U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–839PDF 2010

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

FISCAL YEAR 2011 RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 3, 2010

Serial No. 111–81

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

March 3, 2010

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science 

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

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

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member, 

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 11

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee 

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 12

Prepared Statement by Representative John Garamendi, Member, Committee 

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 13

Witnesses:

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

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

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

Discussion 

The Cancellation of Yucca Mountain .................................................................. 30

Creating and Retaining Domestic Jobs .............................................................. 30

Buy American Strategies ..................................................................................... 31

The Ultra-Deepwater Program ........................................................................... 32

Energy Hub Goals ................................................................................................ 34

Funding for Nuclear Power ................................................................................. 36

Solar Energy ......................................................................................................... 37

Commercializing Technologies ............................................................................ 38

The Mix of Domestic Energy Sources ................................................................. 39

Potential Energy Efficiency Strategies ............................................................... 41

High-Performance Computing at DOE ............................................................... 43

Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling ............................................................................. 44

More on Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste Storage ..................................... 45

More on Nuclear Waste ....................................................................................... 47

DOE Research Infrastructure ............................................................................. 57

Public Access of High-Performance Computers ................................................. 58

The Government Tools for Reducing Energy Use ............................................. 68

Coal and the DOE ................................................................................................ 69

Smart Grid and Wind Energy Transmission ..................................................... 71

Cap and Trade ...................................................................................................... 72

More on the Ultra-Deepwater Program ............................................................. 72

Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................. 75

Closing .................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ..................... 78
Page

IV

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Motion To Withdraw Yucca Mountain License Application .................................................................................................. 98
(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 

2011 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

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

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
2
3

HEARING CHARTER

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

The Department of Energy

Fiscal Year 2011 Research and

Development Budget Proposal 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010

12:00 P.M.–2:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose 

On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology will 

hold a hearing entitled ‘‘The Department of Energy Fiscal Year 2011 Research and 

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

from the Secretary of Energy on the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request 

for energy research and technology development programs at the Department, including activities under the Offices of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, and the Loan Guarantee Program.

Witness

• Dr. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy. Prior to his appointment as the 

12th Secretary of Energy, Dr. Chu was the Director of DOE’s Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, and a professor of Physics and Molecular and 

Cell Biology at the University of California. Dr. Chu was the co-winner of the 

1997 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Background 

The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Department of Energy is $28.4 billion, which represents a $1.8 billion or 6.8 percent increase over FY 2010. This supports a wide range of activities within the DOE mission, including maintaining nuclear weapons deterrence capabilities, securing nuclear materials, improving energy 

efficiency, incentivizing production of renewable energy, curbing greenhouse gas 

emissions, and investing in research and innovation to enhance the nation’s economic competitiveness. The FY 2011 budget request builds on $36.7 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which is expected to 

be completely obligated by the end of FY 2010. 

Of the total budget for DOE, approximately one-third is allocated for civilian energy research and technology development programs within the Science and Technology Committee’s jurisdiction. The remainder is designated for weapons stockpile 

stewardship and nonproliferation activities in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as well as both Defense and Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup 

(EM). 

The FY 2011 budget request continues support for crosscutting initiatives that 

draw on the various program offices within DOE, including both new and existing 

proposals for Energy Innovation Hubs, and science and engineering education activities through RE–ENERGYSE (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering 

Edge).

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

The Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for ARPA–E is $299.9 million. This will be 

the first year that ARPA–E receives full operational funding through the annual appropriations process. ARPA–E was established in 2009 with $15 million from the 

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and $400 million from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

ARPA–E was originally authorized in the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (P.L. 

110–69). That Act followed on the direct recommendations of the National Academies seminal 2005 report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm.’’ The Gathering 
4

Storm panel was chaired by retired Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO Norman 

Augustine, and included, among a number of notable experts Secretary Chu. The 

panel made a recommendation to create a new energy research agency (ARPA–E) 

within the Department of Energy patterned after the successful Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Department of Defense. 

According to the Gathering Storm report, ARPA–E should be structured to ‘‘sponsor creative, out-of-the-box, transformational, generic energy research in those areas 

where industry itself cannot or will not undertake such sponsorships, where risks 

and potential payoffs are high, and where success could provide dramatic benefits 

for the Nation . . . . It would be designed as a lean, effective, and agile—but largely 

independent—organization that can start and stop targeted programs based on performance and ultimate relevance.’’

Shortly after receiving Recovery Act funding, ARPA–E released its first Funding 

Opportunity Announcement (FOA) in April 2009, and it received an unprecedented 

response of almost 3,700 concept papers. After an intensive selection process utilizing expert volunteers from industry and academia, 334 of those were chosen to 

submit full applications. Ultimately, 37 projects were chosen to participate, totaling 

over $150 million in awards to a diverse range of technologies and performers. A second round of solicitations totaling $100 million was announced in early December. Informed by a series of open workshops the second round focuses on three 

distinct areas: innovative materials and processes for carbon capture, transportation 

batteries, and liquid fuels from carbon dioxide. Despite the comparatively narrow 

scope of this solicitation, ARPA–E received over 600 concept papers. It is expected 

that awards will be announced in the coming this spring, and total 30–40 projects. 

A third round of solicitations is expected soon. 

Given the high demand evidenced by the responses to the first and second rounds 

of funding, DOE and ARPA–E leadership acknowledged that it had the capacity to 

accommodate only a small percentage of applications. Consequently, the Department is hosting an ARPA–E Energy Innovation Summit on March 1–3rd to highlight some award-winning projects as well as those that did not receive awards but 

would likely still be of interest to the investor community.

Office of Science 

The FY 2011 budget request for the DOE Office of Science is $5.1 billion. This represents an increase of $218 million or 4.4 percent over the FY 2010 enacted level 

of funding. 

The request for Basic Energy Sciences (BES) is $1.84 billion, an increase of 

$198.5 million or 12.1 percent over enacted FY 2010 funding. As the largest program within the Office of Science, BES conducts research and supports major user 

facilities to examine the cross-cutting areas of materials and chemical sciences. In 

FY 2009, the program began support for 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers 

(EFRCs) focusing on specific research areas for energy applications that were identified in a series of recent reports and workshops. The annual budget for each EFRC 

is $2–5M per year, and each supports ∼6–12 researchers from a variety of institutions. In FY 2010, DOE is initiating an Energy Innovation Hub on producing liquid 

transportation fuels directly from sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water through a 

chemical process analogous to photosynthesis in plants, but without the need to 

maintain life processes. The Hub was funded in FY 2010 by DOE’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy in accordance with the FY 2010 Energy & Water 

Development Appropriations Act, but it is being managed by BES. In FY 2011, DOE 

has proposed to formally fund this Hub through BES as well. In addition, DOE is 

proposing the establishment of a Hub on Batteries and Energy Storage in BES, with 

a request of $34 million for FY 2011. Energy Innovation Hubs have annual budgets 

of ∼$25 million, and will be able to support much larger research teams than 

EFRCs. No Federal funds for EFRCs or Hubs can be used for construction of permanent infrastructure, and all awardees must recompete every five years. The budget would provide $426 million for Advanced Scientific Computing 

Research (ASCR), an increase of $32 million or 8.1 percent over enacted FY 2010 

funding. This includes funds to continue upgrading the Leadership Class Facilities 

at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. 

Biological and Environmental Research (BER) would receive $626.9 million 

under the President’s budget, which is $22.7 million or 3.8 percent over current year 

funding. In addition to the role of BER in areas such as genomics, climate change 

research, and environmental remediation, the FY 2011 request supports continued 

funding for three bioenergy research centers established in FY 2008. 

The request for Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) is $380 million, a decrease of 

$46 million or 10.8 percent below enacted FY 2010 funding. This decrease largely 

reflects a one-year reduction in the U.S. contribution to the ITER international fu-
5

sion project, from $135 million to $80 million, consistent with the project’s current 

status as a final design is determined this year. 

The FY 2011 funding request for High Energy Physics (HEP) is $829 million, 

which is $18.5 million or 2.3 percent more than the enacted FY 2010 level. This program conducts fundamental research in elementary particle physics and accelerator 

science and technology, including support for research on collaborative international 

projects such as the Large Hadron Collider. 

Nuclear Physics (NP) would receive $562 million, an increase of $27 million or 

five percent over FY 2010 funding. NP supports research to discover and understand 

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

of techniques to make isotopes that are in short supply for medical, national security, environmental, and other research applications.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

The President’s proposal of $2.35 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy represents a 5% increase from the 

enacted FY 2010 level. Under this request renewable energy investments would significantly increase for large-scale demonstrations in biopower, concentrating solar 

power, offshore wind, and advanced hydropower. Energy efficiency activities would 

continue to support R&D for innovative new building technologies and a new focus 

on retrofitting existing buildings. For the second year in a row the Administration 

is including a proposal to fund a new program coordinated with the National 

Science Foundation called RE–ENERGYSE. This would provide educational and 

training support to universities and community colleges. 

The proposed funding for the Solar Energy program is $302.4 million, an in- crease of $55.4 million or 22.4 percent over FY 2010 levels. This reflects an increase 

of $23.5 million to the Photovoltaic R&D subprogram covering the first full year of 

funding for its PV Manufacturing Initiative, a $48.5 million increase to the Concentrating Solar Power subprogram to accelerate the installation of large-scale solar 

thermal demonstration projects in the American Southwest, and a proposed shift of 

support for the Fuels from Sunlight Energy Innovation Hub from EERE to the Office of Science, as described above. 

The FY 2011 funding request for the Wind Energy program is $122.5 million, an increase of $42.5 million or 53.1 percent. This increase primarily reflects the establishment of a significant subprogram to accelerate the advancement of offshore 

wind through demonstrations and technology development. 

The FY 2011 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems request would stay flat at $220 million. This program seeks to produce cost-competitive renewable fuels from 

biomass feedstocks, (grass, trees etc.) through the advancement of technologies and 

practices to make the entire biomass supply chain more efficient. In coordination 

with the Office of Fossil Energy, the program will also establish a new $50 million 

biopower initiative to accelerate the commercialization of technologies which 

produce electricity and heat from biomass. 

The Buildings Technologies Program (BTP) would receive $231 million, a 3.9 

percent increase over FY 2010 enacted levels. This includes an increased emphasis 

on technology research and development for retrofitting the nation’s existing building portfolio. The program will also focus on promoting the use of more efficient appliances. The Buildings Technology program seeks to complete legally required efficiency standards pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Standards will be issued for a variety of appliances and equipment including fluorescent lamp ballasts, clothes dryers, residential 

refrigerators, furnaces and boilers. Additionally, the request includes $24 million for the Energy Efficient Buildings 

Systems Design Hub. This will focus on state-of-the-art energy science and technologies that integrate smart materials, designs, and systems to increase energy efficiency in buildings. This approach would maximize the efficiency of different components and systems in a building. This Hub would be a part of the Administration’s proposed Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (E–RIC), a multi-agency initiative to spur regional economic growth while making buildings more energy efficient. 

This initiative involves six Federal agencies and up to $129.7 million over five years 

to create a regional research center that will develop new building efficiency technologies and work with local partners to implement these technologies in area buildings. 

The Administration’s budget request would provide a total of $40 million for the 

Water Power program. This provides support to advance both conventional hydropower and marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies, each with $20 million for 

FY 2011. This request is $30 million below the explicit $50 million authorization 

in the EISA for R&D for MHK technologies. The $20 million request for FY 2011 
6

is also below the FY 2010 appropriation of close to $40 million for MHK technologies. 

The proposed funding level for the Geothermal Technology program is $55 million, up by $10 million from the FY 2010 appropriation, but still $35 million below 

the $90 million authorized from EISA. This funding will continue the Department’s 

focus on Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), including three existing EGS demonstration projects, and add three new projects. 

The Industrial Technologies Program would receive $100 million, an increase 

of $4 million from the FY 2010 appropriation. The program focuses on reducing energy-intensity by 25 percent in the U.S. industrial sector by 2017, a goal established 

by EPAct ’05. This funding will focus on new initiatives in the chemical and cement 

industries and continue activities in other energy-intensive industry sectors, while 

also focusing more attention on crosscutting activities. Specifically, the program will 

continue to support Combined Heat and Power (CHP) activities in the industrial 

sector through its existing projects funded through Recovery Act funds and new 

R&D on cutting edge technologies.

Nuclear Energy (NE) 

For FY 2011 the Administration requests $503 million for the Office of Nuclear 

Energy research and development, representing an increase of $37 million over the 

FY 2010 enacted funding level. Close to eighty percent of that request is dedicated 

to the Fuel Cycle Research and Development and Reactor Concepts RD&D

programs. The Administration recently expressed support for the expansion of nuclear power, and increased its commitment to loan guarantees for new reactors as 

well as commissioned a Blue Ribbon panel to consider long-term strategies for used 

nuclear fuel and waste storage. 

The United States has been conducting research on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel since 2002 under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and more recently 

under the Fuel Cycle Research and Development program. In April 2009, the Administration signaled a change in this initiative when it announced it was no longer 

pursuing domestic commercial reprocessing under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, which had sought near-term reprocessing technology development and deployment. GNEP had drawn criticism based on the substantial 

costs estimated for implementing the program and the technical challenges associated with developing, demonstrating, and deploying advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel that do not separate out a stream of weapons-ready plutonium. The National Academies expressed similar concerns in a series of reports. The 

new strategy of this program will be to examine three distinct fuel cycle strategies: 

once-through, modified-open, and full-recycle. 

The Administration reorganized NE’s advanced reactor research efforts and created the Reactor Concepts RD&D program. This new program will include Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, Next Generation Nuclear Power, a new focus on 

Small Modular Reactor design, and other advanced reactor initiatives. The Administration recognized that advanced reactor design is a vital part of closing the fuel 

cycle and increasing the efficiency and longevity of both the current nuclear fleet 

and those plants expected to be built in the near-term. Furthermore, next generation advanced reactors are expected to provide the capacity to utilize advanced fuels 

reclaimed through reprocessing. 

The FY 2011 budget request also establishes the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET) program to provide support to the aforementioned programs and 

develop crosscutting technologies. Amongst the goals of this program will be exploration of advanced fuels and concepts that will increase the performance of technologies developed in the Reactor Concepts RD&D and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative programs. NEET will also encourage research into high-risk, high-reward concepts aimed at providing technological leaps for nuclear generation. Furthermore, 

under the NEET program, the Administration provides $24.3 million for the Energy 

Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. This hub program will continue its 

2010 work in providing validated advanced modeling and simulation tools necessary 

to enable fundamental changes in how the U.S. designs and licenses nuclear power 

and waste management technologies. 

An additional $5 million is requested for RE–ENERGYSE under the Nuclear Energy Program.

Fossil Energy R&D 

The proposed FY 2011 budget includes a significant reduction for Office of Fossil 

Energy (FE) funding. The Fossil Energy R&D program would receive $587 million 

in FY 2011, a decrease of $85 million compared to FY 2010 appropriations. Pursu-
7

ant to the Administration’s policy to cut oil and gas subsidies the reduction comes 

largely from the proposed cancellations of the Natural Gas Technologies program 

and the Unconventional Fossil Energy Technologies program as well as no planned 

FY 2011 Congressionally Directed Projects. Coal-related projects would receive $404 

million, similar to FY 2010’s funding levels. 

The FY 2011 budget request for FE’s Coal program will be a driver to accomplish 

the Administration’s recently announced pledge to develop 5–10 Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects by 2016. The Fuels and Power Systems program initiatives will focus on research, development, and deployment of 

technologies to use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently. This program also supports demonstration projects including the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) and 

FutureGen, though both of those programs will not receive funding for demonstrations under the FY 2011 plan, and instead FE will focus on project execution in all 

Rounds of CCPI and completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures for ongoing projects. Included in this request is $143.0 million for FE’s Carbon Sequestration program including the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, $65 million for the Innovations for Existing Plants program, and $55 million 

for the Advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) program. The Administration will continue to explore fuel cell and advanced turbine technologies for 

deployment in central coal power generation facilities. Furthermore, the Advanced 

Research program would receive $47.9 million for its continued activities to improve 

efficiency and reduce costs of advanced coal-based systems. The Administration will 

propose a new budget structure for the FY 2012 Clean Coal program to align the 

four key research areas of efficiency, carbon capture, geologic storage, and cross-cutting research.

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) is charged with 

managing programs to modernize the electric grid, enhance security and reliability 

of the energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to our energy 

supply. The Administration’s FY 2011 request for OE’s Research and Development 

is $144 million, a $19 million increase over last year’s funding. Included is additional funding for smart grid and energy storage technologies R&D. Within the 

smart grid research activities there will be a new focus on power electronics. These 

activities help utilities effectively deliver power to customers while providing increased reliability to bulk power systems. An integral part of this research will be 

on promising materials for semiconductors. A funding increase of $26 million for energy storage technology research will be used to initiate activities in community energy systems based on vehicle batteries and the development of significantly larger 

lithium ion cells for stationary applications. Additionally, increased basic research 

and improved modeling capacities for Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) systems will be conducted. Also notable is a reduction in funding of $10 million for 

Cyber Security for Energy Delivery Systems.

Loan Guarantee Program 

The FY 2011 budget request proposes funding and authority to support approximately $40 billion in additional loan guarantees for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and nuclear energy projects.
8
9
10

Chairman GORDON. The hearing will come to order. 

Let me just bring everybody up to speed on where we are. Although the memorial service is over, the House, I understand, may 

still be technically in recess for a few more minutes. We have the 

right to move forward, but I have consulted with the Minority, and 

I want to be sure they feel comfortable with that because we are 

going to then have a series of votes in an hour and a half or so 

and I want to be sure that Dr. Broun has plenty of time to ask all 

he wants to ask. So if we are going to do that, we need to get started. So with no objection, then we will begin now. I thank you all. 

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on 

the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request, and 

I especially want to welcome our witness, Dr. Chu. In an effort also 

for brevity, Mr. Hall has suggested that we either waive or make 

our opening statements brief, and so I will be brief and simply say 

that for those that believe in destiny, Dr. Chu, your destiny was 

to be here at this moment and this time to bring your unique set 

of skills, maybe not here at this hearing room but here as the Secretary of Energy. You do have a unique set of skills that are needed, I think, as we are moving really both for national security as 

well as economic security, a time of losing jobs in the 21st century, 

as we are looking for the new jobs of the 21st century. 

So we welcome you here and I congratulate you on a tremendous 

turnout yesterday for the ARPA–E [Advanced Research Projects 

Agency–Energy]. For those that weren’t there, there were over 

2,000 people that came to the ARPA–E. If I could just real quickly, 

since Ralph always tells stories, I will tell a quick one. Tony Tether, who was a former director of DARPA, when we were talking to 

him about ARPA–E and how it should be set up, he recommended 

that if he could, he would have ARPA–E—I mean DARPA—all on 

one floor and there would be unisex bathroom in the middle of it 

so that everybody would have to come there at some time and have 

interaction. Well, there was only one coffeepot at this meeting yesterday with 2,000 people and they were all around the coffeepot. 

You could hear the really the stimulating discussions about what 

about this, what about that. So I think it was a great success. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request. 

I especially want to welcome our witness, Secretary Chu. 

Dr. Chu, you have sat before this committee on a number of occasions, and your 

testimony is always valuable and appreciated. With all of the changes at the Department we certainly look forward to an interesting discussion today. 

It has been an exciting and historic year for the Department of Energy. The 2009 

Recovery Act provided DOE with almost $40 billion to jumpstart our green economy, 

and to lay a strong foundation for our country’s future through significant investments in research and development. 

While this is a tremendous opportunity for the Secretary, it also presents an unprecedented challenge in ramping up programs that, at best, spend around onetenth of that in a normal year. 

I believe we entrusted the right person with this task, and that we will look back 

on this investment as the one that sowed the seeds of change for a new U.S. economy. 

The Recovery Act included $400 million in start-up funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy—ARPA–E—a program we authorized in the 

America COMPETES Act two years earlier. 
11

As Secretary Chu knows well, I have a strong interest in the success of ARPA–

E, and our Committee has been engaged in rigorous oversight of the agency 

throughout its inception and early development. 

Today, I am pleased to say that we are impressed with the progress that you and 

Dr. Majumdar, ARPA–E’s new Director, have made in such a short amount of time. 

In DOE’s history, it had been unheard of to carry out technical reviews of some 

3700 proposals—and then to get the money out the door to the winners—within just 

a few months. We have heard stories on how this experience compares to previous 

applications to, and negotiations with, DOE. I’d like to hear if there are any positive 

lessons we can learn from this process that can be applied to the rest of the Department. 

So obviously I am happy to see the Administration’s request of $300 million for 

ARPA–E in FY 11, and I believe ARPA–E is moving fast enough to justify an even 

larger investment in the very near future. But it appears to be an appropriate, welljustified amount to build on the successes we’re seeing today. 

I am also pleased with the request for the DOE Office of Science, which—along 

with the Administration’s requests for NSF and NIST—continues this agency on a 

doubling path as recommended by the National Academies’ Gathering Storm report 

to keep America competitive well into the future. 

We will be taking another look at these agencies in the reauthorization of the 

America COMPETES Act this year, and look forward to working with you to make 

this new bill as strong and effective as we can. 

Another area we will be focusing on this year is nuclear energy. I’m sure there 

will be some lively discussions this afternoon on the Administration’s decision to cut 

funding for Yucca Mountain, but given the recent assessments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Academies that a major repository isn’t needed 

anytime soon—and may never be needed—I’m most interested in where we go from 

here. 

I am pleased that loan guarantees for the first new nuclear plants in three decades have finally been issued, and I’m impressed with the quality of members selected for the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste, just announced 

by the President. 

I understand that the Department will also be releasing a nuclear energy R&D 

plan in the near future, and we look forward to reviewing it as soon as possible. 

We expect this plan to be an important reference as we craft a comprehensive nuclear energy research and development bill this year. 

In closing, Secretary Chu, I’ve appreciated working with you over the past year, 

and urge you and DOE to continue reaching out to us on anything we can do to 

help you make the Department as effective as possible. With that, I’d like to yield 

to the Committee’s distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Hall.

Chairman GORDON. With that, I will yield to my newly championed Ranking Member on his way to his 14th term, undefeated—

16th? What is it, no knockdowns, no—anyway, he is back and I am 

glad. 

Mr. HALL. I will just ask unanimous consent to place my statement that you ought to have to listen to into the record. Without 

objection? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I want to welcome Secretary Chu back for his second visit to the Committee. I look forward to continuing 

to work with you on the energy challenges that are central to DOE’s mission and 

the Nations well-being. 

When it comes to energy and DOE’s budget there is of course an abundance of 

important issues to discuss, but I want to focus my comments on three high level 

areas: (1) energy independence and security; (2) the status and outlook for nuclear 

energy; and (3) science and innovation as a priority investment toward maintaining 

America’s long-term economic competitiveness. 

Most important—and most concerning—to me in this budget is its approach to energy security. While I recognize and generally support efforts to advance energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, any serious approach to strengthening American energy independence must be ‘‘All of the Above,’’ and complemented by a comprehensive effort to expand traditional sources of domestic energy, primarily oil and 

natural gas. We are all concerned about jobs, so this Administration should be 
12

heartened by the fact that the domestic oil and natural gas industry experienced 

nine percent job growth from 2002–2008. Unfortunately, this budget proposes dramatic tax hikes on domestic energy development and aims to eliminate the fossil 

energy R&D programs, including the proven and successful Ultra-Deep program 

that I helped to establish in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These actions—combined 

with delays in opening up new areas for domestic energy production and efforts to 

ration carbon use through Cap and Trade—will result in higher energy costs, reduced job growth, and increase our dependence on foreign energy sources, including 

those provided by regimes hostile to American interests. 

With respect to nuclear energy, I appreciate the Secretary’s stated desire to ‘‘restart the nuclear energy industry in America.’’ However, the signals on nuclear remain mixed, and I hope to see the Administration’s desire translated into real action 

and support, from loan guarantees, to licensing to R&D. Nuclear waste storage is 

critical and the Administration’s determination that Yucca Mountain is not a workable option seems cavalier when not based on any scientific, engineering or economic 

analysis. I have written the Secretary asking for more information on his decisions 

and plans in this area. I look forward to his thorough and timely response, and to 

working with him on this as we go forward. 

Last, I want to reiterate my strong support for investments in the basic research 

activities that drive American innovation and competitiveness. In 2007, the S&T 

Committee led passage of the America COMPETES Act, which placed the DOE Office of Science on a path to double over seven years. While I am pleased that the 

President appears mindful of the need for basic research and development, I am 

concerned with how the Administration is choosing to direct the American taxpayer’s research dollars. I have long feared that ARPA–E would divert funding from 

the Office of Science, and it appears that this budget reflects that reality. Moreover, 

there seem to be multiple other programs with overlapping goals and activities that 

must be better explained and distinguished from traditional agency activities. For 

example, it is unclear how the activities supported by the newly established and requested energy innovation hubs, the energy frontier research centers and traditionally applied energy programs are different. We need improved clarity on this question to enable prioritization and minimize confusion and potential duplication of effort. 

In our current economy we need to be judicious with taxpayer dollars. I am concerned with where this budget is taking us and the ways the Administration is 

choosing to direct energy research dollars. 

While I have many more questions and concerns that I hope to cover in our discussion and subsequent interactions, these are my top priorities that I look forward 

to hearing from the Secretary on. 

Thank you again for taking the time to be with us today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the Department of Energy (DOE) research and development (R&D) budget for Fiscal Year 

2011 (FY 11). 

The President’s budget calls for $28.4 billion in FY 11 for Energy R&D, a $1.8 

billion increase from FY 10. The President’s budget continues to invest in a balanced energy R&D program that emphasizes the development of renewable energy 

sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, while continuing to use our most abundant 

and affordable domestic source of energy, coal. I applaud the administration’s strong 

support of the Office of Fossil Energy’s (FE) Coal R&D program. Fifty-one percent 

of electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal, and 49 percent of the electricity in my home state, Illinois, comes from coal. 

The administration’s $400 million investment will expand research, development, 

and deployment of clean coal technologies, including carbon capture and storage 

(CCS), to ensure this stable and affordable source of energy remains clean and efficient. 

I was pleased with the DOE’s decision last year to continue investing in 

FutureGen, the world’s first commercial-scale CCS demonstration project. I have 

been a firm supporter of the FutureGen project since its inception, and DOE’s $1 

billion investment through last year’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reinvigorated the project. Since DOE’s investment, FutureGen is on the fast-track towards completion and has welcomed two new members, Illinois-based Caterpillar 

and Exelon. Despite this progress, DOE’s FY 11 budget does not provide any further 
13

funding for FutureGen, and I would like to hear how DOE will continue to support 

and invest in FutureGen without additional funding. 

In addition, I also strongly support the DOE’s decision to focus the next round 

of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E) funding on high-risk, 

high-reward carbon capture research. The results of these projects will show us the 

future of CCS and coal in the U.S., and the projects will build on the work being 

done now at universities and research centers across the U.S., including the Coal 

Research Center at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. 

