U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–537 WASHINGTON : 2018

DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE’S 

MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND 

ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 9, 2018 

Serial No. 115–90 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ......................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 193 

Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy .......... 25 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 266 

Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy ............ 26 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 278 

Frank Klotz, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy ............. 27 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 280 

Thomas Zacharia, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory .............................. 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Donald Levy, Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, 

University of Chicago and Co-Chair, Panel to Track and Assess Governance 

and Management Reforms in the Nuclear Security Enterprise ....................... 92 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94 

Sarah Ladislaw, Director, Energy and National Security Program, Center 

for Strategic And International Studies ............................................................. 100 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Steve Wasserman, Director, Lilly Research Laboratories Collaborative Access 

Team, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, on behalf 

of the Society for Science at User Research Facilities ...................................... 112 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114 

Dan Reicher, Executive Director, Stanford University Steyer-Taylor Center 

for Energy Policy and Finance and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution ...... 122 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124 

Rich Powell, Executive Director, Clearpath Foundation ...................................... 158 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 160 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, submitted by Mr. Upton ............................................................................................ 185 

Statement of the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, submitted 

by Mr. Upton ........................................................................................................ 188 

(1) 

DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE’S 

MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND 

ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Upton, Olson, Barton, Shimkus, Latta, 

Harper, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Bucshon, 

Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg, Duncan, Walden (ex officio), Rush, Peters, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes, Welch, Tonko, 

Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Butterfield, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Allie Bury, 

Legislative Clerk, Energy Environment; Karen Christian, General 

Counsel; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Wyatt Ellertson, Professional Staff, Energy/Environment; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Staff 

Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Katie 

McKeogh, Press Assistant; Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Mark Ratner, Policy Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, 

Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, 

Professional Staff Member, Energy; Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, 

Energy; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, DCCP; Andy Zach, Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and 

Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority 

Policy Coordinator; Jon Monger, Minority Counsel; Alexander 

Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief 

Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, 

Outreach and Member Services; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy 

and Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press 

Secretary. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Happy 

New Year. 

Today’s hearing begins this subcommittee’s work in this session 

to identify what steps we need to do to make sure that DOE can 

address the national economic and energy security challenges that 

are going to be confronting the Nation over the coming number of 

decades. 

Recent years, we have been updating certain agency programs 

and authorities to shift DOE’s mission focus more fully away from 

the energy scarcity mind-set of its founding back in the 1970s. We 

have worked to position the agency more appropriately toward the 

tremendous energy resources now available to our country and the 

economic and geopolitical benefits of those resources. We have 

sought to modernize the Department’s strategic petroleum reserve 

and its response capabilities, and we have upgraded DOE’s emergency preparedness for energy supply distributions and its authorities to protect critical infrastructure from physical as well as cyber 

attacks. 

But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be done. 

Growing nuclear weapons, threats, and tens of billions of dollars 

needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent underscores the urgency 

for creating efficient, effective, and durable governance and management of DOE’s nuclear security missions. 

So increasingly complex interconnections of our modern energy 

systems propelled by the digital efficiencies of the cyber age 

present new and growing risks. Getting ahead of these risks requires secretarial leadership and coordinated attention across the 

agency’s many programs and operations. Modernizing the Department of Energy means ensuring it has the appropriate statutory 

authorities and sound management structures to meet not only the 

challenges that we know about today, but what may be coming 

over the horizon. It means ensuring agency leadership can align 

with the Department’s operations and resources to meet those priorities, and it means ensuring the tremendous scientific and technological assets of this agency are effectively focused for the benefit 

of the long-term security and prosperity of all Americans. 

Our two panels today will help look at what is needed to meet 

current and emerging challenges. We are going to hear from the 

senior leadership of the Department on the first panel. And with 

that, who once served this committee very well as its staff director, 

is the deputy secretary for the Department. He is essentially DOE’s 

CEO. So I look forward to hearing his plans for aligning the Department to meet the administration’s priorities and to discuss 

those priorities. 

He is joined by three Department Under Secretaries responsible 

for the bulk of its missions. Under Secretary of Energy Mark 

Menezes, also a capable alumnus of this committee, can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the Department’s work regarding all of our national energy policy interests, and what more 

may be needed to enhance DOE’s emergency and cyber functions. 

General Frank Klotz, who heads the Department’s nuclear security 

enterprise, and with several years under his belt at DOE, has imVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
3 

portant perspective on what is needed for efficient and effective 

execution of the Department’s vital nuclear and nonproliferation 

programs and related work across the DOE’s enterprise. And finally, Under Secretary of Science Paul Dabbar can help examine 

how best to deploy and maintain the scientific and technological capabilities at the national laboratory system and its facilities offer 

to support the Department’s missions. He also has new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental Management which oversees 

complicated environmental cleanup projects that present a host of 

management challenges. 

The second panel offers broader perspectives to help us assess 

what more is needed to improve execution of the agency’s mission 

and to prepare for future challenges. We will hear from distinguished leaders and scientists on what is necessary to unleash the 

full benefits of the national lab system. We will hear how to ensure 

appropriate oversight in management of projects and programs in 

the national and nuclear security space and across departmental 

activities. We will hear how better to focus DOE’s support of innovation and what our era of the energy abundance means for DOE 

responsibilities, both here and abroad. 

Our testimony today will start a record to inform our modernization efforts and to assist us as we prioritize what program authorizations to tackle in this new session of the Congress. 

With that, I yield for an opening statement from my friend and 

colleague, the ranking member of the energy subcommittee, Mr. 

Rush, from the good State of Illinois. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing begins the subcommittee’s work this session to identify what 

steps Congress may take to be sure DOE can address the national, economic, and 

energy security challenges that will be confronting the Nation over the coming decades. 

In recent years, we’ve been updating certain agency programs and authorities to 

shift DOE’s mission focus more fully away from the energy scarcity mindset of its 

founding in the 1970s. 

We’ve worked to position the agency more appropriately towards the tremendous 

energy resources now available to our nation—and the economic and geopolitical 

benefits of those resources. We’ve sought to modernize the department’s Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve and its response capabilities. And we’ve upgraded DOE’s emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions and its authorities to protect critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats. 

But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be done. Growing nuclear 

weapons threats and the tens of billions of dollars needed to maintain the nuclear 

deterrent underscore the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and durable governance and management of DOE’s nuclear security missions. 

The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern energy systems, propelled by the digital efficiencies of the cyber age, present new and growing risks. 

Getting ahead of these risks requires Secretarial leadership and coordinated attention across the agency’s many programs and operations. 

Modernizing the Department of Energy means ensuring it has the appropriate 

statutory authorities and sound management structure to meet not only the challenges we know about today, but what may be coming over the horizon. 

It means ensuring agency leadership can align the department’s operations and 

resources to meet priorities. It means ensuring the tremendous scientific and technological assets of this agency are effectively focused for the benefit of the long-term 

security and prosperity of Americans. 

Our two panels today will help us look at what is needed to meet current and 

emerging challenges. We will hear from the senior leadership of the Department on 

the first panel. 

4 

Dan Brouillette, who once served this Committee very well as its staff director, 

is the Deputy Secretary for the Department. He is essentially DOE’s chief operating 

officer, and so I look forward to hearing his plans for aligning the department to 

meet the Administration’s priorities, and to discuss those priorities. 

He is joined by the three Department Under Secretaries, responsible for the bulk 

of its missions. Under Secretary of Energy Mark Menezes, also a capable alumnus 

of this committee, can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the department’s work regarding all our national energy policy interests, and what more may 

be needed to enhance DOE’s emergency and cyber functions. 

General Frank Klotz, who heads the Department’s nuclear security enterprise 

and, with several years under his belt at DOE, has important perspective on what 

is needed for efficient and effective execution of the Department’s vital nuclear and 

nonproliferation programs, and related work across DOE’s enterprise. 

Finally, Under Secretary for Science Paul Dabbar, can help examine how best to 

deploy and maintain the scientific and technological capabilities the national laboratory system and its facilities offer to support the Department’s missions. He also has 

new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental Management—which oversees 

complicated environmental cleanup projects that present a host of management 

challenges. 

Our second panel offers broader perspectives to help us assess what more is needed to improve execution of the agency’s missions and to prepare for future challenges. 

We’ll hear from distinguished leaders and scientists on what is necessary to unleash the full benefits of the national laboratory system. We’ll hear how to ensure 

appropriate oversight and management of projects and programs in the national and 

nuclear security space and across departmental activities. 

We’ll hear how better to focus DOE’s support of innovation and what our era of 

energy abundance means for DOE responsibilities, here and abroad. 

Our testimony today will start a record to inform our modernization efforts and 

to assist us as we prioritize what program authorizations to tackle in the upcoming 

session of Congress. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important hearing on modernizing the Department of Energy. I 

also want to welcome all of the witnesses to this hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, for constituents, such as those I represent, one of 

the most pressing issues regarding DOE involves a matter of ensuring that the agency is representative of all communities, and 

that the needs of all citizens are being addressed through its energy policy and initiatives including the loan and grant programs 

as well as through engagement at the national labs, and access to 

contracting and vendor opportunities. Many of my constituents are 

constantly seeking ways to break into what has essentially become 

an onerous, good ol’ boys network. 

As you are aware of, Mr. Chairman, my office worked extensively 

with former Secretary Moniz to establish the minorities and energy 

initiative which was designed to help foster increased minority participation in all sections of the energy industry. And this initiative, 

Mr. Chairman, was successful in beginning the process of raising 

awareness and engagement between DOE, industry, and minority 

communities. However, Secretary Perry did not seem to even be 

aware of the program, and many of the activities that were established by this initiative seemed to have tapered off. 

Mr. Chairman, as we go through this process of modernizing the 

Department, it is imperative that we examine the leadership profile of the agency and work to ensure that there is diversity at the 

top where most of the decisions and policies are first enacted. We 

5 

need more people of color in the top echelons of the Department 

from the Secretary’s office as well as in the Office of Science, which 

directs billions of research dollars to higher education institutions. 

Mr. Chairman, we need more diversity of people, and so, on the 

review boards, and the boards and counselors which are responsible for making key decisions regarding the national labs, among 

many other issues. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to these same national labs, we need more women and people of color running these 

institutions so that decisions regarding increased inclusion and diversity are made inherently, and not simply as an afterthought or 

as a checklist, or as an empty token act. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we need to ensure that the senior 

executive staff, or SES, who play pivotal roles in running the Department and making important decisions regarding the agency’s 

policies and priorities also include men and women of color. 

Mr. Chairman, it is easy to overlook the importance of these 

issues if you are not among the groups that have been historically 

excluded. But when we are using taxpayer dollars to fund the labs 

or to dole out loans and grants to the same schools, the same universities, or to provide millions of dollars to contractors and vendors, then it must be incumbent upon us, the policymakers here in 

Congress, to ensure that everyone is given the same opportunity to 

share in the wealth and to share in the resources. 

So, Mr. Chairman, that said, I look forward to working with Mr. 

Martin as well as other members of this subcommittee to restructure the Department in a way that addresses the systemic and institutional discrepancies that exist in the agency today. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

The chair will now recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr. 

Walden, from Oregon. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to welcome our panelists here today. This is a really important 

hearing for the committee, and it is a goal of this committee to 

begin the process to modernize the Department of Energy, an agency that was created in an era of scarcity. And we find ourselves in 

an era of abundance but of new challenges involving the environment and energy. And so we look forward to your testimony today. 

In October, we heard directly from Secretary Perry on his vision for 

the Department. Today, we will hear from the top leaders of that 

Department on how the Secretary’s vision can be advanced and the 

role Congress is being asked to play. 

We also have a distinguished second panel. This panel features 

important perspectives on Department of Energy’s various operations concerning the national labs, nuclear oversight, research, 

and energy security challenges. So I appreciate all of your participation today. It is also always a pleasure to welcome back to the 

Energy and Commerce Committee alumni, including both Deputy 

Director Brouillette and Under Secretary Menezes, who served this 

committee with distinction. Dan was staff director and Mark as the 

Energy and Environment chief counsel. So we look forward to havVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
6 

ing you back. It is always fun to question former members of the 

committee who wrote questions for all of us to ask other witnesses 

in the past. 

I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the Hanford site this last week. Thank you for doing that. Secretary Perry 

was kind enough both to come out and visit Hanford as well as 

take a look at McNary Dam, one of our great hydro energy, noncarbon-emitting energy sources in the northwest last year. 

Hanford is just up the Columbia River from my home and across 

from my district. And all of us in the Pacific Northwest are deeply 

concerned about the cleanup, making sure it says on schedule, on 

budget, and on time. I also want to recognize Administrator Klotz’s 

long service to our country, sir. General Klotz has served in distinguished positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations throughout his career, including almost 4 years as NNSA administrator. So we are glad for your service and your participation 

today. 

While the domestic international energy posture is substantially 

different from what it was when Congress established the Department more than 40 years ago, the importance of DOE’s role in serving the national and the public interest has only increased. We are 

reaping the benefits of energy abundance. But legacy challenges remain, such as the cleanup of Cold War sites and permanent disposal of nuclear waste, which my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, has 

played an incredibly important, strong, and dedicated role toward 

achieving permanent and interim storage. 

New risks have evolved, such as cybersecurity threats, the electric grid, managing and overseeing the modernization of our aging 

energy infrastructure. 

So our responsibility is to ensure that a modernized Department 

of Energy is fully prepared to meet these 21st century challenges. 

So as we examine the DOE management and mission priorities 

today, we should keep in mind the benefits of the interconnected 

nature of the Department’s missions. These missions, national security, energy security, environmental remediation, and mission 

enabling scientific research across the DOE enterprise, can be difficult and expensive to manage. 

I am confident the team of professionals on our first panel today 

are up to this task. This committee will work through the remainder of this Congress and beyond to ensure the Department’s organization and missions are aligned with the energy security challenges 

of the Nation and that we are nimble enough to meet the challenges of tomorrow. At my direction, the committee has been examining whether DOE resources are focused on its core missions. 

Going forward, we will review certain DOE authorizations—by the 

way, many of which expired a decade ago—to ensure proper program alignment. 

I believe in collaboration with the Department of Energy. Many 

bipartisan good government policies can be implemented if we work 

together. So I look forward to continuing a positive working relationship. 

The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted 

throughout the DOE lab system is the foundation for new technological advances. These advances enable us to remain an interVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
7 

national leader in innovation, security, and scientific know-how. 

This is the fundamental question before us today: How can we best 

harness the Department’s enormous scientific, technical, and 

world-class capabilities to enhance America’s national, economic, 

and energy security? 

So I look forward to your testimony today and your response to 

our questions, both this panel and the one that follows. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

And thank you for your leadership on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning and welcome to this morning’s hearing as we continue our efforts 

to modernize the Department of Energy. In October, we heard directly from Secretary Perry on his vision for the department and today we will hear from his top 

lieutenants as to how the secretary’s vision will be advanced. 

We also have a distinguished second panel, featuring important perspectives on 

DOE’s various operations concerning the national labs, nuclear oversight, research 

and energy security challenges. I appreciate all of our witnesses joining us today. 

It is always a pleasure to welcome Energy and Commerce alumni back to the committee. Both Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Under Secretary Menezes served this 

committee with distinction—Dan as staff director and Mark as the Energy and Environment Chief Counsel. I appreciate that you know how this committee operates, 

and look forward to accomplishing much together. 

I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the Hanford site last 

week, which I appreciate. Hanford is just up the Columbia River from my Oregon 

district and all of us in the Pacific Northwest have a great interest in seeing the 

cleanup there completed. I would also like to recognize Administrator Klotz’s long 

service to our country. General Klotz has served in distinguished positions in both 

Republican and Democrat administrations throughout his career, including almost 

4 years as NNSA Administrator. 

While the domestic and international energy posture is substantially different 

from what it was when Congress established the department over 40 years ago, the 

importance of DOE’s role in serving the national and public interest has increased. 

We are reaping the benefits of energy abundance, but legacy challenges remain, 

such as cleanup of Cold War sites and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. New 

risks have evolved, such as cyber security threats to the electric grid and managing 

and overseeing the modernization of our aging energy infrastructure. Our responsibility is to ensure a modernized DOE is fully prepared to meet these 21st Century 

challenges. 

As we examine the DOE management and mission priorities today, we should 

keep in mind the benefits of the interconnected nature of the department’s missions. 

These missions—national security, energy security, environmental remediation, and 

mission-enabling scientific research-across the DOE enterprise can be difficult and 

expensive to manage. I am confident that the team of professionals on our first 

panel today are up to this task. This committee will work through the remainder 

of this Congress, and beyond, to ensure the department’s organization and missions 

are aligned with the energy security challenges of today and are nimble enough to 

meet the challenges of tomorrow. 

At my direction, the committee has been examining whether DOE resources are 

focused on its core missions. Going forward, we will review certain DOE authorizations—many of which expired over a decade ago—to ensure proper program alignment. I believe, in collaboration with DOE, many bipartisan, good government policies can be implemented. I look forward to a positive working relationship. 

The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted throughout the DOE 

lab system is the foundation for new technological advances. These advances enable 

us to remain an international leader in innovation, security, and scientific know 

how. This is the fundamental question before us today: how can we best harness 

the department’s enormous scientific, technical, and world-class capabilities to enhance America’s national, economic, and energy security? I look forward to hearing 

from all the witnesses today. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

8 

The chair will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, from New Jersey, 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we start a new year, it is nice to finally have a full panel of 

agency witnesses before us. Last year, I was repeatedly disappointed by the Trump administration’s unwillingness to send 

agency witnesses before our committee. Today, we have an experienced panel of senior leadership officials from the Department of 

Energy, including two distinguished former Energy and Commerce 

staffers, Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette, and Under Secretary 

for Energy Mark Menezes. I am pleased they are back with us, and 

I want to welcome them, as well as the other agency officials. 

The purpose of this hearing, according to my Republican colleagues, is to weigh whether DOE is in need of modernization, and 

what parts of its mission are still necessary. Now, publicly, my colleagues have discussed a full-fledged effort to reauthorize the Department, an effort that has not occurred since the creation of DOE 

over 40 years ago. However, so far, they have been short on details, 

and I hope to learn more today about what my Republican colleagues want to achieve in this endeavor. Specifically, we need to 

know what real problems at the Department we are attempting to 

solve. If my Republican colleagues want to take a targeted look at 

DOE programs to see where improvements can be made, then I am 

open to listening to their proposals. We might be able to find the 

areas of agreement where we could work together to enact solutions. 

However, if the goal is simply to eliminate scores of successful 

programs and arbitrarily shrink of size of DOE, like the unrealistic 

and flawed Trump budget proposal last year, then you are going 

to find opposition on this side of the aisle. Last year, President 

Trump made his priorities clear by proposing a budget for DOE 

that gutted or eliminated critical programs that historically had bipartisan support. The President’s budget took a hatchet to popular 

bipartisan programs like energy efficiency, renewable energy, the 

Loan Programs Office and the Weatherization Assistance Program. 

If my Republican colleagues hope to work together on this, they 

should know in advance that we will not support any reorganization that harms these programs or others which benefit consumers 

and help combat climate change. And similarly, we will not support 

any reorganization that attempts to shift some or all of EPA’s programs into the Department of Energy. I do believe there are ways 

that the DOE can improve, and more successfully, fulfill its mission. And I think we can work together to make those improvements. For example, according to the Government Accountability 

Office, DOE’s Office of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security Administration have demonstrated limited 

progress in improving contract management and have struggled to 

ensure that they have the financial and staffing capacity to mitigate risk. So we can and must develop bipartisan solutions that address these and other critically important issues. 

9 

The Department of Energy is a vital part of the executive branch, 

playing a critical role in incentivizing the development of clean energy technologies, conducting cutting-edge scientific research, and 

maintaining our Nation’s nuclear security. DOE is also home to a 

number of other agencies that operate independently and are vital 

to our Nation’s energy policy, including the Energy Information Administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or 

FERC. And it is critical that the independence of these agencies be 

maintained. I was pleased to see that FERC reaffirmed its independence yesterday when the five commissioners unanimously rejected Secretary Perry’s proposal to provide preferential rates to 

coal and nuclear generation. 

So we have two knowledgeable panels of witnesses before us 

today, and I hope, and I look forward to hearing their perspective. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. I don’t think any of my 

colleagues want the time, so I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back, so we are ready for testimony. 

I want to thank you all of you for sending your testimony up in 

advance. We could look at it half-time between the Alabama and 

the Georgia game. And we appreciate that. Your testimony will be 

made part of the record in its entirety, and we will give each of you 

5 minutes to summarize that before we do the questions. You know 

the drill, and we will start with our friend, Dan Brouillette. 

Thank you. 

You have got to turn that—we have new switches since you were 

here. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. DAN BROUILLETTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. MARK 

MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. PAUL DABBAR, UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND HON. 

FRANK KLOTZ, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY, AND ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

STATEMENT OF DAN BROUILLETTE 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. You guys have gotten a little technology since 

I have been here. And I am more accustomed to being on that side. 

The view is a little better from over there. 

Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush and members of the 

committee, speaking for myself and my three colleagues, who will 

also testify today, it is on honor to appear before you on behalf of 

the administration and the Department of Energy. This is my first 

opportunity to testify before Congress as the Deputy Secretary of 

Energy, and I appreciate the opportunity to update you on our 

progress. 

I am proud to work for such an outstanding Department, and especially under Secretary Perry, who is a true leader with exceptional management skills. He has set for us several priorities, and 

we will walk through this today. But just to run through them really quickly: Promoting America energy security by stressing innovation over regulation; enhancing national security through nuclear 

10 

security; addressing the obligation of legacy management and nuclear waste; and the topic of today’s hearing, modernizing the Department of Energy. With my full testimony submitted for the 

record, allow me to briefly discuss these priorities. 

Thanks to continued innovation from our national labs, we have 

ignited a technology revolution which has led to an energy revolution that is advancing our national security and our energy security. Today, we use energy cleaner and more efficiently, we obtain 

it from a wider diversity of sources, and we produce it more responsibly, affordably, and in greater abundance than previously predicted. We are closing in as a country on full energy independence, 

and we are on a path to achieving the administration’s goal of energy dominance. 

For far too long, U.S. energy policy has been hampered by a false 

choice between two goals: growing our economy or protecting the 

environment. The result was an overload of regulations that drastically reduced energy production. Our administration and the Department of Energy are working to replace the ‘‘or’’ with an ‘‘and.’’ 

We are reducing unnecessary regulations on American energy, and 

in so doing, we are allowing our Nation to benefit fully from technological breakthroughs that reduce pollutants while dramatically 

increasing production. 

We are also focused on ensuring the reliable delivery of electrical 

energy to the American consumer for years to come. America’s electrical grid is strong and reliable because it is powered by a diverse 

mix of energy sources. These sources work together to mitigate disruptions and increase resiliency when periods of extreme temperatures, like the one we just recently faced, affect supply and demand. 

As you know, last fall, Secretary Perry proposed that FERC consider establishing new pricing rules that factor in the important 

contributions of baseload generation to ensure long-term grid resiliency and reliability. FERC responded yesterday with the unanimous decision to direct regional transmission organizations and 

independent system operators to proactively evaluate the resilience 

of the bulk power system. We are encouraged by this action, and 

we look forward to working with FERC and the individual commissioners on this important issue. 

But taking steps to ensure the grid’s diverse energy supply is but 

one aspect of DOE’s critical mission. Today, the Secretary of Energy is responsible for a broad range of national security, scientific, 

and environmental activities. A key challenge for any large enterprise with such a broad mission is that it remain agile enough to 

adapt to tomorrow’s challenges. Last month, the Secretary announced his intention to modernize the Department, to return it to 

its statutory framework, and to enable us to deploy resources more 

effectively and efficiently. 

The modernization plan directs several key changes. First, we 

have separated the Office of the Under Secretary of Science and 

Energy into two Under Secretary positions, and we restored of 

three Under Secretaries that are outlined in statute. The Under 

Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary of Science, and the 

Under Secretary of Nuclear Security and administrator of the 

11 

NNSA, all of whom who are here today to address this subcommittee and respond to your questions. 

The new Under Secretary of Energy, Mark Menezes, will focus 

on energy policy, technologies, security, and reliability, and certain 

departmental management functions. While the new Under Secretary for Science, Paul Dabbar, will focus on innovation, basic research, and environmental cleanup. General Klotz from NNSA, 

who will soon be retiring, as was mentioned by the chairman, is 

here today as well. And I would like to also publicly take this opportunity to thank him for his service to our Nation nearly 40 

years, where he has served with honor and distinction, both in and 

out of uniform. 

In addition, elements of the former Under Secretary for Management and Performance portfolio will now fall under my responsibility as the Deputy Secretary. These changes are a vital first step 

to better organizing the Department to carry out its broad mission 

and to get much needed results for the American people. We will 

continue to look at ways to maximize our effectiveness, and we look 

forward to working with Congress and, in particular, this committee. We look forward to consultations with you toward that end. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank this subcommittee once 

again for inviting us to testify today. I believe each of the Under 

Secretaries has brief opening statements, and then we will all look 

forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brouillette follows:] 

12 


29537.001

Testimony of Deputy Secretary Dan Brouillette 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

January 9, 2018 

Chainnan Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Committee, speaking for myself 

and three of my colleagues who will also testify before you today, it is an honor to appear before 

you on behalf of the Administration. This is my first opportunity to testify before Congress as the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy, and I appreciate the opportunity to update you on our progress at 

the Department of Energy (the "Department" or "DOE"). 

As you may be aware, this is not my first tour at the Department, and when the Energy Secretary 

asked me to come back to serve, it was an easy sell. I believe there is no better place to work 

inside the federal government, and I am proud to be a part of such a great enterprise. 

