this is reflected in your responses to our 

questions, and I would like to express my appreciation for how prepared you have come to this hearing. 

Secretary MONIZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be submitting some additional questions 

for the record, but I do think that given the fact that we had pretty 

robust participation here at the Committee, we have gotten to hear 

some responses in a host of different areas. I will ask one more 

question while we still have you here, and that relates to the critical minerals strategy. 

Back in 2010 and in 2011, DOE released a report on the critical 

minerals strategy within the country. We talked a lot about our dependence on foreign sources for oil. I think we recognize that when 

it comes to our critical minerals we have that same dependency, 

and with many of these important minerals it is clearly a dependence that leads to a vulnerability. 

I was listening to the comments from the Senator from Montana 

saying the Tesla needs to have a little bumper sticker that says 

‘‘this may be powered by coal’’ and your kid’s iPhone should have 

the same sticker that says ‘‘this may be powered by coal.’’ I think 

it is very clear that all of it is powered by some form of critical 

mineral and the priority that we place on that, again, accessing 

these within our own country where we do have resources is important. 

So, the question to you is whether or not DOE is looking at updating any of the analysis that you have done, now three years 

back? Is that something that is on the books for consideration? 

Secretary MONIZ. Not that I know of, but I can look at that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you look at that? 

Secretary MONIZ. And we could consider it, of course. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Secretary MONIZ. The issue of critical minerals also goes into the 

things like rare earths. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Secretary MONIZ. That go into so many technologies, et cetera. 

On that one we did form the Hub out in Iowa which I think is 

doing extremely well. I think that perspective is both to produce 

the minerals, but it’s also when can you, if they’re very critical, 

when can you replace them by something else? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. Can you recycle them more, et cetera. So those 

are all interesting. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Secretary MONIZ. We could look at that and see. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. 

Secretary MONIZ. And if that’s something you’re interested in we 

could have a refresh. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to do that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to do that. 

I will also be submitting a question to you about methane hydrates. This has been an area where we have seen the interest 

from DOE’s perspective surge and then wane over the years. I 

think this is an area that has enormous potential for us. Better understanding our methane hydrates is something that I would like 

to do. 

Secretary MONIZ. I’d be happy to discuss that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I did have a question on the long term mercury 

storage facility. We had posed a series of questions to you, Senator 

Heller and I, last year. As I was going through my homework last 

night I actually came across a letter from you that speaks just exactly to this and where we are with the storage facility. So I will 

look forward to following up—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Good. 

The CHAIRMAN. A little bit more with you on that. 

Secretary MONIZ. Excellent. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are some other questions you will be seeing from me. 

Secretary MONIZ. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will turn to our Ranking Member, and we will 

conclude the hearing. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Again, I want to add my thanks for your appearance here today 

and details for the budget itself. I think it is a forward looking perspective to our energy needs, and I thank you for that. 

As some of my colleagues have mentioned they might do more, 

it reminds me of a few years ago when some of the leaders of industry, Bill Gates and the CEO of Cummings, came to all of us and 

said that we should increase ARPA–E even more. I think it is a 

valid point that we could be discussing this in this budget overall. 

I am going to submit a question for the record as it relates to 

the WIPP, the Vit plant and the natural gas pipeline. I think there 

have been some issues there about postponing the EIS. 

Secretary MONIZ. Oh. 

Senator CANTWELL. So I am going to submit something for the 

record, and if you could respond to that, about the timing of that, 

that would be quite helpful. 

You mentioned visits to people’s states. We very much appreciate 

that and want to offer, if you want, to come out and look at the 

various science, no, human science studies that are being done in 

the Northwest, various activities. We would appreciate that. 

I wanted to get a sense of the DOE role. You had a major role 

in the Human Genome Project. What are you thinking about the 

brain and precision medicine efforts and what DOE might contribute to that? That is why we welcome you to visit the Northwest 

on the life sciences issues there. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. Well, I am certainly aware of the major 

push, University of Washington, Seattle, et cetera, and building up, 

I think Microsoft was involved in building up tremendous programs 

there. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Thank you, I mean, for again observing that the Department has 

made and is making tremendous contributions in life science which 

are often not recognized. They are actually derivative of the original programs around radiation damage, and that then grew into 

genomics, et cetera. 

On the brain—and also a factoid that might be interesting is in 

our four large light sources, it’s now up to about 40 percent of the 

use is actually life and medical science connected. So it’s a really 

big deal. 

In terms of the brain, we have now, for about a year, been having discussions with Francis Collins. He actually initiated them. He 

is eager for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to play 

a role. 

That’s based upon two major areas, the expertise around sensors 

and very sensitive measurement devices but also around the large 

scale computation capacity that we have. Of course, in the budget 

the pushing to the next frontier of exascale, high performance computing is one of our also highlighted areas. One of the many applications can be in terms of a brain initiative. 

I’d love to have that discussion because, frankly, we’re always 

concerned about mission and making sure that’s understood that is 

an appropriate place for us to work. NIH is very eager for us to 

join that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

One last thing, last December we were able to pass the Manhattan Project National Historic Park in Washington, New Mexico and 

Tennessee. Part of that law requires the Department of Energy to 

enter into an agreement with the Department of the Interior within a year to specify roles in how that will be administered. 