Balancing this investment in fossil energy, the budget invests $2.4 billion in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency R&D, including biofuels and biomass. I 

strongly support this ongoing investment in developing these new renewable energy 

sources and ensuring our national energy policy is sustainable and balanced. 

Finally, the President’s budget represents a change in direction for the national 

nuclear energy policy. The budget requests $503 million for the Office of Nuclear 

Energy (NE), an increase of $37 million over FY 10. This increased funding, in addition to $54.5 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of new reactors, demonstrates the administration’s support for the expansion of nuclear power. About 49 

percent of Illinois’ power is generated through nuclear energy, and we should continue to develop our nuclear energy program. Since the administration decided to 

eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain while expanding our reliance on nuclear energy, I would like to hear what steps DOE is taking to store nuclear waste as more 

nuclear energy is produced. 

I welcome Secretary Chu, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you again, 

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN GARAMENDI

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on the Department 

of Energy’s (DOE) Fiscal Year 2011 budget. 

Secretary Chu, welcome to the Committee and thank you for your testimony. I 

am very pleased to see the commitment to research, science, engineering and STEM 

education at DOE in the President’s budget. These investments in our children’s future are long overdue. 

In addition to being home to Lawrence Livermore and to the Joint Genome Institute, my district is adjacent to the 9th Congressional District represented by Congresswoman Barbara Lee that is home to another world leading research and institution, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley Lab, under the new 

leadership of Dr. Paul Alivisatos, is making great progress on the development of 

advanced energy and environmental solutions. 

As home to four major national scientific user facilities—the Advanced Light 

Source, the National Center for Electron Microscopy, the Molecular Foundry and the 

National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center—the Lab serves thousands 

of scientists annually from around the world. From supporting Nobel prize-winning 

work to finding solutions to health, energy and climate challenges, these user facilities are the best that our country has to offer and I urge the Department to fully 

fund and support them aggressively. 

In particular, I urge the Department to adequately fund the research needed for 

the next generation of photon light sources. There is great potential here for understanding materials and chemical reactions at a scale unmatched by current tools. 

Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to praise the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. It is THE work horse of the Office of Science 

advanced computing program serving over 3,000 users annually. I strongly urge the 

Department to more fully utilize NERSC for working with industry and academia 

to address our energy and environmental challenges.

Chairman GORDON. Without objection. And Dr. Chu, as you 

know, your written statement will be made a part of the record and 

so we welcome your oral statement followed by each Member will 

have an opportunity to question you for five minutes. 

So with that, Dr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy, welcome. You may begin. 
14

STATEMENTS OF DR. STEVEN CHU, SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

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

Ranking Member Hall. Members of the Committee, I thank you for 

having the opportunity to be here before you today to discuss the 

President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of 

Energy. 

President Obama has stated that a nation that leads the world 

in creating new sources of clean energy will be the Nation that 

leads in the 21st century global economy, and I fervently share this 

view. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for $28.4 billion for the Department of Energy will help position the United 

States to be a global leader in this new energy economy. The budget request makes much-needed investments to harness the power 

of American ingenuity. This request will create clean energy jobs, 

expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers and help 

curb the carbon pollution that threatens our planet. The President’s budget request includes an investment of $2.4 

billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. It also 

promotes innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy 

projects through $500 million in credit subsidies that will support 

$3 billion to $5 billion in lending. It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion to help build a robust domestic 

manufacturing capacity. Through this budget, we will increase research, demonstration and deployment of wind, solar, geothermal 

energies, make buildings more efficient, develop energy-efficient vehicles, and pursue carbon capture and sequestration. 

Nuclear energy must also be part of our clean energy mix. Our budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee 

authority for the nuclear power sector as well as $495 million for 

nuclear energy research and development. 

On February 16th, President Obama announced conditional commitments for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for what will 

be the first nuclear power plants to break ground in nearly three 

decades. 

We have many technologies on hand today to begin the transition 

to a low-carbon economy but we will need further breakthroughs 

and better technologies to meet our long-term goals. The budget request invests in basic and applied research and puts us on a path 

to doubling the funding for science. 

I know this Committee is deeply interested in the Department’s 

research agenda. Indeed, you have been instrumental in some of 

the key R&D initiatives in this budget request. I thank the Committee for your efforts to pass the America COMPETES Act and for 

your work to reauthorize this important legislation. 

The budget request supports the Department’s three new complementary approaches to marshalling the Nation’s brightest minds 

to accelerate energy breakthroughs. The first approach is energy 

innovation hubs. The hubs are multidisciplinary, goal oriented and 

will be managed by top teams of scientists and engineers with 

enough resources and authority to move quickly and respond to 

new developments. They are to be modeled after laboratories such 

as MIT’s radiation laboratory, which developed radar during World 

War II and Bell Laboratories which invented and developed the 
15

transistor. Ideally, this work will be done under one roof. The Department will continue funding the three energy innovation hubs 

introduced in fiscal year 2010, but in addition we are proposing a 

new hub to dramatically improve batteries and energy storage. 

The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research Centers. 

The EFRCs are mainly university-based, problem-oriented research. We have identified key scientific barriers to energy breakthroughs and we believe we can clear these roadblocks faster by 

linking together small groups of researchers across departments, 

schools and institutions. The Department proposes expanding the 

Energy Frontier Research Centers to capture emerging opportunities in new materials and basic research for energy needs. 

The third funding approach is one that was made possible by this 

Committee, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or 

ARPA–E. ARPA–E is technology oriented. We seek the boldest and 

best ideas for potentially transformative energy technologies and 

funding them to see if they will work. ARPA–E is also dedicated 

to the market adoption of these new technologies. The fiscal year 

2011 budget request includes $300 million for ARPA–E. This week, 

ARPA–E sponsored a successful conference here in Washington, as 

Chairman Gordon mentioned, to bring together our Nation’s energy 

innovators. I want to thank Chairman Gordon for taking part in 

this event and for his continued leadership on ARPA–E. 

To develop clean energy solutions and maintain nuclear security, 

the Department must cultivate the workforce of the next generation. In fiscal year 2011, we are requesting $55 million to start a 

‘‘RE-ENERGYSE’’ initiative to support K–20-plus science and engineering education. 

In addition to the health of our economy and our planet, the Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security of our 

people. The Department is requesting a significant increase, more 

than $550 million, in new funding for the NNSA Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program to help the President’s goals of securing 

vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years. 

To ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our nuclear 

stockpile, we are requesting $7 billion to upgrade our infrastructure, support the work of our national labs and recruit the skilled 

workforce we need. 

The budget also protects public health and safety by cleaning up 

the environmental legacy of our Nation’s nuclear weapons program. 

In 2010, the Department will discontinue its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a high-level 

waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the Administration has announced 

an independent bipartisan commission co-chaired by General Brent 

Scowcroft and Congressman Lee Hamilton to conduct a comprehensive review of the back end of the fuel cycle and make recommendations for safe, long-term solutions. 

Building a clean energy future won’t be easy but it is necessary 

for our economy and our security. As a scientist, I am optimistic 

and I believe we can meet these challenges and lead the world in 

the 21st century. President Obama and I look forward to working 

with this Committee and this Congress to build a stronger, safer, 
16

more prosperous future. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Chu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY STEVEN CHU

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

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

Year 2011 budget request for the Department of Energy. 

President Obama has stated, ‘‘The nation that leads the world in creating new 

sources of clean energy will be the Nation that leads the 21st century global economy.’’ I fervently share this view. The President’s FY 2011 budget request of $28.4 

billion will help position the United States to be the global leader in the new energy 

economy. The budget request makes much-needed investments to harness the power 

of American ingenuity. This request will create clean energy jobs, expand the frontiers of science, reduce nuclear dangers, and help curb the carbon pollution that 

threatens our planet. As part of this Administration’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Department of Energy is also proposing several program reductions and 

terminations.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

The FY 11 budget request builds on the investments in the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. Through the $36.7 billion the Department received from the 

Recovery Act, we are putting Americans to work, while helping to build a clean energy economy, spur energy innovation, and reduce our dependence on oil. We’ve 

begun to make our homes and offices more energy efficient, modernize our grid, and 

invest in key renewable energy projects. Getting this money out the door quickly, 

carefully, and transparently has been and will continue to be a top priority for me.

FY11 Budget Supports Strategic Priorities 

To continue the progress we have made, the FY 11 budget request supports the 

Department’s strategic priorities of:

• Transitioning to a low-carbon economy by developing and deploying clean and 

efficient energy technologies, increasing generation capacity and improving 

our transmission capabilities;

• Investing in scientific discovery and innovation to find solutions to pressing 

energy challenges and maintain American economic competitiveness; and

• Enhancing national security by ensuring the safety, security and effectiveness 

of the nuclear stockpile without testing. The budget request also includes 

funds to work with our international partners to secure vulnerable nuclear 

material around the world within four years, and advance our nuclear legacy 

cleanup.

These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued commitment to improving 

the management and fiscal performance of the Department.

Energy 

To transition to a low-carbon future, we must change the way we generate and 

use energy. The President’s budget request invests in clean energy priorities, including an investment of $2.4 billion in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. It also promotes innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy projects 

through $500 million in credit subsidy that will support $3 to $5 billion in lending. 

It expands the Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit by $5 billion to help build a robust domestic manufacturing capacity for clean energy technologies. Through this 

budget, we will increase research, demonstration, and deployment of wind, solar and 

geothermal energies; make buildings and homes more efficient; develop energy efficient vehicles; and pursue carbon capture and sequestration. 

Nuclear energy must also be a part of our clean energy mix. During his State of 

the Union address, President Obama said, ‘‘To create more of these clean energy 

jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means 

building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.’’ The 

President and I are committed to restarting our domestic nuclear industry. Our 

budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for the 

nuclear power sector to help construct the first new nuclear plants in decades, as 

well as $495 million for research and development to support the competitiveness, 

safety and proliferation resistance of nuclear energy in the United States and 
17

abroad. On February 16, President Obama announced conditional commitments for 

more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power 

plant to break ground in nearly three decades.

Innovation 

We have many technologies in hand today to begin the transition to a low-carbon 

economy, but we will need breakthroughs and better technologies to meet our longterm goals. I know that this committee is keenly interested in the Department’s research agenda. Indeed, this committee has been instrumental in laying the groundwork for some of the key research and development initiatives in this budget request through its efforts to pass the America COMPETES Act. I know that the committee continues to work during this Congress to reauthorize this legislation. 

The budget request invests in basic and applied research and puts us on the path 

to doubling funding for science, a key presidential priority. We are also requesting 

$55 million to start the RE–ENERGYSE initiative to help educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. 

The budget request also supports the Department’s three new, complementary approaches to marshalling the nation’s brightest minds to accelerate energy breakthroughs. 

The first approach is the Energy Innovation Hubs. The Hubs are multidisciplinary, goal-oriented, and will be managed by top teams of scientists and engineers 

with enough resources and authority to move quickly in response to new developments. They are to be modeled after laboratories such as MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, which developed radar during World War II, and Bell Laboratories when it invented and developed the transistor. Ideally, this work will be conducted under one 

roof. The Department will continue funding the three Energy Innovation Hubs introduced in FY 2010. In addition, we are proposing a new Hub to dramatically improve batteries and energy storage. 

The second approach is the Energy Frontier Research Centers. The EFRCs 

are mainly university-based, problem-oriented research. We have identified key scientific barriers to energy breakthroughs, and we believe we can clear these roadblocks faster by linking together small groups of researchers across departments, 

schools, and institutions. The Department proposes expanding the Energy Frontier 

Research Centers to capture emerging opportunities in new materials and basic research for energy needs. 

The third funding approach is the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E). ARPA–E is technology-oriented. We are seeking the boldest and 

best ideas for potentially transformative energy technologies and funding them to 

see if they work. The FY 2011 budget request includes $300 million for ARPA–E. 

ARPA–E is also dedicated to the market adoption of these new technologies. This 

week, ARPA–E sponsored a very successful conference here in Washington to bring 

together our nation’s energy innovators. I want to thank Chairman Gordon for attending this event, and for his continued leadership on ARPA–E.

Security 

In addition to the health of our economy and our planet, the Department of Energy is focused on the safety and security of our people. Last April in Prague, President Obama outlined an ambitious agenda to address the greatest threat to global 

security—the danger of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons or the material to build them. The Department is requesting a significant increase in the 

budget—more than $550 million in new funding—for the NNSA Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation program to help meet the President’s goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years. 

The President has also made clear that, as long as nuclear weapons continue to 

exist, it is essential that we ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. With the $7 billion in funds we have requested, we can upgrade our 

infrastructure that has been allowed to decay in the past decade, support the cutting-edge work of our National Labs, and recruit the skilled workforce we need 

today and in the future. Over the next five years, we intend to boost this funding 

by more than $5 billion. Even in a time of tough budget decisions, we must make 

this investment for the sake of our security. 

The budget also protects public health and safety by cleaning up the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program. 

In 2010 the Department will discontinue its application to the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) for a license to construct a high-level waste geologic repository 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca 

Mountain is not an option. To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the 
18

Administration has brought together a range of experts to conduct a comprehensive 

review of the back end of the fuel cycle. The Blue Ribbon Commission announced 

recently, and co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and Congressman Lee Hamilton, will provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to 

managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and its nuclear waste. 

As part of our comprehensive strategy to restart the nuclear industry, we also 

propose breaking down artificial stovepipes and merging the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management into the Office of Nuclear Energy.

Management 

Finally, in order to transform the way Americans generate and use energy, we 

must transform the Department itself. As part of the Obama Administration’s reform agenda, the budget request includes $2 million to establish a new Management 

Reform initiative to provide strategic direction, coordination and oversight of reform 

initiatives. This initiative will report directly to me and will receive close personal 

attention. We made important reforms when we began to implement the Recovery 

Act, and now we need to institutionalize those reforms and apply them across the 

Department. 

Additionally, we are committed to being good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. 

As we developed the budget, we looked to eliminate or reduce programs where we 

could. For example, we eliminated more than $2.7 billion in tax subsidies for oil, 

coal and gas industries. This step is estimated to generate more than $38.8 billion 

in revenue for the Federal Government over the next 10 years. 

Building a clean energy future won’t be easy, but it is necessary for our economy 

and our security. As a scientist, I am an optimist, and I believe that we can meet 

this challenge and lead the world in the 21st century.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY 2011 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET 

The Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget request of $28.4 billion, a 6.8 percent or $1.8 billion increase from FY 2010, supports the President’s commitment to 

respond in a considered, yet expeditious manner to the challenges of rebuilding the 

economy, maintaining nuclear deterrence, securing nuclear materials, improving energy efficiency, incentivizing production of renewable energy, and curbing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Together with the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and FY 2010 budget, the FY 

2011 budget request supports investment for a multi-year effort to address these 

interconnected challenges. 

The FY 2011 budget builds on the $36.7 billion in Recovery Act funding. By the 

end of FY 2010, the Department expects to obligate 100 percent and outlay roughly 

35–40 percent of Recovery Act funds. In developing the FY 2011 budget request, the 

Department has taken these investments into account. Recovery Act investments in 

energy conservation and renewable energy sources ($16.8 billion), environmental 

management ($6 billion), funds supporting loan guarantees for renewable energy 

and electric power transmission projects ($4 billion), grid modernization ($4.5 billion), carbon capture and sequestration ($3.4 billion), basic science research ($1.6 

billion), and the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy 

($0.4 billion) will continue to strengthen the economy by providing much-needed investment, by saving or creating tens of thousands of direct jobs, cutting carbon 

emissions, and reducing U.S. dependence on oil. 

The President’s FY 2011 Budget supports our three strategic priorities:

• Innovation: Investing in science, discovery and innovation to provide solutions to pressing energy challenges

• Energy: Providing clean, secure energy and promoting economic prosperity 

through energy efficiency and domestic forms of energy

• Security: Safeguarding nuclear and radiological materials, advancing responsible legacy cleanup, and maintaining nuclear deterrence

These strategic priorities will be enabled by a continued commitment to management excellence:

• Management: Transforming the culture of the Department with a resultsoriented approach

Innovation: Investing in Science, Discovery and Innovation to Provide Solutions to Pressing Energy Challenges 

As President Obama made clear in his remarks to the National Academy of 

Sciences in April 2009, the public sector must invest in research and innovation not 
19

only because the private sector is sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will be broadly shared across the economy. Leading requires assembling a critical mass of the best scientists and engineers to engage in missionoriented, cross-disciplinary approaches to addressing current and future energy 

challenges. To develop clean energy solutions and maintain nuclear security, the Department must cultivate the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

workforce of the next generation. The FY 2011 budget request of $55 million for 

RE–ENERGYSE (Regaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) supports 

K–20+ science and engineering education. 

With every initiative the Department undertakes, sound science must be at the 

core. In FY 2011 the Department will increasingly emphasize cross-cutting initiatives to link science throughout the Department, specifically with energy and national security programs. These cross-cutting initiatives will enhance science capabilities to create knowledge and innovative technologies that can be brought to bear 

on national energy and security issues, leverage world-class science and engineering 

expertise to establish global leadership as clean energy innovators, and employ useinspired research to reduce the cost and time to bring technologies to market at 

scale. The Department believes that it will deliver solutions more quickly and efficiently through our efforts to break down the traditional stovepipes and operate in 

a more integrated and coordinated manner. The FY 2011 Budget continues to address the President’s priorities in an integrated and efficient manner, and to deliver 

results for the American taxpayer. 

The Department continues its strong commitment to basic research and supports 

the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation by requesting funding for the Office 

of Science at $5.1 billion, a 4.4 percent or $218 million increase from FY 2010. The 

FY 2011 budget request will support the training of students and researchers in 

fields critical to national competitiveness and innovation, and will support investments in areas of research essential for a clean energy future. The President’s Plan 

commits to doubling Federal investment in basic research at select agencies. The 

Department supports an overarching commitment to science by investing in basic 

and applied research, creating new incentives for private innovation and promoting 

breakthroughs in energy. 

To help achieve the game-changing breakthroughs needed to continue leading the global economy, the FY 2011 budget request includes $300 million for the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E). Introduced in FY 2009, ARPA–E is responsible for enabling specific high-risk and high-payoff transformational research 

and development projects. Beyond simply funding transformational research that 

creates revolutionary technologies, ARPA–E is dedicated to the market adoption of 

those new technologies to meet the Nation’s long-term energy challenges. This funding, along with the $400 million made available through the Recovery Act, will provide sustained investment in this pioneering program. 

The Department will continue funding the three Energy Innovation Hubs introduced in FY 2010 to focus on developing fuels that can be produced directly from 

sunlight, improving energy efficient building systems design, and using modeling 

and simulation tools to create a virtual model of an operating advanced nuclear reactor. In addition, DOE is proposing a new Hub to focus on batteries and energy 

storage. Each of these Hubs will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising 

energy-related technologies. 

Complementing the Hubs, the Department proposes expanding the Energy Frontier Research Centers in FY 2011 to capture new, emerging opportunities by furthering its scientific reach and potential technological impact by competitively soliciting in two categories: discovery and development of new materials critical to 

science frontiers and technology innovations, and basic research for energy needs.

Energy: Providing Clean, Secure Energy and Promoting Economic Prosperity through Energy Efficiency and Domestic Forms of Energy 

In Copenhagen, President Obama emphasized that climate change is a grave and 

growing danger. The imperative now is to develop the capacity to confront the challenges climate change poses and seize the opportunity to be the global leader in the 

clean energy economy. Meeting the Administration’s goal to reduce carbon emissions 

by more than 80 percent by 2050 will be achieved by addressing supply and demand 

through increased energy efficiency, renewable generation, and grid modernization, 

as well as improvements in existing technologies and information analysis. An important tool that will continue to be used to address these issues will be loan guarantees. The Department’s FY 2011 budget request, building on the FY 2010 budget 

and the Recovery Act, invests in the research, development, and deployment of tech-
20

nologies that will position the United States to lead international efforts to confront 

climate change now and in the future. The long-term economic recovery will be sustained by these continued investments in the new energy economy.

• Loan Guarantees

The Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO) is a vital tool for promoting innovation in the energy sector across a broad portfolio of clean and efficient energy technologies. In FY 2011, the Department is requesting funding and authority to support approximately $40 billion in additional loan authority for innovative energy 

technology development. During FY 2010, the LGPO streamlined the application review process. The new authority requested will help the Department to encourage 

and to accelerate the availability of loans to leverage private sector investment in 

clean energy projects.

• Energy Efficiency

In August 2009, President Obama said, ‘‘If we want to reduce our dependence on 

oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our manufacturing sector as one of 

the greatest in the world, we must produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the 

future.’’ In FY 2011, the Department will promote energy efficiency in vehicles technologies, at $325 million. No less important to achieving the President’s stated ambitions is decreasing energy consumption through developing and advancing building technologies ($231 million) and industrial technologies ($100 million). Federal 

assistance for state-level programs, such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million, a 50 percent increase from FY 2010) and Weatherization Assistance grants 

($300 million, a 43 percent increase from FY 2010), will help States and individuals 

take advantage of efficiency measures for buildings and homes, lower energy costs 

and greenhouse gas emissions, and develop an ever-evolving, technically proficient 

workforce.

• Clean, Renewable Energy Generation

The FY 2011 budget request will modernize the Nation’s energy infrastructure by investing in a variety of renewable sources such as solar ($302 million), wind ($123 

million), water ($41 million), hydrogen ($137 million), biomass ($220 million) and 

geothermal ($55 million). These sources of energy reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions and continue the pursuit of a clean energy economy built on 

the next generation of domestic production. The Department is also continuing to 

promote domestic clean energy through the four Power Marketing Administrations, 

which market and deliver electricity primarily generated by hydroelectric dams.

• Grid Modernization

In support of the modernization of the electricity grid, the President’s FY 2011 Budget requests $144 million for research and development to improve reliability, 

efficiency, flexibility, and security of electricity transmission and distribution networks. The ‘‘Smart Grid’’ will integrate new and improved technologies into the energy mix, ensuring reliability, integration of renewable energy resources, and improving security. 

While investing in energy efficiency, renewable energy generation, and grid modernization are fundamental steps necessary for creating a clean energy economy; investing in the improvement of existing sources of energy will provide a bridge between current and future technologies These technologies are already a major segment of the energy mix and will play a critical role in providing a solid foundation 

that will make possible the creation of this new economy.

• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy currently supplies approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity and 70 percent of the Nation’s clean, non-carbon electricity. The request for 

the Office of Nuclear Energy includes $495 million for research, development, and 

demonstration in addition to investments in supportive infrastructure. Work on advanced reactor technologies, fuel cycle technologies, waste management, and crosscutting technologies and transformative concepts will help ensure that nuclear energy remains a safe, secure, economical source of clean energy. The Department will 

also promote nuclear energy through the Loan Guarantee Program, which is requesting an additional $36 billion in loan authority for nuclear power in FY 2011 

(for a total of $54.5 billion).

• Clean and Abundant Fossil Energy

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

demand. It is imperative that the United States develop the technology to ensure 
21

that base-load electricity generation is as clean and reliable as possible. The Office 

of Fossil Energy will invest $438 million in the research and development of advanced coal-fueled power systems and carbon capture and storage technologies. This 

will allow the continued use of the abundant domestic coal resources in the U.S. 

while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Accurate energy information and analysis play a critical role in promoting efficient energy markets and informing policy-making and strategic planning. This 

budget requests a total of $129 million for the Energy Information Administration, 

the statutory statistical agency within the Department, to improve energy data and 

analysis programs.

Security: Safeguarding Nuclear and Radiological Materials, Advancing Responsible Legacy Cleanup and Maintaining Nuclear Deterrence

• Reduces the Risk of Proliferation

In an April 2009 speech in Prague, the President called the threat of nuclear proliferation ‘‘the most immediate and extreme threat to global security’’ and announced his support for a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear 

material around the world within four years. The FY 2011 budget for the NNSA 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program supports this effort, recognizing the urgency of the threat and making the full commitment to global cooperation that is 

essential to addressing this threat. The budget provides $2.7 billion in FY 2011, and 

$13.7 billion through FY 2015 to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear 

and radiological material worldwide. This request is an increase of 26 percent or 

$550 million from FY 2010. The budget supports cooperative nonproliferation initiatives with foreign governments and the effort and expertise to forge them into durable international partnerships, achieving the objective of a world without nuclear 

weapons. The budget continues the installation of radiation detection equipment at 

international border crossings and Megaports, significantly expands materials protection and control security upgrades at selected sites in foreign countries to address 

outsider and insider threats, and accelerates the pace of highly enriched uranium 

research reactor conversions with an urgent focus to develop the capability to 

produce the medical isotope molybdenum-99 in the U.S. using low enriched uranium. The FY 2011 budget request provides $4.4 billion over five years for Fissile 

Materials Disposition including the construction of U.S. facilities for the disposition 

of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in fulfillment of our commitment with the Russian 

Federation under the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement of September 2000, and provides the first $100 million of a $400 million U.S. commitment 

to advance the construction of plutonium disposition facilities in the Russian Federation. The FY 2011 budget request also supports a funding increase for Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development for new technologies in 

support of treaty monitoring and verification.

• Leverages Science to Maintain Nuclear Deterrence

The FY 2011 budget request advances the Department’s commitment to the national security interests of the United States through stewardship of a safe, secure 

and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without the use of underground nuclear 

testing. As the role of nuclear weapons in our Nation’s defense evolves and the 

threats to national security continue to grow, the focus of this enterprise must also 

change and place its tremendous intellectual capacity and unique facilities in the 

service of addressing other challenges related to national defense. NNSA is taking 

steps to move in this direction, including functioning as a national science, technology, and engineering resource to other agencies with national security responsibilities. NNSA must ensure our evolving strategic posture places the stewardship 

of our nuclear stockpile, nonproliferation programs, counterterrorism, missile defenses, and the international arms control objectives into one comprehensive strategy that protects the American people and our allies. Through the NNSA, the Department requests $7.0 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation, a 9.8 percent or $624 million increase from the FY 2010 appropriation. This increase provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller nuclear stockpile, strengthens the 

science, technology and engineering base, modernizes key nuclear facilities, and 

streamlines the enterprise’s physical and operational footprint. 

These investments will enable execution of a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy based on current and projected global threats that relies less on nuclear weapons, yet enhances national security by strengthening the NNSA’s nuclear security 

programs. This improved NNSA capability base will mitigate the concerns regarding 

ratification of the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The FY 2011 request for Weapons Activities has four major 
22

components. The request for Stockpile Support increases, reflecting the President’s 

commitment to maintain the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear testing, consistent with the principles of the 

Stockpile Management Program outlined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). The request for 

Science, Technology and Engineering increases by over ten percent, and provides 

the funding necessary to protect and advance the scientific capabilities at the U.S. 

nuclear security laboratories supporting the stockpile and broader national security 

and energy issues. The budget request for Infrastructure supports the operation and 

maintenance of the government-owned, contractor-operated facilities in the nuclear 

security enterprise, as well as special capabilities for secure transportation and construction. The security and counterterrorism component of the budget provides for 

physical and cyber security in the NNSA enterprise, as well as emergency response 

assets and NNSA’s focused research and development contribution to the Nation’s 

counterterrorism efforts.