I am also proud to work under the Energy Secretary, a true leader with exceptional management 

skills. He has set important priorities for the coming years. These priorities include refocusing 

the Department on its core missions: 

• Promoting America's energy security; 

• Spurring innovation; 

• Reducing regulatory burden; 

• Restoring the nuclear security enterprise and enhancing national security through the 

military application of nuclear science; and 

• Addressing the obligation of legacy management and nuclear waste. 

I will elaborate momentarily on our progress regarding these priorities. 

There remains much to do. As the Energy Secretary stated, Congress has a distinct role in 

helping us achieve these goals, and I look forward to our ongoing dialogue. 

Sunday marked my five-month anniversary as Deputy Secretary, and during my brief tenure, I 

have visited several DOE sites, including five national laboratories (Los Alamos, Pacific 

Northwest, Oak Ridge, Sandia, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory- NREL), 

Hanford, and the Western Area Power Administration, to name a few, and have attended DOE's 

2017 Solar Decathlon in Denver, Colorado. I have interacted with some of the Department's 

best and brightest individuals and have gained an even greater appreciation of the breadth and 

critical importance of DOE's mission. 

On national security, the Secretary and I have worked extensively with the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) and the National Security Council to strengthen our nuclear 

deterrent and enhance our nation's security. 
13 


29537.002

Because our work extends beyond our borders, I have traveled abroad to reiterate the President's 

and the Secretary's message that the U.S. is open for business and is a willing partner to those 

sharing our vision of making this world safer and more prosperous. I will depart tomorrow for 

Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to share that message with some of our Middle East partners and 

friends. 

Now let me summarize our initiatives to achieve our priorities. 

PROMOTING AMERICA'S ENERGY SECURITY 

The United States is making remarkable strides toward energy security. Today we use energy 

more cleanly and more efficiently, obtain it from a wider diversity of sources, and produce it 

more affordably and in greater abundance than was predicted a few short years ago. As a result, 

we are closing in on our Nation's long-elusive goal of full energy independence. We are also on 

a path to achieving the Administration's goal of energy dominance, freeing our people at home 

and our allies abroad from reliance on other countries for our energy needs. 

With our energy supplies increasingly secure, it is time to advance overall energy security 

further. It is time to ensure its reliable delivery to the American people in the years to come. We 

are attending to this critical need in a number of ways. 

Grid Security 

Among the most essential ways to ensure this outcome is by ensuring America has a reliable and 

resilient electric grid powered by a diverse mix of generation resources that help mitigate 

disruptions and enable rapid response when disruptions occur. 

Last August the Department released the Staff Report to the Secretary on Electricity Markets and 

Reliability. 

The report's recommendations included a call for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) to "expedite its efforts" to improve energy price formation in centrally organized 

wholesale electricity markets. This recommendation, in part, prompted the Secretary to exercise 

his authority under section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act and make a 

concrete proposal for pricing reform in PERC-approved organized markets. 

The Secretary and I are grateful to those who submitted comments and engaged in vital 

conversation on the proposal. This includes PJM, whose leadership invited me to its headquarters 

in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania to tour the facility and discuss this issue. 

I understand that FERC's decision is forthcoming. We look forward to working with the 

commissioners- and with you- to ensure tomorrow's grid remains as reliable and resilient as it 

is today. 

Increasing Cybersecurity 

2 
14 


29537.003

In addition to electric grid resilience, our national and economic security also depends on the 

reliable function of the Nation's overall energy infrastructure in the face of the threat posed by 

malicious cyber actors. Cybersecurity is one of our top priorities and we are addressing it in a 

variety of ways. 

A 2015 amendment to the Federal Power Act establishes DOE as the sector-specific agency for 

cybersecurity in the energy sector. DOE is the only statutorily-defined sector-specific agency, 

making it the lead sector-specific agency for supporting energy infrastructure owners and 

ensuring cyberattacks do not have a catastrophic impact on the energy sector. DOE is a unique 

sector-specific agency given that we experience these threats as energy infrastructure owners and 

bring deep technical expertise from 17 national labs to our work with industry. Private industry 

owns or operates the vast majority of the Nation's energy-sector assets, so strong partnerships 

with industry as well as our Federal colleagues are essential. 

Accordingly, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal 

agency partners, we are working with the private sector to prepare, mitigate vulnerabilities, and 

help reduce impacts from threats. We also seek to enhance visibility and situational awareness. 

We are working to improve preparedness, planning and response capabilities for cyber incidents 

and to align them across state, local, tribal, territorial, and Federal jurisdictions. Finally, we are 

seeking to leverage the cutting-edge power of DOE's national labs to drive cybersecurity 

innovation across the energy sector. 

As we do so, we must respond to the risks to our Department's own science, technology, nuclear 

security and energy infrastructure. 

To that end, we are focused on improving enterprise cybersecurity risk management. We are 

creating an enterprise-wide threat management capability through our cyber operations center. 

We are bolstering organizational structures and supporting a culture of cybersecurity. We are 

investing in our infrastructure to reduce our exposure to threats and manage cybersecurity risks 

holistically. 

DOE Efforts in Puerto Rico 

In addition to focusing on grid resilience and cybersecurity throughout the United States, the 

Department continues to support restoration and long-term resilience planning efforts 

specifically in Puerto Rico. Last month, we held a workshop at our headquarters with public and 

private energy experts and stakeholders- including the Puerto Rican government and DOE's 

national labs -to consider long-term strategies to ensure the resilience of the island's energy 

infrastructure. 

FOCUSING ON INNOVATION 

Our Nation's continued progress on energy security- as well as economic prosperity- clearly 

depends on continued American ingenuity and innovation. The Secretary and I are very proud of 

the advancements that DOE's research and development have spurred. 

3 
15 


29537.004

DOE-funded R&D is truly inspirational. 

Our national labs have put a distinctly American stamp on the last century of science. We 

support better coordination, communication, and collaboration between the labs and DOE 

program offices and are confident that they will continue to expand the frontiers of energy 

research and development. 

REDUCING REGULATORY BURDEN 

For too long, U.S. energy policy assumed a tradeoff between two great national goals- growing 

our economy and enhancing our environment. At DOE and throughout the Administration, we 

recognize that innovation provides the breakthrough technology to achieve them both. The same 

innovation-driven technology revolution that birthed America's energy revolution has ignited a 

clean energy revolution. 

Accordingly, we support eliminating burdensome regulations that needlessly restrict energy 

production in the name of this tradeoff, and unleashing the American spirit of innovation. 

Shortly after taking office, the President issued an executive order calling for a review of such 

regulations. The Administration has cut 22 regulations for every one new regulation, the most in 

the history of our country. In addition, during this Administration, an easement was approved by 

the Army and the Army Corps of Engineers across Corps managed lands that allowed oil flow 

through the Dakota Access Pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline was approved, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The President 

also signed legislation repealing a rule that hindered coal development, and is working to revive 

nuclear energy. While reducing these regulations will give Americans greater freedom to 

innovate, the recently enacted tax reform legislation could provide incentives to invest in further 

innovation. 

By reducing government regulation and unleashing American innovation, we are fueling 

prosperity and strengthening our security. 

ENHANCING NATIONAL SECURITY 

Beyond securing energy dominance, DOE also has a unique role in our nation's security; the 

Secretary is a member of the National Security Council and the Department is responsible for 

managing our nuclear stockpile. We undertake these responsibilities with the utmost gravity. 

Under the President's leadership, the Department, through NNSA, will work to deter those who 

threaten the United States, while convincing allies to put their full trust in our extended 

deterrence. 

ADDRESSING THE OBLIGATIONS OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT AND NUCLEAR WASTE 

4 
16 


29537.005

In addition to maintaining and safeguarding our nuclear stockpile, the Secretary and I are 

committed to safely advancing the environmental clean-up from the nuclear weapons 

development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research which helped us win the 

Second World War and the Cold War. 

I am proud of our progress in advancing that mission since I last served at DOE. 

At Hanford, all20 tons of plutonium have been shipped out. We have made significant progress 

on key sections of the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). We are treating over two billion gallons of 

groundwater and removing more than 100,000 pounds of contaminants each year. Work along 

the Columbia River has so advanced that a portion of land has been transferred by Congress to 

the community to help boost jobs and the local economy. 

But there is more work to be done, and we need your help to complete this cleanup safely and as 

efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. 

In 2018, we will continue to make progress on key facilities and capabilities. 

We will continue our progress on those sections of the Hanford WTP necessary for the Direct 

Feed Low Activity Waste (DFLAW) approach, which is vital to beginning actual tank waste 

treatment at Hanford. In addition, we will ramp up activities to increase shipments oftransuranic 

waste (TRU) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). We also will initiate construction of the 

Oak Ridge Mercury Treatment Facility, where we broke ground last November. We will keep 

pressing ahead in dealing with deteriorating excess facilities. We will continue deactivating and 

decommissioning facilities at Portsmouth. Finally, we will deactivate and initiate demolition of 

the C-400 Cleaning Building at Paducah. 

DOE MODERNIZATION 

To further the Department's mission in light of the ever-changing world in which we operate and 

work, we as a Department must continue to adapt and to adjust our focus. 

Accordingly, last month, the Secretary announced his intention to modernize the Department not 

only to deploy its magnificent resources more effectively and efficiently in order to address 

present and future challenges, but also to return the Department to its statutory framework. 

Under the DOE Organization Act, the Secretary of Energy has the authority to organize the 

Department in order to meet current needs and advance the Administration's policy priorities. 

As the President and the Secretary have made clear, the Administration's priorities are: achieving 

U.S; energy dominance, protecting our energy and national security, and advancing innovation. 

The modernization plan announced last month directs several key changes. First, we have now 

separated the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy (established in 2013 during 

the previous Secretary's tenure) into two Under Secretary positions, restoring the three Under 

Secretaries outlined in the statute: the Under Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary of 

Science; and the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security and Administrator ofNNSA. 

5 
17 


29537.006

You will hear from all three Under Secretaries today. 

The new Under Secretary of Energy will focus on energy policy, applied energy technologies, 

energy security and reliability, and certain DOE-wide management functions, while the new 

Under Secretary for Science will focus on innovation, basic scientific research, and 

environmental cleanup. 

In addition, elements of the former Under Secretary for Management and Performance's 

portfolio now fall under the responsibility of the Deputy Secretary. 

Finally, we have now called the former Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis the Office 

of Policy, which reports to the Under Secretary of Energy. 

These changes are a first step to empowering the Department to carry out its mission with greater 

efficiency and effectiveness. We look forward to continuing the conversation internally and in 

consultation with Members of Congress. 

ADVANCING ENERGY DOMINANCE THROUGH ENERGY PROGRAMS 

The President's America First Energy Plan rightly calls for utilizing all of our energy sources to 

achieve energy security and economic strength at home and energy dominance through exports 

to markets abroad. Let me discuss how the Department is working to promote the responsible 

development of these resources as well as ensure the reliability and resilience of our electrical 

grid. 

Fossil Energy 

When it comes to fossil fuels, the United States has become the world's largest combined 

producer of oil and natural gas, resulting in an abundance of reliable and affordable energy 

resources available for domestic use and for export. We continue to support expeditious approval 

of natural gas exports, which provides both economic and strategic benefits to the United States 

and our allies. 

Through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), we are pursuing early-stage R&D 

on clean coal technologies to improve the efficiency and reduce emissions on the existing fleet of 

coal-fired power plants, as well as developing transformational technologies to help build the 

coal plants of tomorrow. NETL is leading an effort to assess and develop technologies for the 

recovery of rare earth elements (REEs) from coal and coal by-products. Due to their unique 

chemical properties, REEs have become essential components of many technologies including 

electronics, computer and communication systems, transportation, health care, and national 

defense. NETL's REE Program aims to provide a pathway to improve the economics and reduce 

the environmental impact of a domestic coal-based REE value chain. 

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 

6 
18 


29537.007

When it comes to renewable energy, DOE's early-stage R&D at its National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory has contributed to significant advances. DOE research has helped reduce the 

levelized cost of electricity from renewable resources, including wind and solar, resulting in 

large capacity additions. In 2017, the solar industry met DOE's goal of 6 cents per kWh for 

utility-scale solar, three years ahead of schedule. This success allows DOE to focus its research 

priorities on a more significant, long-term challenge: integrating variable renewables into the 

electric grid. DOE recently funded three projects to study the integration of advanced forecasting 

technologies with grid planning and operations systems in partnership with the California 

Independent System Operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, and the Electric 

Reliability Council of Texas. This research will validate whether or not these technologies can be 

efficiently integrated into energy management systems and enhance grid operation efficiency, 

while working to identify any future research needs. 

DOE research also has contributed to technological advances in energy efficiency. From 2008 to 

2015, total installations of home LED lightbulbs increased from under 100,000 to over 200 

million, while LED costs fell by nearly 90%. 

Nuclear Energy 

When it comes to nuclear energy, the Administration recognizes it as a key source of electricity 

generation-providing 60% of our nation's emissions-free baseload energy around the clock, 

24/7. As the most reliable and resilient source of clean electricity, nuclear energy contributes 

uniquely to our energy portfolio. Maintaining our commercial nuclear fleet is fundamental to our 

domestic energy security, economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and global security 

objectives. 

We are improving the economics and extending the life of the existing nuclear fleet in privatepublic partnerships that bring together the Department's national laboratories with industry. For 

example, the Department is working to enable industry to deploy digital, wireless monitoring and 

control systems and accident tolerant fuels that will improve the economics and extend the life of 

today's fleet. 

We are developing improved ways to integrate nuclear and renewable energy sources so we can 

better manage the mix of variable and distributed energy sources on the electrical grid through 

hybrid energy systems. We are investing in the research and development of advanced reactor 

technologies, including small modular reactors, and opening our national labs to the U.S. nuclear 

industry in unprecedented ways. The Department recently issued a funding opportunity 

announcement (FOA) of approximately $30 million to support the development of advanced 

nuclear energy technology. Through this FOA we are soliciting proposals for cost-shared 

projects to develop innovative reactor designs and accompanying technologies with high 

potential to advance nuclear power in the United States. 

Advanced nuclear technology development is a process that requires unique facilities and 

materials. The Department is establishing effective private-public partnerships to leverage 

technology advancements and focus federal investments on priority research and capability 

needs so we can accelerate the process of bringing innovative nuclear energy technologies to 

7 
19 


29537.008

market. By leveraging these partnerships and our national laboratory system, we are developing 

an advanced nuclear infrastructure, encouraging a resilient supply chain, and promoting a strong 

domestic industry now and for the future. 

Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

Our economy, national security, and the well-being of our citizens depend on the reliable 

delivery of electricity. The Department, working with and through our national labs, supports 

key efforts to improve the resilience and reliability of the nation's electricity system. These 

include investing in our transmission system to support resource adequacy and generation 

diversity; developing and deploying cyber security technology for the energy sector; moving 

forward with new architecture approaches for the transmission and distribution system to 

enhance security and resilience; and advancing energy storage. Megawatt-scale energy storage 

is becoming a critical system asset that provides a buffer between generation and consumer 

demand through services such as frequency response, ramping support and bulk load shifting, 

allowing for greater asset utilization of generation. Initiatives within our Office of Electricity 

Delivery & Energy Reliability focus on developing new technologies and processes to provide a 

more resilient and reliable energy system and protecting critical infrastructure. 

This office is also the lead for providing energy-related expertise to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), interagency partners, and the Administration as part of DOE's 

emergency response activities. DOE serves as the lead agency for Emergency Support Function 

#12- Energy (ESF-12) under the National Response Framework and as the Sector Specific 

Agency for Energy under Presidential Policy Directive 21. As the lead for ESF-12, DOE is 

responsible for providing information and analysis about energy disruptions and for helping to 

facilitate the restoration of damaged energy infrastructure. 

Indian Energy 

DOE's Office of Indian Energy (IE) promotes Indian energy development to increase efficiency, 

reduce costs, and strengthen tribal energy and economic infrastructure and electrification. To 

achieve this mission, IE offers education, technical assistance, and competitive grants to assist 

consenting Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in overcoming the unique regulatory and 

economic challenges to developing their vast energy resources. In November of2017, IE 

published a Notice of Intent to issue a FOA in the coming months for the deployment of energy 

efficiency, generation, or resilience projects on tribal lands on a fuel-neutral basis, consistent 

with this Administration's approach to energy policy. 

Loan Programs 

The Loan Programs Office (LPO) was created by Congress in 2005 to help American innovative 

energy and advanced auto manufacturing projects overcome hurdles in obtaining loans to help 

bring new technologies to commercial deployment. LPO manages a portfolio comprising more 

than $30 billion of loans, loan guarantees, and conditional commitments covering more than 30 

projects. Overall, these loans and loan guarantees resulted in more than $50 billion in total 

project investment. LPO supported the latest generation of nuclear power facilities by 

8 
20 


29537.009

conditionally committing additional loan guarantees to Vogtle Units 3 & 4, the only new nuclear 

reactors under construction in the United States today. 

Environment, Health, Safety and Security (AU) 

AU is the Department's environment, health, safety and security office, and is responsible for 

safety analysis, security programs, and policy development to ensure the protection of DOE 

workers, the public, the environment and national security assets. This responsibility is 

accomplished through the maintenance of corporate-level policies and standards and by 

providing technical assistance for the implementation of those policies. The Office also provides 

assistance across the complex by sharing operating experiences, lessons learned and best 

practices and subject matter expert services to successfully manage its operations. 

Project Management Oversight and Assessments 

The Office of Project Management (PM) supports the Department's goal to increase the focus on 

efficient and effective management across the enterprise and improve performance in the areas 

of environmental cleanup, construction project management, and cybersecurity. Project 

Management is separate from our largest projects and programs - namely Environmental 

Management, Science, and the National Nuclear Security Administration- and strives to 

improve objective Departmental project management governance and project execution 

evaluation resulting in cost savings to be used on other projects. 

ENHANCING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO PROMOTE AMERICA'S ENERGY AND ECONOMIC 

SECURITY 

DOE, through programs at all 17 DOE national laboratories but in particular its l 0 national 

laboratories run by the 0 ffice of Science (SC), is among the largest federal sponsors of R&D in 

the physical sciences, covering the major disciplines that underpin DOE missions in science, 

energy, and national security. DOE is a federal leader in patent applications, patents, inventions 

disclosed, licenses and income-bearing licenses. The capabilities residing in these laboratories 

are well-known and highly regarded, from the world-class talent of their researchers to their 

state-of-the-art scientific tools and supercomputers. 

One of the main priorities for SC will be the first U.S. exascale-capable supercomputer, with an 

intent to accelerate delivery to 2021. 

Supercomputing is an area of intense international competition, in which sustained support is 

essential to our continued leadership in science, our economic competitiveness, and our national 

security. Computer modeling and simulation have become vital in all three realms, and 

exascale-computing at a billion-billion calculations a second-represents the future. 

Supercomputing paces advances in the physical sciences and high-technology areas stewarded 

by SC. This is just one technology area that is essential to U.S. economic security. 

Working with partners Intel and Cray, ASCR has overseen a complete redesign of the planned 

Aurora machine for Argonne National Laboratory. This redesign tackled one of the biggest 

9 
21 


29537.010

challenges of moving to exascale-combining a major increase in computational capability with 

reducing power consumption. In addition, DOE is moving forward on developing applications 

for exascale systems, including ones for additive manufacturing and small modular reactors led 

by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

The Office of Fusion Energy Sciences has made remarkable strides using DOE's supercomputer 

capability to advance the understanding of how plasmas behave in fusion reactors. Recent 

massively parallel simulations modeled a key plasma transition for the first time, using a firstprinciples plasma turbulence simulation code and computing resources. The data for these 

simulations utilized 90% of the capacity of the Titan supercomputer, and the findings represent a 

major breakthrough. 

The Long Baseline Neutrino Facility and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment 

(LBNF/DUNE) is another important SC priority, this one for the Office of High Energy Physics 

(HEP). This project is headquartered at Fermilab. Once completed, this international center for 

the study of neutrinos will pair the world's highest-intensity neutrino beam at Fermilab, with the 

infrastructure necessary to support massive, cryogenic far detectors installed deep underground 

at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, 800 miles to the west. 

Completion ofLBNF/DUNE will cement U.S. preeminence in neutrino science, one of the 

frontiers of high-energy physics. 

Additionally, the user facilities at the DOE national labs continue to foster cutting-edge scientific 

discoveries, supporting more than 30,000 additional researchers from academia, industry, and 

government spanning all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As an example, the Continuous 

Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory was recently 

upgraded to achieve up to 12 billion electron volts (GeV). This upgrade will allow for better 

study of the nuclear and particle physics building blocks of the universe. 

The Office of Basic Energy Sciences was the first in the world to deploy accelerator-based X-ray 

lasers for the study of materials and chemical systems when the Linac Coherent Light Source 

(LCLS) was completed in 2009 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) National 

Accelerator Laboratory. SC leads the world in this important new realm of science through the 

upgrade ofLCLS to become LCLS II. This upgrade will elevate X-ray science, allowing for new 

studies in ultrafast phenomena. 

Upon completion, LCLS II will be the leading instrument of its kind in the world. This powerful 

x-ray laser will be capable of high-repetition rates of femtosecond observations (one millionth of 

a billionth of a second). These ultrafast observations provide an unprecedented window into 

chemical processes at the nanoscale, which will enable major advances in fields ranging from 

human health to energy production and storage to novel materials with extraordinary properties. 

Over the last few years, Quantum Information Science (QIS) has emerged as a transformational 

area in science and technology, utilizing both advanced quantum theory and information theory. 

DOE laboratories are exploring QIS applications to physical sciences (detectors and sensors for 

use in materials, chemical and physics experiments), machine-learning and artificial intelligence. 

The national laboratories are uniquely qualified for these areas, leveraging decades of expertise 

10 
22 


29537.011

in applied mathematics, computer science, high-performance computing and high energy 

physics. For example, DOE sponsored a pilot project that seeks to develop fast quantum and 

classical algorithms for simulating quantum field theories, and quantum computing can 

potentially be used to identify candidate particles for dark matter. 

Ongoing stewardship of the DOE Isotope Program remains critical to producing, managing, and 

distributing stable and radioactive isotopes for research, commercial, and medical applications 

for domestic use. Isotopes such as californium-252 are technologically important in oil 

production; while actinium-227 has improved cancer therapy. The DOE Isotope Program has 

produced and researched these and a host of others. 

ENHANCING TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS 

The mission of the Office of Technology Transitions (OTT) is to expand the commercial impact 

of the DOE R&D portfolio, advancing U.S. economic, energy, and national security interests. 

OTT is helping to ensure access to the cutting edge results of DOE's early stage research across 

the DOE complex, program offices, and national laboratories. It pursues this mission by 

facilitating industry and other partnerships. To accelerate these interests, DOE recently 

authorized national lab contractors to use Agreements for Commercializing Technology (ACT). 

Adding to the existing available agreements, laboratories will have fewer barriers for potential 

business partners to access lab expertise and capabilities. 

OTT is assuming responsibility for other DOE programs, as well as consulting with NNSA to 

boost national lab capability in working with industry. For example, the Energy !-Corps Program 

accelerates lab researchers' understanding of business needs and communicating technological 

solutions from a market perspective. 

The OTT Energy Investor Center directly facilitates national laboratories' engagement with 

investors and industry. In November, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and National 

Grid announced a new major partnership, resulting from an OTT-facilitated roundtable held 

earlier in the year. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

The federal government's nuclear weapons production programs made significant contributions 

to our nation's defense for decades. But a byproduct of these programs are millions of gallons of 

liquid radioactive waste, thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and special nuclear material, 

large volumes oftransuranic and mixed and low-level waste, huge quantities of contaminated 

soil and water, and thousands of excess facilities that must be cleaned up by the federal 

government. 

The Office of Environmental Management (EM) has executed this mission for more than 25 

years. The Department is leveraging past experiences, applying best practices and lessons 

learned; identifying, developing, and deploying practical technological solutions derived from 

scientific research; and looking for innovative and sustainable practices that make cleanup safer 

and more efficient. We believe the new alignment ofSC and EM reporting to the Under 

II 
23 


29537.012

Secretary of Science will create added momentum in environmental cleanup. By leveraging the 

expertise of the national lab complex, and exploring potential project management and contract 

approaches used by SC, we will be able to better manage costs and solve EM challenges, while 

ensuring the highest level of safety for our Federal and contractor employees, the public, and the 

environment. 

STRENGTHENING NUCLEAR SECURITY 

NNSA was established by Congress in 2000 as a separately organized agency within the 

Department of Energy and was charged with three important and enduring missions: maintaining 

the safety, security, reliability, and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile; reducing the 

threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism around the world; and providing naval 

nuclear propulsion to the U.S. Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines. NNSA continues 

to fulfill its national security missions, while supporting DOE and other agencies that draw upon 

its unique capabilities, by investing in its scientific, technical, and engineering intellectual capital 

and infrastructure. Since 1943, the U.S. nuclear program has relied extensively upon 

commercial industry and academic institutions to provide crucial technologies and innovations. 