Can you tell me whether the Department has begun that discussion with Interior? And when do you expect to have it finalized? By 

the end of this year? 

Secretary MONIZ. The goal is for the end of this year. In fact, I 

was just told this morning in my morning staff meeting that there 

will be a meeting with the Park Service today to discuss that. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you would expect that that would be completed by the end of this year? 

Secretary MONIZ. Until I get a report I’m a little reluctant to say 

I expect, but I know that that’s the target and we will try to meet 

that target. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, within one year you are supposed to 

specify. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yeah. 

Senator CANTWELL. So that is a requirement, and you will do it. 

Secretary MONIZ. That’s right. 

Senator CANTWELL. And we very much appreciate getting this off 

the ground between the various agencies. 

Secretary MONIZ. Yes. 

Of course in the meantime the visiting at Hanford and at Oak 

Ridge of Manhattan sites will continue in the normal way, the B 

reactor, for example. 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes, but every time somebody puts out a proposal like here are the visiting hours, it is taken up in seconds. 

That is the demand. People are chomping at the bit. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Secretary MONIZ. I see, yeah. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, it is not as if some people are visiting. 

That is not the question. 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. The question is there is so much public demand that people view this as probably one of the most positive developments and from the perspective of hearing the science story 

behind this—— 

Secretary MONIZ. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. It is pretty incredible. 

Secretary MONIZ. Good. We are pursuing it. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you so much, and thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. With that we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 94045A.022
68 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 94045A.023
69 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 94045A.024
70 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 94045A.025
71 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 94045A.026
72 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 94045A.027
73 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 94045A.028
74 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 94045A.029
75 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 94045A.030
76 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 94045A.031
77 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 94045A.032
78 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 94045A.033
79 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 94045A.034
80 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 94045A.035
81 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 94045A.036
82 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 94045A.037
83 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 94045A.038
84 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 94045A.039
85 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 94045A.040
86 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 94045A.041
87 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 94045A.042
88 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 94045A.043
89 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 94045A.044
90 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 94045A.045
91 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 94045A.046
92 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 94045A.047
93 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 94045A.048
94 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 94045A.049
95 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 94045A.050
96 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 94045A.051
97 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 94045A.052
98 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 94045A.053
99 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 94045A.054
100 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 94045A.055
101 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 94045A.056
102 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 94045A.057
103 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 94045A.058
104 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 94045A.059
105 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 94045A.060
106 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 94045A.061
107 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 94045A.062
108 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 94045A.063
109 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 94045A.064
110 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 94045A.065
111 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 94045A.066
112 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 94045A.067
113 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 94045A.068
114 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 94045A.069
115 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 94045A.070
116 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 94045A.071
117 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 94045A.072
118 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 94045A.073
119 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 94045A.074
120 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 94045A.075
121 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 94045A.076
122 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 94045A.077
123 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 94045A.078
124 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 94045A.079
125 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 94045A.080
126 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 94045A.081
127 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 94045A.082
128 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 94045A.083
129 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 94045A.084
130 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 94045A.085
131 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 94045A.086
132 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 94045A.087
133 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 94045A.088
134 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 94045A.089
135 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 94045A.090
136 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 94045A.091
137 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 94045A.092
138 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 94045A.093
139 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 94045A.094
140 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 94045A.095
141 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 94045A.096
142 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 94045A.097
143 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 94045A.098
144 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 94045A.099
145 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 94045A.100
146 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 94045A.101
147 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 94045A.102
148 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 94045A.103
149 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 94045A.104
150 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 94045A.105
151 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 94045A.106
152 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 94045A.107
153 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 94045A.108
154 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 94045A.109
155 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 94045A.110
156 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 94045A.111
157 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 94045A.112
158 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 94045A.113
159 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 94045A.114
160 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 94045A.115
161 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 94045A.116
162 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 94045A.117
163 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 94045A.118
164 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 94045A.119
165 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 94045A.120
166 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 94045A.121
167 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 94045A.122
168 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 94045A.123
169 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 94045A.124
170 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 94045A.125
171 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 94045A.126
172 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 94045A.127
173 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 94045A.128
174 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 94045A.129
175 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 94045A.130
176 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 94045A.131
177 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 94045A.132
178 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 94045A.133
179 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 94045A.134
180 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 94045A.135
181 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 94045A.136
182 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 94045A.137
183 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 94045A.138
184 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 94045A.139
185 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 94045A.140
186 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 94045A.141
187 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 94045A.142
188 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 94045A.143
189 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 94045A.144
190 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 94045A.145
191 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 94045A.147
192 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 94045A.146
193 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 94045A.148
194 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 94045A.149
195 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 94045A.150
196 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 94045A.151
197 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 94045A.152
198 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 94045A.153
199 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 94045A.154
200 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 94045A.155
201 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 94045A.156
202 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 94045A.157
203 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 94045A.158
204 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 94045A.159
205 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 94045A.160