• Advances Responsible Environmental Cleanup

The FY 2011 budget includes $6 billion for the Office of Environmental Management to protect public health and safety by cleaning up hazardous, radioactive legacy waste from the Manhattan Project and the Cold War. This funding will allow 

the program to continue to accelerate cleaning up and closing sites, focusing on activities with the greatest risk reduction. 

As the Department continues to make progress in completing clean-up, the FY 

2011 budget request of $189 million for the Office of Legacy Management supports 

the Department’s long-term stewardship responsibilities and payment of pensions 

and benefits for former contractor workers after site closure. 

The Administration has determined that the Yucca Mountain repository is not a 

workable option and has decided to terminate the Office of Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management. The core functions and staff to support efforts under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to meet the obligation of the Government will transfer to the 

Office of Nuclear Energy by the end of FY 2010.

Management: Transforming the Culture of the Department with a ResultsOriented Approach 

In order to transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we must transform the Department of Energy. The Department is committed to strengthening its 

management culture and increasing its focus on results. The implementation of the 

Recovery Act provided the Department with an opportunity to continue to refine 

best practices in management, accountability, operations, and transparency. These 

best practices will be applied in executing the FY 2011 budget. 

To achieve our strategic priorities, the Department requests a net of $169 million 

for Departmental Administration. These funds, along with resources in individual 

program offices, will help transform key functional areas such as human, financial, 

project, and information technology management. The request includes $2 million 

for Management Reform within the Office of the Secretary, which will provide the 

Department with strategic direction, coordination, and oversight of reform initiatives.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FY 2011 PROGRAM OFFICE HIGHLIGHTS

Office of Science: Supporting Cutting-Edge Foundational Scientific Research 

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science (SC) delivers discoveries and scientific tools that transform our understanding of energy and matter and advance 

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

sponsor of basic research in the United States, leading the Nation to support the 

physical sciences in a broad array of research subjects in order to improve energy 

security and address issues ancillary to energy, such as climate change, genomics, 

and life sciences. In FY 2011, the Department requests $5.1 billion, an increase of 

4.4 percent over the enacted FY 2010 appropriation, to invest in science research. 

The FY 2011 request supports the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation, 

which encompasses the entire SC budget, as part of a strategy to double overall 

basic research funding at select agencies. As part of this plan, the budget request 

supports the training of students and researchers in fields critical to our national 

competitiveness and innovation economy, and supports investments in areas of research critical to our clean energy future and to making the U.S. a leader on climate 

change. 
23

SC is addressing critical societal challenges and key missions of the Department 

of Energy through significant improvements in existing technologies and development of new energy technologies. SC will accomplish this by: (1) sustained investments in exploratory and high-risk research in traditional and emerging disciplines, 

including the development of new tools and facilities; (2) focused investments in 

high-priority research areas; and (3) investments that train new generations of scientists and engineers to be leaders in the 21st century. The FY 2011 budget request 

supports all three of these investment strategies. 

Two of the four Energy Innovation Hubs being requested in FY 2011 are through 

the Office of Science; these Hubs will bring together teams of experts from multiple 

disciplines to focus on two grand challenges in energy: (1) Fuels from Sunlight, a 

Hub established in FY 2010 and (2) Batteries and Energy Storage, a new Hub in 

the FY 2011 request. 

The Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) program will be expanded in the 

FY 2011 request to capture new, emerging opportunities by furthering its scientific 

reach and potential technological impact. New EFRCs will be competitively solicited 

in two categories: discovery and development of new materials that are critical to 

both science frontiers and technology innovations, and basic research for energy 

needs in a limited number of areas that are underrepresented in the 46 original 

EFRC awards. 

The FY 2011 request for the U.S. ITER Project ($80 million, a decrease of $55 

million from FY 2010) is a reflection of the pace of ITER construction as of the end 

of 2009. The Administration is engaged in a range of efforts to implement management reforms at the ITER Organization and accelerate ITER construction while 

minimizing the overall cost of the Construction Phase for the U.S. and the other 

ITER members. 

The Office of Science supports investigators from more than 300 academic institutions and from all of the DOE laboratories. The FY 2011 budget request will support 

approximately 27,000 Ph.D.s, graduate students, undergraduates, engineers, and 

technicians. Nearly 26,000 researchers from universities, national laboratories, industry, and international partners are expected to use SC scientific user facilities 

in FY 2011.

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy: Transformational Research 

and Development 

The FY 2011 budget request includes $300 million for the Advanced Research 

Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E), a program launched in FY 2009 that sponsors 

specific high-risk and high-payoff transformational research and development 

projects that overcome the long-term technological barriers in the development of 

energy technologies to meet the Nation’s energy challenges, but that industry will 

not support at such an early stage. An essential component of ARPA–E’s culture is 

an overarching focus on accelerating science to market. Beyond simply funding 

transformational research creating revolutionary technologies, ARPA–E is dedicated 

to the market adoption of those new technologies that will fuel the economy, create 

new jobs, reduce energy imports, improve energy efficiency, reduce energy-related 

emissions, and ensure that the U.S. maintains a technological lead in developing 

and deploying advanced energy technologies.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Developing and Deploying Clean, Reliable Energy 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) strengthens the 

energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality of the U.S. through 

the research, development, demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) of clean energy 

technologies and generation and advances in energy efficiency. EERE’s activities are 

critical to creating a low carbon economy and sustaining strong economic growth 

and job creation while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy 

imports. EERE programs link advances in basic research and the creation of commercially successful products and services to ensure delivery to the marketplace for 

general use and implementation. 

The FY 2011 budget request of $2.4 billion, an increase of five percent over FY 

2010, is aimed at accelerating revolutionary change in the Nation’s energy economy. 

The request includes programs associated with meeting the President’s goals of investing in the next generation of clean energy technologies, vehicles and fuels, and 

energy efficiency measures that reduce energy use in Federal agencies and the industrial and building sectors.
24

Clean, Renewable Energy Generation 

The FY 2011 budget request continues to work to transform the Nation’s energy infrastructure by investing over $650 million in a variety of renewable sources of 

electrical generation such as solar ($302 million, a 22 percent increase over FY 

2010), and wind ($123 million, a 53 percent increase over FY 2010), as well as deploy clean technologies to reduce our dependence on oil. The request includes expansions on Concentrating Solar Power, biopower and off-shore wind, which will provide 

new, additional avenues for clean energy development and deployment. 

These technologies will reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize an economy built on the next generation of domestic production.

Energy Efficiency 

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

conservation in homes, transportation, and industry. The FY 2011 budget requests 

$758 million to accelerate deployment of clean, cost-effective, and rapidly deployable 

energy conservation measures in order to reduce energy consumption in residential 

and commercial buildings, and the industrial and Federal sectors. The Department 

will invest $231 million in the Building Technologies program, a 16 percent increase 

over FY 2010 for built environment R&D. Federal assistance for state-level programs such as State Energy Program grants ($75 million) and Weatherization Assistance Program ($300 million), will continue to help citizens implement energy 

conservation measures, lower energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions, and build 

a technical workforce. The FY 2011 request also includes $545 million to accelerate 

research, development and deployment of advanced fuels and vehicles to reduce the 

use of petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions. The FY 2011 budget complements 

the Recovery Act funding for these programs ($3.1 billion for State Energy Programs, $5 billion for Weatherization Assistance, $2 billion for Advanced Battery 

Manufacturing and $400 million for Transportation Electrification).

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Moving Toward a 

More Intelligent Grid to Power the Digital Economy 

The FY 2011 budget request for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reli- ability (OE) budget is $186 million, an increase of eight percent over FY 2010. These 

funds will build on the ‘‘Smart Grid’’ investments and other activities. 

The ability of the United States to meet the growing demand for reliable electricity is challenged by an aging power grid under mounting stress. Despite the increasing demand for reliable power brought on by the modern digital economy, the 

power grid in the U.S. has suffered from a long period of underinvestment. Much 

of the power delivery system was built on technology developed over 50 years ago 

and thus responds to disturbances with speed limited by the technology of that period. This limitation increases the vulnerability of the power system to outages that 

can spread quickly and impact whole regions. Breakthroughs in digital network controls, transmission, distribution, and energy storage will make the power grid more 

efficient, alleviating the stress on the system, as well as enable greater use of clean 

and distributed energy sources. The return on these investments will come from a 

reduction in economic losses caused by power outages and the delay or avoidance 

of costly investment in new generation and transmission infrastructure. 

The budget request provides $144 million for research and development, which 

supports development of technologies that will improve the reliability, efficiency, 

flexibility, functionality, and security of the Nation’s electricity delivery system. It 

accelerates investment in energy storage capabilities and funds two new research 

initiatives: Advanced Modeling Grid Research, to develop grid-modeling capabilities 

using the large volumes of data generated by advanced sensors deployed on the grid; 

and Power Electronics, to develop new power control devices in collaboration with 

universities. The proposal also continues to support the development of ‘‘Smart 

Grid’’ technologies and cyber security systems for the power grid. 

The budget request continues support for Permitting, Siting, and Analysis ($6.4 

million) to assist States, regional entities, and other Federal agencies in developing 

policies and programs aimed at modernizing the power grid; and for Infrastructure 

Security and Energy Restoration ($6.2 million) to enhance the reliability and resiliency of U.S. critical infrastructure and facilitate its recovery from energy supply 

disruptions.

Office of Environmental Management: Reducing Risks and Making 

Progress 

The mission of the Office of Environmental Management (EM) is to complete the 

safe cleanup of the environmental legacy brought about from over six decades of nu-
25

clear weapons development, production, and Government-sponsored nuclear energy 

research. This cleanup effort is the largest in the world, originally involving two million acres at 107 sites in 35 states, dealing with some of the most dangerous materials known to man. 

EM continues to pursue its cleanup objectives within the overall framework of 

achieving the greatest comparative risk reduction benefit and overlaying regulatory 

compliance commitments and best business practices to maximize cleanup progress. 

To support this approach, EM has prioritized its cleanup activities:

• Activities to maintain a safe and secure posture in the EM complex

• Radioactive tank waste stabilization, treatment, and disposal

• Used nuclear fuel storage, receipt, and disposition

• Special nuclear material consolidation, processing, and disposition

• High priority groundwater remediation

• Transuranic and mixed/low-level waste disposition

• Soil and groundwater remediation

• Excess facilities deactivation and decommissioning

The FY 2011 budget request for $6.0 billion will fund activities to maintain a safe 

and secure posture in the EM complex and make progress against program goals 

and compliance commitments, including reduction of highest risks to the environment and public health, use of science and technology to reduce life cycle costs, and 

reduction of EM’s geographic footprint by 40 percent by 2011. EM continues to move 

forward with the development of the capability for dispositioning tank waste, nuclear materials, and used nuclear fuel. The budget request includes the construction 

and operation of three unique and complex tank waste processing plants to treat 

approximately 88 million gallons of radioactive tank waste for ultimate disposal. It 

will also fund the solid waste disposal infrastructure needed to support disposal of 

transuranic and low-level wastes generated by high-risk activities and the footprint 

reduction activities. In addition to the FY 2011 budget request, EM will continue 

to expend the $6 billion in Recovery Act funding provided by Congress to complete 

lower-risk footprint reduction and near-term completion cleanup activities. 

EM carries out its cleanup activities with the interests of stakeholders in mind. 

Most importantly, EM will continue to fulfill its responsibilities by conducting cleanup within a ‘‘Safety First’’ culture that integrates environment, safety, and health 

requirements and controls into all work activities to ensure protection to the workers, public, and the environment, and adheres to sound project and contract management principles. EM is also strengthening its project and planning analyses to 

better assess existing priorities and identify opportunities to accelerate cleanup 

work. Working collaboratively with the sites, EM continues to seek aggressive but 

achievable strategies for accelerating cleanup of discrete sites or segments of work. 

In addition, functional and cross-site activities such as elimination of specific 

groundwater contaminants, waste or material processing campaigns, or achievement 

of interim or final end-states are being evaluated. 

After the EM program completes cleanup and closure of sites that no longer have 

an ongoing DOE mission, post closure stewardship activities are transferred to the 

Office of Legacy Management (LM). LM also receives sites remediated by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program) 

and private licensees (Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Title II sites). 

Post closure stewardship includes long-term surveillance and maintenance activities 

such as groundwater monitoring, disposal cell maintenance, records management, 

and management of natural resources at sites where active remediation has been 

completed. At some sites the program includes management and administration of 

pension and post-retirement benefits for contractor retirees. 

The Administration has determined that developing a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is not a workable option and has decided to terminate the Office of 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW). The Nation needs a different 

solution for nuclear waste disposal. As a result, in 2010, the Department will discontinue its application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to 

construct a high-level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and establish a 

Blue Ribbon Commission to inform the Administration as it develops a new strategy 

for nuclear waste management and disposal. All funding for development of the 

Yucca Mountain facility and RW will be eliminated by the end of FY 2010. The Administration remains committed to fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act. The Office of Nuclear Energy will develop an integrated approach to improve the waste management options for the Nation and support the Blue Ribbon 

Commission. Ongoing responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, including 
26

administration of the Nuclear Waste Fund and the Standard Contract, will continue 

under the Office of Nuclear Energy, which will lead future waste management activities.

Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program: Supporting Investment in 

Innovation and Manufacturing 

To encourage the early commercial production and use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects, the Department is requesting an additional 

$36 billion in authority to guarantee loans for nuclear power facilities and $500 million in appropriated credit subsidy for the cost of loan guarantees for renewable energy systems and efficient end-use energy technology projects under section 1703 of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The additional loan authority for nuclear power 

projects will promote near-term deployment of new plants and support an increasing 

role for private sector financing. The additional credit subsidy will allow for investment in the innovative renewable and efficiency technologies that are critical to 

meeting the Administration’s goals for affordable, clean energy, technical leadership, 

and global competitiveness. 

The FY 2011 budget also requests $58 million to evaluate applications received 

under the eight solicitations released to date and to ensure efficient and effective 

management of the Loan Guarantee Program. This request will be offset by collections authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–8). 

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program requests $10 million to support ongoing loan and loan monitoring activities associated with the program mission of making loans to automobile and automobile part manufacturers for 

the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the 

United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or qualified components, and 

for associated engineering integration costs.

Office of Nuclear Energy: Investing in Energy Security and Technical Leadership 

The Department is requesting $912 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) 

in FY 2011—an increase of five percent over the FY 2010 enacted level. NE’s funding supports the advancement of nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the 

Nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, 

cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate. 

Currently, nuclear energy supplies approximately 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity and over 70 percent of clean, non-carbon producing electricity. Over 100 nuclear power plants are offering reliable and affordable baseload electricity in the 

United States, and they are doing so without air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. NE is working to develop innovative and transformative technologies to improve the competitiveness, safety and proliferation resistance of nuclear energy to 

support its continued use. 

The FY 2011 budget supports a reorganized and refocused set of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) activities. This program is built around exploring, through RD&D: technology and other solutions that can improve the reliability, 

sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors; improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration’s energy security and climate change goals; understanding of options for nuclear 

energy to contribute to reduced carbon emissions outside the electricity sector; development of sustainable nuclear fuel cycles; and minimization of risks of nuclear 

proliferation and terrorism. 

NE is requesting $195 million for Reactor Concepts Research, Development and 

Deployment. This program seeks to develop new and advanced reactor designs and 

technologies. Work will continue on design, licensing and R&D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to demonstrate gas-cooled reactor technology in the United 

States. The program also supports research on Generation IV and other advanced 

designs and efforts to extend the life of existing light water reactors. In FY 2011, 

NE will initiate a new effort focused on small modular reactors, a technology the 

Department believes has promise to help meet energy security goals. 

The FY 2011 request includes $201 million for Fuel Cycle Research and Development to perform long-term, results-oriented science-based R&D to improve fuel cycle 

and waste management technologies to enable a safe, secure, and economic fuel 

cycle. The budget also requests $99 million to support a new R&D program, Nuclear 

Energy Enabling Technologies, focused on the development of cross-cutting and 

transformative technologies relevant to multiple reactor and fuel cycle concepts. The 
27

Crosscutting Technology Development activity provides crosscutting R&D support 

for nuclear energy concepts in areas such as reactor materials and creative approaches to further reduce proliferation risks. The Transformative Nuclear Concepts 

R&D activity will support, via an open, competitive solicitation process, investigatorinitiated projects that relate to any aspect of nuclear energy generation including, 

but not limited to, reactor and power conversion technologies, enrichment, fuels and 

fuel management, waste disposal, and nonproliferation, to ensure that good ideas 

have sufficient outlet for exploration. The Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and 

Simulation will apply existing modeling and simulation capabilities to create a ‘‘virtual’’ reactor user environment to simulate an operating reactor. NE will also continue its commitments to investing in university research, international cooperation, 

and the Nation’s nuclear infrastructure—important foundations to support continued technical advancement.

Office of Fossil Energy: Abundant and Affordable Energy for the 21st Century 

The FY 2011 budget request of $760 million for the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) 

will help ensure that the United States can continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from traditional domestic fuel resources. The United States has 25 percent of 

the world’s coal reserves, and fossil fuels currently supply 86 percent of the Nation’s 

energy. 

The Department is committed to advancing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) 

technologies in order to promote a cleaner and more efficient use of fossil fuels. In 

addition to significant Recovery Act funds, Advanced CCS with $438 million requested in FY 2011 is the foundation of the Department’s clean coal research program which seeks to establish the capability of producing electricity from coal with 

near-zero atmospheric emissions. In addition, $150 million of FE’s $760 million request will be used to promote national energy security through the continued operations of both the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve programs. These programs 

protect the Nation and the public against economic damages from potential disruptions in foreign and domestic petroleum supplies.

Energy Information Administration: Providing Independent Statistics and 

Analysis 

The FY 2011 request for the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is $128.8 million, which is an $18.2 million increase over the FY 2010 current appropriation. 

EIA conducts a comprehensive data collection program through more than 60 surveys that cover the full spectrum of energy sources, end uses, and energy flows; generates short- and long-term domestic and international energy projections; and performs informative energy analyses. EIA disseminates its data products, analyses, reports, and other information services to customers and stakeholders primarily 

through its website. 

The increased funding improves EIA’s capability to close energy information gaps, 

strengthen analysis, and address significant data quality issues. It provides for an 

expanded survey of energy consumption in commercial buildings that will provide 

more baseline information critical to understanding energy use. That survey also is 

a basis for benchmarking and performance measurement for energy efficiency programs. The budget request also provides for: expanded analysis of energy market 

behavior and data to address the increasingly important interrelationship of energy 

and financial markets; continued implementation of improvements in data coverage, 

quality and integration; upgrades to the National Energy Model; and initiation of 

efforts to track and analyze the adoption of ‘‘Smart Grid’’ technologies and dynamic 

electricity pricing plans.

The National Nuclear Security Administration: Ensuring America’s Nuclear 

Security and Reducing the Global Threat of Nuclear Proliferation 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues significant efforts to meet Administration priorities, leveraging science to promote U.S. national 

security objectives. The FY 2011 President’s budget request is $11.2 billion, an increase of 13 percent from the enacted FY 2010 appropriation. The FY 2011–2015 

President’s Request for the NNSA is a significant funding increase over FY 2010 

levels, reflecting the President’s priorities on global nuclear nonproliferation and for 

strengthening the nuclear security posture of the United States to meet defense and 

homeland security-related objectives:

• Broaden and strengthen the NNSA’s science, technology and engineering mission to meet national security needs
28

• Work with global partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around 

the world within four years

• Work towards a world with no nuclear weapons. Until that goal is achieved, 

ensure the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and effective

• Transform the Nation’s Cold-War era weapons complex into a 21st century 

national security enterprise

• Provide safe and effective nuclear propulsion for U.S. navy warships

The FY 2011 budget request of $7.01 billion for the Weapons Activities appropriation provides funding for a wide range of programs. Some activities provide direct 

support for maintaining the nuclear weapon stockpile, including stockpile surveillance, annual assessments, life extension programs, and warhead dismantlement. 

Science, Technology and Engineering programs are focused on long-term vitality in 

science and engineering, and on performing R&D to sustain current and future 

stockpile stewardship capabilities without the need for underground nuclear testing. 

These programs also provide a base capability to support scientific research needed 

by other elements of the Department, to the Federal Government national security 

community, and the academic and industrial communities. Infrastructure programs 

support facilities and operations at the government-owned, contractor-operated 

sites, including activities to maintain and steward the health of these sites for the 

long term. Security and counterterrorism activities leverage the unique nuclear security expertise and resources maintained by NNSA to other Departmental offices 

and to the Nation. 

The Weapons Activities request is an increase of 9.8 percent over the FY 2010 

enacted level. This level is sustained and increased in the later outyears. The multiyear increase is necessary to reflect the President’s commitment to maintain the 

safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent without underground nuclear testing, consistent with the principles of the Stockpile Management Program 

outlined in Section 3113 (a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 2010 (50 U.S.C. 2524). Increases are provided which directly support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for scientific, technical and engineering activities related to 

maintenance assessment and certification capabilities, and for recapitalization of 

key nuclear facilities. The President’s Request provides funding necessary to protect 

the human capital base at the national laboratories—including the ability to design 

and certify nuclear weapons—through a stockpile stewardship program that fully 

exercises these capabilities. Security and nuclear counterterrorism activities decrease about three percent from the FY 2010 appropriated levels, leveraging the 

continuing efficiencies in the Defense Nuclear Security budget. The FY 2011 request for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $2.7 billion, an increase of 25.8 percent over the FY 2010 appropriation. The increase is driven by the 

imperative for U.S. leadership in nonproliferation initiatives both here and abroad. 

In addition to the programs funded solely by the NNSA, our programs support the 

Department of Energy mission to protect our national security by preventing the 

spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials to terrorist organizations and 

rogue states. These efforts are implemented in part through the Global Partnership 

against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, formed at the 

G8 Kananaskis Summit in June 2002, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear 

Terrorism, launched in Rabat, Morocco, in October 2006. 

The FY 2011 President’s request for International Nuclear Materials Protection 

and Cooperation reflects selective new security upgrades to buildings and areas that 

were added to the cooperation after the Bratislava Summit, additional Second Line 

of Defense sites, and sustainability support for MPC&A upgrades. The Global 

Threat Reduction Initiative increases by 68 percent in support of the international 

effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years. 

The Fissile Materials Disposition program increases by 47 percent reflecting continuing domestic construction of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Waste 

Solidification Building, as well as design documentation for a related pit disassembly and conversion capability. A portion of the funding increase results from 

the transfer of funding associated with the latter activity from the Weapons Activities appropriation starting in 2011. The President’s request of $1.1 billion for Naval Reactors is an increase of 13.3 

percent over the FY 2010 appropriated level. The program supports the U.S. Navy’s 

nuclear fleet, comprised of all of the Navy’s submarines and aircraft carriers, including 52 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, 4 guided missile submarines, and 11 aircraft carriers. These ships are relied on every day, all over the 

world, to protect our national interests. Starting in FY 2010, there are major new 

missions for the NNSA Naval Reactors program. A significant funding increase is 

requested for the OHIO Class submarine replacement and for the related activity 
29

which will demonstrate new submarine reactor plant technologies as part of the refueling of the land-based prototype reactor. R&D is underway now, and funding during this Future Years Nuclear Security Program is critical to support the long manufacturing spans for procurement of reactor plant components in 2017, and ship procurement in 2019. Resources are also included in FY 2011 to support commencement of design work for the recapitalization of used nuclear fuel infrastructure. 

The Office of the Administrator appropriation provides for Federal program direction and support for NNSA’s Headquarters and field installations. The FY 2011 request is $448.3 million, a 6.5 percent increase over the FY 2010 appropriation. This 

provides for well-managed, inclusive, responsive, and accountable organization 

through the strategic management of human capital, enhanced cost-effective utilization of information technology, and integration of budget and performance through 

transparent financial management practices.

Management: Transforming the Culture of the Department with a ResultsOriented Approach 

To transform the way Americans use and produce energy, we need to transform 

the Department of Energy. Because the mission of the Department is vital and urgent, it must be pursued using a results-oriented approach that is safe, fiscally responsible, and legally and ethically sound. The Department has developed strong 

management and oversight capabilities during implementation of the Recovery Act, 

and these lessons will be applied to the FY 2011 budget. The budget request of $337 

million for corporate management includes $75 million for the Office of Management, $102 million for the Office of the Chief Information Officer, $43 million for 

the Inspector General’s office, $62.7 million for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, $37 million for the Office of General Counsel, and $2 million for Management 

Reform within the Office of the Secretary. The Management Reform effort will provide the Department with strategic direction, coordination, and oversight of management initiatives. The primary mission of this new office is to identify operational 

efficiencies to free up resources for priority mission activities. The Department is 

also requesting $12 million for a new Acquisition Workforce Improvement initiative 

which will be utilized to increase the size and improve the training of our acquisition professionals. 

The Department’s human capital management efforts are focused on an integrated approach that ensures human capital programs and policies are linked to the 

Department’s missions, strategies, and strategic goals, while providing for continuous improvement in efficiency and effectiveness. To accomplish this goal, the Department will develop different strategies to attract, motivate and retain a highly 

skilled and diverse workforce to meet the future needs of the Nation in such vital 

areas as scientific discovery and innovation. 

To improve stewardship of taxpayer dollars, the Department will continue to issue 

audited financial statements in an accelerated timeframe and provide assurance 

that the Department’s financial management meets the highest standards of integrity. The Department’s FY 2009 financial statements were reviewed by independent 

auditors and received an unqualified opinion. This was made possible by implementing an aggressive plan to mitigate and remediate a number of financial management challenges that were identified by the Department and its independent 

auditors. In addition, the Department continues to strengthen the execution of program funding dollars by having regular execution reviews that will ensure funding 

is processed, approved and spent quickly and responsibly. The Department in FY 

2011 will continue its effort to build and improve its integrated business management system. 

The Department is continuing to make progress in improving project management 

and is implementing an action plan with scheduled milestones and aggressive performance metrics. The focus of the action plan is to successfully address the root 

causes of the major challenges to planning and managing Department projects. The 

action plan identifies eight measures that, when completed, will result in significant, measurable, and sustainable improvements in the Department’s contract and 

project management performance and culture. 

To improve financial performance in project management, the Department has increased the use of Earned Value Management (EVM) techniques within program offices. These techniques objectively track physical accomplishment of work and provide early warning of performance problems. A certification process was instituted 

for contractors’ EVM systems to improve the definition of project scope, communicate objective progress to stakeholders and keep project teams focused on achieving progress. Currently, 70 percent of the Department’s capital asset projects have 

certified EVM systems. 
30

The Department continues to strengthen information technology management by 

consistent execution of robust IT Capital Planning and Investment Control oversight 

and reporting processes designed to ensure successful investment performance, including the use of EVM Systems as appropriate, and the remediation of poorly performing investments. Through the establishment and use of an Enterprise Architecture that aligns to the Federal Enterprise Architecture, the Department has ensured that all IT investments follow a comprehensive Modernization Roadmap. 