NNSA is driving continued improvement in project management and the operations conducted 

by its management and operating (M&O) contractors, such as the establishment of clear lines of 

authority and accountability, and improved cost and schedule performance measures. As a 

result, since 2011, NNSA has delivered its $1.4 billion capital construction project portfolio 8% 

under original budget. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE COLLABORATION 

NNSA collaborates closely with other DOE organizations on several fronts to execute its 

missions. The three national laboratories for which NNSA has responsibility- Sandia National 

Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorysupport NNSA's vital nuclear security missions and other DOE programs. Likewise, other 

national laboratories within the DOE complex provide significant assistance to advance NNSA's 

nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and naval reactors missions. For example, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory delivers science-based solutions to NNSA' s global nuclear 

security mission in the areas of nuclear safeguards and export control, nonproliferation 

technology, and nuclear forensics. Argonne National Laboratory has played a central role since 

1978 to convert research reactors and isotope production facilities all around the globe from the 

use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium, reducing the risk posed by 

weapons-usable HEU in civilian applications. Another of DOE's leading laboratories, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, covers the full spectrum of nuclear nonproliferation work, from basic 

research and development, to detection technologies and nuclear forensics. 

This collaborative enterprise integrates the core competencies of each of the national 

laboratories, resulting in the most comprehensive research network of its kind. Together, the 

national laboratories are greater than the sum of their parts, creating a world-class scientific 

complex of unparalleled capability. 

SUPERCOMPUTERS AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

12 
24 


29537.013

Four of the 10 fastest supercomputers in the world are located at DOE laboratories. The 

Department is a world leader in computational capability, as high-performance computing (HPC) 

is a critical component of DOE's national security, energy, and science missions. U.S. 

computing capabilities have been maintained over the past six decades through continuous 

research and the development and deployment of new computing systems, improving 

performance on applications of critical importance to government, industry, and academia. To 

maximize the benefits of high-performance computing in the coming decades, the United States 

will require an effective national response to increasing demands on computing power, emerging 

HPC technological challenges and opportunities, and growing competition with other nations. 

The DOE Office of Science and NNSA are jointly responsible for executing the Exascale 

Computing Project (ECP), an initiative to develop a capable exascale computing program 

focusing on advanced simulation. The program will emphasize sustained performance on 

science and national security mission applications, as well as increased convergence between 

exascale and large-data analytic computing. In addition to underpinning NNSA's missions, the 

ECP will support DOE's applied energy technology developments. This joint partnership 

benefits our national security mission and our broader science and energy missions. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you again for inviting the 

Department to share our vision on how we can make America more prosperous and energy 

secure. 

I look forward to working with the Committee and the full Congress to realize the President's 

vision of advancing our economic and national security by producing more reliable, affordable, 

and secure energy, fueling the creation of more high-paying jobs for American workers and 

achieving energy independence and eventual energy dominance for our country. 

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

13 
25 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Brouillette. 

Mr. Menezes, before you start, I just want to again thank you for 

your time that you spend with us on a bipartisan delegation trip 

to look at the terrible circumstances of the hurricane impact in 

both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. You may want to update 

us from when we went together down last month. But thank you 

for appearing before us, and we look forward to your testimony and 

your responses to our questions as well. 

Mr. MENEZES. Thank you. And I look forward to giving you an 

update on the Puerto Rico situation, should the committee desire. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK MENEZES 

Chairman Upton, Vice Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush, 

Chairmans Walden and Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today, along with my colleagues, on behalf of the administration 

and the Department on the Department’s modernization and realignment efforts. 

Support of the administration’s goals of energy dominance and 

economic competitiveness are realized through this realignment effort, which more carefully aligns the resources and efforts of the 

Department to promote the responsible development of resources, 

as well as to ensure the reliability and the resiliency of our electrical grid. Returning to this committee room, I am reminded of the 

work accomplished on behalf of the American people by the members and the staff of this committee, some of whom are here today, 

and with whom I have had the pleasure to work when I served on 

the staff. In my 2-month tenure as Under Secretary, I have had the 

pleasure of meeting with and speaking to a number of former colleagues and friends in endeavor to keep the lines of communication 

open as we continue to evaluate the progress made with this realignment. 

As Chairman Upton mentioned in early December, I was invited 

to travel with Chairman Walden’s codel to Puerto Rico. It was my 

fourth trip to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, along with eight 

members of this committee. And we saw the damage firsthand that 

Hurricanes Irma and Maria brought to these territories. Seeing the 

devastation to the electricity delivery system as well as to the 

healthcare and other services, serve as a reminder of the important 

work that we can do to ensure reliable and resilient electricity delivery which is critical to the lives of so many millions. 

The President’s America First Energy Plan rightly calls for utilizing all of our energy resources in an all-of-the-above strategy to 

achieve energy security and economic strength at home and energy 

dominance through exports to markets abroad. 

Let me give a few examples of how the Department is working 

to promote the responsible development of these resources as well 

as to ensure the reliability and resilience of our electrical grid. 

DOE is the lead Federal agency for supporting energy infrastructure owners and addressing cyber threats to the energy sector. We 

partner with the private sector to prepare for, protect against, and 

reduce the impact of cyber threats. We are a member of the National Security Council, and bring the deep technical expertise from 

our 17 national labs to recognize and respond to cyber threats. 

26 

The Office of Fossil Energy’s national energy technology laboratory rare earth elements program focuses on developing technologies that be help recover rare earth elements from coal and 

coal by-products. The development of a domestic supply of rare 

earth elements that is economically competitive will help fuel our 

Nation’s economic growth, secure our energy independence, by reducing our reliance on foreign rare earth element sources and increase our national security. Additionally, the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory has conducted research that has delivered 6 

cents per kilowatt hour utility scale solar 3 years ahead of the Department’s goal. This success allows us to focus our research priorities on a more significant and long-term challenge, integrating 

variable renewables into our electric grid. 

Reliability and affordability paired with grid security enhancements will provide a more resilient energy infrastructure for the 

Nation. Improved policies for the development of energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines, smart grids, small modular nuclear 

reactors, energy storage, along with public-private partnerships 

with our national laboratories, bringing research technology to 

market, will help us address our Nation’s energy challenges. 

The Department appreciates the committee’s interest in our realignment, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on 

this and other opportunities to foster and promote responsible energy development and promote energy dominance. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Dabbar, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL DABBAR 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, and members of the committee. I am honored to highlight 

the mission of the Under Secretary of Science, which includes the 

Office of Science, the Office of Technology Transitions, the Office of 

Environmental Management, and of Legacy Management. I could 

say much about our priorities in those areas, but I will instead 

focus my remarks today on basic research, market-driven innovation, and environmental cleanup. 

In the area of basic research, let me highlight two near-term 

projects and programs. One of the main priorities of the Office of 

Science is the accelerated deployment of the first U.S. exoscale-capable super computer with the intent to deploy the first of the 

three machines in 2021, maintaining our global leadership in computing since its inception. Computer modeling and simulations are 

vital in this era of big data and complex systems. And exoscale 

computing, which will be at a billion billion calculations a second, 

that is 10 to the 18th, represents the next step. The evolution of 

super computing includes advances into physical sciences and high 

technology areas. This area is of intense international competition, 

and it is key that this project will maintain our global leadership. 

The second project area I would like to highlight is the LongBaseline Neutrino Facility and the Deep Underground Neutrino 

Experiment, LBNF DUNE, at Fermilab outside of Chicago. It is another important priority for our Department. Once completed, this 

27 

international center for neutrinos will study—will pair the world’s 

highest intensity neutrino beam at Fermilab outside of Chicago 

with massive cryogenic detectors installed deep in a former mine 

in south Dakota. Completion of this project will cement U.S. preeminence in neutrino science, one of the frontiers of high energy 

physics. I can report to you today that America’s global leadership 

in science remains dominant, as it has for the last century. In the 

area of enhancing technology transitions, the mission of the Office 

of Technology Transitions is to expand the commercial impact of 

R&D and the DOE portfolio by facilitating partnerships with industry and investors in close coordination with the DOE programs in 

the national labs. 

Additionally, OTT is responsible for commercialization activities 

across all the DOE programs. Commercialization is a high priority 

of mine and the rest of the management team. I look forward to 

working closely with the Energy Investor Center, as well as with 

other DOE programs and our national labs to continue facilitating 

engagement with investors and with industry, and expand the pool 

of potential investment capital in DOE technologies. 

In the area of environmental management, the government’s nuclear weapons program has made significant contributions to our 

Nation’s defense. But this legacy includes significant obligations to 

address liquid radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, special nuclear 

material, transuranic and mixed low level waste, contaminated soil 

and water, and thousands of access facilities. As a former radiation 

control worker, I am particularly sensitive to our obligations in the 

area, as well as the health and safety of those executing on the program. 

We look forward to successful completion of key projects around 

low activity waste vitrification in Hanford, as well as salt waste 

treatment in Savannah River. This can significantly demonstrate 

risk reduction and progress in addressing cleanup obligations. The 

new alignment of the Offices of Science and Environmental Management reporting to the Under Secretary of Science, myself, will 

create additional momentum in environmental cleanup by further 

leveraging the experience of the national lab complex, and exploring various potential alternatives for science and environmental 

management, project management, and contract approaches. And 

we hope to better manage costs and solve the environmental management challenges while ensuring the highest level of safety for 

our Federal and contract employees, the public, and the environment. 

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

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

And Mr. Klotz, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK KLOTZ 

Mr. KLOTZ. Thank you. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, Chairman Walden, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to represent the women and the men of the 

Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. 

We greatly appreciate your interest in and your strong support for 

NNSA missions, its major programs, its infrastructure modernization projects, and, most importantly, its people. 

28 

As America’s highest ranking military leaders have repeatedly 

said, nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our national security. 

NNSA was established by the Congress in the year 2000 as a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy to carry 

out three vitally important and enduring missions that directly relate to nuclear deterrence. The first of these is maintaining the 

safety, the security, the reliability, and the effectiveness of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The second is to reduce the threat 

of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism at home and abroad. 

And the third is to provide nuclear propulsion to the U.S. Navy’s 

aircraft carriers and submarines. 

NNSA relies heavily upon the scientific, technical, and engineering talent and capabilities at its national laboratories and its production plants in fulfilling these national security missions. Secretary Perry has described these unique facilities as our nation’s 

crown jewels. And they have, indeed, done a remarkable job in applying leading-edge science to address the Nation’s most urgent security needs. 

That said, we continue to face important challenges as an enterprise, and we clearly have work to do. For example, it is absolutely 

imperative that we repair and modernize NNSA’s aging infrastructure, over 50 percent of which is more than 40 years old, and some 

facilities even date back to the World War II and post-war Manhattan project. 

We must also continue to improve project management and conduct of operations by our contractors who manage and operate our 

sites. Our initiatives, to this end, have been informed to either 

findings and recommendations of recent congressionally mandated 

and internal reviews, and include such measures as establishing 

clear lines of authority and responsibility; adjusting contract incentive structures; holding contractors accountable for safety, security, 

and performance; and assuring appropriate levels of oversight. 

The results, I think, over the last several years, speak for themselves. Since we created an office for project management in NNSA 

in 2011, the administration has delivered its $1.4 billion capital 

construction project portfolio, 8 percent under the original budget. 

And just this year, we delivered the High Explosive Pressing Facility at Pantex in Amarillo, Texas. We delivered the TRU Waste Facility at Los Alamos in New Mexico. The Deputy Secretary and I 

cut the ribbon at the construction support building at the Y-12 production plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And we are just about to 

finish the administrative support complex at Pantex, which will 

house about a third of the Pantex workforce later this year. 

Additionally, I am proud to say all of NNSA’s weapons life extension programs are on schedule and on budget despite the fact that 

we are in one of the busiest periods we have been as an enterprise 

since the end of the Cold War. It is worth emphasizing that NNSA 

collaborates closely with other DOE organizations on several fronts 

to execute its missions. The three national laboratories for which 

NNSA has responsibility, Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, not only support NNSA’s missions, they also support other 

DOE programs. 

Likewise, the other 14 national laboratories within the DOE complex do substantial work in support of NNSA’s missions because of 

29 

the unique skills and resources they possess. Together, the 17 DOE 

national laboratories are greater than the sum of their parts creating a world-class scientific complex of unparalleled capability. 

One of these areas, as already mentioned by my colleague, is in 

developing exoscale computing capability. We are doing this jointly 

with the Office of Science. The project will dramatically advance 

the Nation’s capabilities in science, medicine, applied energy technology, and national security. It will also ensure that America remains a world leader in the highly dynamic and competitive field 

of computational technologies. For this reason, this exoscale project 

ranks as one of the Department’s highest priorities. 

Again, thank you for your very strong support, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you all for participating and being here 

this morning. And we wish Secretary Perry well for sure. 

Mr. Brouillette, as the DOE’s chief operating officer, I know this 

is the budget time. I am a former OMB official a lot of years ago. 

And the timeframe is a little bit different than it was when I 

worked for President Reagan in that the budget had already been 

up by the first week of January, and now since then, Presidents 

have sent their budgets up a little bit later. Given the huge demand for resources in your important department, I don’t know if 

they have actually done the passback yet from OMB back to DOE, 

but how is your relationship with those folks down at the old executive office building in terms of their response to the Secretary’s 

budget priorities? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, our relationship—— 

Mr. UPTON. They are not in the room. They are watching. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. They are watching. Yes, I will be graded on 

this response, I am certain. 

Our relationship with Director Mulvaney has been strong. We 

are fortunate to have him as an OMB Director. As you well know, 

he is your former colleague, he comes from the Congress, he understands the budget process very, very well. 

With regard to our processes internally, we are in active conversations with the OMB. We have not yet completed the budget 

process. We do expect to see the final product of their work very, 

very shortly. And we expect it will be sent to Congress very, very 

shortly as well. 

Mr. UPTON. The Department’s role to maintain the Nation’s nuclear deterrent is obviously a very important and vital mission. Recent reviews have found that the structure of the NNSA has sometimes isolated DOE’s work from the needed cabinet level leadership. Can you commit to us, and certainly Mr. Klotz as well, that 

you will be working to ensure appropriate secretarial leadership 

and management support to enhance that vital mission? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes. Absolutely. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

this committee was instrumental in 1999, in the general time 

frame, in the creation of NNSA. So we understand full well what 

the direction of the U.S. Congress is toward the Department. It has 

given us the ability to work closely together. The Department and 

the NNSA collaborate very, very closely on the national security 

mission, and as well as other missions, which includes environmental cleanup, the cleanup of those sites. 

30 

I will defer if General Klotz has any further comments that he 

might want to make about that collaboration. But I can assure you 

and this committee that we are working closely together. 

Mr. UPTON. General Klotz. 

Mr. KLOTZ. Chairman, I would echo everything that the Deputy 

Secretary said. I think we have a very close working relationship. 

We had one in the previous administration. We certainly have one 

in this administration as well. 

One of the things that Congress did in creating the NNSA and 

the position of the administrator of the NNSA is they made that 

same individual also an Under Secretary within the Department 

which allows that individual to work very, very closely with the colleagues and throughout. 

I might add, one of the points that I really want to foot stomp 

in my oral statement applies to that part of the DOE complex out 

in the laboratories, the 17 laboratories. And as I indicated, we work 

very, very closely together. The non-NNSA laboratory support us 

significantly in our national security work, and we do an awful lot 

of basic science research that has relevance to the work they are 

doing as well. So I think this is a win-win organizational structure 

which has been created. 

Mr. UPTON. My remaining comment, I would like each of you to 

respond just briefly with regard to the cyber threats, not only on 

DOE, but obviously the facilities that you oversee. So we know that 

there had been a number of briefings, public and private, over the 

years in terms of the increasing cyber threats. We know that literally hundreds of times daily it is the—likely attempts. And what 

can we do to ensure the safety for all of our citizens? 

Mr. Brouillette. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Cybersecurity is one of 

our highest priorities. The Department of Energy is the sector specific agency responsible for cybersecurity within the energy community, or energy industry, I should say. One of the first steps that 

the Secretary directed me to take as the Deputy and as the chief 

operating officer was to ensure that our own house is in order. We 

are obviously going to work with the industry, work closely with 

what is known as the ESCC, the Electric Sector Coordinating 

Council, to take input from our industry partners. I am aggressively focused at the moment on our inside-of-the-house activities. 

So working closely with our own CIO to make sure that our Department, our complex is protected on cyber matters. 

Mr. UPTON. And do you have any recommendations for us in 

terms of trying to make your job easier? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I will happily come back to the committee and 

share with you some additional thoughts once I can get my arms 

around this complex. But, sir, at the moment, I can’t think of anything that I would need from this particular committee or the Congress. 

Mr. UPTON. I know my time has expired. 

Do you have something you would like to add to that response? 

If not, go ahead, Mark. 

Mr. MENEZES. One thing that we are doing, in Office of Electricity, we are actually running a nationwide grid system evaluation, really, if we can continue to supply the national critical assets 

31 

with the power and eliminate the potential risk of cyber attack. 

This has not been done, and so this will be done by our Office of 

Electricity. 

Mr. UPTON. I think there was an exercise that was supposed to 

take place not too long ago. 

My time has expired. Let me—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Grid X. We did—— 

Mr. UPTON [continuing]. Yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of the witnesses, I want to ask questions. If you don’t have answers to the 

questions in that I only have 5 minutes, I want to allow you to respond in writing. As a matter of fact, that would be good. 

Deputy Secretary Brouillette, last week, my office reached out to 

staff at DOE in preparation for today’s hearing inquiring about the 

percentage of minorities and the senior positions within the agency 

as well as it is much easier for the agency to consider policies and 

initiatives that address the needs of minorities when there are minorities at the table when decisions are being made. 

Are you prepared today to share some of these figures with the 

subcommittee? Specifically, can you provide a percentage or number of minorities in leadership position within the Secretary’s office, the review boards, the boards and council, and among the SES 

staff? 

Also, can you, or Under Secretary Dabbar, share with us a number of minority directors at the 17 national labs and on the percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership positions at those 

labs? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I would be happy to provide those to 

you. I am aware of the question. I will respond to you formally in 

writing and make those numbers available to you. 

I would also like to share with you, at least, some of my early 

experiences at the Department. My first impressions—— 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Secretary, I only have a few minutes. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Let me ask Mr. Dabbar. 

Mr. Dabbar, can you answer the question? How many minority 

directors of the 17 national labs, and on the percentage of minority 

staffers in leadership positions in the labs? 

Mr. DABBAR. I apologize. Could you repeat? Someone was 

coughing. 

Mr. RUSH. Can you or Under Secretary share with us the number of minority directors at these 17 national labs and on the percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership positions at those 

labs? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman Rush. 

No. I will be glad to share that information with you. I do 

not—— 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Thank you. You don’t have them. 

All right. Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with the minorities energy initiatives that were created under former Secretary 

Moniz? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. RUSH. What are your plans for moving forward with that? 

32 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. We are going to continue that important program. I understand its importance to not only Congress, but the 

communities that are served by that program. We have every intention of continuing it. 

Mr. RUSH. Now, then, the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity have been moved to the Deputy Secretary level. 

What are the plans for, in this office, moving forward? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. The same answer, sir. We are going to continue that. It is a very important program. It is vital to the communities that it is serves. And we see its continued importance to the 

Department. 

Mr. RUSH. In your response in writing to me—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH [continuing]. Be very specific. I would like to know 

what plans and the implementation schedule, what those are? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Secretary Dabbar, your jurisdiction within the Office 

of Science includes responsibility for doling out taxpayer research 

dollars in the form of grants to institutions of higher learning. 

Can you provide this subcommittee with a list of schools, universities that have received funding over the past 10 years from your 

Department as well as the amount distributed to each institution? 

Also, do you know the percentage of funding that is loaned to minorities serving institutions, including historically black colleges 

and universities, and Hispanic-serving institutions over the past 10 

years? 

Mr. DABBAR. Congressman Rush, yes. About $3 billion a year is 

distributed through various FOAs out of the Department. It is a 

very large portion of the budget. The vast majority of the $3 billion 

across all our various programs goes to universities, and I would 

be glad to follow up with the specific information in writing that 

you are asking for. 

Mr. RUSH. And I want to know about black-serving institutions 

and historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir, we will do that. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question for Mr. 

Dabbar. 

You oversee national labs. Can you provide this subcommittee 

with the approximate dollar amount of contracts that the labs dole 

out to private companies and vendors? Is their goal to include minority contractors? Have the labs reached that goal? And if not, is 

there a plan in place to increase minority participation for contracting and vending opportunities within the labs? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, we will. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank you all. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

The chair would recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr. 

Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again, 

thank you all for being here. We look forward to your written responses to Mr. Rush’s questions. 

The Office of Environment Management oversees the environmental remediation projects at some of our nation’s most contamiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
33 

nated sites, including the Hanford reservation which I referenced 

earlier, located just up the Columbia River from where I live. 

In 2013, then-energy Secretary Moniz moved the environmental 

management out of the responsibilities of the NNSA administrator 

to a newly created Under Secretary for Management and Performance. And DOE’s recent realignment shifted the office to now be 

managed by the Under Secretary for Science. So it seems like it 

has been moving around a bit on who has the responsibility. Those 

of us in the northwest care deeply about that and even more deeply 

about getting it cleaned up and protected, especially given some of 

the failures that have occurred eventually in some of the tanks and 

all. 

So Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Under Secretary Dabbar, 

will you please describe the reasoning for this shift, and, for example, what expertise is aligned with the Office of Science that may 

prove beneficial to similar large project management challenges 

that are associated with the EM’s mission and give us an update 

on the latest at Hanford and where that waste would go if we ever 

get Yucca open. So, Mr. Brouillette, maybe you’d like to start out. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will share with you some of the thinking that we had behind 

that particular move. And it starts with some of the first comments 

that I heard when I became a young staffer on this committee back 

in 1989. And that was along the lines of Hanford is very complex. 

Hanford is very complicated. It is a technical issue and, therefore, 

we haven’t cleaned it up yet. 

And Secretary Perry has heard those very same arguments. And 

the thought process that we went through was how can we figure 

out how to fix this problem. And we have some of the best, some 

of the brightest scientists in the world working at the Department 

of Energy. So we thought that perhaps by combining these programs and forcing some collaboration between the environmental 

management program and these scientists would allow us to find 

the technical answers that we need to find to begin the actual 

cleanup of that site as well as other environmental management 

sites throughout the country. I will defer to Mr. Dabbar as to what 

the specific steps that we will take. But that was the initial 

thought. 

From a management standpoint, you should also know, too, that 

the Office of Science within the Department of Energy stands head 

and shoulders above many Federal agencies in its ability to conduct 

proper, efficient, and effective contract management. They do that 

very, very well. So we want to avail ourselves to those talents as 

well within the Department of Energy. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Secretary Dabbar. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. Chairman Walden, as the Deputy Secretary 

mentioned, I think there are two major buckets of reasons that— 

in terms of the specifics why the coordination can help in the execution of the mission of environmental management upon this reorganization. The first is technology. There are a number of different 

areas within the national lab complex that have linkages to the 

mission of environmental management. As you know, within the 

BES area, the Office of Science, we have chemistry. And a large 

34 

portion of the issues associated with environmental management 

are radiochemistry issues. And obviously, between the chemistry 

functions as well as the nuclear side, nuclear physics side of the 

Office of Science, there is an awful lot of technology overlap. On top 

of that, there are other examples such as computer modeling of 

various disposition of various radionuclides, which we can use our 

high performance computing for. So it is a great degree of opportunity. 

And then the other bucket is project management. As the Deputy 

Secretary mentioned, the Office of Science is one of the three major 

areas that deal with project management, and it generally executes 

on time and on budget. And we think that the project management 

skills associated with other areas including the Office of Science. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you were just out there, right? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. Can you give me, in the 45 seconds left, your update? Are we still on target? 

Mr. DABBAR. So there are things that we are moving along with 

that we are very excited about and we think are very positive. And 

there are some areas that have challenges. In terms of the positive 

areas, finally, we are moving down the road of making glass at the 

plateau. The DF LAW, which is the low activity waste treatment 

plant, is coming online. And we are going to make some glass, and 

we are going to clean up some tanks. 

We are also looking at closing out our first tank farm, possibly, 

first time ever. And we are looking to ship some waste off sight, 

first time ever. So there is some very positive things that we are 

executing on. 

Mr. WALDEN. When and where? 

Mr. DABBAR. Well, there are some options around TRU. TRU 

Waste is the things that we are looking at, and there is a couple 

different options very specifically that we are looking at. We have 

not identified exactly which one, but there are specific locations. 

And for that shipment portion example that we are focused on, we 

are focused on TRU. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. You are recognized, Mr. Pallone, from New Jersey. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are of Mr. Brouillette. 

I was pleased to see FERC yesterday unanimously terminated 

the grid resiliency rulemaking that Secretary Perry proposed last 

year. And that flawed proposal would have subsidized certain coal 

and nuclear plants under the guise of a grid reliability crisis. And 

this is chiefly a policy matter, in my opinion, that should be left 

to Congress and to the states. 

On October 12 of 2017, I sent a letter to Secretary Perry requesting additional details regarding the development of this proposed 

rulemaking, including a list of DOE staff who put together the proposal and a list of all meetings where DOE staff or leadership discussed the proposal with outside organizations. And I saw that 

photos were published recently showing Murray Energy’s CEO 

Robert Murray handing Secretary Perry a so-called action plan last 

March, a portion of which states, ‘‘Immediate action needs to be 

35 

taken to require organized power markets to value fuel security, 

fuel diversity, and ancillary services that only base-load generating 

assets, especially coal plants, can provide.’’ 

And so, these photos made me question how much outside influence went into the preparation of the proposed rulemaking and 

who those outside parties were. 

Now, Mr. Brouillette, I haven’t received response to my letter, 

which was sent nearly 3 months ago, so I wanted to ask first: Do 

you know the status of DOE’s response to this letter? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. No, sir, I don’t, but I will happily look into it 

and make sure that you are responded to. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. Obviously you are making a 

commitment to ensure I receive a total response, and you will do 

that. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I was just handed a note, sir. It seems that 

our lawyers, our GC office is responding to your note, preparing a 

response, but I will ensure that you receive it. 

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that. Thank you. Now, let me go to 

the second thing that I want to talk about, and that is this Secretary of Energy Advisory Board panel. I would like to ask about 

that and its current status. As far as I can tell, the board, which 

has historically provided advice and recommendations to the Secretary on key DOE issues has not been reconstituted under Secretary Perry; in fact, the DOE website still shows members of the 

board that served under the Obama administration, including one 

of the witnesses on our second panel today, Dan Reicher. 

Now, Secretary Menezes relied heavily on advice and guidance 

from this advisory board, which put together several comprehensive reports during his tenure, and it seems to me, my opinion is 

that Secretary Perry, who had little experience on national energy 

issues before taking the helm at DOE, and even proposed eliminating the Department all together, when he was a presidential 

candidate, would benefit from such a group of advisors. 

So my question first is, am I correct that the Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board has not been reconstituted under Secretary Perry? 

Is that accurate? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I think it is accurate to say that it has not 

been disbanded. The Secretary’s advisor board still exists. The Secretary is still in the process of evaluating membership on that 

board. But at this moment in time, I don’t think he has made any 

decisions with regard to that particular board in terms of its membership. But I can tell you that it is an important component of the 

advisory function at DOE, and I think he has every intention of 

maintaining it. 

Mr. PALLONE. So from what you said, and I don’t want to put 

words in your mouth, you are saying that he does intend to keep 

it and appoint some members, it is just that he hasn’t gotten 

around to it. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I think that is correct. 

Mr. PALLONE. I just think it is important that the Secretary have 

the guidance of a body like that. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. As he makes key decisions. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

36 

Mr. PALLONE. And obviously, you agree. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. And hopefully, he is going to move ahead with 

that. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, he will. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to this 

subcommittee. Two of you, especially, should be very familiar with 

this room. You worked with a lot of the portraits that are up on 

the walls. So it is good to see you all back. I don’t know whether 

to congratulate you on progress or to commiserate with you on regression, but I am glad to see you. 

Before I ask my questions, I doubt that too many people—General Klotz was talking about Pantex, and one of the unknown stories in my life is that in 1972, I was offered a job at Pantex as an 

industrial engineer with a company called Mason & Hanger, which 

was a contractor. It is the weirdest plant interview I ever did. They 

said, we can’t let you see the plant. We can’t tell you what we 

make. We can’t tell you what you are going to do, but we really 

want you to come to work. And I asked a couple of questions, and 

they just said, we can’t tell you. 

So then when I left the office, out in Amarillo, or outside of Amarillo, I saw this big bomb casing, big, big bomb casing. I said, well, 

that gives me a clue as to what they do here. But not too many 

members probably know what Pantex—I don’t know what they do 

now, but then they actually made some of our nuclear weapons, 

and maybe they still do or they just maintain those. 

Mr. KLOTZ. Well, two thoughts, sir. One is, your career turned 

out OK, even though he didn’t come work for us. And, two, the 

Pantex is the one facility where all the various components that 

make up a nuclear weapon are shipped, and it is the highly skilled 

workforce of people in the panhandle region that—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I know they are very proud of it. Chairman 

Thornberry is very proud that that facility is in his district. Well, 

I have a number of questions in terms of the Department’s structure and reauthorization. Chairman Walden has asked that I try 

to lead an effort to reauthorize the Department on a bipartisan 

basis. So I just have some kind of general questions I want to ask 

Deputy Secretary Brouillette. 

What is the number of direct personnel that is actually working 

at the Department right now, not contractors, but full-time Federal 

employees? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sir, it is approximately 13,000. Just north of 

13,000. 

Mr. BARTON. How many contract employees does the Department 

have authority over? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. The approximate number is going to be just 

north of 100,000. 

Mr. BARTON. 100,000. OK. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes. 

37 

Mr. BARTON. Do you know in terms of the contractors how many 

of the primary contracts are competitively bid as opposed to no bid 

contracts, sole source contracts? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. No, sir. In terms of an absolute number, I 

can’t give you that, but I am happy to respond for that on the 

record. We will do the research and provide that information to 

your office. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Again, in terms of these contracts, I know some 

of them are long-term contracts. Do you have any idea what the 

average length of the prime contracts are? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. It really depends on the work that is being 

done, but I will defer to the two Under Secretaries who may be 

able to provide you with a more precise answer. Paul. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, Chairman Barton. It does depend on which 

ones, but in a typical science contract, many of them are 5 years 

with a 5-year extension. That is a typical contract. Obviously, within a lot of our national labs, some have very long-term relationship 

needs and are linked to universities. Some of them are more engineering and construction jobs, so if you take environmental management or some of the general areas, those are very project specific. So depending on the length of the project, many times they 

could be 3 or 4 years. And some of the very longer term ones, such 

as at Hanford, they are a bit longer, given the length of the construction. 

Mr. BARTON. Could the Department give the committee a list of 

these large primary contracts and when they are next scheduled to 

be up for renewal? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. If we are going to do a reauthorization bill, that is 

some information we would need. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, we would be happy to provide that to 

the committee. 

Mr. BARTON. One of the things that now Senator, then Congressman, Ed Markey, and I worked on 10 or 15 years ago was the creation of a northeast gasoline reserve in fuel oil reserve. And I notice those have now been established in almost every State in the 

northeast—has either/and a fuel oil and a gasoline reserve—are 

these facilities similar to tank farms where you actually store fuel 

onsite, or is it a contractual arrangement where the private sector 

has to provide the fuel if it is called on to? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sir, with regard to the strategic petroleum reserve, we actually retain the fuel onsite. 

Mr. BARTON. So these gasoline reserves and fuel-off centers, like 

in Massachusetts and New York and New Jersey, they actually 

have the fuel onsite? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I will check on the gasoline reserves in the 

northeast to ensure that this answer is correct. It is my understanding that at least partially those fuels are stored onsite. But 

with regard to the strategic petroleum reserve—— 

Mr. BARTON. I know the crude oil is. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. BARTON. My last question is. Is the Department and the 

Trump administration supportive of a Department of Energy reauthorization bill in this Congress? 

38 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sir, I am sorry, the question is, do we support 

a reauthorization bill? 

Mr. BARTON. I have had informal contact and discussions with 

Secretary Perry, but I have never asked for a formal response on 

the record, so I am now doing so. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. We would be very enthusiastic about 

working with Congress to reauthorize the programs. With regard 

to the actual policy, OMB is going to be a part of this process as 

well. But as a Department, I can assure you that we stand ready 

to assist the committee if it proceeds. 

Mr. BARTON. I appreciate that. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Peters. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the witnesses 

for being here. Mr. Deputy Secretary Brouillette? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERS. You said something that I have said in my campaign speeches for 20 years, 15 years, however long I have been 

doing this, which is that the choice between a clean environment 

and a prosperous economy is a false choice. And I wanted to follow 

up just in terms of the Department’s policy with respect to that. 

I read through the testimony, I saw some stuff about environmental cleanup, but what I didn’t see was reference to some of the 

more current discussion around greenhouse gases. And I just wanted to ask you, is it a policy in any respect of the United States Department of Energy to limit the emission of greenhouse gases and 

short-lived climate pollutants, including methane and black carbon? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Is it the policy of the Department to limit it? 

Mr. PETERS. To limit those emissions. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, we are not the regulator, if that is your 

question. We don’t regulate those types of emissions, that falls 

more to the EPA. But with regard to finding technological solutions, using the scientists in our labs to develop new technologies, 

that would limit those types or reduce those types of emissions. Absolutely, that is part of the Department’s mission. 

Mr. PETERS. Would that be a reference to carbon capture specifically, or do you mean—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, it is. The Secretary has been very gauged 

on that issue. He just returned, as a matter of fact, from overseas, 

where he was part of a clean energy ministerial. We have been 

working with our international partners around the world to see 

that technology further developed and utilized in other countries 

around the world. 

Mr. PETERS. Beyond that, are there any other technological solutions the Department is pursuing to reduce or limit greenhouse gas 

emission? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I might defer to our Under Secretaries as they 

run those programs. 

Mr. MENEZES. Specifically, our Office of Fossil, for example, is 

developing new technologies on small coal units, for example, 

where one of the criteria is reduced emissions. So it is actually in 

the production of electricity is where the technology is focusing on, 

not just post-combustion where you capture it and store it. 

39 

We are developing really, across the broad spectra, we are looking at fuels that can be produced and used at the front end to lower 

emissions than during the actual combustion process itself to reduce emissions, and then post-combustion capture and sequestration. 

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Deputy Secretary, let me just say, is it fair to 

say that, in developing resiliency and energy security, it is not part 

of your calculus to determine which energy sources are cleaner 

than the other, to be abbreviated about it? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I think the Nation is served by the all-of-theabove strategy. I don’t know that we are going to pick and choose 

the generation sources or the energy sources, that is where the 

American people—for other policymakers. But if your question is 

related to our support of an all-of-the-above strategy, the answer 

to that is clearly, yes, we do support renewables, we support wind, 

we support solar, we also support nuclear, as well as coal and natural gas. 

Mr. PETERS. Do you have a position on the Tax Code’s treatment 

of any particular energy source? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. No, sir. 

Mr. PETERS. I guess the other question I have is with respect to 

energy. First of all, I was struck by what we all do agree on. We 

talked a lot in this committee about cybersecurity and grid security, we want solid distribution, and basic research. And I pointed 

out before that the ARPA-E program, I think, since it was created 

in 2009, has provided $1.5 billion in funding to more than 580 

projects that has led to the formation of 56 new companies, 68 

projects with other government agencies, including Defense that 

has attracted more than $1.8 billion in additional private sector investment. 

Mr. Dabbar, is that the kind of investment you want to see continued when you talk about basic science research? 

Mr. DABBAR. Overall, we are very supportive of the programs 

that we have at the Department around commercialization. ARPAE is certainly a portion of it. If you think about the large FOA 

bucket, which is a grant bucket, we have about $3 billion a year 

across our various different areas. And ARPA-E is about $300 million of that, so it is about 10 percent. 

Mr. PETERS. I was concerned that the President’s initial budget 

zeroed it out. And I spoke to the Secretary about it when he was 

here. He indicated that maybe he didn’t agree with that, I certainly 

don’t. I want to say that I am sympathetic to all the agencies that 

come testify for us in the wake of this so-called tax reform that 

added at least $1 trillion to a national debt. And we are looking 

at $1 trillion deficits going forward. I think it puts a lot of pressure 

on that. But I do want to highlight that as something that I agree 

deserves our support as a Congress and hope that we can figure 

out a way to responsibly fund that. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Yield to Mr. Olson. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair, and welcome to our four witnesses. 

A great panel. Two neighbors from Louisiana, Secretary Brouillette 

and Secretary Menezes. A Naval Academy graduate, a fellow sailor, 

a submariner, Mr. Dabbar. And Lieutenant General Klotz, who has 

40 

the high honor of being a native born Texan, Lubbock, Texas. Welcome. 

As a former naval aviator, over 1300 hours of P-3 Orion submarine hunter, I was trained to track, attack, and destroy Russian 

ballistic missile submarines. And while I can never confirm nor 

deny that I flew with nuclear weapons, we were qualified to drop 

what is called a B-57 nuclear death bomb. That bomb was designed 

to destroy Russian submarines where it created a big wave of air 

on the break and keel by the weight of the boat. That bomb has 

since been retired. But as you all know, we still have nuclear weapons as part of our strategic deterrence. 

My first question is for you, General Klotz. DOE and NNSA has 

the task of keeping, as you said, our nuclear weapons safe, reliable, 

and effective. And you have years of experience administrating the 

nuclear security programs of the Department. You understand the 

challenges to this complex mission. 

My question is, please discuss the role of the national lab system, 

not only the weapons labs, but the whole system in maintaining 

our nuclear deterrent and national security? 

Mr. KLOTZ. Thank you, sir. That is a wonderful question. People 

often ask me what was I most surprised about coming into this 

particular job 4 years ago, and one of my answers is, I understood 

how the three national laboratories, which NNSA has responsibility for, contribute to that mission. What I didn’t realize, until I 

went out and visited all of the other 14 laboratories is how much 

work is being done throughout the entire system. We use the other 

laboratories because of the special scientific and engineering skills 

that are resident in those laboratories, some of the unique equipment that they have. But I would say of all 17 laboratories, we 

have direct funding going to the vast majority of them. And even 

those laboratories that we do not directly fund, many times they 

are subcontractors to other laboratories doing work for the NNSA, 

both in the weapons activity account, and in the defense nuclear 

non-proliferation account, as well as naval reactors. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My next question is for Secretary 

Brouillette and Secretary Dabbar. Houston, my home town, is the 

oil and gas capital of the entire world. I am proud of that. As we 

say in Texas, that ain’t changing any time soon. Natural gas is now 

very abundant, and it has now become the core of electric grids 

across the country. At the same time, though, the fastest growing 

jobs in Texas are actually in wind power. We are exploding, number one in America in production of wind power. 

We have an important role to play, but some have said that 

unlocking that source of energy, it is right, will have to have better 

batteries, better transmission lines, and also the wind is always 

blowing when we need it and where we need it. 

Could you talk about how DOE balances and supports new developments like wind, a crucial source of energy, while moving forward with research to alternative energy? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, sir, as a Texan, 

and as a part-time resident of Texas myself for 12 years. I was 

down with USAA in San Antonio, Texas. I understand the record 

of Secretary Perry, I wanted to call him Governor Perry. But as 

Governor of Texas, he approached this with an all-of-the-above 

41 

strategy. Texas is now the largest wind energy producer—one of 

the largest, I should say, in the United States. It is a very, very 

important component of our diversity mix for the purposes of generating electricity. 

What we are doing at the Department of Energy is trying to find 

ways to manage the variability of those intermittent sources on the 

grid, as well as using the science labs to develop the next stage, 

the next level, if you will, of battery storage, of battery power. And 

I will let Under Secretary Paul Dabbar speak to the specific activities that he has undertaken as the head of our science labs. 

Mr. OLSON. Commander Dabbar. 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman. As someone who grew up 

in Oklahoma and saw the wind come over from Texas, I am very 

much appreciative of that—we kind of caught the tail end of what 

wasn’t used in Texas. 

One particular area of the Office of Science, and this goes back 

to our previous question around renewables, is in the battery area. 

One of the big strengths of what the Office of Science does is in 

the area of battery technology beyond lithium. Actually, at our laboratory in Oregon, they branded the chemistry area for batteries 

beyond lithium. So there is at least a little bit of marketing in the 

science organization. 

There is a number of different batteries that we are working on: 

multiple batteries, including magnesium ion, which includes solid 

state that we are working on at a very early stage; flow batteries, 

which can be used for grid applications; and next generation lithium ion, using our light sources and other modeling techniques on 

the computer side to improve upon existing lithium ion. 

We think this is a major idea in terms of being able to take applications from technologies in the Office of Science and really 

move forward and really leverage renewables from an intermittent 

source to something that can be more 24 by 7. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, my time has expired. USAA member for 

life. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses here today. Secretary Brouillette, in your testimony, you 

highlight the importance of energy security and explain that this 

energy security, as well as our economic prosperity depends on continued American ingenuity and innovation. And you continue by 

saying that Secretary Perry and yourself are very proud of the advancements that DOE’s research and development has spurred. 

That DOE-funded R&D is truly inspirational. I want you to know 

that we all agree with that statement, however, many of my colleagues and myself are greatly concerned by the budget request we 

received from the Department of Energy earlier this year. 

And I just have a few yes-or-no questions about the budget proposals for you. For instance, you emphasized the importance of reliable electricity, but the proposal proposes cutting electricity delivery and energy reliability budget from $206 million to a $120 million, which is a decrease of over 40 percent. Can you tell me just 

yes or no, do you anticipate revising that cut for this year’s budget 

request? 

42 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. It is hard for me to answer yes or no, sir, because we are going through the process that is ongoing. 

Mr. DOYLE. Try your best to do that because our time is limited. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. I think this office is very important. We 

are going to work with OMB to find an appropriate number. 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. Thank you. Also, President Trump’s repeated 

promises on clean coal throughout the campaign and presidency, I 

want to point out that many members on both sides of the aisle 

support technological innovations that aim to achieve that goal. 

In fact, my colleague on this committee, Representative McKinley 

and I, lead a letter each year that would boost funding for that research. Last year, we proposed increasing the funding for fossil 

R&D by over 30 percent to $829 million. However, the Department 

of Energy’s budget request proposed cutting the fossil energy R&D 

budget by $352 million. That is an over 55 percent cut down to 

$280 million. And it is Mr. Reicher’s testimony that we will hear 

when the second panel gets here highlights, it actually cuts R&D 

funding for CCUS specifically by nearly 85 percent. 

Do you anticipate increasing the Department’s budget request for 

fossil R&D, and specifically, for CCUS next year? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I anticipate that the Congress will want to 

support that at a higher number. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. Yes, they will. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. That is exactly right. That is exactly right. 

Mr. DOYLE. Your testimony also sings the praises of energy and 

technological innovation. But the budget proposes, as Mr. Peters 

pointed out, eliminating ARPA-E. This is very perplexing to a lot 

of us. The nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine released a report last year that analyzed ARPA-E, a 

congressionally-authorized program. And that report says ARPA-E 

is, in many cases, successfully enhancing the economic and energy 

security of the United States by funding transformational activities. And it continues to say, importantly at this early stage, the 

committee has found no signs that ARPA-E is failing to deliver on 

its mission and goals, or is on a path to failure, or is in need of 

reform. 

Do you plan on revising your budget requests for next year with 

regards to ARPA-E? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. That is a decision, sir, that is going to be 

made by OMB. But there are differences of opinion about whether 

or not the Department should be in that particular business. We 

have offered a proposal to the Congress, but I will assure you the 

Congress funds the agency or funds ARPA-E, we will execute to the 

letter of the law. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, we will be doing that, too. Thank you. I want 

to also highlight a DOE study published in 2016 that highlights 

the importance of CCUS technologies. In it, the authors describe 

the industrial CCUS as the low-hanging fruit among CCUS 

projects, because many industrial processes produce relatively pure 

streams of CO2. DOE has previously funded industrial CCUS pilot projects 

through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. And though 

there have been proposals to delineate natural gas CCUS technology and coal CCUS technologies in the previous administration’s 

43 

budget request, would you support separate R&D funding source 

for industrial CCUS? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I would, sir, but again, that is a final decision 

that is going to be made by OMB and the Congress itself. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. And let me just finish by saying that I 

am pleased to participate in an energy efficiency and manufacturing roundtable hosted by Scott Energy Innovation Institute at 

Carnegie Mellon this coming Friday, and Representative McKinley, 

a leader on this issue, will be joining me, as will many manufacturers and energy companies in my district. 

President Trump has placed a special emphasis on the manufacturing sector, and understandably so, as the industry has been suffering for too long. In this proposed reauthorization of DOE, would 

you want to change the Advanced Manufacturing Office or the 

Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative, and if so, what kind of 

changes would you foresee? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. As a former executive at Ford Motor Company, I understand full well and understand keenly the important 

work that is done by the advanced manufacture and technology 

folks at DOE, and I happen to support what they do. With regard 

to future changes, I would like to work with you and this committee to determine what those might be. I have not given it significant thought before you asked me the question, but I will do so. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. We appreciate you being here today, and 

we look forward to working with you. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Thanks. 

Mr. DOYLE. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

all here. I am going to try to go quick. I have got four short questions. 

First, Dan, Secretary Perry has stated that it is the Federal Government’s legal and moral obligation to permanently dispose of 

spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. If Congress provides the 

funding, is DOE prepared to reconstitute the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which we call OCRWM, and resume 

its statutorily required regulatory review of the Yucca Mountain license application? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. If you provide the funds, we will execute to the letter of the law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Thank you. I have been flipping around. 

Mr. Dabbar, just because you mentioned it. I understand what 

making glass means in this whole Hanford debate. Had we not broken the law with the last administration, and had we kept to the 

timeframe per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its amendments, 

where would that glass go? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman. So the vitrification I was 

referring to for DF LAW, which is the new vitrification facility 

which is coming on line, is low activity waste. That can be stored 

onsite at Hanford. It does not need to go to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. What part of the Hanford waste is designated to 

go to the final repository? And you can name that for me. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. That would be the high level waste, which 

that building is still under construction, but that also is planned 

44 

to be vitrified in the future, and that would need to be disposed of 

offsite. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And if we were on schedule, per the law, where are 

you and DOE designing the cast and the delivery systems to finally 

go to? There is an easy answer. 

Mr. DABBAR. So, in general, there has been, I think, a lot of debate by this House about whether—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am not asking about the debate by this House, 

I am asking about the Department’s position and current law. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. The previous analysis of where it was supposed to go was to go to the Yucca Mountain site. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is where it is supposed to go per law. And 

had we not broken the law and not derailed the timeline, that is 

where it would be going. So, thank you, that was a lot harder than 

I thought. 

Let me go to Mark real quick. Under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, they are doing a study called Co-Optima. I am not sure if you are aware of that. I would ask you to 

look into it and report back to me on this. It is basically an energy 

efficiency in transportation vehicles. 

Actually, Secretary Brouillette might know a little bit about it, 

but it is going to be very, very helpful to us as we try to thread 

the needle on this RFS debate. And it is really a high-efficiency, 

high-octane research project that you all are doing. And I need to 

know when you are going to be done with that, and that will be 

very, very helpful in this. So could you get back to us? 

Mr. MENEZES. We will. We will look into it and we will provide 

the response. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dan, do you want to add anything to that since 

you—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. No, sir. I know that this is an ongoing conversation between you and the administration and others in Congress, and we will get right back to you on the results of that 

study, or at least the progress of that study. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, because that study I think it is linchpin on 

how we can thread the needle on this, if it comes out the way I 

think a lot of us have hopes and expectations. Mark, I want to go 

back to you—and maybe there will be some other folks that this 

kind of addresses some of the other agencies here. Secretary Perry 

signed a—this is on the uranium market, and Secretary Perry, let 

me see the—I have the Honeywell Conversion Facility in Metropolis, Illinois that is idle because we think—part of the reason is the 

DOE’s activity and the uranium market through the Uranium Bartering Program, Secretary Perry wrote a letter last year in reference to how that should not affect uranium mining, and our individual processing facility, and our ability. We think it is. Can anybody comment on this because of the idling of that? 

Mr. DABBAR. I would be glad to take that, sir. I think, as you 

know, a previous administration had looked at funding part of the 

Portsmouth D&D through funding of sales of uranium, and that 

there is a requirement that the Department does an analysis on 

the impact of those sales. That current program is expected to be 

completed in 2021. And the Department earlier this year, and the 

Secretary signed off on a detailed analysis that took down the 

45 

amount that we are selling this year to 1200 MTU. And that is the 

current plan. Once again, the current plan is that it will end by 

2021. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would just say, it is impacting the jobs and the 

economic activity in my district in this plan. I would hope you all 

would take that into consideration. 

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Menezes, in 

Puerto Rico, over 40 percent of the electricity customers have been 

without power now for about 4 months. And I understand that that 

is well over half a million American citizens. I was surprised that 

in the emergency aid package, what was proposed by the Trump 

administration, and passed at the end of the year in the House, it 

did not include a lot of direction and flexibility for the Department 

of Energy working with FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers 

to build the more resilient grid that we discussed in this committee. 

Can you give us an update on what is happening right now and 

the division of labor to help get the power back on, and do it in 

a resilient way that protects the American taxpayer in the future? 

Mr. MENEZES. Let me use this as an opportunity to just update 

with the numbers. As of the 6th, we have 80.8 percent of the normal peak load restored, and now we have 60 percent of the customers with power—that is 885,000 homes and businesses. We 

have 87 percent of the substations that are operating. And we still 

have 3,000 personnel down there working every day to restore 

power to the people of Puerto Rico. 

With respect to the request for assistance, that is going to be an 

OMB, I think, agency answer to provide for you. I know we certainly gave them—— 

Ms. CASTOR. Do you feel like you have the authority, working 

with the Army Corps and FEMA, to build a more resilient grid, to 

not just build back what was there that was outdated and it was 

bankrupt, but to do something to protect taxpayers in the future? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes. 

Ms. CASTOR. Or do you need additional authority from the Congress to do that? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, again, I can’t speak for the administration, 

but from my own personal observations of having been involved in 

the Puerto Rico efforts since I have been sworn in, it is clear that 

DOE’s expectations of what it can do exceeds its authorities and 

the resources that are provided to it, particularly—— 

Ms. CASTOR. I think I understand your question that you need 

greater authority. 

Mr. MENEZES. Particularly on the resiliency, though, however, we 

are leading the interagency effort to model to determine how when 

we move toward—after restoration toward rebuild—— 

Ms. CASTOR. I am afraid it might be too late by that point if we 

are doing the modeling now, because we have the technology. The 

national labs and industry have all the tools at their disposal. But 

if we are just going to restore power the way it was, it is not going 

to work as well. 

I want to move on. I heard what you all said, you are committed 

to innovation, you are committed to diversity of sources, but everyVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
46 

thing going on at the Department of Energy just belies that fact 

when you look at the very significant proposed budget cuts by the 

Trump administration last year. A $2.7 billion decrease, including 

drastic cuts in clean energy, electric grid operations, next generation energy technologies. That is not a recipe for innovation. 

And then, thank goodness, the FERC unanimously rejected Secretary Perry’s proposal yesterday to give financial relief to some 

sources of energy when we need really a competitive wholesale 

market. And resiliency and reliability doesn’t mean you just double-down on what has been our energy sources of the past, but to 

look at all the energy sources for the future. 