The Department continues to take significant actions to improve its cyber security 

posture by implementing its Cyber Security Revitalization Plan to address longstanding, systemic weaknesses in the Department’s information and information 

systems. Specifically, the Department seeks to ensure that 100 percent of operational information technology systems are certified and accredited as secure and 

that the Department’s Inspector General has rated the certification and accreditation process as ‘‘satisfactory.’’ Additional steps will be taken to ensure that electronic classified and personally identifiable information are secure.

DISCUSSION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Chu. Questions begin now. 

I recognize myself for five minutes. 

THE CANCELLATION OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN

The Administration’s decision to cancel funding for Yucca Mountain has proven to be perhaps the most controversial change that 

the Department has undertaken, yet the Administration originally 

signaled its support for nuclear power and its interest in expanding 

the advanced nuclear fleet through its loan guarantee announcement. So in your professional opinion, what is the impact of the Administration’s Yucca Mountain decision on the expansion of nuclear 

power in the United States? 

Secretary CHU. I believe it is going to have no impact on our expansion. The NRC has declared that nuclear waste where it is now 

and moving to dry cask storage will be safe for many decades. That 

gives us time to prepare a much better, more comprehensive view 

of what is going on. We know a lot more than we did in the early 

and mid 1980s when the Nuclear Waste Act was passed. So this 

blue ribbon commission now has an opportunity to step back, look 

at the whole template of options that exist today and could be developed in the next 20, 30, 50 years and that is where we are heading. 

Chairman GORDON. As I understand it, they have 18 months to 

report or give an interim report and then six more months to do 

a final report. That seems like a long time. Are you expecting it 

to take that—I mean, is that the outside of it? Are you expecting 

it take that long? 

Secretary CHU. No, that is the outer limit. I think both chairmen 

are very anxious to get started. The first meeting will be held, I 

believe it is March 24th and 25th. 

Chairman GORDON. You have put together a good, balanced 

group so I think that this is an Augustine type of group and so we 

look forward to that particular report. 

CREATING AND RETAINING DOMESTIC JOBS

You know, and oftentimes too, we are all concerned about taxpayer dollars being used to develop technology through the Department of Energy or elsewhere here in this country that winds up 
31

creating jobs elsewhere. And so with ARPA–E and the other programs that you are putting together, are you doing anything to 

help make sure that, you know, the bulk of those jobs will stay 

here in the United States? 

Secretary CHU. It is certainly our intent and our interest. First 

you have to develop the ideas, but you are quite right, Mr. Chairman, that you need a comprehensive plan. You need investment 

tax credits, you need a number of things so that you keep the manufacturing of these new technologies here in the United States. I 

think that is a very important part of our path towards economic—

Chairman GORDON. So are you working on that package, or is it 

here yet, or when will that be rolled out? 

Secretary CHU. Well, we are working on it but you have to get 

some of the incentives and so that when a manufacturing company 

says—let me just say one of the biggest incentives is a home market. If you have a home market for some of the energy technologies, 

what any manufacturer, multinational manufacturer wants to do 

is, they want to manufacture in that home market; so the best incentive is to create that home market and that demand, and so 

that is one of the crucial things that will hopefully help us. 

BUY AMERICAN STRATEGIES

Chairman GORDON. And when you think of home markets, the 

biggest buyer is of course the Federal Government, and we have 

seen the analogy that with DARPA, that they had a buyer already 

there with the Department of Defense. You know, are there efforts 

to look at how we can make the Federal Government the buyer of 

some of these new technologies even if they may be 10 percent or 

20 percent more expensive? You know, if a new light bulb is more 

expensive than, for example, the contemporary one, is there a way 

that we can give some preference to some level so that we can then 

get that supply chain and can we look at with DOD on islands and 

other remote areas that don’t have a grid there where the alternative energies, you know, could be placed? 

Secretary CHU. That is being done. In fact, DOD as one prime 

example is looking very actively. They have a new, I think it is at 

an assistant secretary level for energy now at the Department of 

Defense. Because of their budget, they can actually create some 

market draw, if you will, and to adopt new technologies. They are 

very concerned about these things, and that is precisely one of the 

strategies we are looking at. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I think this Congress has shown over 

and over a preference to buy American. I think we might add to 

that, you know, buy American new technology. And so I hope as 

you discuss this that you will come to us if there are authorizations 

or something we need to do to help expand those markets. 

Secretary CHU. Oh, I will raise one thing. The budget request for 

$5 million in this advanced manufacturing thing, the so-called 48C, 

that was oversubscribed three to one for the first part of it in the 

Recovery Act, and so we hope that Congress will be willing to support that. That is again a key to keeping manufacturing here in the 

United States. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Secretary Chu. 

Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes. 
32

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

THE ULTRA-DEEPWATER PROGRAM

Mr. Secretary, I think we are very fortunate to have more than 

50 years of natural gas supply, according to the Energy Information Administration, and natural gas is a clean source of energy. 

It can help bridge the transition from fossil fuels to next-generation 

fuels. Yet a lot of these reserves are in areas that are little difficult 

to produce economically and efficiently, and I have been working 

for 10 years on the Ultra-Deep legislation. I know you are very familiar with it. We finally passed it and got it in the energy bill that 

was passed, I think, two years ago. 2005, how many years is that? 

You remember my problem with mathematics. But anyway, we finally got it into that bill and that bill was passed, and I flew out 

west to Arizona to sign that bill with Senator Domenici, the President did, and Joe and I flew with him, and at that time he gave 

everybody a pen but he turned to me and said, ‘‘Hall is with us 

here. He just came along because he wanted some free coffee on Air 

Force One.’’ What he didn’t know was, I had six of his mugs in my 

briefcase at that time. 

But the long and the short is, we went out there, we signed that 

bill and it was in the bill and our President signed it then, and 

since has tried to take it out, was unable to take it out because the 

House Floor voted not to take it out and it is there now. You know, 

it is based on the fact that we know energy is there but we can’t 

get it up, and if we get technology to get it up and we trade the 

energy that they get up that they won’t get up if they don’t get the 

technology. It looks like it makes sense to me. 

Last year I stated my disappointment with the President’s 2010 

budget to terminate the Ultra-Deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource programs. So again, let me 

express my disappointment that even after our discussion on that 

day in March of 2009, the budget seeks to eliminate the Ultra-Deep 

program, and for that matter, the fossil fuels research and development budget. Let me reiterate, I strongly disagree with this policy 

which ignores the ongoing importance. Even your own EIA says oil 

and natural gas will play in our domestic energy picture through 

the year 2035. The energy security aspects of this issue are obvious, and after last year’s hearing where you promised to look into 

and educate yourself to the programs created by section 999 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, I had hoped the scientific and 

technologic contribution would be just as obvious to you. 

I am not going to take up all my time with my question, Mr. 

Chairman. The policy of terminating the Ultra-Deep program is especially troubling in light of the fact that this Administration has 

approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance offshore deepwater oil exploration in the Santos basis near Rio de Janeiro. I 

don’t understand something like that. I don’t think it makes any 

sense at all to do that. While I am not necessarily opposed to technology transfer to develop natural gas resources in our pursuit of 

energy security, we ought to be promoting and using innovative 

technologies for our own domestic exploration. So I guess my ques-
33

tion to you is, do you support the termination of the Ultra-Deep 

program? 

Secretary CHU. Yes, I do. If you will allow me to explain, I did 

look into it after our first discussion. First, I do believe that natural gas is a transition fuel in this century in order to get a clean 

energy supply. I might also add that the Department of Energy 

since 1978 has explored—and this is, I think, one of our real success stories—has explored natural gas development in methane 

coal beds and especially in shale gas at a time when the oil and 

gas companies didn’t want to look at that, and that is effectively 

the shale gas supplies and the methane coal bed supplies. Most 

people think it has increased our gas reserves from 30 percent to 

as much as doubling our gas reserves. 

My feeling about Deepwater is, we have a methane hydrates program that is now shifted over to the Office of Science, but it is a 

program I feel that we should develop. That is still at a time when 

the oil and gas industry does not want to invest in it. They are 

willing to go along but as soon as—I feel and the Administration 

feels, as soon as the oil and gas industry sees this and they have 

the commercial means, the financial means to develop that, then 

we want to let the companies take it over. In those instances where 

commercial companies say this is too speculative, we don’t want to 

do this, I think that is the role in the Department of Energy. And 

so the methane hydrates program is something I support, the shale 

gas program historically over the years, for 15 years. We stopped 

it one year before that, Chalmers picked it up and said it is perfect. 

And so that is really the strategy we want to use. 

Mr. HALL. But the program has been working the last three and 

a half years at about 20 universities that are producing and contributing to it. It pays for itself out of energy that we won’t get if 

we don’t get the technology. If we get the technology, we will get 

it. And now we are talking about transferring that. Let me ask you 

this. Do you think it is acceptable to fund exploration in other 

countries but not domestically? 

Secretary CHU. I am not actually familiar with this loan you 

spoke of, of funding Petrobras, so I would have to look at the——

Mr. HALL. Please do. 

Chairman GORDON. If the Secretary would yield, I think what 

happened is, I think the XM Bank has loan money to Brazil for 

their drilling, but the XM Bank did it at the request of American 

industry. It is American companies’ equipment. And so it is not the 

Federal Government, it is XM Bank loaning money to buy American equipment then to go to Brazil, as I understand it. 

Mr. HALL. And I will repeat my question. It is not who does it, 

but do you think it is acceptable to fund exploration in other countries but not domestically when we should be able to do it here, 

when it is proven that we have the repay with what we get that 

we won’t get if we don’t get it? 

Secretary CHU. I think, you know, the university research you 

speak of, I think that is wonderful but I also think gas companies 

do have the financial resources to support that. 

Mr. HALL. But you will look into it, won’t you? 

Secretary CHU. I will look into it again. I will. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
34

PREPARED RESPONSE OF SECRETARY CHU

DOE acknowledges that applied research and development does help industry increase domestic resources in an environmentally responsible manner. However, 

given current world oil prices, we expect that major oil companies can support ongoing levels of offshore activity. 

Regarding Brazil, the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) decided to offer at 

least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods 

and services by Petrobras. According to EXIM’s President Fred P. Hochberg, ‘‘This 

increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—workers will be employed to 

satisfy part of the company’s planned $175 billion investment during the next five 

years.’’ Mr. Hochberg also noted that the mandate of the EXIM is to help create and 

sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports.

Mr. HALL. I will ask you next time about it. You are very pleasant. 

Secretary CHU. I try to be. 

Mr. HALL. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is very serious about this too. 

Secretary CHU. I understand. 

Chairman GORDON. We want to look at it and see if there are 

incentives to bring the oil companies to bear here. 

Mr. Wu, you are recognized. 

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

ENERGY HUB GOALS

I will be very brief in my questioning, Mr. Secretary, to encourage you to take as much time as you in discussing this particular 

topic. I find your rollout of the hub lab concept very, very interesting. There are three that are out for proposals, and if you could 

discuss some of your goals, what are you looking for in proposals 

and what you hope to achieve over time. I would be very interested, 

perhaps with the most emphasis on the most recent rollout on energy-efficient buildings. 

Secretary CHU. Well, the goal is the following. I look back, I 

started thinking about this maybe three or four years ago. How do 

you accelerate innovation? And there were times in the United 

States where you really wanted to accelerate innovation. In particular during wartime, we wanted to accelerate innovation in the 

Manhattan Project and the development of radar. There was a time 

when Bell Labs took a very long-term view but they also, for example, wanted to accelerate innovation in getting rid of those vacuum 

tubes that kept on burning out on them, and so they entered into 

a program to develop a solid-state version of the vacuum tube. So 

what were the common denominators in all these aspects? They 

put scientists together with engineers. They said, we want a leadership team and so they are going to span the whole gamut. These 

are the scientific questions we have to answer, but we are not 

going to stop at answering scientific questions. We have to go all 

the way to delivering the goods, put radar on a ship or an airplane. 

We have to deliver the goods and so we want this team to be very 

dedicated. Or we are not going to fund the project. You didn’t ask 

Oppenheimer and Fermi and all those people, well, give us your 

idea, we will decide whether it is good or not and then after a while 

we will decide if you want us to do something else, we will decide 

whether you want to go. No, we assembled the best team and said 

solve the problem, and you have got to solve it quickly. And be-
35

cause of that, these teams of scientists very actively managed, 

knew on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis what was going on, so 

they were much more intimately connected with what was going on 

than one can ever be in Washington. And it was the management 

team of people like Glenn Seaborg who was developing ways to separate plutonium chemically, that when you read his diaries, he was 

on top of what was happening every day and said OK, we can do 

this, and something happened. We couldn’t get a detector, we are 

going to invent a detector; we can’t wait for it to be developed by 

a commercial company. OK. So you can go lickety split, and that 

is the idea. You want to go lickety split, you want to go with a 

team that can actually—the top scientists who are actually participating but also great managers. 

The selection of these Hubs in large part will be dependent on 

how dedicated and how good these managers will be, not how good 

as scientists but also how good as science managers they will be, 

and that is one of the keys. We want to replicate what did work 

in times of real national need before but now in the energy sector. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Secretary, how do you calibrate the, if you will, divide, and perhaps ‘‘divide’’ is too strong a term, between the research side of the enterprise and the engineering/dissemination/

economic development side of the equation? 

Secretary CHU. Well, let me give you an example of a DOE hub, 

although it is not called a hub. In fact, this was also what was in 

my mind. It was in my old laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. It had to do with bioenergy. They came up with a breakthrough. The leaders of this hub were some of the world leaders 

in a new field of science called synthetic biology, and so they reprogrammed bacteria to, when fed simple sugars, produce a direct substitute for gasoline, not something that they later refined—you can 

almost put it in the tank—and to overproduce it. I learned about 

this. It was published in a very prestigious journal called Nature. 

I e-mailed my friend and director of the Laboratory, ‘‘this is great, 

what is the time scale, how good does it have to be to be commercially viable without subsidy, question number one? What’s the 

timeline when you will get an up and down vote?’’ He said it is 

going to be within 90 percent of what we think is the theoretical 

maximum. Already, a company, LS9, is running with that, and the 

same team that did the basic research is making a little pilot. So 

those scientists are walking over and they are saying we are going 

to do this, and he said within two years we will have an up/down 

vote to see whether this flies both in the LS9 commercial work and 

from what we are doing. 

So those scientists are actually part of delivering the goods, and 

that institute was founded on a more corporate structure, so it is 

not that a basic scientist hands off to an engineer that hands off 

to some development group. No, they are going to walk it. So that 

is exactly the type of thing I am looking for in the other hubs. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. As knowledgeable 

as you are, I think that what I find most appealing about your 

presentation is the passion which you are able to convey. Thank 

you. 

Chairman GORDON. Comrade Rohrabacher. 
36

FUNDING FOR NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, how much money have we 

been spending on research into nuclear power over the last few 

years and how much are you proposing that we spend this year? 

Secretary CHU. I am going to have to go back and look at the 

exact number but it is on the scale of certainly tens of millions. 

You mean on the very research——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Research. 

Secretary CHU. I think on the scale of tens to perhaps 100 million. I have to——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Annually? 

Secretary CHU. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. And——

Secretary CHU. I just reminded myself, the whole nuclear R&D, 

fiscal year 2011 is $503 million, fiscal year 2011 request is $500. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Five hundred million? 

Secretary CHU. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And over the years is this an interest or this 

is about what we have been spending? 

Secretary CHU. I have to plead ignorance on what the history is. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. Fine. Well, Mr. Secretary, we have been 

spending considerable money on R&D research into nuclear energy 

over the years, and $500 million is a sizable sum. The Administration just has announced that the President is behind this idea of 

moving forward, offering some sort of loan guarantees that will be 

available to build a new nuclear power plant for the first time in 

over two decades. Can you tell us how that—will there be preconditions that that power plant is different than the power plants 

that were built two decades ago before all of this money was spent 

on trying to research and come up with newer ways and better 

ways of producing nuclear energy? 

Secretary CHU. OK. So certainly the power plant, the first loan, 

is a Westinghouse designed power plant. The engineers feel it is 

considerably safer than the older designs of the last generation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it a light water reactor? 

Secretary CHU. It is a light water reactor. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, they were building light water 

reactors 50 years ago. 

Secretary CHU. Absolutely, so——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Why is it that we are building a light reactor 

that still has leftover waste when there are several companies, very 

substantial companies who say they can build reactors that will basically not have that waste problem? General Atomics to be one, 

which is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor which says they are 

going to actually take stuff out of Yucca Mountain rather than put 

it in. 

Secretary CHU. So there is a difference between—let me take the 

questions one at a time. There is a difference with this light water 

reactor. It is much more passively safe. Instead of feedback, you 

know, backup after backup systems, you are storing water up high 

so that if something goes wrong, the water runs down due to gravity. It is much, much less likely to have any issue based on, oh, if 

something goes wrong, there is another system that backs it up, 
37

and if that goes wrong, there is another system that backs it up. 

Because of that, people feel that it could be made much less expensively, much less investment and also much safer. The reactor you 

are talking about, the General Atomics one, that is part of our $500 

million that we are investing. The next-generation reactor after 

that would be called Gen 4, gas-cooled reactors. We want to support that as well. 

But nuclear takes time and so even developing the next generation of light water, still safer reactors, while you are doing that, we 

also want to support these things like the General Atomics reactor. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary, I would suggest that we 

should not be basing our next generation of nuclear energy that 

now we are investing in with something that substantial is an old 

concept, they are steam engines, when we have some revolutionary 

ideas coming out and that should be our focus rather than spending money on the old stuff. 

SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the Bureau of Land Management has not given one permit for a solar energy project on Bureau 

of Land Management land? There are 105 of them that have been 

waiting five years. Are you aware of that? 

Secretary CHU. No, I am not. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. OK. Well, I would hope that you would look 

into this. This is unconscionable. At a time when we are talking 

about developing alternative sources of energy, making us self-sufficient, and is it your understanding—I have got about 15 seconds 

left—that we can now build solar facilities in places like the desert 

that would be competitive with producing electricity with the coalfired plants and oil-fired plants? 

Secretary CHU. Getting there. In all honesty, not quite. They still 

need a little help. But let me return a little bit back to, there is 

a distinction between our $500 million in research. We are not researching light water reactors of the type that are being—you 

know, like the Westinghouse AP–1000. We are researching the gascooled reactors of General Atomics. The loan guarantees which are 

scored—the Department is Energy is tasked to convince OMB that 

it will cost the taxpayer zero dollars and so I think this is not fully 

appreciated. So those loan guarantees are self-pay, you know, the 

assets of the company, the stability of the company, the fact that 

they are loan guaranteed for the first run, went to a consortium of 

companies that already had pre-purchased power agreements for 

the nuclear power, very, very different. That is to just get, you 

know, today’s technology going again—it is actually not today’s, it 

is tomorrow’s in the sense that we don’t have operating in the 

world an AP–1000. But in the meantime, the $500 million are to 

look at much better reactors, much newer concepts, smaller modular reactors, things of that nature, and so that is what we are—

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are capable of doing that. We should be 

building them rather than just research upon research. 

Secretary CHU. I agree. I mean, the small modular reactors, Babcock and Wilcox wants to develop them. We will help to down-select 

which ones will apply for an NRC license. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 
38

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And Dr. Baird is recognized—excuse me. Mr. Luja ́n is recognized. 

COMMERCIALIZING TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you very much as well. 

Secretary Chu, I want to commend you on a recent appointment 

that you made in appointing Karina Edmonds as National Technology Transfer Coordinator in the Office as well. I think this signals an important relationship going forward with our DOE laboratories and moving forward towards commercializing some of the 

technology that is being developed by some of the brightest that we 

have in the country. Your emphasis in your statements around innovation, that there that will be breakthroughs and better technologies to meet our long-term goals, these efforts that were highlighted by the President as well and as reflected in the budget with 

innovation, investments in science, discovery and innovation, to 

provide solutions to pressing energy challenges. And Mr. Secretary, 

as we talk about these programs and completely understanding 

how we can create more jobs, we can do a better job of commercializing some of these big ideas and finding ways to get them to 

the marketplace so that we engage in manufacturing domestically, 

so that is something that I am anxious to see more of. 

Two weeks ago, I had a visit to Los Alamos National Laboratories and talked to them about a program that is supported by corporate funding called North New Mexico Connect, which supports 

opportunities for small businesses and for some of our scientists, 

physicists, engineers to use entrepreneurialship to commercialize 

these ideas and to take part in these projects, but I was discouraged that there didn’t seem to be a serious investment coming from 

DOE itself as opposed to the partnership that was put together 

with the corporate funding, and so Mr. Secretary, I would ask for 

you to comment on what you feel the role of DOE is, what can we 

expect from a funding perspective to support efforts like that within our DOE laboratories, specifically at NNSA DOE laboratories, to 

help engage in promoting some of these big ideas, creating the jobs 

which will lead to some commercialization manufacturing domestically? 

Secretary CHU. Well, first, thank you for recognizing that appointment. I think she is wonderful, and it is something—when I 

walked into the—before I walked into the job, when I walked into 

the job of laboratory director of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, one of 

the first things I did was to get the person in charge of technology 

licensing from Stanford, which has a very good reputation and a 

truly outstanding reputation nationwide, worldwide, for taking discoveries out of the laboratory and getting them into the commercial 

sector. And so this person as a favor to me came over and spent 

a day to say how we can improve things. Probably the most important thing I did when I was director is—you know, every year there 

is a merit review. There is no salary adjustment of our scientists 

and engineers. So every year there is a merit review, and there 

were many criteria, about 12, 15. I lowered it to four or five. Number two after quality of papers, was patents and disclosures. It 

wasn’t listed before. And a remarkable thing happened. The num-
39

ber of patents and disclosures all of a sudden started to pick up 

just by that single stroke of the pen; you know, you are going to 

be judged on how many patents and disclosures you produce. 

And so there are many things that actually can be done for free. 

We want to do this now Department-wide. There is a reason why—

I mean, we in the Department of Energy feel that we are going to 

be responsible for the entire innovation chain from the basic research all the way to not only the applied research, development, 

piloting, getting it out to deployment, but also deployment to scale, 

and so we—and the entire energy sector because we feel that the 

energy sector, since it reaches every part of U.S. life, will be a key 

future to our future prosperity. So we want very much for the private sector to be picking up these things because of the fact that 

we fund the most physical science in the United States, you know, 

the national lab assets, the people in universities are some of the 

best things we have in the United States. That is our competitive 

edge. And so we are going to be very focused on that. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Well, I appreciate that very much, Mr. Secretary, 

and would ask for your consideration on how we could tie fees with 

our laboratories to exactly what you saw from behavior with getting more patents out and things of that nature. 

And lastly, Mr. Secretary, I just want to tell you that I anxiously 

await the announcement for consideration for an individual to fill 

the Administrator position for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation as 

we talk about the concerns and what has been highlighted by this 

Administration to make sure we bring attention to securing loose 

nuclear materials in addition to everything else associated with it. 

I very much appreciate that. 

Thank you very much for my time today, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

THE MIX OF DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCES

Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask a couple of questions to kind 

of put our energy challenge in perspective. France gets, what, 75, 

80 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Are you pretty sanguine 

about our and the world’s electricity energy future with more nuclear, with wind, with solar, with microhydro, with true geothermal 

where we are tapping into the molten core of the earth? 

Secretary CHU. I think we are going to need all those things as 

well as much improved generation of conventional sources to use 

our fossil fuel sources in a much cleaner way. For example, as you 

well know, we are deeply committed to developing the technologies 

in carbon capture and sequestration so we can continue to use coal 

in the United States but in an environmentally responsible way. So 

we need all these things. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Is not the liquid fuels energy future a bit more 

challenging? I understand that the world is now pumping and 

using about 84 million barrels of oil a day. That is correct? 

Secretary CHU. I agree with you. The liquid fuels part is the 

most challenging. So the strategy, if you will bear with me for 30 

seconds, it has to be multifaceted. Number one, we are investing 

in trying to electrify personal vehicle transportation for short 

range, 50 miles to a couple hundred miles. That would offload some 
40

of it. We are investing in next-generation biofuels that will give you 

much less fossil fuel investment in order to get per liter of fuel. We 

quite frankly see ethanol as a transition fuel. It is fine for now but 

we would like to, like that experiment I just told you about——

Mr. BARTLETT. May I ask you a question about liquid fuels future? The world uses about 84 million barrels of oil a day. We use 

a fourth of that. We are going to find more oil but we would like 

to use more oil because we like our economy to grow. The industrialized world would like to use more oil. The developing world, like 

India and China, would like to use a lot more oil. Would you agree 

that the more oil that we all like to use, that we will be kind of 

lucky if we can find that much more oil in the world? 

Secretary CHU. I actually think, so what is happening now is, 

there is conventional oil and then there is what is called non-conventional oil or deep offshore oil and so as the demand grows, especially in the developing countries, the overall world demand is projected by IEA [International Energy Agency], the EIA [Energy Information Administration], all these—to actually grow, the OECD 

countries probably to plateau but because of China, India and other 

developing countries, the overall demand will grow. But I see a 

transition already happening now from conventional oil on shore to 

offshore to harder-to-get oil to things of that nature. 

Mr. BARTLETT. That is true, sir. The more expensive oil is, the 

more oil we are going to be able to pump because the new oil we 

are finding is more difficult to get. We use 84 million barrels of oil 

a day. That means in roughly 12 days we use a billion barrels of 

oil, correct? It is pretty simple arithmetic. 

Secretary CHU. Yes. I will trust you. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Eighty-four million barrels of oil a day. That 

means in 12 days we use a billion barrels of oil. So when somebody 

talks about that we found 10 billion barrels of oil, that is going to 

last us 120 days. 

Secretary CHU. That is right. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Big deal. 

Secretary CHU. Well——

Mr. BARTLETT. I use the numbers from your Department, the reserves that Saudi Arabia has, the reserves that Russia has and the 

percentage of the world’s oil. They have roughly the same figure 

when I use those, when I compute from those. 

The world has today about 1.2, 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. I think 

there is general agreement. There has been general agreement on 

that for about a decade now, that that is the amount of oil we find. 

Sir, if I divide into that, you know, every 12 days we use a billion 

barrels of oil, we have enough oil at the rate we are now using it 

to last 40 years. That is all. Now, it is not going to be 40 years like 

we are using it now and then fall off a cliff. It is going to be ever 

harder and harder to get, more and more expensive. 

Sir, I don’t see this budget anywhere near recognizing the urgency that we need to have to address that. You agreed that the 

amount of oil that we are likely to find, we are going to be more 

than lucky if the more oil we find is equal to the more oil that we 

would like to use and the developing world would like to use. So 

with almost seven billion people facing 40 years of oil, don’t you 

think we ought to have more urgency about substitutes? 
41

Secretary CHU. We are working very hard on that, but let me 

also remind you that the oil recovery is getting better and better. 