Then you add on the Department of Energy’s backpedaling on 

our very popular and cost-effective energy efficiency appliance 

standards. That is not a recipe for innovation and diversity of 

sources. I hear what you are saying, that the policy is dominance, 

but I think that all of this added together is taking America backwards at a time when other countries and businesses across the 

world are investing. Thank goodness America still remains the 

leader in research and development, and there is fantastic research 

going on in the national labs, in our higher education institutions, 

and with business. 

But I think when you backpedal, when you say, we are not going 

to invest in the science that we have in the past, you are just weakening our ability to compete with companies like China. They want 

to be the world leader now. And it is no secret. 

All of that put together, Secretary Brouillette, how do we keep 

America’s competitive edge in all of these sources of energy, all of 

the technology, when policies of the Trump administration seem to 

be going backwards? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Thank you for your question. I hear your concern, I am not sure I agree with every premise, but I do hear your 

concern in your argument. Let’s just start with the NOPR, with regard to what the Secretary in proposing a rule to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the point of that rule was not to pick 

winners and losers as it has been described or to subsidize in certain cases certain forms of energy. What it was proposed for and 

the rationale behind it was to preserve baseload generation, which 

provides, in many respects, the resiliency and the reliability that 

we currently enjoy with our grid. 

Ms. CASTOR. But weren’t you then asking customers across the 

country to pay for more expensive sources of energy, and that 

would cost customers billions and billions of dollars? That doesn’t 

seem like a path for innovation and diversity sources. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. Well, in some respect, it wasn’t the Department of Energy asking, it was the people who actually run the 

grid, the PJM folks, in particular, and others who were asking for 

changes to their market rules because they, themselves, acknowledge, in certain cases, the providers of this type of electricity are 

not properly compensated for the services that they provide. So 

they have sought changes as well to their own market rules, and 

that is what we were participating in, was that conversation to do 

exactly that. 

So it wasn’t an effort to subsidize dirty fuels or to take a step 

backward, if you will, it was to provide a more appropriate comVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
47 

pensation for services that are provided each and every day. So 

that was the intent behind that rule. 

With regard to the budget and the science and the innovation 

that the Department is currently undertaking, in certain cases, 

while we may see some reductions in certain areas of the Department, it is the focus of the Secretary and the focus of the administration to have the Department focus on basic science rather than 

applied science. So to the extent you see some reductions in areas, 

it may be that you are looking at reductions in applied science, 

simply because we want the focal point to be basic research, which 

we feel is a very strong point of the Department of Energy. We feel 

that they do that very, very well, and we want to encourage those 

activities. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much 

for our panel for being here, it is very, very interesting and informative, so I appreciate your time here today. 

In recent Congresses, this committee has taken steps to give 

DOE new authorities that modernize its energy security missions. 

Response for enacting legislation in the FAST Act to give the agency additional critical infrastructure protection authorities, particularly for the electric grid. We also enhance authorities for emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions. 

And in my district, again, to give you an idea, northwest, west 

central Ohio, I have got 60,000 manufacturing jobs and a couple— 

several years ago, not too many years ago, we had a very, very 

tough winter, and we were fearful that we might have some energy 

disruptions. When you got 60,000 type manufacturing jobs out 

there doing everything from float glass to steel and everything else, 

you just can’t shut down lines. So we are heavily dependent on 

baseload capacity out there to make sure we can keep things running. 

It is also interesting in the last year, year and a half, that they 

have been out, not only talking with all of my folks from my electric co-ops to my municipal electrics and you go on down the line, 

that not only talking with customers, but also the individuals that 

work and run the facilities. There is a lot more concern out there 

about cyber attacks, and what could be happening out there. 

And, Mr. Menezes, I understand that you have received the 

Cyber and Emergency Energy Supply Responses functions in the 

Department; is that correct? 

Mr. MENEZES. With respect to the program in the Office of—— 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask you this: In your experience with the 

emergency responses in recent months, do you believe the Department should have a larger role in energy and cyber emergencies at 

this time? 

Mr. MENEZES. Again, it has been my experience since being with 

the Department that the expectations do exceed the authorities 

that we have. We see it in all emergency response across the board. 

We are looked at to provide answers and expertise, which we have 

in support of rebuild efforts, protection efforts, et cetera, as I mentioned. We are on the NFC, which gives us insight into certain 

48 

classified information that others do not have. And, yet, when you 

look at our authorities, it is limited. 

Mr. LATTA. All right. Let me ask you this then. As you talk about 

that limited authority that you have, are you committed to work 

with this committee to identify and enhance your authorities, and 

really work with us to say, what are the tools out there that you 

need to have to make sure that you can do your job? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, sir. We are committed to working with this 

committee as long as you let us bring our OMB counterparts with 

us. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. General Klotz, again, as from the other members 

on the committee, thank you very much for your service to our Nation. And with your responsibilities to cover emergency response relating to radiological emergencies. Is that correct? 

Mr. KLOTZ. That is correct, Congressman. Although, most of the 

work in terms of emergency response is a responsibility of state 

and local responders or National Guard. Our primary function is 

to support them by, one, training them, and two, being there with 

the tools that are necessary to measure and characterize any radiological or nuclear release. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up with that then. When you are out 

there training, especially the National Guard and local responders, 

because that is, again, who I hear from the most because I am out 

in my district all the time. Do they feel that they are getting the 

information that they need to have from you all to make sure that 

they can get the tools that they need for these responses that they 

might have to deal with? 

Mr. KLOTZ. Sir, the feedback I get is very, very positive, that this 

is a very useful course. In fact, we usually get asked to come back 

and either expand the number of people we reach in our particular 

courses, or go through a program of training the trainer so that 

they can do that themselves. 

I might add, one of the other things we do is because this is the 

season for large sporting events, we are also the organization that 

goes out and measures the radioactive characteristic picture of a 

given community before an event. So if there is an event, we can 

very quickly home in on that. So you may see, from time to time, 

a helicopter or aircraft flying over areas where that is being done, 

that is the NNSA out there doing that work. 

Mr. LATTA. With my last 17 seconds that I have left, just to follow up real quick. Now, who pays for the local response? Is it 

through you or—— 

Mr. KLOTZ. No, I think that that comes through a different funding stream. What we basically do is we fund the training, as I said. 

We have teams at each of our national laboratories, and I mean the 

broader DOE complex of national laboratories, which can be deployed with equipment to support state and local or military responders, and so we fund that part of the process. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time 

has expired. 

Mr. UPTON. Yes. Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I thank all of the Secretaries for being here this morning. Secretary Brouillette, thank you 

for reiterating a point that Secretary Perry made when he testified 

49 

before this subcommittee last year. Spurring energy innovation is 

an essential part of the Department’s core mission. 

The national labs are often rightly called the crown jewels of 

America’s research infrastructure. They produce major achievements in advancing science, energy innovation, and national security. Much of their work is cross-cutting and promotes all of these 

goals. I saw this firsthand when I visited Brookhaven last year. 

When Secretary Perry appeared at our hearing earlier, he expressed his support for ARPA-E. However, the budget request from 

the administration, which included the virtual elimination of 

ARPA-E and 70 percent cut to the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, did not reflect, in my opinion, the importance 

of innovation in DOE’s role in supporting the next generation energy technology. 

So, Secretary Brouillette, do you believe a robust R&D budget, as 

well as a qualified DOE workforce, are critical to maintaining U.S. 

leadership in science, energy, and security? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, I do. Do you want me to elaborate? 

Mr. TONKO. Just quickly. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. Yes, sir, I do. Sir, as you and your colleagues begin this budget process, it is going to be a negotiation between you and the White House, and I just want to assure you that 

at some point, the Congress and the White House will come to an 

appropriate funding number for those labs, and we will honor those 

commitments. 

Mr. TONKO. I would hope the message from the agency will be 

forceful—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. In making certain that progress is 

the—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO [continuing]. Is the mission here. As this committee 

and DOE’s leadership consider the future of the Department, can 

you explain your vision for the R&D portfolio for the next 3 years? 

What are the goals and what are the priorities? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. I will also defer to Under Secretary 

Dabbar, as the new Under Secretary of Science, he has some specific things that he would like to share with you. But I can tell you 

that we will continue the progress that has already been made by 

those 17 national laboratories, they are, in fact, crown jewels. I appreciate the fact that you would take the time to visit Brookhaven. 

I would also like to invite you to attend and to visit the rest of the 

laboratory system so that you can see firsthand the rest of the 

work that is being done there. 

With that, I will defer to Under Secretary Dabbar. 

Mr. DABBAR. I thank you, Congressman Tonko, and I remember 

following your energy work prior to this particular role throughout 

New York. Across the whole complex, including New York, the Department is very much focused on innovation. As you know, 

Brookhaven is one of our premiere laboratories, as well as our 

other complex that we have through NNSA, SPRU, West Valley 

through NYSERDA, there is a lot of focus that we have to the 

state, and of course, to the whole Nation. 

50 

The Office of Science is obviously the preeminent position in the 

world across all the different areas of physical science. The particular areas that we are focused on, as were mentioned earlier, 

was on exoscale computing, that has the ability for us to really 

move the ball forward across a number of the areas of physical 

science. In the areas of particle physics, we are obviously moving 

forward, and LBNF/DUNE, which is out of Chicago, as well as a 

number of other high energy particle physics that spread in Michigan from Chairman Upton’s area. 

So there is a number of areas that we are focused on. I also mentioned batteries with Brookhaven, the chemistry side, which we 

think has particular potential advantages across a number of energy areas. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am particularly 

concerned about the proposed elimination of the Weatherization 

Assistance Program, which is among the Department’s expired authorizations. And I urge this committee to examine reauthorization 

as part of this effort. We just experienced dangerous winter conditions throughout much of the country. Wind chills were as low as 

negative 30 degrees for sustained days in my hometown in upstate 

New York. In the Adirondack to the north of my district, the temperature, in a number of places, never got above zero degrees for 

several days. People deserve a response from a weatherization program; those especially who live in poverty, who live paycheck to 

paycheck and still have a difficult time providing for their energy 

cost. 

Not only are the energy efficiency benefits from WAP critical to 

low income families budgets, but these homes are often unhealthy 

and unsafe. 

Through WAP, DOE provides funding to states, tribes, and U.S. 

territories. So whether it is the weatherization program or the 

State Energy Program, do you believe DOE should play a role in 

supporting state energy offices and the work they do? Senator 

Brouillette or Senator—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, again, just to echo the comments of the Deputy Secretary, we look forward to working with this committee and 

the appropriators, to reach an appropriate number. The organization is alive and well now at DOE under the CR, and we look forward to working with a number and then carrying out the intent 

of Congress on that. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Secretary. And last year the House 

passed the reauthorization of state energy programs. Would the 

Department welcome Congress taking a look at how to improve the 

weatherization program? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. I believe my time is up, but I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. UPTON. Time is up. Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess probably, 

Brouillette, it is to you on this. If I could just get this question out, 

where I really want to go. I have been over to the NETL Laboratory in Morgantown. I know Mike Doyle has got a facility up in the 

Pittsburgh area, and we have one in Morgantown. There has been 

a request to do a mission alignment study under DOE. Can you 

give me an update on where that might stand? 

51 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. With regard to the structure of the labs or—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. Over the years, people talk about consolidation. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And I think the uncertainty is still swirling there 

to give them comfort. Secretary Chu had said there will not be a 

consolidation at Morgantown with anyone else. Mooney said the 

same thing. I am just curious—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. And I am unaware of any plan to consolidate 

those two facilities. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. We are looking at missions throughout the Department. It could be that we utilize NETL’s resources in both locations to attack a singular problem, but I am aware of no plan in 

terms of a reorganization to combine the two organizations. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. To the core, last month when we had 

a hearing with DOE, some folks that we were talking, it opened up 

a different subject, and that was the importing of energy from Canada, particularly in the northeast. I was unaware of that. I think 

most of the people here in this group in Congress were unaware 

of the amount; 76 gigawatts of power coming in from that. 

My concern was—76 gigawatts of power, on average, may be 100 

power plants that aren’t existing in America because of that, bringing in Canadian-subsidized utilities. I want people to understand 

the impact of that. 

Just if you take at NEI’s, their own website, with a nuclear, they 

are talking about, for each nuclear power plant, it generates 

around $16 million of taxes, local taxes, and to the Federal Government; it is $67 million for each one. We are short about 100 power 

plants because importing the Canadian-subsidized or governmentowned, where they are creating excess electricity. 

I am curious, from DOE’s perspective, when the negotiations are 

underway under NAFTA, or when they get taken place, will this 

be taken into consideration so that we might be able to see some 

consideration for that where we are supporting Canadian energy 

producers rather than American? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, regarding—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It shifts over to you then. 

Mr. MENEZES. First of all, I definitely agree with your comments 

on the amount of energy that we actually import from Canada, it 

is a huge amount, and it is one of our largest trading partners in 

energy. Most of it is into the tight power pools in the northeast, 

it doesn’t surprise anyone where. Regarding—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. My concern is that when we do that, that means 

we are not—our local tax base is—it is non-existent. There are the 

things that take care of our schools, our roads, our infrastructure. 

We are supporting the infrastructure of Canada rather than having 

100 power plants in the United States. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes. And our research is aimed toward smaller, 

like small modular nuclear, for example, as well as I had mentioned before, some of the smaller coal facilities, the low emission, 

zero emission coal facilities. This would allow you to put smaller 

units closest to the load pocket. And whereas it is difficult to build 

interstate transmission lines, as we know, but if you can’t increase 

52 

the transmission lines, you can at least begin to site clean generation closer to the load pocket. That would minimize our dependency 

on interstate transmission—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. If I could reclaim—I am holding my time here. 

As long as we are continuing to import something that is government-owned, and it is cheaper when it comes in here, they are competing unfairly with America energy producers. 

All I am asking is that when we hit with NAFTA, that we have 

some discussion about the importing of all of this 76 gigawatts of 

Canadian power at the expense of American jobs. 

Mr. MENEZES. You have our commitment, and we are certainly 

monitoring the NAFTA situation. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Congressman, if I could add just real quickly. 

You do have our commitment on that. The Secretary did initiate 

a conversation with Minister Carr of Canada and his counterpart 

in Mexico. Recently, he held a meeting in Houston, Texas, among 

the three energy ministers, I will commit to you that we will ensure that this issue is discussed in those conversations. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES [presiding]. Mr. Loebsack is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all of you 

for being here today, obviously, and I always learn a lot, I don’t get 

to ask questions until the end here, but it is really great for me 

to listen to my colleagues ask questions and to hear your answers, 

I do appreciate that very much. But I want to follow up on what 

Mr. Tonko asked about weatherization. 

First, I just have to say for the life of me, I cannot understand 

why anybody could possibly propose dramatic, drastic slashes in a 

weatherization program as this administration did, it is completely 

beyond me. If anybody has ever, as I have, visited any of the local 

community action programs, for example, that implement weatherization programs and gone to homes of seniors or low income folks 

or disabled folks who have benefited from weatherization, and it is 

not just in the winter, it can be in the summer as well in either 

the midwest or in the southern parts of our country, we can see 

that there is job creation. They employ local folks to weatherize 

homes. Sometimes they have even high school kids, for example, 

who are trying to learn a trade who participate in this kind of a 

program. 

So for the life of me, I just don’t understand why there was this 

proposed cut on the part of the administration. And Mr. 

Brouillette, sorry, I was not here when you were here or on this 

committee, I should say. Can you give me some justification or rationale as to why those cuts were proposed in the first place? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, I don’t think it is because we disagree 

with the ultimate goal of those programs. And I can’t speak to your 

specific concern on the specific program or this specific amount that 

you are proposing—there are better ways, sometimes there are different ways to achieve the same outcomes. And I can commit to you 

that we at DOE are attempting to do those things. 

I was just fortunate enough to attend the solar decathlon out in 

the western part of the U.S., and I saw many of the kids that you 

were referencing in your comments. They built homes that were 

53 

energy efficient; they built homes that were safe; they built homes 

that were frankly astounding in their technological advance. We 

want to continue to support those types of activities. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Can we get your commitment that you will press 

as hard as you possibly can—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK [continuing]. On this front? 

I realize it won’t be—make the final decision, but—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. It is always a negotiated effort, sir, but you 

have my commitment. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Because it is important, as it is with so many 

other programs, that we get that commitment from you folks as 

part of the administration. 

And with respect to the reorganization that is being proposed, 

how will that play out when it comes to something like this to 

make sure that the weatherization program—let’s assume that we 

do get adequate funding for it—that it is implemented properly and 

that it continues as it has been? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. I don’t see any changes. The reorganization does not fundamentally alter or change the direction of 

these particular programs that were set up by Congress. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. That is good to know. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. We are simply changing an organizational 

chart and providing a different structure by which we manage the 

agency. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

I would like to go back also, if I could, to the question having to 

do with storage for electricity, if I can, Mr. Dabbar. Is that how you 

pronounce it? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Naval Academy grad, you said? Is that correct? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes. My stepson and his wife are both Naval 

Academy grads and Active Duty Marines at the moment. So thank 

you for your service. 

But it is true that Texas does produce the most wind energy of 

any state. But Iowa produces the largest percentage of its electricity from wind, and it is upwards of 37, 38 percent. Could you 

give us some kind of a timeframe to follow up on Mr. Olson’s question? Because it is great that we are seeing—you mentioned beyond 

lithium—a lot of R&D, a lot of work going into how we are going 

to store this electricity so that we can do more with respect to wind 

energy or with respect to solar energy. But can you give us a timeframe down the road what kind of number of years we are talking 

about? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, Congressman. The time is now. It is one of the 

most exciting areas within the Office of Science, dealing with applied energy in terms of developments of something that can be 

sent to the grid. 

I mentioned a number of technologies in my previous conversation. I won’t go through it. But the list of companies that we are 

working with specifically on those various different types of technologies is vast. We are working with big companies such as 

United Technologies and Dow and Johnson Controls and General 

54 

Motors. We are working with startup companies. The list that is 

across our various labs that deal with chemistry in the battery area 

is, give or take, around 80 different companies today. 

And so there are various different types of technologies that have 

different uses in terms of weight-to-power ratio. And some are better for transportation. Some are better for utility scale. And so we 

intend to push that very hard on the basis of what we have been 

developing, and so we look forward to doing that promptly. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you so much. 

Thank you so much, and I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Kinzinger is recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

being here, again, spending some time with us on these important 

issues. 

I would like to start by commending all of you, led by the Secretary, for your renewed focus on the vital role of the DOE, our 

science and energy workforce, and our energy resources have to 

play in national security. It has been an area that I think has been 

way underdiscussed when it comes to issues of countering Russia, 

countering our enemies overseas, et cetera. It is something I have 

often stressed in this committee, and I look forward to continuing 

to work with all of you on it. 

To Mr. Brouillette and Menezes, did you guys get the hardest 

names possible to come here? I thought Kinzinger was tough. 

In the hearing with Secretary Perry a few months ago, I raised 

concerns that DOE was not always fully represented or engaged on 

energy matters pursued by the State Department due to the establishment of an energy bureau at State. 

Will you discuss the value of DOE engagement internationally. 

When the U.S. meets with other nations’ energy ministers, why is 

it important for DOE to be at the table? Either one of you can 

start. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. Well, sir, as I leave for Saudi Arabia and 

UAE tomorrow, I can speak firsthand to the importance of those 

conversations. I did return from several overseas trips. I represented the President and the Secretary in Kazakhstan; Tokyo, 

Japan; and Santiago, Chile, just recently. 

Each one of those conversations brought new ideas. They brought 

a richness. And, candidly, I know some concerns were raised here 

about U.S. interests. It gave us an opportunity to articulate and, 

in some cases, to protect U.S. interests with regard to energy development and security. 

We value those conversations very deeply. The Secretary does. I 

do. We do have a very robust and a very aggressive international 

affairs department within our organization. It is led by an assistant secretary. He is not yet confirmed or she is not yet confirmed. 

I don’t know who the nominee will be, but it will come forward 

shortly to the U.S. Senate. But we hope to have that position filled 

very, very shortly. We are going to continue these conversations 

around the world. 

With regard to our State Department colleagues, we interact 

with them very closely. I never travel internationally without collaborating with the State Department and, in many cases, integrating our work. So that process—— 

55 

Mr. KINZINGER. All of us, when we travel, we work with State. 

But do you send silos? Are there areas we need to break through 

those silos where there is duplicative action or counter action? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, we work closely with our State Department 

colleagues, as the deputy said. We are trying to enhance our collaboration so that we can have much fuller communications between the two. Because in the past, there really has been a break, 

at least with respect to the energy component at the State Department. There appear to be sometimes conflicting missions. And so 

we are now working, taking positive steps to try to see and understand what they do. We know what we do. And so we hope that 

we can work together to achieve some efficiencies and really gain 

an understanding of what they are doing and what they hope to 

accomplish. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Good. Thank you. I am also on this committee, 

but I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, so I 

have traveled a lot in that capacity. And it really does blow me 

away the number of times. And I get that we have a government 

but that I see sometimes State countering the message of other 

parts of government. So I think the more you guys can coordinate 

and work together, the more beneficial it is not for DOE or State, 

but for America. 

General Klotz, and thank you for your service to the greatest 

branch of the military. On the nuclear security front, I understand 

that DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration have 

done considerable work to enhance detection of radiological smuggling from former Soviet states, along with almost 60 partner countries. Can you provide an update about the process of the Nuclear 

Smuggling Detection and Deterrence program and what you are 

doing to ensure that we can safely transition to a model where 

countries fully fund the sustainment and maintenance of the equipment we supply? And I want to add on that, that is something that 

people don’t think about much anymore because it is just out of our 

purview, so—— 

Mr. KLOTZ. Well, thank you very much for that question. The nuclear detection and smuggling program is one of the most important ways in which we try to work to make sure that special nuclear materials do not get in the hands of bad guys, whether the 

bad guys are a rogue nation that wants to develop a nuclear weapon or a terrorist that wants to use nuclear radiological materials 

in an improvised bomb to sow terror and panic. 

We have worked, as you said, with a number of different countries. Our business model, basically, is to go in, deploy technology 

that has been largely developed through our national laboratories, 

including the non-NNSA national laboratories, train the individuals who operate this, help them for a period of basically 5 years. 

And over that 5-year period, the objective is to transition the maintenance, the recapitalization, and the training necessary to operate 

that to the host countries. 

We have sent a couple reports, since I have been in the seat on, 

where we are doing that, when the progress is. And I would be 

happy to make sure your staff gets the most recent copy of that. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Again, thank you all for being here. 

And I yield back. 

56 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Schrader, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Brouillette, the administration last year proposed privatizing 

transmission assets owned by the Bonneville Power Administration. The proposal to sell off BPA’s assets represents about threequarters of the grid in the Northwest, was supposedly a major savings reform effort offered by the administration in its fiscal year 

2018 budget. As you can imagine, those of us in the Pacific Northwest are pretty concerned, Chairman Walden, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and myself here on the committee. 

Frankly, BPA manages the majority of the transmission in our 

neck of the woods. It is clean energy. It seems very misguided since 

Federal hydropower actually makes us money, doesn’t cost us 

money, some upfront money, but with interest it gets paid back. I 

don’t understand the logic of that. We are totally against that idea, 

very concerned about that, would hope that your agency as well as 

the administration might commit here and now not to pursue that 

in this coming budget. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Thank you, sir, for that question. I am aware 

of the concerns of the delegation throughout the Northwest. I have 

met with Chairman Walden as well as several Senators to discuss 

this issue in my confirmation hearings. And as I said there, and 

I will say here again publicly, the Congress really does control 

whether or not we actually sell anything with regard to those assets. So without some statutory change by the Congress, I can assure you that nothing will be sold. 

Mr. SCHRADER. All right. I appreciate that. I assume you yourself 

think it is a wise asset to retain? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. It has provided cheap energy in the Northwest. We enjoy our relationship with the PMAs. We are looking at 

them very closely, frankly, to learn from them as we address issues 

like cybersecurity and other matters. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Sure. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. DOE is uniquely positioned with both a 

science agency and a research agency. We are also an asset manager and owner through the BPA, and others, SWPA and WAPA, 

and whatnot. But we enjoy our relationship. We look forward to 

working closely with them. 

Mr. SCHRADER. That seems to fit into all the above energy strategies using different types of components. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Along the same lines, BPA currently reports to 

you, as I understand it. And given the size of the agency and the 

importance, as I just outlined, to the 12 million people in the Pacific Northwest, we consider it very important to have the ear of 

someone higher up in the agency. There was a proposal, as I understand, to change that. Maybe have BPA report another under secretary or something along those lines. Could you commit today to 

maintaining the current organizational structure with regard to 

how BPA reports directly to the deputy? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, sir, I would be hesitant to commit to any 

future plans we might have simply because I want the opportunity 

to review the entire department. The PMAs have reported to the 

deputy secretary for some time. There was a time in the past when 

57 

they reported actually to an assistant secretary within the Department. So I would like the opportunity to continue reviewing the department and perhaps report to you on my findings and work with 

you on any future changes that we might make or we may not 

make. 

Mr. SCHRADER. If you could commit maybe to at least consulting 

the delegation before you made a final decision—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCHRADER [continuing]. We could give a little input. Given 

the nature of energy security these days, it is more and more important, I think, to make sure we have direct access to people and 

power that make these—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I can assure you they will always have direct 

access. And I will give you a commitment to work closely with you. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. 