Before—you know, you stick a hole in the ground, you get five percent out. You start pumping water though it, you get more out. 

Now the average oil recovery is around 30, 35 percent of the oil in 

the ground and those reservoirs can actually be pumped up, moving to 50 percent, so a lot of things are happening that enable you 

to recover more oil in your proven reservoirs. Saudi Arabia is now 

talking 50 percent recovery average of their reservoirs and they 

think they can get to 70 percent. So I would say it is not clear to 

me that we will run out of oil in 40 years based on these trends, 

and based on the fact that we are learning how to recover what we 

used to think were inaccessible forms of oil. But let me also say 

that there is an urgency, I feel an urgency for—transportation fuel 

is the hardest. If you look at the energy density in jet plane fuel 

and diesel fuel, it is astoundingly high. To replace an airplane or 

a long-haul truck or a boat with something else aside from liquid 

fuel is difficult and so we are looking towards ways of getting substitutes. You know, the Secretary of the Navy wants, I think by 

2030, to decrease fossil fuel use in the Navy, to get substitutes 

which include efficiency and also biofuels, to decrease fossil fuel use 

by 50 percent. So there are plans out there. You know, I hope we 

can get there. There are plans out there that we want to look at 

this very aggressively and so there is a sense of urgency because 

it will take time to deploy these things to scale, but also we want 

to clean up our oil supply as well because there is a carbon issue. 

That is why electrification of personal vehicles is something I think 

we can do and so there is urgency there. We do want to decrease 

our imports of foreign oil. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Chu, I suggest that you recommend Dr. 

Bartlett for a position in OMB. I think that would improve your 

budget much. 

Dr. Baird is recognized. 

POTENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Chu. Good to see you. Having had the 

privilege of spending most of the day yesterday at the ARPA–E 

summit and the day before and then much of this morning there, 

I want to commend you and Dr. Majumdar for the success and also 

Chairman Gordon for writing the legislation that created this. My 

wife and I were talking this weekend about some of the many challenges the country faces, and she said what are we doing right? 

And I said I think the Department of Energy and ARPA–E but I 

also want to acknowledge the national labs in addition for their ongoing work which has done so much over the years, so well done 

on that. 

As we look at meeting energy needs, my own belief is that the 

problem is urgent, as Dr. Bartlett has said many times in this 

Committee. I think we can save 20 percent of our energy budget 

in 20 weeks, I don’t think we have to wait, through fairly simple 

behavioral adaptations, and I don’t mean some voodoo social 

science stuff, I mean just making the right decisions like inflating 

your tires, et cetera, which have been subject to derision but are 

actually legitimate measures. If we just drove the bloody speed 
42

limit, we would save a fair amount. We don’t have to lower the 

speed limit, just drive it. 

There are some other things I think we can do. The President 

rolled out the HOMESTAR program yesterday, I understand, and 

let me give you just a couple of examples of things we have kicked 

around. When you buy a house in this country, you get information 

about what the kind of heating or air conditioning is but you get 

no useable cost information. If we just put MLS listings required 

in some fashion that when you buy a house, you get the annual energy budget, the actual expenditures month by month, two houses 

that look like the same purchase price but one has $150 greater 

monthly output for energy is a much more expensive house over 

time, vastly more expensive, and you now reward people who make 

the investments both in behavior change and technology just by 

listing it, no costly audits, no intrusive anything, just list the energy price for the year. 

Secondly, transportation audits that just give people information. 

You could use Google Earth to do this and say what is the real cost 

of this home you are buying? Because it is cheaper in the ’burbs 

but you can spend an hour and a half commuting into Washington, 

D.C., what is the real cost in terms of your time value and the energy transportation cost? Again, it is free but gives people information they can make a decision with. 

Regarding the HOMESTAR program, the best time to make an 

energy investment in your home is at point of purchase for two reasons: the cost of the borrowing, if you are borrowing $200,000 for 

a home, another $20,000 to energy retrofit is additional but small 

relative to the base cost, but secondly, you are not in the home. 

You don’t have a bunch of people trooping through with insulation 

or new windows. Some way, finding a way to incentivize point-ofpurchase retrofits, seems to me to be a really major investment 

with buildings consuming 40 percent of our energy. 

Finally, a question. I am very concerned. You know, my state 

had—the last major nuclear investment in this country was in my 

state. We call it ‘‘WPPSS’’, the Washington Public Power Supply 

System. The assumption—and by the way, those are bankrupt and 

never completed with one sole exception but the rest of the towers 

standing there. They make great echo chambers. Some rock band 

is going to discover them, but it is not their original purpose. But 

this business that we are making loan guarantees, my belief is, we 

are investing, whether it is CCS in major coal plants or major nuclear plants, I think we are investing in antiquated computers, to 

be perfectly honest. When you go to the ARPA–E and other places 

around the world as I have had the privilege of doing, I think a 

distributed energy scientist like Daniel Serra or some other bright 

person working on it is going to obviate a lot of this. And so what 

we are doing is making this big loan guarantee and investment for 

something that may not be necessary. If we cut consumption by 20 

percent behaviorally, right there we obviate a whole lot of nukes. 

If we invest distributed energy technology, we further do it. What 

is your thought on that? I worry we are putting a lot of money in 

antiquated technology. 

Secretary CHU. Well, actually, I agree with you 100 percent on 

the gains on energy efficiency. Many of the things you had sug-
43

gested I like so much that we actually started the ball rolling on 

them about half a year ago. So we are starting to talk with HUD, 

is it possible to try to get the FHA to ask for a year’s energy bill? 

You know, motivate homeowners to putting those energy retrofits 

and, you know, here is the zip code, this is the energy use in this 

home, this is the energy use for this square footage in this entire 

region, so it is like a refrigerator label. We are also recognizing 

that, you know, people live differently. Some people like it very 

warm at 78, not 70, or I happen to keep our house at 65 but I don’t 

think many people like to do that. 

Mr. BAIRD. My wife and I have the same discussion. 

Secretary CHU. So we are also trying to develop a mechanism 

within the Department of Energy, a means of rating the home 

itself so you have what the real usage is, you know, like an EPA 

mileage of the house. So we are doing all those things. In terms 

of the best time to do the home is during a turnover, I absolutely 

agree with that. So HUD has energy mortgages but only like 1,000 

a year so we are trying to figure out how to get it so it is tens of 

thousands or hundreds of thousands a year. You know, we have 

130 million homes. Average turnaround time is seven years. So if 

we can start doing major retrofits, you can start to turn over the 

stock of homes in a major way but you have to make it very painless to the homeowner that they have confidence, that the added 

little bit more you put in your mortgage, which is a nice long-term 

loan, low interest rate, you will recover in energy savings on a 

monthly basis so you are not out of pocket and in fact you are making money. And so these are many of the programs we want to do. 

Gas mileage, higher mileage standards is another thing. So the 

only thing I disagree with you is, I don’t think it is 20 percent, I 

think it can be 50 percent. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would agree. I am thinking 20 percent in 20 weeks. 

Secretary CHU. Oh, well, OK. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes. Oh, 

Ms. Biggert. Excuse me. Ms. Biggert is recognized for five minutes. 

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AT DOE 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary 

Chu. 

As a long supporter of the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Science, I commend your efforts to increase the funding by 4.4 percent, which is consistent with the COMPETES Act, and of the program increases, I am glad to see the Advanced Scientific Computing Research receive a boost, and considering the importance of 

that to DOE and the research community, do you have plans for 

a sustained investment in our leadership-class computing facilities, 

and more specifically, will the Department consider utilizing the 

advanced computing infrastructure across the programs in DOE to 

meet many of our energy challenges? 

Secretary CHU. The short answer is yes, we see a sustained program. We are finding out as the computers get more powerful, as 

the algorithms get more powerful, we can begin to simulate design 

in a real way, complex designs spanning the gamut between combustion in a diesel engine so you don’t have to build another proto-
44

type and see what happens. The poster child of that is a collaboration with Cummins Diesel Engine and Sandia National Labs; they 

skipped the prototype part. They designed it on a computer. They 

do measurements on that and it worked according to the computer 

simulation. These are very complex simulations. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Do you see a role for the computing as facilitating 

solutions——

Secretary CHU. Yes. 

Ms. BIGGERT. —to grid modernization or——

Secretary CHU. Oh, well, the computer——

Ms. BIGGERT. —fuel cycle? 

Secretary CHU. Everything. The grid modernization will absolutely require a very, very—the so-called smart grid will require a 

very deeply intelligent computer system so, you know, when the 

wind stops blowing, the sun stops shining, it will add to the 

robustness of our energy supply. It has to manage two-way flows. 

I mean, right now in the United States distribution system, there 

are these regional sections, and if you want to go across, someone 

calls up the line and says hey, can you send me a little more juice? 

It is just like in the old-time movies, you know, the ship captain 

says all ahead, full steam. He goes down to the engine room and 

they start shoveling coal. We can’t use that anymore going forward, 

computers will be an integral part of the distribution. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, and I have got a couple more questions 

so I have to rush, I guess. 

Secretary CHU. OK. Sorry. 

Ms. BIGGERT. In your testimony in 2006 before this Committee 

talking about funding ARPA–E—and I do congratulate the Chairman for the success of ARPA–E, and I am not going to eat crow. 

But it is critical—you said that it is critical that the funding not 

jeopardize the basic research supported by the Office of Science, 

and I am not sure from looking at the budget, is the $300 million 

for ARPA–E taken out of the Office of Science budget? 

Secretary CHU. No. 

Ms. BIGGERT. So that is a separate——

Secretary CHU. The Office of Science budget is on a path to doubling the budget of the Office of Science and, you know, in this respect I believe in the old tradition, in the words ‘‘do no harm.’’ The 

Office of Science is a great part of the Department of Energy, and 

you want to keep it on a path of budget doubling. 

Ms. BIGGERT. And I congratulate you. Doubling that budget I 

think is very important. 

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RECYCLING

And could you just talk a little bit about the evolution of DOE’s 

R&D work on used fuel recycling over the past year and what is 

going to happen? 

Secretary CHU. Well, thank you for that question. There are two 

goals. Right now the fuel reprocessing technologies that exist today, 

for example, the one that Areva has, we believe is not economically 

viable as witnessed by the huge cost overruns in the recycling plant 

in Japan—almost a factor of three from $6 billion to over $20 billion. It is not proliferation resistant. And so these are real problems. You know, it doesn’t make financial sense and it doesn’t 
45

make nonproliferation sense. So we want to do research to see if 

we can get to a place where it makes both of those things. In addition to that, we are also looking at reactors in this $400 or $500 

million range where right now you dig uranium out of the ground, 

you use less than one percent, it is like half a percent of the energy 

content of that mined ore and the rest becomes spent fuel, possibly 

waste. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could use 20 percent, you know, 

once-through cycle? If you do that, you go from one percent to 20 

percent. Then you have just reduced the waste by a factor of 20. 

But in addition to that, we also want to do research in fast neutron 

reactors designed to burn down the long-lived radioactive waste to 

reduce the lifetime. All these things will be factored into what the 

Blue Ribbon commission is being charged to anticipate what might 

happen in the next 50 years. That will totally rewrite what we are 

going to do with the back end of the fuel cycle. So there are all of 

these possibilities. It will take time because anything having to do 

with nuclear, because of the safety concerns, does take time, but 

we do have time and we have at least a half a century to do this. 

And so I feel very committed. Here is an opportunity to go forward. 

And by the way, like with small modular reactors, here is an opportunity to recapture an industry the United States started. The first 

nuclear reactor was built in the United States and it has now gone 

abroad. You know, France and Japan and Korea have more nuclear 

production capabilities for reactors than we do. So, you know, we 

want to bring that high-tech manufacturing back to the United 

States as well. We again want to be a leader in that for our prosperity as well as clean energy. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Matheson is recognized. 

MORE ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN AND NUCLEAR WASTE

STORAGE

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Chu, welcome to the Committee. 

You mentioned in your opening statement, or actually, I think it 

was in response to the Chairman’s question in your discussion 

about high-level nuclear waste disposal and the decision to move 

away from Yucca. I actually agree with that decision to move away 

from Yucca. And when you were talking about it, you mentioned 

that as an interim measure with dry cask storage technology we 

have available onsite at operating power plants. To your knowledge, are there any space limitations for that type of onsite storage? 

Secretary CHU. To the best of my knowledge, no. 

Mr. MATHESON. And you also mentioned that when the Congress 

passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act back in the 1980s that we 

knew a lot less then than we now know. Is it your understanding 

that dry cask storage in terms of the capability for doing that was 

not very well understood back in the mid-1980s? Is that one example of where we have learned more since then? 

Secretary CHU. That is one example, but it goes much deeper 

than that. I think given, for example, in the proposed repository at 

Yucca Mountain, first it was for 10,000 years, then there was a Supreme Court ruling that says no, it is whatever—well, it turns out 
46

I knew the scientists doing a lot of the simulations for the water 

flows in Yucca Mountain, and the maximum leak out would be at 

a half a million years. Well, quite frankly, we haven’t built—humans haven’t built anything that has lasted a half a million years. 

Roman aqueducts come to mind, 2,000 years. And so what you really want to do is, you want to do something that is inherently natural deposit safe. So there are other geological repositories in that 

case. And also if you don’t want to ever have access to it, for example, you might want to consider over the next few hundred years 

we could put it somewhere in some places where you want to have 

access but when the economic value is really spent down, then you 

can say, you know, we don’t think we will ever have any more economic value and you reduce the amount of waste. Then you want 

to put it in a place that guess what, you never want it back. So 

we know of geological sites, for example, in salt domes, you put it 

in the salt dome. The salt oozes around it and you can’t get—those 

things were rejected because maybe we need to get it back. Well, 

no, in this case we might not ever want to get it back. The beauty 

of those things is, they are radioactively dated and they have been 

around for tens of millions of years. So imagine the continents of 

the world drifting around, but this thing has been safe for ten million years. That is good. So again, we know a lot more. So it goes 

much deeper than—we can take a fresh look at this. 

Mr. MATHESON. Right. I appreciate that. And I assume you will 

be engaged with this bipartisan commission in their discussion? 

Secretary CHU. Well, I mean, they are a very ‘‘blue ribbon’’ committee, and we stand by to offer them information but they are 

going to make recommendations to me, to the President and to 

Congress and they can form little subcommittees for points of technical information, but we really want their best advice. 

Mr. MATHESON. Another question I wanted to ask you about, in 

terms of the NNSA’s stockpile stewardship rule, over the past few 

years there was talk about coming up with a new generation of 

weapons. There was the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. 

And yet I believe it was just in the past year with the most recent 

JASON analysis of the existing stockpile and its projected life or 

longevity or viability, there was a certain confidence that this existing stockpile could be maintained for, in my opinion, a reasonably 

long amount of time. What is your view right now of the need to 

develop a next generation? Or do you think the existing stockpile 

stewardship program with the existing stockpile satisfies our needs 

for the next, I don’t know, few decades? 

Secretary CHU. Well, first there is going to be a nuclear repository review that will be coming out hopefully in the next couple of 

weeks and that sets a tone for what we in the Department of Energy need to do. The JASON part I am aware of had to do with 

the pits——

Mr. MATHESON. Yeah, the pits. 

Secretary CHU. —the core of the nuclear device, the thing that 

starts it off, and in their view, the pits—themselves for a long period of time. Now, having said that, many of these devices were designed with vacuum tubes, and you can’t even buy the vacuum 

tubes anymore. So merely by replacing vacuum tubes with integrated circuits, things of that nature that don’t, in my mind, con-
47

stitute a new weapon at all, it is just hey, you can’t buy this stuff 

and replace it with something, modern electronics. It doesn’t enhance any capability. I think those things need to be done and so 

you differentiate that from the pits. So what we are going to be 

doing is, we are going to be looking at these very complex issues 

and certainly wanting very much—recognizing what the President 

said in his speech, where we want to go towards eventual elimination of nuclear warheads around the world, but as long as other 

countries have them, we are going to have them, but so far from 

my knowledge from where we are today, we can extend the lifetime 

of these weapons. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MORE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Secretary, my comments and questions today focus on how 

the Department makes it decisions and whether or not the American people trust those decisions. To be candid, recent decisions 

have me befuddled. Case in point, the record is fairly clear that you 

have supported unilaterally disarming our Nation’s economy by advocating a carbon tax and a carbon tariff. Your rationale for this 

irresponsible policy is based on the claimed scientific consensus regarding the severity and impacts of anthropogenic climate change. 

As evidence of this consensus, you specifically cited the National 

Academy of Sciences. Setting aside the recent issues revealed by 

the Climate Research Unit’s leaked e-mails, the almost daily revelations of errors in IPCC reports and the numerous investigations 

related to the process by which that consensus was reached, I am 

a little confused by why you selectively embraced findings from 

these scientific bodies, why you embraced the consensus surrounding climate change. 

You ignore a report from the National Research Council on Yucca 

Mountain which states, ‘‘There is a strong worldwide consensus 

that the best, safest, long-term option for dealing with high-level 

waste, HLW, is geologic isolation.’’ One of the first acts of our Department was to essentially shutter the doors of Yucca Mountain, 

our Nation’s only option for dealing with high-level waste, despite 

clear legal obligations after over 25 years of scientific study with 

billions of dollars at risk and no plan going forward. Georgia ratepayers have already paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund over $708.9 

million. While two nuclear reactors are going to be built in Georgia, 

it has been three decades since a new nuclear plant has been built. 

Yet DOE terminates the license application for Yucca Mountain. 

You initiated a blue ribbon commission to look into storage options 

but their report won’t be completed until the end of this Administration’s term and after a certain Senator’s reelection bid. Why not 

keep the program on track until you receive those recommendations, or why not spend the collection fees for the Nuclear Waste 

Fund—suspend the collection for the Nuclear Waste Fund until a 

storage solution is agreed to? How can you justify continuing the 

collections of hundreds of millions of dollars in fees from electricity 

consumers in these tough economic times? It is just not right. Right 

now, you are essentially kicking the can down the road all the 
48

while you defend our Nation’s only existing storage option, a decision that appears to be politically motivated, not based on science. 

In order to understand the rationale behind these decisions, 

Ranking Member Hall and I along with Ranking Members Barton 

and Walden wrote to you last May with over 12 specific questions. 

Your response to the committees of jurisdiction was frankly laughable. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent 

to enter the letters into the record from me and the Ranking Member as well as the response from Secretary Chu. 

[The information follows:]
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Chairman GORDON. With no exception, so ordered. 

Mr. BROUN. I once again wrote to you last month restating my 

concerns and questions, and also seeking information regarding the 

establishment of this so-called Blue Ribbon Commission. I have yet 

to hear back. Mr. Secretary, this Committee is an important responsibility to oversee your Department. I hope you will take our 

current request seriously and be more responsive to future inquiries. 

During the President’s inaugural address, he stated his intention 

to ‘‘restore science to its rightful place.’’ Unfortunately, all we have 

seen from this Administration is rewarding of political allies, cherry picking scientific recommendations and obfuscation. The American people deserve more than empty rhetoric when it comes to scientific integrity and they deserve more than arrogance, ignorance 

and incompetence when it comes to making decisions. 

Mr. Chairman—I mean Secretary Chu, I would like to ask, what 

is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw the application on 

Yucca Mountain from the NRC? 

Secretary CHU. I would be glad to go into this, but in the limited 

time, I do believe we have much better options. There is no disagreement with the National Academy study that says geologic 

storage sites are the best option. The salt dome I was talking about 

was a geological storage site. If you have been to Yucca Mountain, 

there are issues with it. Its repository nature depends a lot on the 

assumed precipitation at that site over a million-year period. And 

so there are many issues like that. In terms of the BRC and the 

timing of the report, the time scale that is listed officially, both 

General Scowcroft and Congressman Hamilton actually want a 
57

much more accelerated time, and I am all in favor of that. Ideally, 

quite frankly, I don’t want to box them in a corner, but they are 

targeting this year to get this first draft out. So there is no desire 

to kick any can down the road regarding the Blue Ribbon Commission. 

With regard to climate data and the understanding, I still believe 

very strongly that the overwhelming body of evidence—well, let me 

stand back and say that the overwhelming body of evidence still is 

that the climate is changing, it is caused by humans, and although 

the uncertainties on what happens going forward are large, it is 

not an uncertainty as to whether it is happening or whether it is 

caused by humans, it is to the degree. The way science works is, 

sometimes there are occasionally bumps and warts, and what happens is, science investigates itself and tries to find out, and that 

is exactly what is happening, but as far as I know, there is a overwhelming body of evidence that still says—in fact, the more recent, 

especially the satellite data as it gets better and better is putting 

to rest concerns that we might have had 10 to 20 years ago. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Chu. 

Dr. Broun’s views aren’t unanimous but he certainly needs to 

have his letters responded to. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED RESPONSE OF SECRETARY CHU

I appreciate your interest, as expressed in your February 3, 2010, letter, in the 

decision regarding the Yucca Mountain project and the convening of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Expanding our Nation’s capacity to generate clean nuclear energy 

is crucial to our ability to combat climate change, enhance energy security, and increase economic prosperity. 

An important part of a sound, comprehensive, and long-term domestic nuclear energy strategy is a well-considered policy for managing used nuclear fuel and other 

aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Yet the Nation’s approach, developed more than 20 years ago, to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 

has proven ineffective. Fortunately, over the past two decades scientists and engineers in our country and abroad have learned a great deal about effective strategies 

for managing the back end of the fuel cycle. 

The Administration has decided that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution. 

As a result, President Obama requested that I establish the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The Commission will consider a broad range of 

technological and policy alternatives as well as the scientific, environmental, budgetary, economic, financial, and management issues surrounding each alternative it 

considers. The Administration remains fully committed to meeting its obligations for 

disposition of the nation’s civilian and defense nuclear waste.

Secretary CHU. I will do that. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Lipinski is recognized. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DOE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your contributions now to our Nation, what you are doing as Secretary. I was just out at Emeryville 

at JBEI, and they were speaking very highly of all that you did to 

help get JBEI started out there. The collaborative work, research 

and attempts to develop biofuels are very encouraging out there, 

and I think that was a great example of pulling together different 

institutions to do some really important work and a good example 
58

of what you have tried to do, and what you are trying to do right 

now, as Secretary. So I congratulate you and thank you for doing 

that. 

I am concerned to some degree about the—that many of our research facilities in this country are suffering from chronic underinvestment in deferred maintenance. As I am sure you know, the 

NSF’s last survey of science and engineering facilities documented 

a problem at academic research facilities, a $3.6 billion backlog in 

deferred repair and renovation, and I have heard anecdotally of 

problems at the national labs as well. And this concerns me in that 

we clearly understand we cannot lose our leadership in science and 

engineering, and I am concerned that we may not be able to lead 

and we might be having inefficient use of research dollars if we 

don’t have the infrastructure that we need. So I wanted to ask you 

what your current—what is your impression of the current state of 

DOE facilities, especially the national labs? And I was intrigued in 

your statement, you had talked about $7 billion requested for upgrade of infrastructure, and if you could be—expound a little bit on 

what that is going to be for. 

Secretary CHU. Well, regarding the infrastructure in the national 

laboratories, it is uneven. There are some that are—especially the 

new national laboratories I think are in a little bit better condition. 

Recovery Act money has been invested in a lot of that delayed 

maintenance, but going further than that, actually replacing the 

buildings. Once the laboratory buildings get to be 50, 60, 70 years 

old, it is hard to keep them going. It is better to start anew. It is 

more economical, in fact to start anew. And so that is an issue. 

Again, in my old laboratory, the oldest national laboratory in the 

complex, we had a fair fraction, I forget the exact number, but it 

was something like 40, 50 percent were over 50 years old. There 

is a section of old buildings, wooden buildings called Old Town. It 

was called Old Town when I was a graduate student there in 1970. 

It is still there. So at least there are plans to knock it down 

through Recovery Act money and it won’t be done probably for another two or three, five years but—so yes, to your point, it is an 

issue. 

The infrastructure having to do with the NNSA labs are the fact 

that because of many budget stresses and other issues over a period of perhaps a decade, maybe a little longer but certainly over 

a period of a decade the amount of—the fraction of money spent 

for science and technology, and the infrastructure more important 

than anything else. It also includes the total assets of the lab, including the people, have been declining. The fraction of money 

spent on science and technology in those laboratories was going 

down steadily so that over a 10-year period it would have been cut 

in half and we were entering the ninth year of that 10-year period. 

So——

PUBLIC ACCESS OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS

Mr. LIPINSKI. If I can—sorry to interrupt you. I want to get 

something else in before my time runs out. I would like to continue 

the discussion about what may be done about helping with improving the infrastructure at our national labs. The other thing following on what Ms. Biggert said, I am very happy to see the lead-
59

ership computing facility at Argonne, the increase in funding requested. I am a little bit concerned about with high-performance 

computing that some of this has not been available, have not 

reached small manufacturers. They have not had the ability to take 

advantage of that. I was at Sandia also and what you were talking 

about earlier about what they are doing with Cummins. I saw that 

and was told about that. What are some ways that you look to 

helping, especially small manufacturers, but even Boeing, some of 

the supply chain for Boeing is having trouble being able to access 

and use—be able to use high-performance computers? 

Secretary CHU. Well, I think the major issue in very high-performance computing is they have many, many processors, tens of 

thousands, going now up to 50,000, 100,000 processors. In order to 

use them all concurrently, efficiently, you have to have very, very 

skilled programming. So there is a program at DOE called INCITE 

which teams up applied mathematicians, computer scientists with 

the scientists because as you go to these very complex machines, 

most scientists don’t have the technical expertise. You know, after 

you have ganged up 1,000 of them, going from 1,000 to 10,000, it 

doesn’t get 10 times better. And so it begins to waste a resource. 

So in the very highest leadership computing, we actually have 

these teams of scientists but the average small company doesn’t 

have that expertise. One of the things that I am very interested in 

doing is developing what I would call automatic parallelization. 

You write some code in Fortran or C++ and it begins to automatically allow you to use thousands of processors. We don’t have that 

yet, and that is what is the next logical step in order to bring highperformance computing to the average engineer, the average scientist. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Chu, I am afraid you are a victim of your 

own knowledge. We are getting close to votes, and I don’t want to 

have to hold you. So I think Dr. Broun has a unanimous consent 

request. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a document at the end of my questioning 

period of Secretary Chu. It is called a Sustainable Energy Future: 

Essential Role of Nuclear Energy, dated August 2008, and pay particular attention to the third bullet point here which says ‘‘employing integrated approach’’——

[The information follows:]
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, we will make that a part 

of the record. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, and I want to note that Secretary Chu 

signed this document. 