Mr. Menezes, given the climactic changing events we have had 

this past year, huge floods, huge hurricanes, the big fires out West 

all the way from the Canadian border down to California, very concerned about grid reliability and the hardening of the grid. There 

seems to be diverse opinions about what that hardening the grid 

means. Some would say it is a lot more renewable energy. Others 

would say making sure we have the redundancy and the assets we 

have on the ground, as was alluded to in some earlier questions, 

or rebuilt to withstand some of these huge events, these devastating nature events that we haven’t seen in the past. 

Where is the Department going with regard to reliability? Where 

are we going to put most of our efforts and our funding? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, currently, we had the modern grid consortium, the laboratory consortium, where we have been modeling how 

to make grids more resilient. We are bringing that to bear in Puerto Rico where we are going to make recommendations when we 

begin to rebuild and restore in Puerto Rico. 

The advent of integrated microgrids, for example, is a key component of that. In New York and other states they have been looking 

at this. And our labs have been doing modeling. And in Puerto 

Rico, we are actually going to find three pilot microgrids so that we 

can bring the actual research that the labs have been doing and 

put them into action in Puerto Rico. In my response to Representative Castor, we had run out of time. But I wanted to tell the committee that we are actually using the work of the labs to actually 

model and to build more resilient grid structure. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our panel 

for being with us today. 

The United States is currently positioned well to utilize our vast 

energy resources, including oil, natural gas, and coal, as a positive 

geostrategic tool to advance our Nation’s interests globally. It is 

also important that we enable domestic nuclear technologies to 

compete in the international market to assure we have a seat at 

the table on critical issues relating to peaceful use of civilian nuclear technologies and nonproliferation. 

58 

The Department of Energy plays an important role in that process through what is known as the Part 810 approval process. Recently, Secretary Perry affirmed his commitment to streamline the 

regulatory review process. NNSA is responsible for overseeing the 

approval, while consulting the Office of Nuclear Energy and the 

DOE general counsel in addition to interagency coordination. 

So, Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Secretary Menezes and Administrator Klotz, do you recognize the importance of U.S. engagement in the global civil nuclear market? And can you assure me 

that you will continue to implement greater efficiency in this program? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, on both accounts. We recognize full 

well. We are engaged in several conversations around the world, in 

essence to create opportunities for our civil nuclear programs and 

our industry partners throughout the U.S. 

I will defer to General Klotz, perhaps, for a more detailed discussion on 810 and NNSA’s role. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. 

Mr. KLOTZ. Congressman, I think the premise of your question 

is extraordinarily important, and that is if we want to be leaders 

in nuclear security, nuclear safety, nuclear safeguards, and nonproliferation, then we need to have a seat at the table. And the 

only way you get a seat at the table is to be a knowledge leader 

in this particular industry. 

You also touched on—we hear the frustrations from the commercial companies about how long it takes to do 810 processing, and 

we share that frustration. It is true the DOE and the NNSA are 

the stewards of this process, but we are not the owners of the process. And the long poles and the tent many times are outside our 

control. In particular for those countries which require a specific 

authorization, the State Department has to get assurances from 

the host government that the requirements will be followed by the 

host government. Sometimes those take 12, in some cases even 18 

months. 

So we are working very hard. We continue to work very hard in 

a process improvement program that you know about for the 810 

process. In the areas where we can cut down and make this much 

more streamline and efficient, we will continue to push on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Good. 

Mr. Menezes, do you have any comments to add to that, or do 

you concur with what they have said? 

Mr. MENEZES. I certainly concur with them. We at the DOE are 

uniquely positioned to see the importance of maintaining global 

leadership in this. And that was, frankly, part of our domestic electricity policy. Our 403 letter meant to ensure that our base load 

nuclear units continued to run economically, because we are losing 

the leadership certainly on the civilian side. And as we see other 

countries developing civilian nuclear fleets, we want to be there. 

We do not want to be on the sidelines. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Can any of you identify further policy and process 

options to assist our domestic nuclear industry to remain competitive in the international market? And we will just go right down 

the line with the three of you again. 

59 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sir, I think Under Secretary Dabbar wants to 

chime in, being a Navy nuke. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. DABBAR. Congressman, one additional point I think addresses that specific question is that the White House has actually convened a cross-agency group, specifically in these particular areas. 

And we have participated in that. But it also includes Defense, it 

includes State, and a number of other areas. And there are very 

specific verticals in the areas that you listed. They are being evaluated by groups. So participation in the fuel chain. Participation and 

commercialization on an international basis, on security of the fuel 

chain. And so we are participating and getting very much into the 

details, along with other members across agencies on this topic. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I don’t have time to get into my other question, because it is fairly long. Let me just paraphrase it real quickly 

and get your affirmation. 

LNG exports, big, big deal for us, big geopolitical leverage point 

for the United States. I have got legislation that is designed to help 

expedite the permitting process. I know the Secretary and I have 

talked about this. Are you folks committed to working with us to 

expedite this as well? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, we are. We have taken some initial 

steps. We look forward to working with the committee to further 

refine the permitting processes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Great. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Oh, Mr. Welch. I am sorry. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Brouillette and Mr. Menezes a few questions. Energy efficiency, incredibly important, enormous bipartisan 

support for it on this committee, a lot of leadership on both sides 

of the aisle. We are going to be hearing, I think from the next 

panel, about some things like master limited partnerships, like energy saving performance contracts. Mr. Kinzinger has been a big 

champion of those, along with me. So I will wait for the next panel. 

But one of the questions is about efficiency standards. And there 

is some debate on this because it does involve regulations. And 

there is general skepticism about regulations in the new administration, and some of it well-founded. But it is standards, like applying standards have been extremely helpful to industry and to consumers in saving money. And there is a number of deadlines that 

Congress had set for efficiency standards, and some estimates indicate that could be about a $43 billion annual savings by 2035. But 

the latest regulatory agenda, as I understand it, that has been released by DOE, removed the target completion date for these 

standards and put them in a, ‘‘longterm action section,’’ a category 

that OMB has said is specifically for rules where no action is really 

intended. And there have been five deadlines, I think, since 2017. 

So my question here is what is your position, and what do you 

intend to do to comply with the law to complete these rules by the 

established deadlines? 

And again, the premise of my question is that these rules actually are helpful to industry and helpful to consumers. We might 

60 

have some debate on it. But if the regulations are well-designed, 

then I think they achieve the positive goals of energy efficiency. So 

could you both comment on that? 

Mr. MENEZES. I am happy to start. Certainly, when I was here 

with the committee, energy efficiency and applying standards were 

a key part on the major legislation that we passed in 2005. And 

Congress set a lot of the deadlines that the Department had to 

meet. Some think that they were aggressive or not. But in my 2 

months since being there, a lot of things had been piling up and 

coming across my desk. And a couple of them are on the mandatory 

reports to Congress that this committee had put in the legislation 

back then to provide the very reports that you are probably looking 

at. 

I will be honest, I had not seen them before. And we very clearly 

set forth those deadlines that we had met, those that we still 

hadn’t met. And as you had said, we are not shy about it. We actually admit some of the difficulties that we have had. The goal is 

to, of course, meet the statutory deadlines and obligations. 

I know the other body is looking at some legislation that would 

give us a little flexibility, I think, to look at this to be able to meet 

those deadlines. But the Department is committed to following the 

law to have these standards in place, according to the deadlines 

that are set in the statute. And I know that you have the same report that I just reviewed probably a few days ago. And I have been 

in discussions with the general counsel’s office on how we can improve this. 

Mr. WELCH. I think I am being reassured here. You are telling 

me that full speed ahead on meeting the standards, not a detour 

to slow walking the standards or not implementing them altogether. 

Mr. MENEZES. You do have our assurance of that. It is quite 

stark when you see our very own reports that are very clear on 

when we have met them and when we haven’t. 

Mr. WELCH. And I am taking from this a full-throated support 

for efficiency standards and the benefits that they provide in savings to consumers and, of course, incidental reduction in carbon 

emissions. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, certainly, in meeting our statutory deadlines, you have my full-throated support on that, because the hallmark of this administration is to comply with the laws that are applied in the Department. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Menezes and Mr. Dabbar, you are responsible for some 

scientific and nuclear office labs that are examining hardening of 

the grid from a tax such as electromagnetic pulse, EMP, incidents, 

which is something I have been harping on ever since I arrived in 

Congress. 

What activities are priorities for the Department to ensure the 

industry can benefit from your research and infrastructure capabilities? 

61 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, as we have said in response to other questions on this, our labs are doing quite a bit of research on making 

the grid more resilient, particularly with respect to the EMPs, and 

the GMDs for that matter. We have been working with Oak Ridge 

and EPRI in the industry to identify ways to ensure that we had 

the sufficient transformers necessary in the event that there be 

such an event. Our laboratory consortium is also looking at this 

issue. And that, together with our efforts in cyber, we hope will 

eventually, you know, provide us the information to make the grid 

even more resilient. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Dabbar? 

Mr. DABBAR. I have nothing more to add on that, sir. 

Mr. LONG. OK. EMPs can happen in nature or through malicious 

acts, correct? 

Mr. DABBAR. That is correct. 

Mr. LONG. Pardon? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And, General Klotz, the broad crosscutting nature 

of the Department’s mission is evident in my home State of Missouri. The National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, 

maintains the Kansas City National Security Campus, which is responsible for manufacturing and procuring components for the nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, the Department of Energy 

helps support the University of Missouri’s MURR nuclear research 

reactor. The MURR reactor is seeking approval to produce lifesaving medical isotopes in partnership with NNSA and is currently 

studying a partnership with NNSA to convert the reactor to use 

low-enriched uranium instead of highly enriched uranium. 

Will you please describe NNSA’s programs to convert research 

reactors to this low-enriched uranium? 

Mr. KLOTZ. I would be delighted to. But first of all, thanks for 

mentioning our Kansas City plant, which produces all the nonnuclear components that go into a nuclear weapon, which is about 

80, 90 percent of what goes in there. And for members who have 

not had a chance to visit that, it is an example of the kinds of 

things that can be achieved by recapitalization of this 40-, 50-yearold enterprise that I talked about earlier. 

But specifically for the reactor conversion, as I said earlier, sir, 

one of our strategies is to prevent terrorists from getting their 

hands on special nuclear material or rogue nations getting their 

hands on special nuclear materials from which they could make an 

explosive device. One of the ways we do that is to help research reactors and other institutions stop using highly enriched uranium, 

which can be used in a nuclear weapon, for the research purposes 

to use low-enriched uranium. 

We have already worked with, converted, or verified the shutdown of over 100 facilities worldwide in transitioning either no 

longer using any uranium or using low-enriched uranium. And our 

current efforts include close cooperation with Missouri University 

Research Reactor, MURR, to qualify a new high-density, low-enriched uranium fuel that can be used to convert that particular reactor. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And what proliferation challenges keep you 

awake at night? 

62 

Mr. KLOTZ. I think—that is a good question, and I think about 

it a lot. My sense is nuclear terrorism remains among one of the 

most significant threats to the security of this country, to the security of our allies, and the security of our partners. So making sure 

that we have done all we can do to lock up, safeguard these materials that are an important part of our civil nuclear industry, both 

here and abroad, is one of the things I worry the most about. 

Mr. LONG. And how does a highly enriched uranium conversion 

program fit within NNSA’s mission relating to nonproliferation? 

Mr. KLOTZ. Well, again, it is one of many arrows in the quiver 

or one of many of a multifaceted strategy to make sure that those 

special nuclear materials, like highly enriched uranium, their use 

is minimized and that people convert to using low-enriched uranium or other types of phenomenon to do their research. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary Brouillette, the Department’s 17 national laboratories 

are the boots on the ground, so to speak, that execute the activities 

that enable DOE to fulfill its missions. Have you engaged with the 

lab directors to assure the Department’s alignment, or alignment 

readjustment, will be able to fully unleash the potential of the national labs? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I have. We have done that both directly and as a collaborative group effort. We have within the Department of Energy known as a lab operations board. And we have 

a smaller executive council made up of lab directors that both advise me and the Secretary. I have consulted with the lab directors, 

and I think you will hear from one on another panel about this reorganization plan and perhaps what it should look like. And they 

have submitted ideas, many of which we have accepted. 

Mr. BUCSHON. OK. So then you can probably share some of the 

recommendations from the lab directors that were provided to you 

and some of the specifics of that with the committee? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. Absolutely. Yes, sir, I think I can. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Just for the record, as we look to maybe a reauthorization, that is maybe some information on how the labs in the 

Department—— 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. Would you like me to do that formally, 

sir, in writing? Would you like me to—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes, that would be great. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I will do that. I will follow up with 

you. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thanks. 

This is for a number of people, but a frequent concern raised by 

DOE labs and contractors relates to the burdens of unnecessary 

oversight that detracts from effective and cost-effective mission performance on the other hand, sound oversights necessary to ensure 

safety and security and protect taxpayer interests. The development of mature contractor assurance systems has been identified 

in congressional reports and in this committee’s work as critical to 

63 

enabling a more efficient oversight framework that will help unleash the benefits of the labs and other programmatic work. 

So I guess, Secretary Brouillette, you can comment first. What 

can you tell us about what you are doing to ensure more mature 

contractor assurance system? Basically, effective and efficient oversight versus onerous and top-down oversight. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, we have looked at the design standards 

within the Department. For instance, I will just give you an example. We just went and visited a facility in Oak Ridge that is a multimillion, billion dollar project. What we are looking for is making 

sure that our processes internally inside of the Department of Energy don’t require certain things of contractors that either slow 

down the process or make things just exorbitant in terms of cost. 

So if we are going to build, for instance, a simple office building, 

something you have seen a million times in your practice, it is simply there to house reception staff, we probably don’t need a 90 percent design build plan in place before we allow the contractor to 

begin the initial stages of that work. If we are going to talk about 

a nuclear facility, however, we want to be very, very careful. It is 

looking at simple things like that and working with the contractors 

directly that we hope to bring some efficiencies and perhaps some 

better processes toward the Department’s efforts. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Anybody else have any comment? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, sir. I will go ahead and add the reference that 

the Deputy Secretary made about the lab operations board. And 

one of the initiatives that the Secretary wanted to take onboard 

and for us to execute on, and we are now in the second wave of 

that, is basically a management and an efficiency review at a very 

specific level along the lines of what he just described. And the lab 

operations board actually includes lab directors, people from inside 

DOE headquarters, contractors across all of our various different 

labs and programs. And what we have been doing is looking at not 

only general points, but actually very specific points along the lines 

of what stands in the way of accomplishing the mission. 

I will give you an example of one of the things that came up and 

we have changed. The labs were required to submit 15 different 

human resources reports a month. And what we decided was do we 

need all 15 of those or were there some overlap? As you could probably guess, there was some overlap. And we have actually consolidated some of those. And I believe we are down to 10. So it is 

shorter than 15 a month, and we are now down to 10 a month. 

But we are doing that in collaboration, to your particular question, with the lab directors for us to review what is really required 

in terms of our oversight requirements for, in this case, human resources, but want to make certain that it is not overlapping, that 

things that had been added over the years were maybe duplicative. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. And I would say I know a number of people 

have talked about budgetary concerns. And from my viewpoint, 

every Federal agency that does this, that makes themselves more 

effective and efficient, also utilizes taxpayer resources in a more effective and efficient way. And in that vein may not necessarily 

need as many resources. 

With that, Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

64 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Secretary Brouillette, one of the questions I want to talk about 

is budget itemization and micromanagement. The Department has 

a heavy reliance on outside contractors using M&O contracts to 

conduct DOE’s research and development activities that manage 

your facilities and perform environmental cleanup projects. Any 

time you have this government public-private type of relationship, 

it results in a high degree of transactional activities, both internally within the Department and externally with these outside entities. 

Recently, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, or CRENEL for short, identified transactional compliance and budget itemization, as they called it, as a 

costly burden that inhibits DOE from fully realizing the benefits of 

the contractor model. According to the CRENEL report, the chief 

financial officer maintains thousands of control points which, in 

turn, require management approval and disbursement at the expense of DOE’s overall efficiency. This is not something that rose 

on your watch, but it is something that has crept into the Department over years, if not decades. 

So my question is this, Secretary Brouillette: Do you acknowledge that the cost and burdens associated—or do you acknowledge 

the costs and burdens associated with budget itemization? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Will you work with the CFO and the relevant 

program offices to reduce this micromanagement policy? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I will. And I am familiar with the 

CRENEL report and its findings. And I look forward to working 

with the committee and the Congress overall to help implement 

those. 

Mr. FLORES. That was going to be my next point. To the extent 

that you need additional support from Congress to—if there is 

something Congress has done that has created that, then let us 

know and we will try to help fix that. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I will point those out. 

Mr. FLORES. My next question is for Under Secretary Menezes. 

This has to do with low-enriched uranium fuel. As you know, the 

new technology, nuclear reactors may use innovative fuels to improve reactor efficiency and safety. Currently, commercial nuclear 

fuel that is available is generally enriched below 5 percent. However, these new technology reactors may require fuel that is enriched beyond 5 percent. 

Your department maintains a significant stockpile of uranium, 

and DOE may be able to consider options to provide this enhanced 

nuclear fuel just as it does with university research reactors. Do 

you see a role for DOE to steward this type of nuclear fuel to assure that potential fuel access issues will not inhibit technological 

innovation from our Nation’s next generation nuclear engineers? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, sir, we do. And we look forward to working 

with you to get your input on how best to accomplish that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And since we are talking about reauthorization 

of the Department, I do have sort of a wildcard question as respects energy in this country and as respects reauthorization. 

65 

Secretary Brouillette, what keeps you awake at night, and how 

does it—with respect to energy, and how should we look at that 

with respect to reauthorization? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. What keeps me up at night, sir, at the moment is cybersecurity and its relation to the distribution of energy 

throughout the country. We are facing some significant challenges, 

both from internal sources here in the U.S. We are all familiar 

with the kid in the basement who plays at night. That is certainly 

a security concern. It is not the highest security concern. What we 

are seeing across the world increasingly are state actors who are 

taking very aggressive steps to infiltrate certain security components of our grid as well as our national pipeline infrastructure. 

And if I had to point to one thing that keeps me up at night, it 

would be that. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. General Klotz? 

Mr. KLOTZ. As I stated to an earlier question, the thing that 

keeps me up at night is the threat of nuclear terrorism. The devastating economic psychological consequences of a dirty bomb or a 

nuclear device set off by a rogue nation would be horrendous. And 

so everything we can do to make sure that we have safeguarded, 

locked up, secured special nuclear materials, reduced reliance on 

highly enriched uranium, plutonium, I think is a positive thing. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Secretary Dabbar? 

Mr. DABBAR. In my particular area, it is around Radcon conditions with workers at our environmental management sites. We are 

decontaminating and decommissioning a number of buildings that 

have plutonium contamination. We have a number of liquid waste 

tanks, some of which have had challenges over the years that we 

need to clean up and we need to put away into our permanent location. So obviously, handling the environment in those particular locations and making certain that the health and safety of the workers during those very challenging situations is paramount. 

Mr. FLORES. Secretary Menezes, 10 seconds. 

Mr. MENEZES. It is cybersecurity, a threat of our secrets and our 

proprietary information that has given rise to other countries being 

able to produce more than the very things that we have developed 

and that we hold the patents to. I find that very disturbing. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank each of you for your responses. 

Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First off, I want to align myself with the comments made by Mr. 

Shimkus earlier. The vitrified waste coming out through EM activities in the Hanford and Savannah River Site needs a longterm stable storage facility, and that stable storage facility is Yucca Mountain. Speaking of waste and residual, DOE’s plutonium disposition 

plan are relative responsibilities that you have regarding the Nation’s nonproliferation agreements. 

In 2003, the DOE, in my home State of South Carolina, entered 

into an agreement that DOE would remove one ton of plutonium 

from South Carolina within a decade. The deadline was repeatedly 

extended, and the DOE has yet to date fulfilled its legal obligations. In fact, due to a number of the previous administration’s policy, the deadline is further out of reach. The South Carolina DOE 

agreement included a stipulation that provides for financial penVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
66 

alties to be paid to South Carolina up to $100 million a year. The 

South Carolina attorney general has had to sue the Department of 

Energy to receive this payment, and further litigation is expected. 

Deputy Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with this issue? 

And what is the DOE’s plan to keep the commitment to the South 

Carolinians that are affected? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir, I am familiar with it. I have known 

General Wilson for many, many years, and he has raised it to my 

attention. Unfortunately, as it is subject to litigation, I am not allowed to comment in detail, but I am happy to follow up with you 

and your office as we move through this pending litigation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So talking about waste and talking about plutonium, rather, we spent a lot of money on MOX at Savannah River 

Site. And there was a report that was issued by the Department 

transmitted to Congress September 14 of 2016. It was called ‘‘An 

Updated Performance Baseline for the MOX Facility at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.’’ I say mislabeled because this Department did not file, as we require in the fiscal 2016 NDAA, its 

own order 413.3B for setting project baselines and updated baselines. 

So do you believe, Mr. Deputy Secretary, that a project that is 

about 70 percent complete today, which the MOX facility in Savannah River Site is about 70 percent complete today since its construction started in 2007, could still take another 30 years to finish? 

Wait a minute. We built the first nuclear weapon at the B Reactor at Hanford in a little over a year. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. We agree with that. And we would like 

to see that sort of efficiency brought to the MOX facility in South 

Carolina. It has taken quite a long period of time to get to this 

point, and I think that has raised the concern of the budgeteers 

both here in Congress and in the White House. We have met with 

the contractors. We are in active conversations with contractors on 

the ground. 

There is, to be quite honest, some disagreement about that 70 

percent number and whether or not they are, in fact, 70 percent 

complete. Folks on the ground in DOE have a different opinion of 

that, and we have expressed it, and we are in, as I said, very candid conversations with the contractor. 

I would ask General Klotz or others if they want to opine further 

on this and perhaps provide you with more information as to where 

we currently stand. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I appreciate the work that DOE does at sites like 

Savannah River Site. The nuclear laboratory down there is a valuable asset. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Sure. 

Mr. DUNCAN. There is also a component Savannah River Site is 

a valuable asset that was almost mothballed under the Obama administration. That is H Canyon. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. DUNCAN. The last—H Canyon. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

67 

Mr. DUNCAN. The last chemical separation facility in the United 

States. So please assure me that this administration is not going 

to even consider mothballing H Canyon. 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you for the question. H Canyon we consider 

very important, and we want to keep it up and running, we think, 

to process. We think there are actually options that we could use 

for continued operations. So it is an important part of the portfolio. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KLOTZ. I would like to echo what you said, Congressman, 

and that is the importance of Savannah River Site to the entire 

DOE enterprise. It is particularly important in the NNSA side, because that is where we do our tritium operations, tritium extraction, tritium recycling. Tritium being an extraordinarily important 

component for all of our nuclear weapons. 

The laboratory there, again, having visited all the laboratories in 

DOE, again, I was astounded to find out how much work they are 

actually doing in the weapon’s activity program for us, NNSA, as 

well as in the nuclear nonproliferation area. 

So I have talked a lot with the people down there, and I think 

one of the things I can say, maybe as leaving government and looking forward to the future, that is one of the things we ought to 

think very seriously about is what is the longterm future of the 

laboratory and of the entire Savannah River Site, and what can it 

contribute and continue to contribute for decades in the national 

security. I think this is a fruitful area for discussion. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. Savannah River Site is a valuable asset, 

and they are looking for more missions. And I hope we can give it 

to them. 

And I yield back. Thanks. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the chairman. I appreciate you all being 

here very much. It is an important hearing. 

Deputy Secretary Menezes, thank you for mentioning rare earth 

technologies in your opening statement. I do appreciate that. There 

is a lot of potential for coal in my district in rare earth and combining the two to create a product that is more profitable than it 

may be at certain times in the past and in the future. 

So can you give me an update? Where do we stand on that? 

When do we think that the technology will actually be ready for 

prime time? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I am not sure I can give you a specific timetable, but I am happy to get our program experts on it and give 

you a briefing so that you can know exactly where we are. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I know there is a lot of research dollars that have 

gone into Virginia Tech in my district and in other places. But I 

also know that I saw a map of slag heaps. And one of the things 

people may not realize is is that a lot of the rare earth elements 

or minerals actually exist in the coal, but it is closest to the rock. 

So in the slag heaps, we can clean up slag heaps and reap a benefit 

for the United States at the same time and create some jobs, at 

least in the short run. Short run being a decade. My folks would 

really appreciate that. 

Let me—— 

68 

Mr. MENEZES. The program experts are very excited about the 

prospect that you can go to, really, the slag heaps, the waste product piles, and be able to extract rare earth elements. And think 

about it: We would no longer be dependent on China for a large 

percentage of our rare earth elements. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. And what could be better? We are cleaning 

up something that ought to be cleaned up anyway as a part of our 

environment, and we are taking business away from one of our 

largest international competitors. I think that is great. 

Along those same lines, but shifting gears a little bit, I want to 

talk about research on burning coal more cleanly. When you look 

at the world as a whole, while coal used for producing power in this 

country is down, it is still accelerating in the rest of the world. 

There are lots of places it is going to be used when people talk 

about the ill effects of the pollutants that come from burning coal 

or have come from burning coal in the past. Many of the countries 

that are going to be expanding coal facilities don’t have the regulations we have. They are going to continue to use coal. I would like 

to see us continue to use coal but burning as cleanly as possible. 

Can you give me an update on some of the research that is going 

on? And I am particularly, and always have been, interested in 

chemical looping. And I understand there has been a little bit of 

a breakthrough using a different substance as—for lack of a more 

scientific term—the primer in the chemical reaction. 

Can you give me an update on where we stand on that and 

whether or not DOE is still positive? I know you are on natural 

gas, and I get that. But also using chemical looping for coal so we 

can transfer this technology to other parts of the world and burn 

coal more cleanly, not just here, but worldwide to help the environment. 

Mr. MENEZES. Again, yes, sir. Our national energy lab is doing 

a lot of the research that you have been discussing. And I think 

that both of us would benefit from a briefing from our program people as to timetables and where we are. 

In response to an earlier question, though, I did emphasize that 

the research is no longer limited to, if you will, carbon capture sequestration technologies. While it is important, we are looking 

again at the front end, where the fuel that is to be combusted and 

see if there are technologies that we can make it on the front end 

less emission, more efficient, and then during the combustion itself. 

So we have some exciting opportunities. It has been a very top 

priority for the Office of Fossil. Others have asked about our fullthroated support of certain issues. We have given full-throated support, certainly during the budget process, to get the resources to 

the Office of Fossil to evaluate, engage in studies along the lines 

that you have been mentioning today. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I should say that, along these lines, it is not 

just this administration. The Department of Energy has always 

been interested in putting research into these areas. And so even 

though I disagreed with the previous administration on a lot of 

things, their DOE was doing some good things in this arena, and 

I appreciate you all continuing to do that good work. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. FLORES. The gentleman yields back. 

69 

Mr. Harper is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of 

you for taking time to be here with us today. 

I would like to talk to you, if I could, for a minute, Deputy Secretary Brouillette. The National Nuclear Security Administration 

was established as a semiautonomous agency within the DOE in 

2000. And as you know, the NNSA administrator reports directly 

to you as the Deputy Secretary. 

However, when Congress established the NNSA, the statute required an NNSA general counsel, legislative affairs office, and public affairs office separate from those respective functions under you 

and the Secretary at DOE headquarters. And those offices effectively serve the administrator, not the Secretary. 

While establishing separate functions may have been well-intended, review by the congressionally chartered Augustine-Mies 

Panel in testimony of this committee noted the inherent problem 

of dual offices that limit and can conflict with the Secretary’s leadership over the nuclear enterprise. 

So would you agree that there could be problems if, say, the 

NNSA general counsel considers his client the administrator and 

not the Secretary of Energy, who is ultimately responsible for the 

mission? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. That is a loaded question. The short answer 

to your question, sir, is we respect what Congress did in 1999 with 

the creation of the NNSA. And until Congress changes that law, we 

will honor it. 

If you are asking me for my personal opinion, however, it does 

make management of the agency somewhat awkward. We work 

well together. General Klotz and I have a great both personal and 

professional relationship, and we work diligently to ensure that the 

agency speaks with one voice. We try to do that as effectively as 

we can. 

However, as a manager, as a chief operating officer, when I look 

at the enterprise, I am hard-pressed to make the argument for separate offices and separate parts of the building doing essentially 

the same functions. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. Well, let’s just talk a little further, then, 

about that. As we consider those potential reforms to improve 

DOE’s efficiency, give us some observations or your take of what 

you make regarding the duplicative functional offices in NNSA and 

DOE, let’s say. Can you elaborate a little more? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Well, I think you just articulated the most obvious examples of the duplicative offices. Those particular functions 

are, in my own personal opinion, easily served by one office representing the entire Department. I can’t speak to any other specific 

examples. 

I can tell you with regard to policy, with regard to execution, particularly with regard to the nuclear weapons programs, the Under 

Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary decide both the 

policy and the execution of that policy within the departments, 

within our authorities, and we execute them with one voice and as 

one management team. We do so appropriately, as Congress directed us to do. So there are no other folks within the larger DOE 

complex directing the NNSA. And I think the general would attest 

70 

to that. All of the instructions are given through the Secretary and 

the Deputy Secretary toward the NNSA. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

And let’s talk about maybe streamlining decision-making for just 

a moment, if we could. You were at a town hall last month, and 

you were asked about steps that can be taken throughout the Department to improve efficiency and specifically reduce burdensome 

paperwork that is associated with what is known as the concurrence process. And you acknowledged the need to improve this 

process. Would you please elaborate the problems with this process 

and tell us what you see is the impact of your efforts? 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. I was fortunate and privileged to 

serve in the Department of Energy as an assistant secretary. I was 

confirmed in 2001. I was confirmed for this position almost 5 

months ago now. I was somewhat dismayed to learn, frankly, when 

I walked back into the building, that the same green folders that 

we used to achieve concurrence on certain matters, sometimes letters that you sent to us, are still there. They are literally paper 

folders, green in color. And we circulate them manually by hand 

throughout the Department for opinion. 

In this day and age, it strikes me as odd that we wouldn’t do 

that electronically. A much more efficient way of doing it and, candidly, a very good way of maintaining accountability. Other members of this committee have expressed some dismay and some concern about the lack of engagement or the timeliness of our engagement with this committee. I would suggest to you that that is perhaps part of the problem, that we still do things very manually 

within the Department. 

Mr. HARPER. A basic thing that can be corrected. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BROUILLETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Cramer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of you 

for—really been a fascinating hearing, in my view. I also a want 

to express the special recognition that the deputy secretary issued 

on behalf of General Klotz. Those of us from North Dakota, as you 

know, the model at Minot is only the best coal north. I am very 

familiar with your leadership, and we are grateful for it. Thank 

you. And you, by the way, are in the perfect place at this time in 

your life, at least for the country. So thank you for that. 

The first issue I want to raise may not surprise those of you who 

know me well, is I want to talk about what I see as a lack of a 

research bridge, if you will, for large-scale carbon capture sequestration utilization projects. Basic research, very good. It goes to the 

utilities where regulators, like I used to be, warn them against investing in things like this, that there is sort of an antirisk culture, 

certainly among utilities, which I think was highlighted in your 

grid study, Mr. Deputy Secretary. 

And so what I am wondering is can we—or am I right, first of 

all, and how can DOE play a role in the demonstration part of carbon capture sequestration technologies that, like I said, find basic 

research, not quite enough muscle to get it to the commercialization side. Maybe, Under Secretary Menezes, you could help me 

with that. 

71 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, this committee has been a key player in 

identifying carbon capture sequestration of the clean coal power 

initiative, for example, and providing the authorization for appropriate levels of funding. Of course, appropriate levels of funding is 

a key thing. But over time, when you look at what we have done 

here, the DOE has, over the years, identified several projects, 

whether it be coal or natural gas, for example, or other uses, to try 

to figure out how it is that post combustion you can capture and 

then sequester or use the carbon dioxide. 

What we have today is we had the Petra Nova plant, for example, in Texas. Of course, Kemper is usually pointed to as a DOE 

investment. We have others. We have yet to really figure out how 

it is that we can have the technology to scale to perform at the efficiency level that we want and then to be able to do with the carbon 

dioxide that we would like. 

We have not stopped funding programs. We have a pilot project 

in India, for example, which would look to enhance oil recovery. 

But each of these projects are unique with respect to the combustion, the fuel combustion. So this is not a one size fits all. It is not 

a one technology that fits all combustion types. So the fuel use is 

important. And even within coal, the type of coal. As you know, lignite is certainly different from other coal. 

Mr. CRAMER. It certainly is. 

Mr. MENEZES. And your state has had the longest active capture 

program in use. 

So we are committed to it. Sometimes it is a question of resources. I think it is a fair question to ask, have we not sufficiently 

funded the most promising technologies and perhaps funded other 

technologies that may not have been promising when, in fact, they 

received the moneys. And I think as we—the knowledge is maturing, and I think we are close to, hopefully figuring out how, in fact, 

is the most efficient way on a multiple range of fuels to capture 

and use the carbon. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I know you will find advocates on this committee, as you pointed out. And we will continue to work with you 

on providing those resources. And I appreciate the very good answer, very thorough answer. 

I just, in my last minute, just raise one other issue that is a bit 

different than you might expect. But because General Atomics is— 

that is an important corporate citizen at the Grand Forks Air Force 

Base in North Dakota, and particularly at the Grand Sky UAV 

park. I have had the opportunity to go down to San Diego a couple 

of times. In my most recent visit about a year ago, I visited their 

ITER project. I don’t know how familiar you are with it. But, yes, 

the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, 

which, to me, just seems to present a lot of opportunity with a 

mega fusion project. And I know it is housed in San Diego. Thirtyfive countries are part of this. As I look at the U.S. commitment 

to it, again, financially, I sometimes think we are coming up a little 

bit short. And I just want to highlight it, either for comment or for 

further discussion as we go forward. 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Quite a different 

topic than my family’s farm in Hazen where they would mine the 

coal seam that was surface mined. 

72 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. DABBAR. The ITER project is a very interesting project as a 

part of the Office of Fusion, which is in the Office of Science. The 

ITER project was negotiated a very long time ago as a large international consortium. For those of you who don’t know, building a 

500 megawatt peak fusion plant in the south of France. That would 

be large. That would be a large normal power plant. It is a very 

large project in terms of dollar amounts and the contribution from 

all around the world, including us. Fusion is important to us. General Atomics also has a fusion reactor in San Diego that you visited. So the overall is very important. 

The challenges around ITER is project management. I think you 

have heard a lot before about us as a management team having 

private sector experience around project management. The biggest 

challenge around ITER is that it is six times overbudget and it is 

10 years late in terms of timing. And so I know that on a very bipartisan basis there has been a big debate about funding of that 

and how that affects overall budget and the performance. 

The performance of the ITER project has improved since they 

changed out the management team there, and so they are getting 

back on being able to perform. And we look forward to working 

with the Congress here on the appropriations side should you want 

to continue funding it. 

Mr. CRAMER. Appreciate it. Thank you, and I am well over time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FLORES. Yes, you are. The gentleman’s time has expired long 

ago. 

I would like to thank this panel for attending. Seeing that there 

are no other members wishing to ask questions, this panel is excused and we will move to Panel II. 

Mr. FLORES. All right. Let’s go ahead and get started. We want 

to thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking the time 

to testify before the subcommittee. Today’s witnesses will have the 

opportunity to give opening statements, followed by a round of 

questions from members. 

Our second witness panel for today’s hearing includes Thomas 

Zacharia, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Donald 

Levy, who is the Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago and Co-chair of the Panel 

to Track and Assess Governance and Management Reforms in the 

Nuclear Security Enterprise; Sarah Ladislaw is the Director of Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies; Steve Wasserman is the Director of Lilly 

Research Laboratory Collaborative Access Team, Advanced Photon 

Source of the Argonne National Laboratory, on behalf of the Society 

for Science at User Research Facilities; Dan Reicher is the Executive Director at Stanford University Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution; lastly but not least, Rich Powell is the Executive Director 

of the ClearPath Foundation. 

We appreciate all of you being here today. 

We will begin the panel with Dr. Zacharia, and you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. We would request that each of you adhere to the 5-minute limit. Thank you. 

73 

Dr. Zacharia. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA, DIRECTOR, OAK RIDGE 

NATIONAL LABORATORY; DONALD LEVY, ALBERT A. 

MICHELSON DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND CO-CHAIR, PANEL TO 

TRACK AND ASSESS GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT REFORMS IN THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE; SARAH 

LADISLAW, DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL 

STUDIES; STEVE WASSERMAN, DIRECTOR, LILLY RESEARCH 

LABORATORIES COLLABORATIVE ACCESS TEAM, ADVANCED 

PHOTON SOURCE, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, ON 

BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR SCIENCE AT USER RESEARCH 

FACILITIES; DAN REICHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY STEYER-TAYLOR CENTER FOR ENERGY 

POLICY AND FINANCE AND SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS 

INSTITUTION; AND RICH POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CLEARPATH FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA 

Mr. ZACHARIA. Thank you, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member 

Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify. 

My name is Thomas Zacharia, and I am director of the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As you heard 

from the earlier panel, Department of Energy is responsible for the 

missions of science, energy, national security, and then LANL legacy cleanup. 

The role of the national labs is to provide the science and technology capabilities and solutions the Department needs to accomplish these missions. My written testimony provides several examples of how Oak Ridge had leverage capabilities and resources and 

works with other national labs, industry, and universities to meet 

DOE’s mission needs. In the interest of time, I will speak to only 

one of these. 

The Summit supercomputer, which will begin operating at ORNL 

later this year, will surpass what is now the world’s most powerful 

computer in China. Summit resulted from CORAL, the Collaboration of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Livermore, meant to streamline 

the procurement process and maximize the government buying 

power. Six labs are partnering with an extensive network of American companies, academia, and laboratories on the Exascale Computing Project to ensure that U.S. researchers will have access, not 

only to the computing systems with 50 times the power of today’s 

most capable machines, but also to the applications and software 

that they will need to use these machines effectively. 

This partnership shows how the national labs individually and 

collectively play a pivotal role in developing new tools for science 

and technology, to include reliable and resilient infrastructure in 

applying those tools to DOE’s mission needs and in sustaining U.S. 

competitiveness. 

Most DOE national labs are GOCO facilities, government-owned/ 

contractor-operated. The relationship between DOE and the contractors who manage and operate the labs is ideally a partnership 

74 

in which DOE determines what is to be done and contractors determine how to achieve it. 

Many aspects of the GOCO model work very well. However, some 

reviews have identified problems in program execution and increased costs. In 2015, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness 

of the National Energy Laboratories made several recommendations for improving lab management, many focused on rebuilding 

the GOCO partnership. DOE is responding by working to drive 

fundamental change in its management of the national labs. 

First, DOE has adopted a planning process that is improving the 

strategic alignment of the labs and enabling them to work more effectively to focus on national priorities. In terms of governance, 

DOE is working with its contractors to streamline contract mechanisms, while ensuring that contractors are held accountable. 

DOE’s lab appraisal process has become a useful tool for evaluating and incentivizing contractor performance and for informing 

decisions on whether to extend or compete expiring contracts. Contractor assurance systems are providing new tools for determining 

the proper level of oversight. For example, ORNL offers a fast-track 

CRADA program. This program streamlines execution of cooperative research agreement and major technology of transfer mechanism by exploiting robust contract assurance processes. Our partnership with DOE’s ORNL site office was a key factor in implementing this new mechanism. 

DOE’s regulatory reform task force identified regulations governing lab operations as a target of opportunity. The task force embraced several proposals from the National Laboratory Directors’ 

Council that focused on these regulations. Cross-functional teams 

are implementing some welcome changes, as described in my written testimony. 

This process has fostered an alignment in which DOE and its 

contractors are working together on common goals. Continuing efforts along these lines should produce additional savings and operational improvements. 

With regard to policy reform, Secretary Perry is realigning the 

Department to advance its policy goals consistent with the statutory requirements. At ORNL we look forward to working with our 

DOE sponsors to support them in the execution of their missions. 

Finally, DOE is encouraging the national labs to work with industry to turn early-stage innovations into products. New approaches include the agreements for commercializing technology 

mechanisms now available to all labs and support for early-career 

innovators. 

The actions that DOE has taken to make the national labs more 

efficient and effective will enable these institutions to focus on delivering the science and technology needed to ensure our energy security, national security, and global competitiveness in the 21st 

century. 

The M&O contractors are committed to working with DOE to 

build and maintain a culture of trust and accountability that will 

ensure the greatest possible return on the Nation’s investment in 

the national labs. Thank you, again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zacharia follows:] 

75 


29537.014

Statement of Thomas Zacharia 

Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

U.S. House ofRepreseutatives 

January 9, 2018 

Hearing on DOE Modernization: 

Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and Energy Security 

of the United States 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the Committee: Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor to provide this testimony on the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) and the role of the DOE national laboratories in executing the 

Department's missions. 

INTRODUCTION 

My name is Thomas Zacharia, and I am Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I am also a member of the National Laboratory Directors Council 

(NLDC), an organization formed by the directors of the 17 DOE labs. In my previous position as 

ORNL Deputy for Science and Technology, I was a member of the NLDC Chief Research 

Officers Working Group, which advises DOE senior leadership and the NLDC on scientific, 

programmatic, and operational issues at the national laboratories. 
76 


29537.015

While I am speaking today on my own behalf, my participation in these groups has provided me 

with a perspective on the national laboratories that extends beyond ORNL. That perspective 

informs my views on the topics that you are considering today. 

I will begin with an overview of ORNL and its programs in science, energy, and national 

security imd provide some examples of how the national laboratories support the execution of 

DOE's missions in these vital areas. I will briefly discuss the governance of the national 

laboratories, and I will describe actions that DOE is taking in partnership with the contractors 

who manage and operate these laboratories to implement regulatory and policy reforms that are 

designed to make the national laboratories as efficient and effective as possible. 

OVERVIEW OF ORNL 

ORNL is DOE's largest science and energy laboratory, with a research and development (R&D) 

portfolio that spans the range from fundamental science to demonstration and deployment of 

breakthrough technologies for clean energy and national security. Our mission explicitly includes 

both scientific discovery and innovation, so we place a high value on translational R&D-the 

coordination of our basic research and applied technology programs to accelerate the deployment 

of solutions to compelling national problems. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2017, ORNL's budget was $1.65 billion. Most of our funding comes from 

various elements of DOE, including the Office of Science (SC), the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA). In any given year, however, 15 to 25 percent of our funding 

2 
77 


29537.016

comes from other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private-sector customers. 

Our major non-DOE sponsors include the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Our work for these 

sponsors both exploits and strengthens our unique core capabilities. 

The distribution of our funding across DOE's major mission areas is roughly 60 percent to 

science programs, 20 percent to clean energy programs (including nuclear), and 20 percent to 

national security programs, but it is important to recognize that R&D often has impacts on more 

than one mission area. In addition, our focus on translational R&D means that we place 

considerable emphasis on the integration of basic and applied research, often drawing on our 

distinctive research facilities and on our ability to quickly assemble and deploy multidisciplinary 

teams to focus on compelling problems. 

To illustrate this point, I need to give you some background on ORNL's capabilities. We host 

four SC user facilities: the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS); the High Flux Isotope Reactor; the 

Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences; and the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility 

(OLCF). We also host four shared R&D facilities supported by EERE: the Building 

Technologies Research and Integration Center, the Carbon Fiber Technology Facility, the 

Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF), and the National Transportation Research Center 

(NTRC). Access to ORNL's nuclear and radiological facilities is provided through NE's Nuclear 

Science User Facilities (NSUF) and the NE Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear 

(GAIN) program. 
78 


29537.017

Substantial value results from the co-location of these resources with one another and with R&D 

programs that both draw on them and drive their development. For example, with support from 

EERE, researchers at ORNL have worked with researchers at DOE's Ames Laboratory, NNSA's 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and a Wisconsin company, Eck Industries, to develop 

a new high-performance aluminum alloy. The automotive industry is interested in aluminum 

alloys that can operate at high temperatures because of their potential for use in lightweight 

engine components, which would increase efficiency and fuel economy. To assess the 

performance of their new alloy under real-world operating conditions, the research team used the 

resources ofMDF and NTRC to cast a cylinder head made of this alloy, using sand molds 

created by 3D printing. They retrofitted this component to a gasoline-powered engine designed 

to operate on the VULCAN instrument at SNS and used neutron diffraction to assess the 

performance of the running engine. This experiment confirmed that the new alloy outperforms 

other aluminum alloys under realistic operating conditions. It also demonstrated the benefits of 

coupling fundamental science with early-stage R&D on new materials and technologies. 

Another ORNL-led partnership links DOE national laboratories, universities, and industry in a 

multiyear effort to confidently predict the performance of existing and next-generation 

commercial nuclear reactors through comprehensive, science-based modeling and simulation. 

Founded in 2010, the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) 

takes advantage of the OLCF and ofORNL's exceptional strengths in nuclear science and 

engineering. It also draws on the resources of a formidable set of core partners: three national 

laboratories (NE's Idaho National Laboratory and NNSA's Los Alamos National Laboratory and 

Sandia National Laboratories), three research universities with strong nuclear engineering 

4 
79 


29537.018

programs (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, North Carolina State University, and the 

University of Michigan), and three partners from the nuclear power industry (the Electric Power 

Research Institute, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Westinghouse). CASL has connected 

fundamental research and technology development to develop VERA, a Virtual Environment for 

Reactor Applications that can simulate the operation of a nuclear power plant. When the 

Tennessee Valley Authority started up its Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in 2016, VERA was used to 

perform hour-by-hour simulations of the new plant's first six months, with predictions providing 

important data to support the achievement of full-power operations. Westinghouse has used 

VERA to simulate the startup of its new API 000 pressurized water reactor, confirming its 

engineering calculations. 

To give you an example relating to national security: ORNL researchers have exploited the 

Laboratory's extensive capabilities to develop tools and technologies for protecting the nation's 

electric grid from cyber and physical threats. These resources range from hardware in the form of 

monitoring devices to software that can detect malicious code to platforms that can detect the 

presence of advanced persistent threats. In developing these innovations, we have drawn on a 

long history of discovery and innovations in power and energy systems and in the development 

and assessment of technology for protecting critical infrastructure. We have also applied our 

recently developed expertise in advanced manufacturing to create low-cost, 3D-printed sensors 

that can identify voltage issues and power failures as soon as they occur, while also fusing 

performance analysis with weather and climate indicators, thus supporting more efficient and 

cost-effective grid security, maintenance, and disaster response. We work closely with industry 

partners, including the Chattanooga Electric Power Board, Dominion, Duke Energy, Southern 
80 


29537.019

Company, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, to test and deploy innovations in grid 

modernization and security. ORNL is also part of the Grid Modernization Laboratory 

Consortium (GMLC), a strategic partnership between DOE and 13 national laboratories that is 

working closely with partners in industry and academia across multiple cities and states. One of 

our GMLC projects, the Southeast Consortium, is establishing a regional partnership to increase 

utility clean energy portfolios and improve power system network resiliency, with the goal of 

ensuring both increased reliability and improved responsiveness under extreme conditions by 

eliminating outages or enabling faster restoration of power to critical loads. Our partners on this 

project include DOE's Savannah River National Laboratory and three universities in the region: 

the University of Tennessee, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and Clemson 

University. 

The DOE national laboratories also work together to deliver the tools needed to accomplish the 

Department's missions. Earlier, I mentioned the OLCF, which is one of two DOE leadershipclass computing facilities. The national laboratories have worked with industry for decades to 

build powerful supercomputers and apply them to DOE mission needs. These HPC systems have 

delivered nuclear weapons simulation and modeling capabilities that are vital to the NNSA's 

Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Program. They have been used by scientists to understand 

the evolution of stars, to simulate the combustion of alternative fuels in high-performance 

engines, to accelerate drug design and discovery, and to improve our understanding of the 

hazards and risks of earthquakes. Researchers from industry have exploited them to design 

advanced aircraft, high-efficiency gas turbines, and better paper products. Finally, the 

technologies developed to enable these systems are exploited by industry to bring ever more 

6 
81 


29537.020

powerful devices to the marketplace. (To quote Lewis Platt, CEO of Hewlett-Packard in the 

1990s, "Yesterday's supercomputer is today's laptop.") 

In the past few years, other nations--notably China-have invested heavily in the development 

ofHPC systems. As of November 2017, China's TaihuLight system was more than five times as 

powerful as the top-ranked U.S. system, the Cray XK7 Titan at ORNL. The DOE national 

laboratories are actively engaged in reclaiming U.S. leadership in this vital area. At the OLCF, 

we are deploying a system that may well be the world's most powerful supercomputer when it 

begins operating later this year. Summit will be at least five times as powerful as Titan. It will 

also be an exceptional resource for deep learning, with the potential to address challenging data 

analytics problems in a number of scientific domains. Summit is among the products of CORAL, 

the Collaboration of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Livermore, a partnership that was recognized by 

HPCWire in 2015 with an Editor's Choice award for "Best HPC Collaboration between 

Government and Industry." 

In addition, we are working with the three NNSA laboratories (Livermore, Los Alamos, and 

Sandia) and with two other SC laboratories (Argonne and Lawrence Berkeley) on the Exascale 

Computing Project (ECP). Launched by DOE in FY 2017, the ECP is focused on accelerating 

the delivery of a capable exascale computing ecosystem. 1 China plans to have its first exascale 

' In this context, "capable" addresses the need for systems that can deliver high-fidelity solutions in less time and 

address problems of greater complexity than today's supercomputers, while operating reliably in a power envelope 

of20 to 30 megawatts and supporting a broad spectrum of applications and workloads. "Exascale" refers to 

computing systems at least fifty times as powerful as those in operation today. A "computing ecosystem" includes 

system software, hardware technologies and architectures, and the scientific applications that will run on advanced 

systems, as well as development of the workforce needed to operate and exploit these resources. 

7 
82 


29537.021

system in operation by 2020. The ECP is integrating the strengths of the six participating 

laboratories to ensure that researchers in the United States will have access not only to physical 

computing systems with the requisite power, but also to the tools that they will need to deliver 

breakthrough modeling and simulation solutions that address the most critical challenges in 

scientific discovery, energy assurance, economic competitiveness, and national security. The 

benefits of the ECP will extend beyond DOE to other federal agencies and to U.S. industry. 

GOVERNANCE OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES 

With the exception of the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the DOE national 

laboratories are owned by the U.S. government and managed and operated by contractors. This 

government-owned/contractor-operated (GOCO) approach has been in existence since the 

Manhattan Project, when it provided the flexibility needed to accomplish the development of the 

first nuclear weapons. It was formally adopted for the national laboratories in the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1946, under which Congress authorized "contracts for the operation of Governmentowned plants so as to gain the full advantage of the skill and experience of American industry." 