Chairman GORDON. Let me real quickly, I want to let you know 

the policy of the Chairman in terms of adding to the record. We 

want to keep a complete record, but if we have something that is 

1,000 pages, we probably will not put it in the record but refer to 

it in the record and have it kept here. That is perfectly fine. But 

I don’t want to surprise you at a later date if somebody has a thousand-page document. Part of it is just the expense of doing it. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bilbray is recognized, and I think you all 

are going to try to work things out so we will all be——

Secretary CHU. I will be very brief. 

Chairman GORDON. OK. 

THE GOVERNMENT TOOLS FOR REDUCING ENERGY USE

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chu, again I want to say I was excited the 

President chose you. My biggest concern is making sure that your 

science does not get blocked by Washington’s politics. 

We talk a lot around here about how people need to change their 

lifestyles and to reduce their emissions and conserve energy. Business has to change its operations. But the one thing we don’t see 

talked about much is how government needs to change. We are 

right now burning dirty coal to generate electricity for this place, 

and, you know, we are talking about all these lofty ideas but the 

reform aspect—in fact, I think the term we always talk about energy is, we need a Manhattan Project. The fact is, Mr. Secretary, 

the Manhattan Project could not legally be done today. It would be 

illegal to do it because of regulations. Are we looking at—are there 

any studies being done in your department of what we need to do 

to change government regulations to make energy more efficient? 

I will give you an example. We talk about conservation of individuals but government control of traffic could reduce emissions and 

consumption by almost 22 percent. You know, Mr. Baird talked 

about slowing down. Nobody even talks about the fact that the 

problem is the fact that the law isn’t enforced? Is there any study 

or any proposal to do a study to look at what government and governments can do to reduce the energy dependency and to clean up 

the environment? 

Secretary CHU. Specifically to your point, there probably are. I 

can’t name the things, but let me just say very quickly, the Department of Energy does have a slight regulatory role. We do appliance 

standards, and those appliance standards have saved the country 

many billions of dollars. We are expanding those appliance standards because sometimes there is no price that will give it—oh, this 

is the best part. For the first time in history, the Department of 

Energy, we are enforcing them. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that, and I serve over the government 

reform, but my problem I have is that we—don’t you believe that 

somebody who is looking at the scientific side of it needs—it needs 

to be from that perspective that we look at the government obstruction and barriers to get—a good example. I drove a natural gas car 
69

in the 1990s but most public utility commissions will not allow 

public utilities to rate base you home dispensing of clean gas for 

cars. It is a technology we have but the government regulation 

keeps you from doing that. We don’t allow—the building code 

doesn’t allow the use of a lot of renewable resources because of obstruction. Don’t you agree that it is time that as scientists look at 

this and say look, we would love—these are barriers that we have. 

A good example, let me just say, the algae fuels discoveries in California, I met with the governor and pointed out our environmental 

regulations in California stopped the production of algae fuel in 

California for the next decade where the scientists at Scripps have 

to go to New Mexico to do it. Don’t you think that it is time that 

we have scientists take a look at—you know, start speaking out 

and be able to have some voice to be able to say these barriers 

must be eliminated? 

Secretary CHU. Well, I think we are actually doing studies—

there are many weatherization state energy grants. There are 

things like energy efficiency conservation block grants. There are 

NEPA requirements mandated by Congress. We are working 

through those things so that we can get—so we are trying to——

Mr. BILBRAY. I don’t understand. We talk about spending money 

but we are not talking about asking government to do what we are 

asking business and individuals to do: change your operation, 

change your mindsets. And we are not doing that. You know, I take 

a look every time I stop at a stop sign. It could be a yield sign. It 

is five times more polluting than not having that sign there. But 

nobody calls the government down for that kind of emissions. It is 

out of sight and out of mind. Don’t you think from a scientific point 

of view, especially when we talk about nuke, we talk about all 

these things, and government is in the way. The government answer is always, well, we will spend more money, and that is the 

big challenge I have there, and I appreciate. I am just raising this 

to please take a look at this. I look forward to working with your 

Department. I hope that we can do with nuclear power what we 

did with the interstate system and have your Department do more 

than just look at it and participate, but be the lead agency that is 

siting it. We couldn’t build freeways and the interstate system in 

this country if we approached the transportation system the way 

we have approached our energy system. We would still be driving 

on two-lane roads. The private sector doesn’t ask for a grant to site 

a freeway, to permit it. The government does that, and then we put 

it out to contract to the private. I would like to see us work together to be able to create that same dynamic when it comes to energy independence. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. 

Mr. Wilson is recognized. 

COAL AND THE DOE 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. 

The Department of Energy has a longstanding policy of refusing 

to provide loan guarantees to companies that are in litigation. 

What is frustrating to me is that environmental groups have taken 

advantage of this policy, filing thousands of frivolous lawsuits 
70

against the coal-related projects and holding them up in courts indefinitely. Companies with viable projects are unable to proceed on 

a basic level because they can’t get loan guarantees from the Department. I know that Ohio Governor Strickland has been in contact with the Administration about this as well, and therefore I ask 

you, will you be considering reexamining your Department’s policy 

in certain situations for coal? 

Secretary CHU. Well, in terms of loan guarantees, I don’t think, 

to be quite candid, we can say we can give a loan guarantee to a 

company that is in litigation because we have a responsibility to 

taxpayers and sometimes the litigation puts the company at some 

uncertainty and financial risk. And so we have to certify again, ultimately, to the OMB that taxpayer dollars are protected. So when 

there is litigation, we have to say well, wait a minute, we can’t do 

this until that is settled. So unfortunately, I think because of the 

constraints of the loan guarantee program, we can’t do much about 

that. 

Mr. WILSON. It is unfortunate. Let me go on to my second question. Ohio coal supplies 87 percent of the electricity, and most importantly, a lot of jobs in our area of Ohio. To me and my constituents, it would appear that the Administration has declared a war 

on coal with the hopes of eliminating its use entirely. Yet I see no 

way that this country’s energy needs can be met without coal. How 

does the Department of Energy intend to bridge the gap both in 

terms of energy needs and jobs between now and 10 years from 

now if the pursuit to end coal usage were to be successful? 

Secretary CHU. Well, we are investing quite a bit of money into 

learning how to use coal in a clean way so that we can continue 

to use it. As an example, through our programs and the Recovery 

Act, over $4 billion of Federal funds have been invested in clean 

coal technologies over the last several years. That is actually 

matched by industry of something like $6 billion or $7 billion. And 

so there is a very healthy partnership going on to develop better 

and better ways, economically viable ways, to capture the carbon 

and to prove that it is safe in geological sites in, I believe, six or 

seven sites around the country. So are very heavily invested in 

that. 

Mr. WILSON. And all due respect, Mr. Secretary, it looks like the 

Administration is saying one thing and then doing something entirely different. For example, on February 3rd, the President announced an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. However, only two days earlier, the President revealed a budget with $85 million cut to fossil fuel research and development. Can 

you address this perception in a way that sheds light on the future 

for coal within the Department of Energy? 

Secretary CHU. Sure. Because of the investments we have been 

making in the Recovery Act, as I said, $4 billion over a couple 

years is not chicken liver, to use an old Chinese expression. So we 

have a lot of investments out there, and the Clean Coal Power Initiative is being led by the Department of Energy’s Jim Markowsky, 

a super guy. I don’t think they are mixed signals. If you look at 

the amount of investment that we have been making over the last 

couple of years, our goal is to develop this technology so it can be 

deployed routinely in 10 years. 
71

Mr. WILSON. Can I ask then, what steps are being taken by the 

Department of Energy this year in regard to the stated goal of having five to ten carbon capture and sequestration demonstration 

projects by 2016? 

Secretary CHU. I would be glad to give you a detailed list of the 

projects we have invested in so you can see for yourself. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED RESPONSE OF SECRETARY CHU

Over $3.3B of the $3.4B the Office of Fossil Energy received in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and over $600M in appropriated Clean Coal Power Initiative funds will go toward demonstration projects. These projects will count toward 

meeting the President’s goal of five to ten carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects by 2016. Additionally, on February 3, 2010, the President issued 

a memorandum establishing an interagency Carbon Capture and Storage Task 

Force to identify barriers to widespread CCS deployment. One of the topics the task 

force will investigate is the adequacy of the currently planned demonstration 

projects. 

Following is a list of projects currently underway or planned:

Currently underway:

FutureGen

HECA—Hydrogen Energy California IGCC project

Summit—Texas Clean Energy IGCC project

Southern—Kemper County IGCC project

Excelsior—Mesaba IGCC project

AEP—American Electric Power Mountaineer Post Combustion with Carbon 

Capture and Storage (CCS) project

NRG—Post Combustion with CCS project

Basin—Post Combustion with CCS project

Neuco—Pegasus Software project

Planned: 5 or 6 Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (ICCS) projects (down-select coming in June, 2010)

Mr. WILSON. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

SMART GRID AND WIND ENERGY TRANSMISSION

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of time, 

Nebraska wind transmission capacity—you know where I am 

going, the President’s request for $144 million to research and develop smart grid technology. How might you think we would be 

able to capitalize on the wind resources of middle America and yet 

still lack the transmission capacity? 

Secretary CHU. I think we need both simultaneously. It is a very 

complex problem, as you well know. It goes across jurisdiction, 

FERC plus the Department of Energy. We need the cooperation of 

the states. The siting problem is the most vexing problem, siting 

and costing. 

Mr. SMITH. Siting of turbines or——

Secretary CHU. Sorry, the siting of the transmission lines. The 

turbines——

Mr. SMITH. What do you see as the primary obstacle to those? 

Secretary CHU. I think people don’t like to see high-voltage 

transmission lines in their backyard. They think, you know, bringing electricity to people is just fine, just don’t put it in my backyard. 
72

Mr. SMITH. And do you feel that that is a local issue or is it 

sometimes some outside groups who want to determine where 

something like that should go or shouldn’t exist? 

Secretary CHU. I think it is both, but to be frank, I think there 

are a lot of people who really don’t want these very high towers in 

their backyard. So we have to think of mechanisms in order to 

make that happen. But we don’t have the answer now. The Green 

Cabinet has been meeting on this issue because we know it is a 

problem, but I have to say quite frankly, we don’t have the clear 

solution yet. 

CAP AND TRADE

Mr. SMITH. Shifting gears just a bit, on the cap and trade, I know 

that I have been contacted by numerous folks. One person suggested when I raised concerns about the rail industry, particularly 

in my district, she suggested that hauling wind turbines could replace hauling coal. Is that feasible? And if not, do you see it on the 

horizon? 

Secretary CHU. Well, I think you want to haul wind turbines, put 

them up and then I think there could be coal by wire if you—there 

are many, many opportunities. You don’t haul, you generate the 

electricity, you can sequester the carbon where you mine it and 

then you transmit the electricity but, it depends on the commercial 

viability and those things. And so one is looking at all these ways 

of doing this. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. And when it comes to the Energy Information Administration estimating how much energy prices might 

skyrocket under cap and trade, and to use someone else’s words 

and description there, given their mission to analyze the information to promote sound policymaking and our responsibility to make 

sound policy decisions, can you comment on what that agency has 

done in terms of estimating the cost to the public? 

Secretary CHU. Sure. I don’t remember the exact number but it 

is—you take the average family of four in a household, an average 

household. There was a range. I seem to remember it is somewhere 

between 30 and 45 cents per day, so multiplied by 365 days, we are 

talking a couple hundred dollars a year added energy expense. Let 

me add, though, that if one simultaneously—which, you know, to 

some, that is significant, to others, it is not, but if you simultaneously develop programs to help the American homeowners 

weatherize their homes, make their homes tighter, more efficient, 

the bills could actually go down. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. I know it sounds cliche ́ in this town to thank you 

for your service but I am grateful for your service. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized for just a few seconds. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

MORE ON THE ULTRA-DEEPWATER PROGRAM

Mr. Secretary, if you ever get around to answering all of Dr. 

Broun’s questions, I hope you will come back to the one the I asked 

you about, section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It has been 

working, and you have a program to eliminate the Ultra-Deep program, how can you justify eliminating that. But loaning, whether 
73

1See additional material submitted for the record in Discussion chapter ‘‘The Ultra-Deepwater 

Program’’. 

it is the government or an entity, $2 billion to Brazil to finance offshore deepwater Santos base in Rio de Janeiro. Try to find that for 

me. Thank you, sir, and I yield back my time.1

Chairman GORDON. The geographically flexible Mr. Diaz-Balart 

is recognized. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very well put. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your service. I have two 

questions. Really, one should be relatively quick. Yucca Mountain, 

specifically what scientific analysis was used to determine that scientifically that was no longer the place to do it and where is it? 

In other words, was there a deep scientific analysis, a group of scientists got together, they did a report, a study, where is it, who did 

it? 

Secretary CHU. No, I believe there was no—sorry. Let me rephrase that. I believe there is no scientific group that got together 

and did that. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. There was no scientific analysis to determine 

that? 

Secretary CHU. No, there is scientific analysis, but specific to 

your question, there was no group that was formed that did that. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, what scientific analysis? Who made 

the—who did the scientific analysis to determine that and where 

is that analysis or was it—how was that decision made scientifically? I am talking about, what was the scientific analysis behind 

the decision? Remember, the President said he wanted to bring 

science into its rightful place, and I am paraphrasing. Where is the 

scientific analysis and who made it? 

Secretary CHU. Well, there are a number of things. As the project 

unfolded over the 25 years, there was growing realization that 

there were issues. The original design, for example, there was a realization—so bits of information were coming along at the time and 

so, for example, there was a realization that the natural geography 

wasn’t enough, you needed a titanium shield that would be many, 

many billions of dollars more in order to protect the water influx 

into it. So these were things—so to the best of my knowledge, more 

and more mounting issues were growing. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Secretary, and again I apologize. I do have 

to rush because we are running out of time. I apologize. But here 

is the issue. I mean, look, there was a decision made to withdraw 

that application so where was the scientific analysis that determined that? Where is it? In other words, we know there are a million issues in all this stuff. There are a million issues on both sides. 

But there was a decision made to withdraw the application. Where 

is the scientific analysis to do that? 

Secretary CHU. I would be glad to give you some of the things 

over the period of years that were growing concerns, but in the 

end, as I said, let us look forward. There are, I believe, much better 

options today. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I understand that, but a decision was made, 

and what I am hearing from you, sir, is that there was no scientific 

analysis made, that things had been heard in the past and there-
74

fore hey, let us just do it. There was no specific scientific analysis 

made to make this decision is what I am hearing. 

Secretary CHU. Well, no. What you asked is, was there a——

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Specific scientific analysis. 

Secretary CHU. Was there a specific committee formed and made 

the scientific analysis. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No. What—how was the scientific analysis 

made? I mean, is it because we have heard things in the past? I 

mean, you know, we now know that there are a lot of things that 

people heard in, you know, magazines and scientific decisions were 

made based on that. What was the scientific analysis and who 

made it to withdraw the application? It is a relatively simple question. 

Secretary CHU. There is no single report. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. There is no scientific analysis? 

Secretary CHU. Well——

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Was there a recent scientific analysis that 

showed something different? 

Secretary CHU. By analysis, you are talking about a written report? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Scientific analysis. 

Secretary CHU. Well, I would be glad to give you information on 

as time progressed what things were coming up. I would be glad 

to give you——

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. But there was no specific scientific analysis to 

make the decision to withdraw the application? 

Secretary CHU. Well, it depends. You have to define for me if you 

don’t want a letter explaining what some of the reasons that made 

it look like perhaps not the wisest choice. I would be glad to supply 

you with that. But if that doesn’t count as a scientific analysis, I 

am not——

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, you tell me. Do you consider that scientific analysis to make a decision of this scope or do you expect 

more scientific analysis? If you can get back to me, because I am 

not seeming to get it now. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED RESPONSE OF SECRETARY CHU

As requested by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart at the March 3, 2010, House 

Science and Technology Committee hearing, I am submitting information on the 

reasons for withdrawing the Department’s license application to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Yucca Mountain repository. 

DOE is committed to meet the Government’s obligation to take possession and 

dispose of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The Administration believes there are better solutions to our spent fuel and nuclear waste storage needs than Yucca Mountain. The science has advanced considerably since the 

Yucca Mountain site was chosen 25 years ago. That is why we have convened the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; it will provide advice and 

make recommendations on alternatives for the storage, processing and disposal of 

civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission plans to 

issue an interim report in 18 months and a final report within 24 months of its inception. 

The decision to withdraw the pending NRC application accords with these decisions and avoids wasting approximately $9 million per month on a licensing process 

for a project that is being terminated. It also ensures that the limited remaining 

funds available for the project are devoted to winding it down in a responsible manner that preserves scientific knowledge, retains employees with critical skills within 

the Department and minimizes harm to all affected employees. 
75

2Motion is included in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.

The Department of Energy’s Motion to Withdraw before the NRC summarizes its 

rationale for moving to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application.2

We talked a little bit about the stimulus. There is a thing today 

that I just saw on Politico which talks about the stimulus. It says 

a number of Democrats are—this is the article—furious that a majority of the grants from the clean energy program from last year’s 

stimulus have been awarded to foreign companies including one 

project that they make specific mention to, 3,000 jobs created in 

China where a tenth of those created in the United States. You 

know, I mean, we have all heard about the stimulus. It has obviously been a dismal failure, and we have heard about the $18 million web pages and the millions of dollars for political consultants 

that helped individual candidates and millions of dollars going to 

Congressional districts that don’t exist. This just seems to be another example of that. And if you wonder why the American people 

know, the reality is because here is just another example. I don’t 

think it is in the published edition for all of you. It is on the web 

one. Mr. Chairman, again, it seems to be now another example of, 

if this happened in a different country, if money to create jobs went 

to Congressional districts that didn’t exist, to projects that don’t 

exist and to other countries, if this happened in a Latin American 

country, we wouldn’t even call this waste. We know what we would 

call it. We would call it corruption. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Ehlers gets to have the last word. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, and if Mr. Diaz-Balart will remain a 

minute, I will give him my answer to his question but very briefly. 

I think the basic problem started in 1980 when Congress passed 

a bill which to me seemed rather absurd putting requirements on 

Yucca Mountain that in my mind could not possibly be met under 

any reasonable procedures and made it extremely costly. There are 

far better ways to deal with the nuclear waste than Yucca Mountain. And I don’t want to waste my time by going into a lot of the 

details but I think the Department of Energy did the right thing, 

that Congress itself should have recognized that. I attempted when 

I first got here to try to write a decent law. The reaction from almost every Congressman I met was, oh, no, we don’t want to touch 

that, we don’t want to touch that, we don’t want to touch it. And 

if you don’t touch the law and change the law to deal with new discoveries and new situations, you can’t make progress. So I think 

the decision was the right one. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Will the gentleman yield for 15 seconds? 

Mr. EHLERS. No. I have very little time and you have had more 

than enough time. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

I just want to comment on a major issue that I think the Department should spend a lot more time on, and that is part of what Dr. 

Bartlett was talking about and Dr. Baird, and I would hope that 

we would put far more emphasis on energy efficiency than we have. 

We have put far more emphasis on educating the people about energy waste, what is efficiency. I find that most people, most 
76

laypeople, don’t even know what energy is, let alone energy efficiency, and I would love to see the Department doing more. I think 

it is an indictment, and this is long before you got here, that the 

only government program that really helped on energy efficiency 

did not come out of the Department of Energy but from the EPA 

with their Green Lights program for businesses. They went around 

the country, talked to businesses, showed them what the payback 

time was to put in efficient lighting in their factories, their shops, 

their stores, and by George, it was about a year and a half, sometimes two years payback time. Any businessman would jump at an 

investment that gets paid off in that short a time, and I would really like to see the Department of Energy emphasize that much more 

and be a servant of the people in that way. 

I am delighted with what you are doing with the appliance 

standards, by the way. That is very good. 

Also, Dr. Baird had some good points too and I won’t repeat that, 

but I support what he was suggesting too. So I think the word was 

that you should probably hire or have the White House hire Dr. 

Bartlett and Dr. Baird. I don’t know about Dr. Bartlett. I think he 

plans to run again but Dr. Baird is not running again. I am not 

running again. But I don’t want a job. I just would be happy to 

help in any way I can without pay. That is a standing offer. But 

there is so much to be done in the area of energy efficiency, energy 

sources and energy education that I really think a lot of effort 

should go into that, and I would be happy to—we are out of time 

here, but I would be happy to talk to you about that. 

Secretary CHU. I will take you up on that. There are not enough 

physicists in the Department of Energy. We would be happy to 

have one more. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Even an unemployed one. 

CLOSING

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Chu, you are always a crowd pleaser, so 

thank you for being here. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from members and the answers to any follow-up questions 

the committee may ask the witnesses. The witness is excused and 

the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(77)

Appendix 1: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
78

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Secretary Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Infrastructure Spending

Q1. I would like to understand DOE infrastructure spending and plans. Your written testimony states that DOE has requested $7B to ‘‘upgrade our infrastructure 

that has been allowed to decay in the past decade, support the cutting-edge work 

our National Labs, and recruit the skilled workforce we need.’’ How much of this 

$7B is going to infrastructure support, including both equipment and facilities? 

How does this subtotal breakdown between science laboratories and NNSA facilities? How large is our deferred maintenance backlog at the National Labs?

A1. The $7 billion dollars to which you refer is the total requested for the Weapons 

Activities appropriation within the National Nuclear Security Administration to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. Of the $7 billion, 

approximately $2.4 billion will provide infrastructure support. Within this amount, 

about $2.3 billion is for programs that predominately support equipment and facilities—Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities; Secure Transportation Asset; Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program; and Site Stewardship. The balance of the $2.4 billion funds capital equipment, general plant projects and construction line items supporting other Weapons Activities program areas. 

Of the $2.4 billion in infrastructure support, approximately $1 billion would be 

spent at the Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. 

As of the end of FY 2009, the deferred maintenance backlog at these laboratories 

was approximately $1.5 billion.

Q2. I understand that the total Office of Science FY 2011 request for science laboratories infrastructure is $126 M, 1.3% less than FY 2010 appropriations. Is this 

correct? How much do you project the Office of Science will need to maintain 

and modernize its physical plant over the next 10 years?

A2. The FY 2011 request reflects the completion of funding in FY 2010 for the 

Interdisciplinary Science Building at Brookhaven National Laboratory, as well as 

increases in remaining ongoing projects and the initiation of two new projects at the 

Fermi and Jefferson laboratories. The net effect is a small reduction in the FY 2011 

request relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The Science Laboratories Infrastructure program includes construction projects that will modernize the Office of Science 

laboratory facilities and utility systems, ensuring that they are mission-ready and 

can fully support scientific discovery. Seven projects have started design, construction, or both, with two additional projects proposed for 2011 funding. The cost of 

the full portfolio of recapitalization projects for which we have tentatively identified 

a need is roughly $2.2 billion.

Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko

Q1. During my review of the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability budget I noticed an increase of $26 million for energy storage technology research towards 

larger lithium ion batteries. My question is why is DOE requesting extra funding directed towards only larger lithium ion batteries, when there are many different types of batteries under development especially when it comes to stationary uses. Why not make the funding technology neutral?

A1. The Department’s FY 2011 increase for energy storage supports investments in 

a range of energy storage technologies and electricity grid applications, not just lithium ion batteries. The $26 million increase will provide funding for a whole portfolio 

of research and field verifications, including advanced lead-carbon batteries, metalair batteries, ultra fast flywheels, ultracapacitors, compressed air energy storage 

technologies, as well as large scale lithium ion systems. Also included are analytical 

studies of storage costs and benefits, and ongoing collaborative projects with state 

energy agencies such as California and New York.

Q2. I think most everyone on this committee is looking forward to the creation of the 

energy innovation hubs. I believe they will produce great outcomes for DOE and 

for our nation. Even through DOE is still in the process of setting up the first 

innovation hub, have there been any issues that have arisen thus far with imple-
79

mentation? Also, are there issues Congress can help resolve when it comes to 

streamlining and simplifying the application process for future hubs?

A2. The Department of Energy is in the process of establishing three Energy Innovation Hubs under the FY 2010 appropriations: Fuels from Sunlight; Modeling and 

Simulation for Nuclear Reactors; and Energy Efficient Building Systems Design. 

The Department coordinated development and issuance of the three Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) for these Hubs. In each instance, applications are 

being evaluated according to the specific merit review criteria set forth in each FOA. 

The process is proceeding smoothly, and awards will be announced later this fiscal 

year. The application process for any potential future Hub will likely follow this 

same process.

Q3. Do you support 100% fuel neutrality in the Clean Cities program to allow the 

best technology to come to market, instead of picking a fuel winner? If not, why 

not?

A3. Yes, the Clean Cites program has supported fuel neutrality to allow local and 

regional groups to choose which technologies and alternative fuels make the most 

sense for their specific situation. This policy accommodates regional diversity and 

practical considerations related to local economic, business case, and market conditions as well as technology performance issues (impacts of severe cold or hot weather, unusual vehicle duty cycles, local air quality regulations, etc.). For the Fiscal 

Year 2011 budget request, Clean Cities proposes a portion of the budget for focused 

activity in electrification infrastructure to facilitate the introduction of a number of 

electric drive models, as well as to supplement activity supported by the Recovery 

Act.

Questions submitted by Representative John Garamendi

Q1. NERSC is no longer a part of the INCITE program, even though industry could 

often benefit more from the software expertise and computing capabilities of 

NERSC. Why is this the case and does the Department have a plan for utilizing 

the unique capabilities of NERSC for solving applied problems that may not 

need the massive computing power of the Leadership Class Facilities?

A1. Although NERSC is no longer a part of the INCITE program, the ASCR Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC), created in 2009, allocates up to 30 percent of 

the computational resources at NERSC and the Oak Ridge and Argonne Leadership 

Computing Facilities to scientists from academia, industry, other agencies, and the 

DOE applied programs. This allocation process is available year-round for high-risk, 

high-payoff simulations in areas directly related to the Department’s energy mission, for national emergencies, and for broadening the community of researchers capable of using leadership computing resources. We believe that this is a more appropriate allocation mechanism for those industry and applied program research applications that may not need the massive computing power of the Leadership Class 

Facilities.

Q2. The Department of Defense is the nation’s largest single user of energy and the 

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognizes the need for DOD to use alternative energy and improve energy efficiency to support its critical national security mission. In my District, Travis Air Force Base, the premier airlift facility 

on the West Coast, is taking steps to achieve greater energy efficiency and use 

energy from renewable sources, but they will need new technology to achieve 

their goals. As you know, my District is also home to two DOE national laboratories—Sandia and Lawrence Livermore. Therefore, what steps is the Department of Energy taking to partner with DOD to make sure that new energy technologies are being transferred and made available for the DOD to implement? 

Specifically, how are the capabilities of the DOE national laboratories being 

used to support the important DOD objective?

A2. Significant collaboration exists between the Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories and the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE Lab capabilities 

are being used to help DOD achieve its alternative energy and energy efficiency 

goals. 

As an example of this support, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

within the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy used American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to issue a call for National Laboratory technical assistance (TA) services for Federal agency applicants. FEMP provided TA to DOD facilities through this call with the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, Pacific Command (PACOM), and Northern Command (NORTHCOM). While 
80

1Statement of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment Dr. 

Dorothy Robyn before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Readiness. February 24, 2010 http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/robyn¥testimonyO22410.pdf

not all projects fit into one category, most projects involve retro-commissioning, renewables, assessments, training, micro-grid/smart-grid analysis or some combination of these four activities. 

The PACOM technical assistance project funded through the FEMP ARRA TA call 

is one example of using an integrated team of DOE National Labs to address complex DOD energy objectives. To help meet energy challenges at PACOM, FEMP organized a multilaboratory team to use each labs area of expertise. The PACOM energy goal is to develop an integrated, expanded approach for military installations 

which will advance energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy manager training, 

and micro grid assessments. Instead of implementing individual projects, this systems approach maximizes energy savings by providing a framework for integrating 

the individual components into a logical whole. 

FEMP has also funded NREL to provide expertise on in-theater tactical energy 

use assessment trips with the Marine Corps and the Air Force. During these two 

trips, NREL experts helped identify potential energy efficiencies in a deployed environment 

DOD and the Services are also receiving lab expertise through the DOD–DOE Initiative Net Zero Energy Installation (NZEI) activity to address issues of energy security. Through this initiative, NREL is analyzing one installation from each service 

to determine the potential for it to become a net zero energy installation. The sites 

selected are MCAS Miramar (Marine Corps), Air Force Academy (Air Force), and 

Pohakuloa Training Area (Army). The Navy project identification is pending. Based 

on the MCAS Miramar project, NREL is creating a standardized NZEI process template for other military bases. 

In conclusion, the DOE National Laboratories are a resource for DOD facilities 

to achieve their energy goals. Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, supported this in her testimony before the 

House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Readiness, stating, ‘‘With respect to facilities energy, the military’s most valuable role will be as a testbed for 

next generation technologies coming out of laboratories in industry, universities and 

the Department of Energy 1.’’ DOE continues to interact with DOD to increase coordination and ensure that the DOD can increase its access to the DOE’s National 

Laboratory System. 

Q3. I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your prompt attention to a letter 

my colleagues and I sent on February 1st requesting you to appoint a Technology 

Transfer Coordinator. This appointment is an important first step in the revitalization of a robust Technology Transfer program which will ultimately lead to 

additional U.S. jobs and reestablish the technology, leadership of the U.S. Mr. 

Secretary, I would like to know, now that the Coordinator is in place, how does 

the Department intend to find the funding needed to actually get money to our 

national laboratories to make technology transfer a reality?

A3. On February 23, 2010, I announced the selection of Dr. Karina Edmonds to 

serve as the Department of Energy’s new Technology Transfer Coordinator. She will 

oversee a coordinated, strategic effort on behalf of the Department to increase the 

rate of successful technology transfers, create clean energy jobs, and provide more 

solutions to our energy and climate challenges. Dr. Edmonds will work directly with 

the Department’s national laboratories to accelerate the process of moving discoveries and inventions from the laboratory to the private sector and ensure that America’s scientific leadership translates into new, high-paying jobs for America’s families. 

Dr. Edmonds is scheduled to join the Department in mid-April 2010. Among her 

first tasks will be visits to the national laboratories, to discuss opportunities for 

streamlining the technology transfer process and reducing transaction costs. This 

should make the Department a more responsive partner for both large and small 

companies, as well as nonprofit R&D institutions, venture capital, and other investors.

Question submitted by Representative Lincoln Davis

Q1. The DOE energy programs conduct a significant part of the research at the Office of Science labs, drawing on the strong capabilities and tools that exist there. 

However, much of the infrastructure that supports these programs is aging and 
81

no longer state of the art. While the Recovery Act has provided an opportunity 

to renew DOE infrastructure, there may still be additional opportunities to create jobs by considering funding infrastructure at science labs conducting research for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by using some 

of the remaining ARRA funding. Oak Ridge has been working on a 

Translational Research Building that is ready to go and would be on example 

of how job creation could be accelerated and future EERE research supported. 

Secretary Chu, do you think we need to be using funds across the complex to 

modernize and update all science lab facilities that conduct EERE R&D work? 

Furthermore, could Recovery Act funding for EERE be used to address some of 

the immediate infrastructure needs of the program across the national laboratory complex?

A1. The Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

works with a variety of national laboratories to accomplish our mission of strengthening America’s energy security, environmental quality and economic vitality. Yes, 

we believe that utilizing funding across the complex to modernize all labs that conduct EERE R&D is a good idea. To that end, EERE has awarded over $258 million 

in Recovery Act funding to facilities projects that are largely directed to construct, 

upgrade, renew and modernize lab facilities and their infrastructure:

• Integrated Biorefinery Research Expansion—$13.4 million for the construction of a national facility that provides continuous industrial scale research 

and development process capability designed to accelerate the development of 

advanced waste cellulose to ethanol production processes.

• Renewable Energy and Supporting Site Infrastructure—$86.8 million to acquire renewable energy capabilities to replace electricity and gas purchased 

through the local utility, increase security capability, provide ADA access improvements, and provide enhanced site pedestrian access and circulation to 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This project will develop 

a renewable energy strategy and design renewable energy supply networks to 

power the NREL site and buildings in pursuit of net zero energy.

• Lab Call for Facilities and Equipment—$104.8 million to construct and/or 

buildout an existing facility to conduct research on the systems design, integration and control of new and existing buildings; construct highly flexible, 

highly instrumented, pilot scale facilities needed to support new and enhanced R&D into advanced energy storage technologies (batteries, ultra-capacitors, asymmetric or hybrid ultra-capacitors) for automotive applications; 

and construct and operate a highly flexible, highly instrumented low cost carbon fiber technology demonstration facility for demonstrating and evaluating 

new low-cost manufacturing processes and technologies at pilot scale.

• National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) Upgrades—$10.0 million to provide the NWTC with two major upgrades to existing facilities that support 

testing of wind turbines: upgrades to the 2.5MW dynamometer facility to 

5.0MW and upgrades to the electrical distribution system.

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Ingress/Egress Project—$44 

million for the parking, site access, and roadway improvements necessary to 

efficiently and effectively support development of the NREL campus and to 

maintain the safety and security of NREL.

For example, $54 million was competitively awarded to the Oak Ridge National 

Lab for infrastructure investments expected to create jobs and aid future research. 

The investments at Oak Ridge include a Net-Zero Energy Buildings Research Laboratory and a 20,000 square foot Carbon Fiber Technology Center to help develop 

the next generation of lightweight materials to improve vehicle efficiency. These investments address critical infrastructure needs as the labs continue to expand their 

portfolios of research. The Recovery Act investments at Oak Ridge and other national labs are key to advancing our R&D work as well as accomplishing our mission.

Question submitted by Representative Ben Chandler

Q1. Secretary Chu, the Department of Energy, through the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act and other funding opportunities, has shown that advanced 

battery manufacturing technology is a priority for the Obama Administration. 

As you know, nearly all high-volume commercial production of advanced batteries occurs in Asia, where government investment has facilitated the rapid development and production of these technologies. The Commonwealth of Kentucky 
82

is attempting to help the United States become a leader in the development of 

this technology by establishing a Battery Manufacturing R&D Center.

The center—a joint effort between the Commonwealth (represented by the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville) and Argonne National 

Laboratory—will focus on the development and integration of manufacturing 

technology for new energy storage applications, and more specifically, the research and development of new battery technologies for the automotive sector.

How does the work that this Center will perform mirror the goals of the Obama 

Administration on advanced battery manufacturing technology? Also, how does 

the President’s budget create or encourage research and development and/or 

manufacturing opportunities to create a vibrant and globally competitive Lithium-Ion industry in the United States?

A1. The President’s budget places increasing importance on supporting research 

and development of battery technology. The American Reinvestment and Recovery 

Act created major opportunities for establishing domestic lithium-ion manufacturing 

facilities through competitive awards. In addition, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (AVTM) loan program and 48c tax credits support domestic 

manufacturers of advanced batteries. The combination of accelerated R&D and investment in manufacturing capabilities is expected to help create a vibrant and 

globally competitive advanced battery industry in the United States. 

The work the Battery Manufacturing R&D Center plans to perform supports the 

goals of the Administration to establish a domestic advanced battery manufacturing 

capability. Its emphasis on battery manufacturing technology could help to bridge 

the gap between existing competitively awarded battery research/development efforts and the industrial materials and processes that are needed for fabricating 

these batteries on a mass production scale and at a globally competitive cost. 

As you are probably aware, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) recently awarded an $11.8 million grant to the 

University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER) to expand their 

laboratory facilities, including research into advanced battery technology for plugin hybrid vehicles at the Kentucky-Argonne National Battery Manufacturing Research and Development Center. The new facility will include labs for process development, prototype manufacturing and testing to support applied research on batteries and capacitors.

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Ralph M. Hall

Office of Science Prioritization

Q1a. In 2006 testimony before this Committee on behalf of the National Academies’ 

Gathering Storm report, you said ‘‘In funding ARPA–E, it is critical that its 

funding not jeopardize the basic research Supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The committee’s recommendations are prioritized and 

its top recommendation in the area of research is to increase the funding for 

basic research by 10% per year over the next seven years.’’ [Source: http://

science.house.gov/commdocs/hearings/ful106March%209/Chu.pdf]

The DOE budget requests $300 million for ARPA–E, but only provides a four 

percent increase for the Office of Science (after it received just a two percent increase in FY 2010). This clearly violates the principle set forth in your 2006 testimony and the NAS Gathering Storm recommendations. What is the basis for 

the Administration’s decision to place a lower priority on Office of Science funding?

A1a. The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation commits to doubling the overall Federal investment in basic research at the Office of Science, the National 

Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The 

FY 2011 Office of Science request of $5.12 billion represents 41 percent growth over 

the FY 2006 appropriation of $3.63 billion; this growth equates to an annualized 

growth rate of 7.1 percent, close to the annualized growth rate of 7.2 percent required to double funding over ten years. While the President’s Plan does not promise a specific growth rate for each individual agency, basic research funding in the 

Office of Science is on a strong growth path. Funding support for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy has not jeopardized this growth path. 

In addition to the annually appropriated funds, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided $1.6 billion for the Office of Science, which further supports 

the Office’s basic science mission and the President’s Science and Innovation Plan. 
83

Q1b. Related to this, your testimony stated that the budget ‘‘sustains the President’s 

commitment to double the budgets of three key science agencies,’’ including the 

DOE Office of Science. However, the Office of Science is increased by just 4.4 

percent, after receiving only a two percent increase last year. Do you intend to 

double the budget for the Office of Science and if so, over, how many years?

A1b. The FY 2011 request represents a 7.1 percent annualized growth rate since 

the FY 2006 appropriation. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a document as part of the budget rollout entitled ‘‘Doubling Funding 

at Key Science Agencies’’ (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/doubling%2011%20final.pdf), which shows the doubling profile is on track to 

be completed by FY 2017.

Q2a. You stated in your testimony that ARPA–E ‘‘is dedicated to the market adoption’’ of new energy technologies. The statutory charge for ARPA–E, however, 

makes no reference to ‘‘market adoption’’ but instead says that ARPA–E’s mission should be to ‘‘overcome longterm and high-risk technological barriers.’’ 

Please reconcile this statement in your testimony in the context of ARPA–E’s 

statutory charge.

A2a. Your statement is correct about the statutory mission given for the establishment of ARPA–E in the America COMPETES Act of 2007. The statute elaborates 

on the means to achieving this mission as ‘‘translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations’’ and ‘‘accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to 

undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.’’ Included among the responsibilities of the ARPA–E Director in achieving the goals of ARPA–E is through 

awards that target acceleration of ‘‘demonstration of technologies and research applications to facilitate technology transfer.’’ We feel that the intent of the statute, 

though not completely explicit and at the same not entirely implicit, is for ARPA–

E to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers that are preventing the 

translation of scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations, and to facilitate the transfer of those technological innovations to the 

market. 

It is important to note that ARPA–E will not be picking the winners and deciding 

which technologies and associated products will be put on the market. Demand pull 

from the market and private companies will decide the winners. ARPA–E’s role is 

simply to identify and fund research projects that will overcome the long-term and 

high-risk technological barriers that are preventing a promising potentially transformational technological innovation from getting to the stage where private investment will take over and turn the technology into a marketable product. Furthermore, ARPA–E will invest in multiple competitive approaches to reach technology 

targets, and then let the private sector pick those approaches that is best for business.

Q2b. Related to this, the law establishing ARPA–E states that it should pursue 

‘‘high-risk’’ technological advances ‘‘in areas that industry by itself is not likely 

to undertake.’’ This seems appropriate, and will presumably ensure that tax 

dollars don’t compete with venture capital or other private equity, but rather 

are focused on advancing technologies through the ‘‘valley of death’’ that is too 

risky for private investment. Do you agree with this philosophy—specifically 

that tax dollars should not be invested/spent on technologies where the risk is 

already low enough to attract private investment?

A2b. I do agree with the philosophy outlined in the ARPA–E authorizing legislation. 

ARPA–E has a rigorous process for evaluating and selecting proposals. For its first 

funding opportunity, ARPA–E evaluated over 3,700 concept papers, and selected 

only 37 submissions for award. ARPA–E does not fund applications that are deemed 

to have low transformational value, meaning incremental improvements on existing 

technology. ARPA–E does not seek to ascend existing learning curves; instead, 

ARPA–E seeks to create entirely new learning curves. These types of projects have 

high technical and/or market uncertainty, and are not being funded by industry. 

We meet and communicate regularly with venture capitalists and other private 

investors to get a sense of their appetite for risk and the types of projects they are 

funding and not funding. In addition, I have hired staff with background in the venture capital industry in order to make more precise determinations of the types of 

high risk projects that are appropriate for ARPA–E to fund. 

Let me also explain through the figure below. Office of Science funds research in 

basic science and, at times, feasibility of a basic idea or a concept. Private capital 

is generally available at Technology Readiness Levels when products can be made 

based on a technology, and customers are ready to buy such products. Therefore, 
84

from the concept feasibility stage to the product development stage, a big gap exists 

today where many good ideas perish because the concepts cannot be translated into 

technologies. When these technologies are disruptive and could make today’s approaches obsolete, this translation of ideas to technology is too risky both for the 

private sector and the applied science offices in DOE, especially. ARPA–E’s goal is 

to invest in translating such ideas and concepts into disruptive technologies and 

helping to make them market ready. Furthermore, ARPA–E will invest in multiple 

disruptive technological approaches to reach the same goal (e.g., high energy density, low-cost batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles), and then let the private sector 

pick the winning technology based on what is best for business. Hence, ARPA–E’s 

goal is to reduce technological risks at various stages of developing disruptive technologies.

Q3. Last week, investigative reporter John Stossell revealed that DOE awarded over 

$500,000 in Stimulus funding to a company whose top public policy executive 

is married to the DOE political appointee (Assistant Secretary for EERE Cathy 

Zoi) in charge of the program that made the award. While the Department has 

stated that the appointee officially recused herself from the award process, her 

subordinates were presumably aware of, and potentially impacted by, the connection between their boss in this company.

What is your reaction to this story? Do you agree that it presents conflict of interest concerns, if not legally then at least perceptually? If so, how will you address these concerns? What additional steps is the Department taking to ensure 

that similar conflicts of interest are avoided as part of the unprecedented ($27 

billion) spending that it is carrying out due to the Stimulus bill?

A3. The entire Obama Administration and the Department of Energy in particular 

are committed to the highest ethical standards, and we take very seriously allegations of misconduct or appearances thereof This Administration has been extraordinarily transparent and has put in place unprecedented ethics rules. With regards 

to this particular issue, the Department has taken concrete steps to maintain the 

independence of the merit review process. As the Committee knows, Ms. Zoi disclosed 

her husband’s employment prior to her confirmation both to the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee and in her public financial disclosure report. The law 

requires her to recuse herself from acting on any particular matters that would have 

a direct and predictable effect on her husband’s employer. She has fully complied 

with that recusal and voluntarily gone much further. She has completely recused 

herself from any DOE business regarding window manufacturing. The Office of En-
85

ergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a screening mechanism in place to ensure that matters from which she is recused do not reach her desk. The matters 

she is recused from are handled by a senior career official and her principal deputy, 

and by the Undersecretary and the Deputy Secretary where appropriate. However, 

the bulk of issues that EERE is involved in do not affect her husband’s employer. 

These procedures are in place throughout the Department and we are confident in 

our ability to avoid conflicts.

Tax Increases on Fossil Fuels and Dependence on Foreign Energy

Q4. In your budget testimony to the committee last year, you emphasized reducing 

dependence on foreign oil and energy security as one of your top priorities. This 

year, you did not mention it, but you do note that the budget raises taxes on 

domestic energy sources and cancels oil and natural gas R&D programs. These 

measures will obviously raise the cost of production, increasing energy imports 

and our dependence on foreign oil, including that from hostile sources. Please 

reconcile these policy choices with your prior emphasis on energy security. Has 

the Department estimated how much impact these tax increases will have on domestic oil and gas production and, ultimately, energy prices? If not, why not?

A4. The Administration and the Department continue to emphasize the pressing 

need to reduce our dependence on oil as an essential matter of energy security. To 

promote this goal we are pushing forward with a wide range of initiatives including 

Vehicle and Fuel Cell Technologies to improve the efficiency with which we use energy as well as new alternative and ‘‘green’’ energy sources such as solar and 

biofuels. In addition, the President recently announced that the Department of the 

Interior can consider leasing oil and gas resources on the Federal Outer Continental 

Shelf off Virginia and other selected parts of the Atlantic seaboard and the Eastern 

Gulf of Mexico. 

With respect to the Administration’s proposal to reduce some of the advantageous 

tax benefits for the domestic petroleum industry, we believe as a matter of good tax 

policy that the Federal Government should not provide incentives for the commercial production of oil and gas. The Department has not estimated what the impacts 

might be on domestic production from these tax changes.

Q5a. What is DOE doing to ensure the NRC quickly establishes a licensing protocol 

for Small Modular Reactors? When do you envision the first design being licensed?

b. Please explain the evolution of DOE’s R&D work on used fuel recycling over 

the past year.

c. How much progress has been made in partnering with the industrial community on development of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant? What is the status 

of the project?

A5a. The DOE does not specify licensing protocol to the NRC for any reactor type. 

As an independent regulatory authority, the NRC establishes the licensing process 

for new nuclear power plants. The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has, however, been 

interacting with the NRC and attending forums and workshops with industry to 

consider the unique licensing requirements of small modular reactors (SMRs). These 

meetings and workshops are expected to help identify technical and potential regulatory questions such as differences in size, vulnerability and safety system requirements that are inherent to SMR designs. NE is also participating with NIST, NRC, 

vendors, and other relevant stakeholders to assure that the unique elements of 

SMRs are addressed in new or existing nuclear codes and standards. Improved licensing protocols and updated codes and standards are expected to benefit the licensing of large LWR plants and could help provide a basis for industry’s eventual 

SMR design certification and plant licensing. It is possible that industry could submit design certification applications to the NRC for light water reactor-based SMRs 

as early as 2012, depending on the maturity of the technology. We anticipate the 

NRC review cycle for the Design Certification to take approximately three years, 

with the first SMR design potentially being certified in the 2015 timeframe.

A5b. During the past year, DOE’s R&D work on used fuel recycling has shifted from 

a program in support of possible near-term implementation of evolutionary processes to a science-based research program seeking revolutionary approaches to recycling. The current program is designed to understand the fundamental mechanisms 

of the separation process and to develop advanced processes far beyond today’s solvent extraction methods.

A5c. The Department has been working with private industry since the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project began. Industry has helped define the re-
86

quirements that guide all NGNP research and development, has participated with 

the Department as we work with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on gascooled reactor licensing, and has completed a number of trade studies and pre-conceptual design reports for the NGNP. Industry has also worked with the Department to identify end-users and to establish end-user requirements for the NGNP. 

On March 8, 2010, the Department announced that it would cost share with industry for the conceptual design of the NGNP with teams led by Westinghouse Electric 

Co. and General Atomics. The status of the NGNP project was provided to Congress 

in the NGNP Report to Congress, which was submitted in March 2010.

Green Jobs

Q6. Promoting ‘‘Green Jobs’’ or ‘‘Clean Energy Jobs’’ is clearly a priority for the administration as reflected in this budget, and President Obama has often noted 

that the cleans energy subsidies pursued in Germany and Spain provide a model 

that he would like the U.S. to follow. However, a growing body of data indicates 

that these models are inefficient and highly expensive. An authoritative study by 

one of Spain’s leading universities found that the average subsidy cost for each 

‘‘green job’’ created in Spain was $800,000, and that Spain’s creation of 50,000 

green jobs resulted in 110,000 lost jobs elsewhere in the country. A similar study 

in Germany found that wind and solar subsidization in Germany amounted to 

$244,000 per ‘‘green job’’ and added 7.5% to the cost of household electricity 

bills.

Do you agree with and have you considered the studies’ conclusions that such 

subsidies hurt job creation and increase energy prices in formulating your own 

green jobs agenda? How does the administration’s plan for subsidizing green 

jobs compare to from the models employed in Europe and cited by President 

Obama?

A6. I am not familiar with the studies you reference. While there are some initial 

costs to promoting the growth of green jobs, these up-front costs can be viewed as 

‘‘down payments’’ on a future workforce that will have the skills to complete globally 

in the clean energy sector. At present, not one American university offers a master’s 

program in interdisciplinary energy studies that covers clean energy technology industries as well as business, economics, and other useful disciplines to create wellrounded energy entrepreneurs of the future. In addition, the American Association 

of Community Colleges estimates that less than ten percent of the nation’s 1,700 

community colleges have begun to develop curricula for renewable energy and energy efficiency career tracks, and these programs generally lack national standards 

and accreditation processes. As we transition to a clean energy economy, developing 

national standards, training a new workforce (including measures to ‘‘train the 

trainer’’), and improving quality and accountability are all important steps that take 

time and money to initiate. President Obama is committed to investing in clean energy jobs that cannot be outsourced. One example is in the home weatherization and 

retrofit market, which create jobs while saving home owners money on their utility 

bills. Moreover, through leveraging the investments made in the Recovery Act, the 

Federal Government plans to partner with state and local governments to help expand the nation’s home retrofit market by supporting municipal energy financing 

and increasing the use of Energy Efficient Mortgages, among other measures, that 

will reduce retrofit costs to the homeowner and create good-paying weatherization 

jobs.

Q7. EERE Budget documents state that the $50 million for RE–ENERGYSE will 

emphasize a ‘‘communications/media campaign to promote energy efficiency to 

K–12 students.’’ What specifically will this ‘‘campaign’’ entail? Is it appropriate 

for EERE and the Federal Government to invest tax dollars to behavioralchange activities at high schools? Given that energy efficiency measures typically 

include important tradeoffs (such as increased costs and lower convenience) and 

raise questions that students and other citizens should be free to decide upon 

on their own terms, how is such policy (and even political) activism an appropriate use of Federal tax dollars?

A7. The Department of Energy’s newly proposed energy systems education and 

technical training program, RE–ENERGYSE, has been designed to create and enhance U.S. science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education opportunities, and improve STEM and energy education resources for teachers and students; 

and is not intended at changing behaviors or inducing activism. 

Through the Department’s FY 2011 Budget Request, $55M was included for RE–

ENERGYSE ($50M administered by EERE and $5M administered by NE), which 
87

will educate and prepare today’s students and workforce to enter and excel at professions in the low-carbon economy. The bulk of the RE–ENERGYSE proposed funding ($46M) will support technical and research-focused undergraduate, community 

college, graduate and post-doctoral education opportunities, with $9M of funding to 

support K–12 education and outreach. The K–12 and outreach activities will be 

aimed at inspiring the next generation of Americans to pursue careers in science, 

technology, engineering and math disciplines (STEM). Such activities could include: 

curricula development, competitions, teacher support and training, and communications/media campaigns that will harness a mix of technologies and innovative education methods such as videos, contests, and web interactivity. These activities will 

engage and attract students to STEM disciplines, and are critical to increasing the 

pipeline of students entering STEM and energy fields. 

The communications/media campaign key activity will achieve a two-fold goal of 

communicating EERE’s mission while simultaneously developing the next generation of scientists, engineers, energy entrepreneurs, and other energy professionals. 

To ensure the greatest impact, these funding opportunities will be awarded through 

a competitive grant process and will be made to schools, organizations, non-profits, 

etc., who can demonstrate the greatest ability to attract and engage K–12 students 

to STEM and energy disciplines using innovative education and communications 

methods.

Yucca Mountain

Q8a. What is the scientific or technical basis, if any, for your decision that the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is ‘‘not an option’’?

b. How does your decision comport with the Department of Energy’s (DOE statutory obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended?

c. Prior to your public statements that Yucca Mountain repository is ‘‘not an option,’’ was any analysis performed of the potential taxpayer liabilities associated with such a decision?

d. Please provide all documents relating to any legal, technical, or scientific 

analyses that formed the basis for your decision to re-evaluate nuclear waste 

disposal alternatives to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, including, 

but not limited to, evaluations and recommendations that led you to determine that Yucca Mountain was ‘‘not an option.’’

e. What was the process for making your decision that Yucca Mountain repository is ‘‘not an option’’? Please describe and identify when and with whom you 

consulted, including, but not limited to, a description and identification of 

attendees at any public meetings, any Administration meetings, and any consultations with States affected by the decision.

f. In reaching your determination that the Yucca Mountain repository is no 

longer an option, did you consult with or receive any briefings from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, DOE laboratory directors or personnel, 

or any DOE scientists or technical personnel who performed work on the 

Yucca Mountain project? Please describe when and with whom you consulted, 

including, but not limited to, a description and identification of attendees at 

any meetings.

g. Have you shared your rationale for determining that the Yucca Mountain repository is ‘‘not an option’’ with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

h. Have you or your staff prepared any analyses of the potential impact that failing to pursue the Yucca Mountain repository may have on the construction 

of new nuclear plants, which are essential to providing clean and reliable energy in the future? If so, please provide any such analyses.

i. How do you believe the Administration’s decision to scale back the Yucca 

Mountain project will affect DOE’s responsibility to develop, construct, and operate repositories for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Amendments Act of 1987, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992?

j. If a repository at Yucca Mountain is not pursued, what does the Administration propose to do with the billions of dollars that have been collected from 

ratepayers for the Nuclear Waste Fund?

A8a. Scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to disposition of highlevel waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced over the 20 years since the Yucca 

Mountain project was initiated. And, the Administration believes we can find a bet-
88

ter solution that achieves a broader national consensus. That is why we have convened the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; it will provide advice and make recommendations on alternatives for the storage, processing and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission 

plans to issue an interim report in 18 months and a final report within 24 months 

of its inception.

Ab. DOE is acting in a manner consistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

(NWPA) and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. The AEA gives the Secretary broad authority to carry out the Act’s purposes, including the authority to 

direct the Government’s ‘‘control of the possession, use, and production of atomic energy and special nuclear material, whether owned by the Government or others, so 

directed as to make the maximum contribution to the common defense and security 

and the national welfare.’’ This power was not limited in any relevant way by the 

NWPA. On the contrary, under the NWPA, the NRC proceeding as to Yucca must 

be conducted ‘‘in accordance with the laws applicable to such applications . . . .’’ 

NWPA § 114(d), 42 U.S.C. § 10134(d). Those laws include the NRC’s regulations 

governing license applications, including the provision authorizing withdrawal of applications, 10 C.F.R. § 2.107(a).

Ac. The spent nuclear fuel litigation liability is currently estimated to be $12.3 billion. Depending on the alternative option adopted as the nation’s policy on spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste that liability could increase or decrease. I look forward to receiving the Blue Ribbon Commission’s forthcoming recommendations on 

ways to proceed with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.

Ad. As noted above, I believe that the scientific and engineering knowledge has advanced considerably over the past two decades and that those advances, as reviewed 

and evaluated by the Blue Ribbon Commission, should inform our choice of a solution to the nuclear waste disposal issue.

Ae. As the Secretary of Energy, I am responsible for this decision.

Af. Please see my answers above.

Ag. I have not shared my views with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 

DOE’s Motion to Withdraw before the NRC summarizes its rationale for not proceeding with the Yucca Mountain application.

Ah. The Department is confident that the decision not to proceed with the development of the Yucca Mountain repository will not have an impact on the construction 

of new nuclear power plants. Spent nuclear fuel can be stored at nuclear facilities 

for many more decades. We will have recommendations from the Blue Ribbon commission by the end of 2011 or early 2012. The Department and Congress will thus 

have ample opportunity to move forward with a better approach to these issues in 

a manner informed by the Commission’s recommendations.

Ai. Please see answer to subquestion (b) above.

Aj. The Administration will utilize the monies in the Nuclear Waste Fund to fulfill 

its responsibility for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 

waste. The specific path that the Administration takes will be informed by the recommendations of the recently constituted Blue Ribbon Commission.

Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis

Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Considerations

Q1. What is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw the Yucca Mountain application from the NRC? Is this a decision grounded in science or in political ideology? Has DOE conducted any analysis of the science and engineering behind 

the site or design to substantiate this decision?

A1. In my judgment the scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to 

disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced over the twenty 

years since the Yucca Mountain project was initiated. I believe future proposals for 

the disposition of such materials should thus be based on a comprehensive and careful evaluation of options supported by that knowledge, as well as other relevant factors, including the ability to secure broad public support, not on an approach that 

has not proven ineffective over several decades.

Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Considerations

Q2. Why is this application being withdrawn before the NRC has completed its safety and environmental reviews of the Yucca Mountain site?
89

A2. As stated previously the Administration has determined that Yucca Mountain 

is no longer a workable option. At this point, it no longer makes sense to expend 

limited resources on the licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository.

Q3. Do you agree that this decision is in violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

A3. No, I do not agree that this decision is in violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act (NWPA), as amended, or any other provision of Federal law. The Atomic Energy 

Act gives the Secretary broad authority to carry out the Act’s purposes, including 

the authority to direct the Government’s ‘‘control of the possession, use, and production of atomic energy and special nuclear material, whether owned by the Government or others, so directed as to make the maximum contribution to the common 

defense and security and the national welfare.’’ Exercise of this power in connection 

with the NRC proceeding was not limited in any relevant way by the NWPA. On 

the contrary, under the NWPA, the NRC proceeding as to Yucca must be conducted 

‘‘in accordance with the laws applicable to such applications . . . .’’ NWPA § 114(d), 

42 U.S.C. § 10134(d). Those laws include the NRC’s regulations governing license 

applications, including the provision authorizing withdrawal of applications, 10 

C.F.R. § 2.107(a).

Q4. Without Yucca Mountain, what do you plan to do with the DOE-spent fuel and 

high level waste accumulating at the Environmental Management Sites at Savannah River and elsewhere? Do you expect these sites and their surrounding 

communities to continue to bear the risk of temporary waste storage?

A4. DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste will continue to be safely stored 

at the Department’s sites until an alternative method of meeting the Federal Government’s obligation to dispose of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel is identified. The Office of Environmental Management will work with our stakeholders to 

assure them we intend to continue our tank waste projects as planned and in accordance with our compliance agreements, as reflected in the FY 2011 Budget Request.

Q5. The Blue Ribbon Commission is directed to review all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent fuel and high level 

waste. Will the Commission review Yucca Mountain as an option for permanent 

disposal? If the Commission finds geologic storage to be the optimal decision for 

securing nuclear waste over the long term, will the Administration renew efforts 

at Yucca Mountain?

A5. The Commission will not review Yucca Mountain as an option for permanent 

disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission to focus on alternative methods of meeting 

the Federal Government’s obligation to dispose of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Q6. How do you reconcile the Administration’s decision to terminate the Yucca 

Mountain Project with their commitment to bringing more clean, reliable nuclear energy on-line? Are you confident that the nuclear industry will be able to 

attract investment without a clear solution for long-term waste storage?

A6. The Administration remains committed to fulfilling its obligations to dispose of 

the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. I am confident that 

the nuclear industry will be able to attract investment and the decision to terminate 

the Yucca Mountain repository will have no bearing on the ability of the industry 

to attract investment. Spent nuclear fuel is safe in on-site storage for many decades, 

and, during that time, I am confident that, working together, we can devise better 

solutions for the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

Q7. Is DOE currently working with the NRC to streamline the application process 

to bring new nuclear reactors to market quicker?

A7. As an independent regulatory authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) establishes the licensing process for new nuclear power plants. There is a 

working relationship between NRC and DOE in certain contexts but, owing to the 

distinctly different roles, missions, and responsibilities of the two agencies, DOE is 

not directly involved in the licensing process. DOE and NRC are cooperating on 

technical issues that may affect the overall licensing process. The two agencies are 

working on the implementation of the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Licensing Strategy, contained in the report submitted to Congress in August 2008. 

Periodic discussions are held on technical and procedural issues, including R&D 

needs, regulatory gaps, emerging technical issues, and requirements for a licensing 

application for NGNP. NRC and DOE have also been interacting on small modular 
90

reactors (SMR), together looking at technical issues and clarifying process points for 

the SMR vendors.

Fossil Energy

Q1. The United States has considerable reserves of clean-burning natural gas both 

on-land and off-shore. These resources are significantly more energy secure than 

domestic petroleum resources because they are less exposed to price fluctuations 

dictated by foreign suppliers. Do you agree that these resources can buy us time 

as we transition to new sources of energy? Do you agree that these resources can 

start reducing energybased pollution in the short term?

A1. The U.S. has an abundant supply of secure, domestic natural gas that has significant environmental benefits over other fossil fuel sources. Compared to coal-fired 

power generation, natural gas produces half the CO2 and almost no sulfur oxide. 

For this reason, natural gas can play an important role in cutting greenhouse gas 

emissions. Natural gas can also be an important support to greater use of renewable 

energy sources such as wind and solar—variable-output natural gas electric plants 

can balance the electric grid when paired with solar and wind plants that supply 

intermittent power. These benefits are available now and can quickly expand because of the existing natural gas delivery and power generation infrastructure and 

the low capital costs for new natural gas power generation.

Hydrogen

Q1. This budget increases resources for research into solar, wind, and geothermal 

energy, but cuts hydrogen and fuel cell funding. Why does the administration 

continue to reduce investment in hydrogen? Does the Administration recognize 

the potential of hydrogen as a transportation fuel?

A1. The Department’s reduction of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies (HFCT) budget by $37 million, allows a balanced portfolio of transportation solutions and continued focus on battery and advanced vehicle approaches for more near 

term impact. However, the Department will also maintain a strong effort in key 

areas of hydrogen and fuel cell research and development. In addition to $137M in 

the EERE HFCT program, DOE has requested $50M for the Solid State Energy 

Convention Alliance (SECA) Program and expects to maintain funding levels at approximately $38M through the Office of Basic Energy Sciences for long-term and 

crosscutting R&D in hydrogen and fuel cells. 

The Department does recognize the long term potential of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is one of many transportation technologies 

being pursued by the Department including plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles.

Q2. In your opinion, how will we break free from our dependence on foreign oil if 

we do not pursue investments in multiple transportation fuel alternatives?

A2. We will not break free from our dependence on foreign oil without pursuing all 

viable options. This must include electric drivetrains (powered by renewable electricity for GHG reduction) for light-duty vehicles, biomass-derived liquid fuels that 

are compatible with existing fuel infrastructure for legacy light-duty vehicles and 

heavy-duty trucks, and mode-shifting from road transportation of freight to rail or 

barge/ship. There is also a substantial role to be played by domestic alternative 

fuels such as compressed and liquefied natural gas for road vehicles (especially 

buses and heavy-duty trucks). Improvements in efficiency of engines for future vehicles also represent an important opportunity for reducing foreign oil dependence. 

The Department has a portfolio of programs to develop transportation alternatives 

including: programs addressing plug-in hybrid vehicles, advanced battery research 

for vehicle applications, the use of biofuels in transportation, and the development 

of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. Section 228 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110–114) 

directed ‘‘Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 

Senate, a report on the progress of the research and development that is being 

conducted on the use of algae as a feedstock for the production of biofuels,’’ specifically, ‘‘identify continuing research and development challenges and any regulatory or other barriers found by the Secretary that hinder the use of this re-
91

source, as well as recommendations on how to encourage and further its development as a viable transportation fuel.’’ Although a draft of this report has been 

made available to the committee, the final report has been held up so the Department of Energy can seek peer review. When can we expect a final report to 

be made public? What, if anything, do you expect to be changed from the draft? 

Is it the Department’s position all scientific research should be peer reviewed before it is published or applied in rulemaking?

A1. A Report to Congress titled ‘‘Microalgae Feedstocks for Biofuels Production’’ in 

satisfaction of the EISA 2007 Section 228 requirements was provided to members 

of the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources on May 1, 2009. During the preparation of the Report to Congress, DOE convened a stakeholder meeting with algae researchers, technology developers, investors, and government officials to draft a more inclusive report intended for public release. The report, entitled The National Algal Biofuels 

Technology Roadmap, surveys a broader technology landscape than the original Report to Congress. DOE released a draft of the Roadmap to the public in June 2009 

as part of a Request for Information (RFI) process, and used comments it received 

in the editing process. The Roadmap is currently being reviewed through our concurrence process. It is the Department’s position to ensure the quality of all scientific documents and reports to be disseminated to the public, and to abide by the 

guidelines set forth by the Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin) as prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The initial Report to Congress was to be distributed on a limited basis within government, therefore it was not required to be reviewed. In contrast, The National Algal Biofuels 

Technology Roadmap will be peer reviewed in accordance to the DOE Information 

Quality policy based on the OMB guidelines.

Q2. Please address current research to improve and commercialize small hydropower—anything less than one megawatt, including both tidal and small moving water sources. What efforts are underway to improve and commercialize this 

technology? What can this committee do to expedite research in this area?

A2. The Department of Energy supports the small water power industry in the design and development of devices and components, as well as the deployment and 

testing of those devices in the laboratory or in-water settings. The Department supports the development and testing of a wide variety of hydrokinetic systems and 

components, from earliest-stage proof-of-concept studies through full-scale demonstration projects, as well as certain small hydropower projects. Projects are typically funded through competitive awards, which are designed to help devices 

progress toward commercial readiness along well-defined technology readiness levels. The testing of these devices and components in a variety of settings allows the 

Department to determine baseline costs and performance attributes for different 

water resources and technology types. The Department is also investigating technological innovations that will reduce the cost of generation at sites appropriate for 

small hydropower development. 

While the energy contained in small hydropower resources like tides, rivers and 

streams is vast, the exact amount of extractable energy has not been well quantified. The Department has funded projects to conduct resource assessments for instream and tidal energy resources. 

The Department awarded funds to national laboratories during FY 2009 to conduct basic and applied research and development projects. Laboratory projects are 

developing essential tools and methods for the engineering, design, and testing of 

marine and hydrokinetic technologies, such as tidal power; and they will identify, 

analyze, predict and prioritize environmental impacts from marine and hydrokinetic 

energy production to minimize the time, costs, and potential environmental risks associated with siting and deploying these systems. Together these efforts will help 

accelerate the commercialization of small hydropower systems. 

Finally, the committee may expedite research in the area of hydrokinetic commercialization by supporting our FY 11 budget request which will continue the initiatives listed above.

Questions submitted by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart

Q1. Secretary Chu, what is the factual basis for seeking to withdraw the application 

from the NRC? What new facts do you have or have you considered, as Secretary 

of Energy, to determine that you should withdraw the application? Under what 

statutory authority are you withdrawing the application? Please provide the citation for the record?
92

A1. Scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to disposition of highlevel waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced over the 20 years since the Yucca 

Mountain project was initiated. And, the Administration believes we can find a better solution that achieves a broader national consensus. That is why we have convened the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future; it will provide advice and make recommendations on alternatives for the storage, processing and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission 

plans to issue an interim report in 18 months and a final report within 24 months 

of its inception. 

The Atomic Energy Act (‘‘AEA’’ or Act) gives the Secretary broad authority to 

carry out the Act’s purposes, including the authority to direct the Government’s 

‘‘control of the possession, use, and production of atomic energy and special nuclear 

material, whether owned by the Government or others, so directed as to make the 

maximum contribution to the common defense and security and the national welfare.’’ AEA § 3(c), 42 U.S.C. § 2013(c). Exercise of this power in connection with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proceeding was not limited in any relevant 

way by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In fact, the NWPA is clear that after the Secretary submits the license application for the Yucca Mountain repository, consideration of that application is to proceed in accordance with the laws applicable to such 

applications. NWPA § 114(d), 42 U.S.C. § 10134(d). 

These laws include the AEA and the regulations adopted by NRC to implement 

the AEA. The regulations permit an applicant to withdraw an application. 10 C.F.R. 

2.107.

Q2a. The Copenhagen ‘‘accord’’ requested countries voluntarily submit by January 

31, 2010, individual pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As I understand it, each nation determined its own target for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions and this accord is only ‘‘politically’’ binding in nature. The world 

views the U.S. and China as the greatest emitters, although I believe the Chinese surpassed our levels and India’s emissions continue to grow. China 

pledged to limit emissions as a share of its growing economy and the U.S. 

pledged reductions from historic levels.

Are you concerned that at a time when the U.S. economy is in a recession and 

China’s economy is growing, that committing the United States to such a reduction will place our country’s economy farther behind?

A2a. There is a burgeoning clean energy market worldwide and commitment to climate change action can be a foundation for future economic strength. Since 2005, 

clean energy investments have increased 230 percent, reaching a total investment 

of $162 billion worldwide by 2009, according to a March 2010 report by The Pew 

Charitable Trusts, ‘‘Who’s Winning the Energy Race? Growth, Competition and Opportunity in the World’s Largest Economies’’. China leads global clean energy investment, with $34.6 billion, compared to the U.S. at $18.6 billion. Comprehensive 

long-term U.S. climate change policy would provide clear market signals to help the 

U.S. clean energy technology industry compete in this growing global market.

Q2b. The Copenhagen ‘‘accord’’ requested countries voluntarily submit by January 

31, 2010, individual pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As I understand it, each nation determined its own target for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions and this accord is only ‘‘politically’’ binding in nature. The world 

views the U.S. and China as the greatest emitters, although I believe the Chinese surpassed our levels and India’s emissions continue to grow. China 

pledged to limit emissions as a share of its growing economy and the U.S. 

pledged reductions from historic levels.

Since this ‘‘politically’’ binding accord is unenforceable, what steps would the 

United States take if China does not comply with the pledges it has made in 

the accord? When you testified before this Committee last year, you indicated 

that the U.S. might be forced to place tariffs on Chinese good if the Chinese 

were not willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Would you still consider 

this an option?

A2b. The international community took a meaningful step forward during the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate negotiations in 

Copenhagen. The resulting Copenhagen Accord represents the first time that all 

major economies, including China, pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to projections. This is an important step forward. China has already taken significant actions to address climate change and to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of its economy and we expect that it will fulfill its commitments under the Accord. The Administration is closely monitoring the steps China and other major 
93

emitters are taking in line with the Copenhagen Accord. As appropriate the Administration will also review the need for trade-related measures in domestic energy 

and climate legislation. We look forward to working towards an effective global climate agreement that serves our economic, national security, and environmental interests.

Questions submitted by Representative Brian P. Bilbray

Nuclear

Q1. You’ve made statements that commercially available used fuel recycling technology is not proliferation resistant. Could you detail for the Committee your 

definition of a ‘‘proliferation resistant technology?’’ If such a proliferation technology is developed, would you have any objections to exporting such a technology to other countries, irrespective of their proliferation history or credentials?

A1. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines proliferation resistance 

as ‘‘that characteristic of an NES (nuclear energy system) that impedes the diversion or undeclared production of nuclear material or misuse of technology by the 

Host State seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.’’ 

However, the U.S. Government has not and should not embrace a single definition 

of proliferation resistance or a specific level of proliferation resistance as acceptable 

or not acceptable. We view proliferation resistance as a matter of degree, rather 

than as an absolute. Our review of the concept of proliferation resistance shows that 

it cannot be applied in a vacuum without considering other critical factors when 

making technology choices on a nuclear energy system. In other words, there is no 

‘‘silver bullet’’ technology that satisfies all of our proliferation concerns. 

Regarding the transfers of technology directly or indirectly related to the recycling 

of used nuclear fuel, the Atomic Energy Act requires a number of considerations, 

including a determination of whether the action will constitute the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to the recipient. Other criteria for consideration are what 

the recipient learns or derives from the export for development of similar systems, 

the use of the exported system itself, and the disposition pathway for recovered 

fissile materials. Decisions about nuclear systems exports must be made on a caseby-case basis weighing many factors.

Q2. Nonproliferation is a goal we all share. I think it is important that we distinguish between proliferation resistant technologies and proliferation resistant systems. As Secretary of Energy, you have a great deal of responsibility in securing 

this nation’s sensitive technologies and materials. Is it your position that the 

United States cannot design systems safeguards that would allow for the nearterm recycling of used fuel in this country, given all the sensitive materials and 

technologies that your Department already successfully secures? If this is not 

possible, what are the obstacles we need to overcome to create such a system of 

safeguards? Why haven’t you included any R&D in your budget request that 

would address these obstacles?

A2. The deployment of nuclear fuel recycling technology in the United States or in 

any of the other Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) does not constitute proliferation because the NWS already have nuclear weapons and the technology and knowledge 

to build weapons. However, nuclear weapons proliferation by nation states and the 

terrorist threat are separate and distinct issues. While proliferation of nuclear 

weapons is not a concern in NWS, the issue of physical security is a significant concern that must be addressed when deploying new technologies or recycling facilities. 

The United States will always attempt to develop and deploy nuclear technologies 

that are as easy to safeguard and effectively secure as possible, no matter where 

they are deployed. 

In developing safeguards systems, the United States looks to the IAEA for guidance and also relies upon its own expertise with the nuclear fuel cycle. Our funding 

to the national laboratories for the Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) 

and the Fuel Cycle Research and Development program support continued advances 

in state-of-the-art safeguards concepts, as well as techniques and equipment for deployment not only in the United States, but also in other countries at existing and 

planned reprocessing/recycling facilities. The budget request includes $7.8 million 

for Material Protection, Accountancy, and Controls Technology within Fuel Cycle 

Research and Development. This will continue the work started in fiscal year 2010 

to develop technologies and analysis tools to enable next generation nuclear materials management for future U.S. nuclear fuel cycles to prevent diversion or misuse, 

thereby, reducing proliferation risks and enhancing confidence and acceptance of nuclear energy. 
94

Future decisions about the recycling of used fuel in this country in the long term 

will depend on many factors in addition to nonproliferation and security issues. Economics, waste management, policy considerations and environmental factors are 

also very significant considerations, as well as the international ramifications of domestic decisions. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future will examine these issues along with many others and I look forward to their advice and 

recommendations.

Q3. Why aren’t we moving forward aggressively with proven reprocessing technologies since we know that eventually that will be required to implement real 

clean air policies?

A3. The Department has a science-based research program on reprocessing technologies underway that is focused on identifying advanced reprocessing concepts 

that would be more efficient, safer and less expensive than current conventional 

processes. This research program will be able to inform future decisions on commercial reprocessing.

Q4. Mr. Secretary—Following the announcement at the American Chemical Society 

regarding low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), commonly known as ‘‘cold fusion,’’ international press accounts in the New Scientist and the economist reported upon this new, energy technology breakthrough. According to the reports, 

if this technology is validated and can be commercialized, it would provide a 

clean, CO2-free, abundant energy source that could replace oil and gas. This 

would have a positive and significant impact on U.S. foreign policy by potentially reducing our dependence upon foreign energy sources. It would also contribute to minimizing nuclear waste material. Would the Department of Energy 

be willing to investigate and research this technology to determine its efficacy?

A4. The Office of Science supports basic energy research and R&D on related applications, subject to peer review in accordance with Federal regulations. The Office 

of Science considers all proposals submitted within its competitive solicitations and 

evaluates all in terms of merit according to established guidelines and procedures 

for research proposals.

Algae Biofuels Questions

Q1. The FY 2010 E&W Appropriations conference report directed the Department to 

‘‘provide not less than $35 million for a comprehensive research, development, 

and deployment strategy focused on algal biofuels.’’ It is my understanding that 

to date, the Department has allocated roughly $10 million of these funds. Please 

elaborate as to how the Department has spent or is spending the $10 million, 

and how it plans to utilize the remaining $25 million, for algae fuels RD&D as 

specifically directed by Congress.

A1. The Department is directing $35 million Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water 

appropriations toward comprehensive research, development, and deployment of 

algal biofuels. DOE is planning to direct $25 million to three alternate consortia 

that were competitively selected and peer-reviewed from the funding opportunity 

announcement, DE–FOA–0000123. The Department is allocating the remaining $10 

million in FY 2010 funds to support three additional categories of efforts: capacity 

building projects at the National Laboratories through a competitive and peer-reviewed process; projects aimed at determining the resource potential of land, water, 

CO2, and other nutrients to sustainably support commercial-scale algae production; 

and lifecycle analyses projects at universities and the National Laboratories to develop the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) modules for algae and to enhance international collaborations. The 

Biomass Program has begun spending on some of these projects, including components of the algae resource assessments and life cycle analyses, while other efforts 

are in the procurement and negotiation process.

Q2. The President recently announced his administration’s new national biofuels 

plan that emphasizes a change in focus from second generation (ethanol) to third 

generation (dropin) transportation fuels. How will the DOE change its current 

funding and R&D resource allocations from focusing so overwhelmingly on second generation cellulosic biofuels, to following the president’s lead in focusing 

on third generation drop in fuels, such as algae based fuels?

A2. In May 2009, to further his Administration’s commitment to advance biofuels 

research and commercialization, President Obama established the Biofuels Inter-
95

2The Working Group is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Energy (DOE), 

Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 3The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 established the Board, which was continued under the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. DOE and USDA co-chair the 

Board, which is comprised of members from DOE, USDA, EPA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of the Interior, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and other 

agencies the Board invites, such as the Departments of Transportation and Defense. 4For example, as of April 1, 2010, one demonstration-scale partner is now operational; a commercial-scale partner has initiated construction. We expect four additional projects to move into 

their construction phases later this fiscal year. 5See Energy Policy Act of 2005 section 932, and increases to FY 08 and FY 09 authority 

through the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007. 6This integrated biorefinery project was originally awarded under a demonstration-scale solicitation; however, plans are for a facility large enough to be considered commercial-scale. 

agency Working Group.2 In February 2010, the Working Group released its Growing 

America’s Fuel strategy, which provides direction on several areas across the supply 

chain that support what are considered first, second, and third generation biofuels. 

In addition, the interagency Biomass Research and Development Board has committed to working closely with the Working Group as it defines a range of research 

and development coordination activities that will support the nation’s transition toward developing greater volumes of sustainable cellulosic and hydrocarbon renewable fuels.3

It is crucial the Department of Energy (DOE) carry out its cellulosic ethanol investments, which are central to technology and industry growth as well as meeting 

Renewable Fuel Standard requirements. Our R&D and integrated biorefinery results will enable DOE and its national laboratory, academic, and industry partners 

to leverage and inform comparable technology developments for hydrocarbon 

biofuels. For example, Table 1 shows that many pilot, demonstration, and commercial-scale projects selected from 2007 through 2009 are scheduled to come on line 

over the next three years; 4 the total multiyear Departmental investment toward 

these projects is more than $723 million—including appropriated funds as well as 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds with a total non-fed cost share of 

over $1.6 billion.5 The execution of these projects will provide critical data, lessons 

learned, and ideas for improvement-all of which could noticeably increase production 

efficiencies and reduce fuel costs going forward. 

DOE’s Biomass Program has also taken substantial steps to accelerate hydrocarbon biofuels research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) in the past few 

years. We have annually evaluated the states of biofuels technologies to ensure 

work is progressing sufficiently. Since 2008, we have selected or awarded more than 

$465 million toward hydrocarbon fuels in FY 08, FY 09, and FY 10 funds as well 

as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds-to multiple RD&D projects. 

These projects include six pilotscale, two demonstration-scale, and one commercialscale 6 integrated biorefineries as well as two advanced and algal biofuels consortia. 
96

We believe a balanced portfolio of investments is needed to develop both second and 

third generation biofuels. 

Our planned RD&D commitments for FY 11 will continue to shift toward supporting hydrocarbon biofuels activities while maintaining our commitments to cellulosic ethanol RD&D. Considerably more hydrocarbon biofuels RD&D is required 

over the next several years-and our consortia and integrated biorefinery activities 

are absolutely critical to achieving success. In this regard, we have developed internal targets for 2017 to focus our partners’ efforts related to renewable gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels.

Q3. The Joint Genome Institute (JGI) can play a significant role in algae-based fuel 

development by helping the algae industry develop a library of sequenced: algal 

strains. Is this something that the Institute (JGI) sees as a priority on its own, 

and is willing to work on, or something that requires more attention and direction from Department of Energy to achieve?

A3. The Department and the Joint Genome Institute recognize the important role 

that algae can play in renewable biofuel development. JGI has provided genomic information on many algal species including green algae, diatoms, and cyanobacteria, 

as well as metagenomic information on algal blooms and environmental algal mats. 

JGI encourages high-throughput DNA sequencing and analysis projects in support 

of the DOE mission and national priorities to develop abundant sources of clean energy, control greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere (especially carbon dioxide), and clean up contaminated sites for which DOE has ownership or stewardship responsibilities. Priority for proposed projects is established according to the 

JGI review process guidelines. JGI is encouraging the algae industry to submit proposals for consideration for the current Community Sequencing Program (CSP) 2011 

call, especially relating to the development of clean energy sources. 
(97)

Appendix 2: 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
98

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MOTION TO WITHDRAW YUCCA MOUNTAIN

LICENSE APPLICATION
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113

Æ