These management and operation (M&O) contracts remain the key instrument for implementing 

the GOCO model. The relationship between DOE and its contractors is ideally a partnership, in 

which DOE establishes objectives for the laboratories' R&D programs, based on its mission 

needs, and exercises the controls necessary to assure security, safety, and the prudent use of 

public funds, while allowing contractors selected for their technical ability and managerial 

expertise to determine how to carry out day-to-day operations. Simply stated, DOE decides what 

is to be done, and the M&O contractors decide how it is to be done. 
83 


29537.022

Over time, however, the M&O contracting environment has increasingly become one in which 

contractors are subjected to increasing oversight, duplicative and burdensome regulations, and 

greater liability, while having less authority and autonomy. Dozens of past investigations, 

studies, and reviews of DOE and the national laboratories have focused on the need to return to 

the intent of the original GOCO model as stated in a clause found in some early M&O contracts: 

that "this agreement shall be carried on in a spirit of partnership and friendly cooperation with a 

maximum of effort and common sense in achieving their common objectives." 

For example, in October 2015 the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National 

Energy Laboratories (CRENEL) made 36 recommendations designed "to ensure that the 

laboratories are able to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible so that the Nation 

realizes the maximum benefit from this national asset in the years ahead."2 Many of these 

recommendations focused on restoring the partnership between DOE and its laboratories to 

establish and maintain a culture of trust and accountability. 

REALIZING THE POTENTIAL OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES 

I am happy to report that DOE is working to drive fundamental change in its management of the 

national laboratories, concentrating in four areas: 

partnering with leadership to leverage the laboratories' capabilities to address national 

priorities; 

2 Securing America's Future: Realizing the Potential of the Department of Energy's National Laboratories-Final 

Report, of the Commission to Rel'iew the F;f!ectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, Vol. I: Executive 

Report, October 28,2015. 

9 
84 


29537.023

reforming DOE governance of national laboratories to recapture the M&O contract model; 

implementing regulatory and policy reforms to alleviate unnecessary burdens placed on the 

laboratories; and 

closely coupling the work ofthe national laboratories with the private sector to support 

technology innovation that advances U.S. global competitiveness and leadership. 

Focus on National Priorities 

The national laboratories represent a remarkable asset for the nation. Over the past 75 years, they 

have consistently provided the science and technology needed to address compelling national 

problems, and they offer an extraordinary set of resources for sustaining and advancing the 

national, economic, and energy security of the United States in the 21st century. 

DOE has adopted a laboratory strategic planning process, modeled on processes developed by 

SC, that is improving the strategic alignment of the national laboratories and enabling them to 

work more effectively, both collectively and individually, to meet DOE mission needs and 

address national priorities. DOE and the laboratories are using this process to produce plans for 

accomplishing the Department's missions and conducting world-class R&D.3 

3 For details, see "DOE Laboratory Strategic Planning," p. 83 in Annual Report on the State of the DOE National 

Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 2017. 

10 
85 


29537.024

Improved Governance of Laboratories 

DOE and its contractors are working to streamline and simplify contract mechanisms to improve 

partnership, reduce transactional oversight, and deliver more R&D for the federal dollars 

invested at the national laboratories, while ensuring that contractors are held accountable. 

Contract reform efforts are paying off in better understanding of performance expectations and 

requirements, reductions in transactional approvals, and better tailoring of oversight and control 

to potential risks. 

I want to highlight the laboratory appraisal process developed by SC, which has been in place for 

a decade. This process initially established a common structure and scoring system across the ten 

SC national laboratories. It has now been implemented for all 16 GOCO laboratories. It 

emphasizes the importance of delivering the science and technology necessary to meet DOE's 

mission needs; operating the laboratories in a safe, secure, responsible and cost-effective way; 

and recognizing the leadership, stewardship, and value-added provided by the M&O contractors. 

Every year, laboratory staff work with DOE to develop a Performance Evaluation and 

Measurement Plan (PEMP) that establishes the foundation for an annual evaluation of the 

contractor's scientific, technological, managerial, and operational performance. The final product 

is an annual "report card" for each laboratory that is posted on the DOE website. DOE uses the 

results of the process to determine the performance fee that is paid to the M&O contractor. At 

some laboratories, strong performance can result in an extension of the contract. Performance 

evaluations also provide DOE with input to its decisions on whether to extend or compete M&O 

contracts when they expire. 

11 
86 


29537.025

Our experience at ORNL has been that this process has delivered on its goals of improving 

transparency, raising the level of involvement of DOE leadership, increasing consistency in the 

way the laboratories are evaluated, and incentivizing contractor performance. The process 

provides a way of holding the contractor accountable for results, and it helps to build trust by 

establishing a clear understanding of what is expected. 

More recently, the increasing use of contractor assurance systems has allowed contractors to 

more effectively manage processes, resources, and outcomes. These systems support DOE in 

determining the necessary level of oversight for activities at the national laboratories. For 

example, ORNL recently became the first national laboratory to implement a Fast Track 

CRADA Program. This program will streamline the execution of cooperative R&D agreements 

(CRADAs), which are a key mechanism for technology transfer, by exploiting ORNL's robust 

contractor assurance processes to simplify the involvement of DOE's ORNL Site Office. The 

flexibility provided by the GOCO model and the "spirit of partnership and friendly cooperation" 

that is a vital element of our relationship with DOE's ORNL Site Office were key factors in our 

ability to implement this new tool for accelerating the transition of DOE-sponsored innovations 

to beneficial use. 

Regulatory and Policy Reform 

In accordance with the policy outlined in Executive Order 13777, "Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda," DOE is placing a high priority on reducing regulatory burdens that impede 

competitiveness and innovation. The Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force identified 

12 
87 


29537.026

DOE's "inward-facing regulations" on national laboratory operations as an area presenting 

substantial opportunities for beneficial and cost-saving improvements. 

The task force also sought input from outside entities, and the NLDC responded with a set of 

proposals for improving the management and operations of the national laboratory complex. 

DOE embraced a number of these proposals and established cross-functional teams from across 

the Department and the national laboratories to evaluate, enhance, and implement the 

improvements. 

Good progress is being made. One of these teams is working on improving the M&O contract 

mechanism, with an eye to strengthening partnerships and reducing transactional oversight. 

Another is taking action to revise the DOE rule governing nuclear safety management 

(I 0 CFR 830) to address recognized issues that have resulted in substantial unnecessary costs 

associated with the operation of nuclear facilities. A team evaluating human resources functions 

looked at some 25 required reports and determined that 55 percent of them could be eliminated 

or revised to incorporate efficiencies. Another 25 percent of required reports are expected to be 

eliminated by the heads of contracting authorities. Other efforts are moving forward. 

This process has fostered a collaborative environment in which DOE and national laboratory 

staff are working toward shared goals and outcomes, with a view to freeing up human capital to 

focus on mission. In November, the NLDC submitted a second set of proposals to DOE for 

consideration. I am confident that continuing efforts along these lines will result in additional 

savings and extend the value of the dollars invested in the national laboratories. 

13 
88 


29537.027

In terms of policy reform, Secretary Perry recently announced a realignment of DOE's 

organizational structure "to advance its policy goals consistent with its statutory requirements." 

At ORNL, we look forward to working with our sponsors across the Department to deliver the 

science and technology that they need to execute their statutory missions. 

Collaborating with Industry 

DOE is taking steps to ensure that scientific and technical advances can move beyond the 

national laboratories to increase the economic impact of the intellectual property developed as a 

result of federally funded R&D. The laboratories are being encouraged to work with the private 

sector to find and implement new approaches for translating early-stage innovations to viable 

market options. These efforts leverage traditional funding streams and programs focused on 

early-stage research with private-sector and foundation support and market knowledge that 

provide a pathway to create new businesses, product lines, and jobs. DOE's Office of 

Technology Transitions provides valuable coordination. 

In 20 II, DOE and the national laboratories worked together to develop the Agreements for 

Commercializing Technology (ACT) mechanism to provide potential industry partners with an 

alternative to CRADAs and the traditional Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP, formerly Work 

for Others) agreements. Following a successful pilot program, Secretary Perry has made the 

ACT mechanism available at all of the national laboratories. CRADAs and SPP agreements are 

between the national laboratory and a third-party company, and they must be approved by DOE. 

Although both have been successfully used to transfer technology to industry, they have often 

14 
89 


29537.028

been criticized as being too complicated and taking too long to implement. They also require 

industry partners to assume all risk and to make advance payments before work can begin. 

ACT agreements are contracts between the M&O contractor and a third-party company. Among 

their key characteristics are the following: 

They provide a more flexible framework for negotiation of intellectual property rights, as 

well as a streamlined approval process. 

They allow M&O contractors to negotiate terms that are better aligned with industry practice, 

attracting more private investment, and to assume contractual and financial risk. 

They provide a way for national laboratories to participate in groups formed to address 

complex technological challenges that are of mutual interest. 

Secretary Perry has also authorized a pilot program that will expand the use of ACT to allow 

organizations to partner with the national laboratories on federally funded projects. We look 

forward to the opportunities that will arise through this new program. 

Another innovative approach to accelerating the development of early-stage technologies is the 

Lab-Embedded Entrepreneurship Programs sponsored by EERE: Cyclotron Road at Lawrence 

Berkeley, Chain Reaction Innovations at Argonne, and Innovation Crossroads at ORNL. Our 

Innovation Crossroads program matches aspiring entrepreneurs in energy and advanced 

manufacturing with experts, mentors, and networks in technology-related fields who can assist 

these early-career innovators in taking their ideas from R&D to the marketplace. Last year, we 

welcomed our first cohort of innovators. They are working on a novel approach to growing high15 
90 


29537.029

quality carbon nanotubes from carbon dioxide, an active energy storage system that manages 

different sources of thermal energy to inexpensively store electricity, and an advanced nuclear 

reactor that offers high efficiency, low cost, and enhanced safety. 

Innovation Crossroads participants are paired with students from the Bredesen Center for 

Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education, who provide assistance with market research 

and customer discovery. The Bredesen Center was created as a partnership of ORNL and the 

University of Tennessee in 2012. It offers doctoral degrees in energy science and engineering 

and in data science and engineering, and it enables students not only to conduct multidisciplinary 

research at ORNL but also to cultivate skills in science and technology policy, entrepreneurship, 

and outreach. We have extended the Bredesen Center model to more than 25 additional 

universities across the nation.4 These activities help to build a robust pipeline of talent in fields 

of vital importance to DOE and the nation. Many of these students go on to work in industry, and 

several have launched companies of their own. 

4 Universities offering doctoral research programs through ORNL's Graduate Opportunities (GO!) Program: 

Boston University, the Colorado School of Mines, Duke University, Florida State University, Georgia Institute of 

Technology, Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University, North Carolina State University, Ohio 

State University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rice University, 

Texas A&M University, the University of California-Davis, the University of Florida, the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign, the University of Missouri, the University ofNebraska-Lincoln, the University of Virginia, the 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University ofNevada-Las Vegas, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Washington State University and six Tennessee universities: Middle Tennessee State University, 

Tennessee Technological University, the University of Memphis, the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, the 

University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Vanderbilt University, 

16 
91 


29537.030

CLOSING REMARKS 

Our nation is facing a formidable set of challenges: ensuring our national security in a changing 

world; increasing the availability of clean, reliable, and affordable energy while protecting the 

environment; improving human health; and enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the global 

economy by fostering scientific leadership and encouraging innovation. The DOE national 

laboratories are uniquely equipped and positioned to make substantial contributions to 

overcoming these challenges. 

DOE is taking action to make the national laboratories more efficient and effective, which will 

enable these institutions to focus their distinctive capabilities on delivering the advances in 

science and technology that are vital to ensuring our energy security, national security, and 

global competitiveness. The M&O contractor community is committed to working with DOE to 

build the culture of trust and accountability that will ensure the greatest possible return on the 

nation's investment in the DOE national laboratories. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions on this important topic. 

17 
92 

Mr. UPTON [presiding]. Thank you. 

Dr. Levy. You need to hit that button on the—— 

STATEMENT OF DONALD LEVY 

Mr. LEVY. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, members of 

the committee, I am Donald Levy, Professor of Chemistry Emeritus 

at the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago is a management and operating contractor for the Department of Energy, 

operates two Office of Science Laboratories: Argonne National Lab 

and Fermi National Accelerator. 

Ten years prior to my retirement in 2016, I was vice-president 

for research and national laboratories at the university and the 

person responsible for executing our M&O contract. 

I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and I am 

here today as co-chair of the joint panel of the National Academy 

of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration, 

which is charged to monitor the efforts of the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, to address issues raised in several 

reports concerning NNSA’s management and governance of the enterprise. I also wish to acknowledge my NAPA co-chair for the 

study, Jonathan Breul of Georgetown University. I very much appreciate you giving me the opportunity to discuss insights we have 

gained so far in the course of our panel’s study. 

Our study was requested by Congress in the National Defense 

Authorization Act of fiscal year 2016, being carried out by a very 

strong panel whose membership has extensive experience and excellent credentials in both nuclear security and public administration. It is supported by the NNSA, which has gone out of its way 

to provide the panel with full information relevant to its tasks. 

The congressional request that formed our panel came about because of the long series of reports that identified serious concerns 

in the operation of the nuclear security enterprise. By one count 

there were more than 50 critical reports over two decades. In spite 

of all those reports, problems persisted. The concerns in these reports are not about the safety and security incidents you may occasionally read in the paper, and certainly not about the quality of 

the work being done. Rather, they arise from serious and systemic 

management and governance problems which have persisted for 

many years and were perceived as an eventual threat to the national security mission of the NNSA. 

Our first report was released last March and the second is in 

preparation. Our work will run through the fall of 2020. The Authorization Act asked in particular that NNSA create a plan to address concerns raised in the most recent critical report, which was 

produced by a panel co-chaired by Norman Augustine and Admiral 

Richard Mies. 

The Augustine-Mies report identified five serious concerns, which 

are called, and I quote from the report, ‘‘systemic problems in both 

management practices and culture that exist across the nuclear enterprise.’’ These are: Number one, a lack of sustained national leadership, focus, and priority. Number two, overlapping DOE and 

NNSA headquarters staffs and blurred ownership and accountability for the nuclear enterprise missions. Number three, lack of 

proven management practices, including dysfunctional relationship 

93 

between the program line managers and mission support staffs. 

Number four, dysfunctional relationships between the government 

and its management and operating contractors, which has led to 

burdensome transactional oversight rather than management focus 

on mission execution. Number five, insufficient collaboration between NNSA and Department of Defense weapons customers, resulting in misunderstanding, distrust, and frustration. 

These concerns are not merely vexations or opportunities for improvement. Rather, they each represent a risk, which if not addressed, would eventually erode the Nation’s ability to provide adequate nuclear security. Each of the concerns in the Augustine-Mies 

report mirror similar findings in many previous reports. 

Our studies found, through multiple site visits, numerous meetings and phone calls with NNSA staff members and study of relevant documents, that NNSA has initiated a large number of 

changes in response to the Augustine-Mies report and others. But 

as noted in our first report, quoting from that report, ‘‘it has not 

identified success and it lacks qualitative or quantitative metrics to 

identify and measure change.’’ 

Moreover, the changes that have been made seem piecemeal and 

not as part of a larger strategic plan intended to address longstanding problems. Our panel continues to press for measures, 

quantitative or qualitative, that can indicate whether progress is 

being made against the serious and persistent concerns. 

In our upcoming report, we will provide a more detailed analysis 

of some of NNSA’s more promising changes. But the panel has also 

heard first-hand from the laboratory staff that in spite of these 

changes, problems persist. 

More broadly, NNSA is embarking on a large-scale program of 

change management in order to alter practices and attitudes that 

have settled in over decades. In its first report, our panel explained 

that the experience of many organizations have revealed some common steps that are necessary for effective and lasting change to 

take root. Not all of those steps are in place at NNSA, and our upcoming report will delve into this. 

Successful change management, especially this scale, also requires buy-in and leadership from the top. It is important for the 

next NNSA administrator and DOE leadership to recognize the 

magnitude and persistence of the problems and take on this challenge. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I remain at 

your disposal for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:] 

94 


29537.031

Testimony of 

Dr. Donald Levy 

Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus 

University of Chicago 

and 

Co-Chair 

Tracking and Assessing Governance and Management Reform in the Nuclear Security Enterprise 

Joint Panel of the 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and 

National Academy of Public Administration 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Energy 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

January 9, 2018 

1 
95 


29537.032

Summary of Major Points 

• According to dozens of external examinations over at least two decades, 

governance and management of the nuclear security enterprise raises 

concerns 

• Despite this continuing stream of reports, problems persist 

• A panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

and National Academy of Public Administration is operating through 2020 

to track and assess NNSA's plans to address these concerns 

• That panel has seen promise in some of NNSA's latest reform efforts 

• It has also heard from multiple staff members across the enterprise that 

problems persist 

• This large-scale change management requires several elements in order to 

succeed, one of which is leadership from the top. It is important for the 

next NNSA Administrator and for DOE leadership to recognize the problems 

and embrace the challenge. 

2 
96 


29537.033

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the committee: 

I am Donald Levy, Professor of Chemistry emeritus at the University of Chicago. 

The University of Chicago is a Management and Operating contractor for the 

Department of Energy and operates two Office of Science Laboratories, Argonne 

National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. For ten years 

prior to my retirement in 2016, I was Vice-President for Research and National 

Laboratories at the university and the person responsible for executing our M&O 

contracts. 

I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences and am here today as cochair 

of a joint panel of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of 

Public Administration charged to monitor the efforts of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration, the NNSA, to address issues raised in several reports 

concerning NNSA's management and governance of the enterprise. I also wish to 

acknowledge my NAPA co-chair for the study, Jonathan Breul of Georgetown 

University. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to discuss insights we 

have gained so far in the course of our panel's study. 

Our study was requested by Congress in The National Defense Authorization Act 

of FY2016. It is being carried out by a very strong panel whose membership has 

extensive experience and excellent credentials in both nuclear security and public 

administration. It is supported by the NNSA, which has gone out of its way to 

provide the panel with full information relevant to its tasks. 

3 
97 


29537.034

The Congressional request that formed our panel came about because a long 

series of reports had identified serious concerns in the operations of the nuclear 

security enterprise. By one count there were more than SO critical reports over 

two decades. In spite of all those reports, problems persisted. The concerns in 

these reports are not about the safety and security incidents you may occasionally 

read in the paper, and certainly not about the quality of the work being done. 

Rather, they arise from serious and systemic management and governance 

problems which have persisted for many years and were perceived as an eventual 

threat to the national security mission of the NNSA. 

Our first report was released last March, and a second is in preparation. Our work 

will run through the fall of 2020. 

The Authorization Act asked in particular that NNSA create a plan to address 

concerns raised in the most recent critical report, which was produced by a panel 

co-chaired by Norman Augustine and Admiral Richard Mies. The Augustine-Mies 

report identified five serious concerns, which it called "systemic problems in both 

management practices and culture that exist across the nuclear enterprise." They 

are: 

1. A lack of sustained national leadership, focus, and priority; 

2. Overlapping DOE and NNSA headquarters staffs and blurred ownership and 

accountability for the nuclear enterprise missions; 

3. Lack of proven management practices, including a dysfunctional 

relationship between program line managers and mission-support staffs; 

4 
98 


29537.035

4. Dysfunctional relationships between the government and its Management 

and Operating contractors, which has led to burdensome transactional oversight 

rather than management focus on mission execution; 

5. Insufficient collaboration between NNSA and DOD weapons customers, 

resulting in misunderstanding, distrust, and frustration. 

These concerns are not merely vexations, or opportunities for improvement. 

Rather, they each represent a risk which if not addressed, would eventually erode 

the nation's ability to provide adequate nuclear security. Each of the concerns in 

the Augustine-Mies report mirror similar findings in many of the previous reports. 

Our study has found-through multiple site visits, numerous meetings and phone 

calls with NNSA staff members, and study of relevant documents-that NNSA has 

initiated a large number of changes in response to the Augustine-Mies report and 

others. But, as noted in our first report, it ((has not defined success and it lacks 

qualitative or quantitative metrics to identify and measure change." Moreover, 

the changes that have been made seem piecemeal and not as part of a larger, 

strategic plan intended to address longstanding problems. Our panel continues to 

press for measures-quantitative or qualitative-that can indicate whether 

progress is being made against the serious and persistent concerns. 

In our upcoming report, we will provide a more detailed analysis of some of 

NNSA's more promising changes. But the panel has also heard first-hand from 

laboratory staff that, in spite of these changes, problems persist. 

5 
99 


29537.036

More broadly, NNSA is embarking on a large-scale program of change 

management in order to alter practices and attitudes that have settled in over 

decades. In its first report, our panel explained that the experience of many 

organizations has revealed some common steps that are necessary for effective 

and lasting change to take root. Not all of those steps are in place at NNSA, and 

our upcoming report will delve into this. Successful change management, 

especially at this scale, also requires buy-in and leadership from the top. It is 

important for the next NNSA Administrator and DOE leadership to recognize the 

magnitude and persistence of the problems and take on this challenge. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I remain at your disposal for 

questions. 

6 
100 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Ladislaw. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH LADISLAW 

Ms. LADISLAW. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and 

members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here to speak with 

you today about DOE modernization. 

I run the CSIS Energy and National Security Program. It is one 

of the country’s oldest and most well-known think tank program focusing on energy policy and geopolitics. It was created around the 

same time as the Department of Energy and for many of the same 

reasons. The views I express today are my own. 

The Department of Energy was created in the late 1970s during 

an inflection point in America’s energy history. Today, the United 

States faces a new energy inflection point. Unlike the scarcity atmosphere of the 1970s, the United States has been leading the 

world in a new age of perceived energy abundance and rapid technological change. With it come new challenges and opportunities. 

For example, while the United States is now the world’s largest 

producer of oil and gas, we are still vulnerable to energy supply 

disruptions in a globally integrated market. Electric power systems 

are becoming more distributed and complex, which brings enormous benefits but also operational and security challenges. 

Efforts to create and manufacture new technologies or capture 

market share in developing economies is leading to stiff competition and creating new trade relationships and geopolitical dynamics. Concerns over air pollution, water resources, and the global climate challenge are fundamentally altering the investment environment for energy companies and the policy decisions taken by governments around the world. The United States is blessed with 

many advantages in this environment, but the potential for disruptive change is higher than ever. 

The Department of Energy has an important role to play in addressing all of these challenges. First, the DOE should take a leadership role in conducting analysis regarding the safety, reliability, 

and optimization of the Nation’s energy infrastructure. As we continue to witness, abundant supply does not in and of itself provide 

energy security. Transmission, delivery, and distribution infrastructure is critically important to ensuring adequate supplies of 

energy. 

Second, the DOE should continue to maintain emergency preparedness planning and response functions. Most notably, DOE 

manages the Nation’s strategic petroleum reserves, the world’s 

largest government-owned and managed emergency stockpile of 

crude and home heating oil. The DOE should modernize and Congress should safeguard this important asset. 

Third, energy efficiency promotion should remain a core mandate 

at the Department of Energy. One of the original mandates of the 

Department of Energy was to enact efficiency standards. The role 

that the Department plays in setting those standards is often overlooked or criticized, but has paid important economic and security 

dividends over the years. 

Fourth, scientific research and innovation are essential to meeting DOE’s mission across the board and should be strengthened. 

101 

The role that DOE and the national laboratories play in national 

research and development ecosystem are critical. Government does 

not constitute the entirety of the U.S. innovation landscape, but 

makes important contributions to funding research not undertaken 

by private interests, feeding into the personnel and intellectual 

supply chain of the research community, and working collaboratively with the private industry and universities to catalyze important areas of research. 

Fifth, energy strategy and analysis are more important than 

ever, so the DOE should maintain and strengthen its energy policy 

and analysis function. It is critically important for DOE to have a 

strong energy policy and analysis function in order to play an active and authoritative role in the interagency policymaking process 

and to engage with industry and other stakeholders. 

Sixth, independent and impartial energy information is essential. 

For decades, the country has benefited from the data collection, reporting, and analytical function of the Energy Information Administration. EIA provides unbiased, market-relevant research on a 

regular basis through reports, and provides an important policy 

neutral voice in the energy policymaking process. 

Seventh, DOE should increase its capabilities when it comes to 

understanding, managing, and engaging in global energy issues. 

DOE plays an underreported role in managing international affairs 

in geopolitics as they relate to energy. The International Affairs Office should be strengthened and expanded to have a stronger analytical function designed to inform DOE leadership and thinking 

about global energy trends and the emerging challenges we face. 

The Department of Energy has a long history of supporting the 

Nation’s security, economic, and environmental priorities and objectives. It was born during a time when the Nation’s energy outlook 

was dangerous and uncertain. Today’s energy outlook is no less uncertain as the country prepares for more interconnected and interdependent energy systems driven by new consumers, new priorities, and stiff competition. Preparing for this future requires the 

same amount of dedication and commitment that the DOE has delivered for the last 40 years. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on DOE 

modernization. I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:] 

102 


29537.037

CSIS I CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & 

INTERNATIONAl STUDIES 

Statement Before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

"DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission 

for National, Economic, and Energy Security of 

the United States" 

A Testimony by: 

Sarah Ladislaw 

Director, Energy and National Security Program, 

Center for Strategic and International Studies 

January 9, 2018 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

WWW.CSIS.ORG 1616 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE NW 

WASHINGTON, DC .20036 I TEL (202} ll!l7.0200 

fAX (202) 77S.3199 
103 


29537.038

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 2 

Introduction and Main Points 

Good morning Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and members of the committee. It is my 

pleasure to be here today to speak with you about DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's 

Mission for National, Economic, and Energy Security of the United States. My name is Sarah 

Ladislaw and I direct the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies (CSIS). CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in 

Washington, D.C. The CSIS Energy and National Security Program provides strategic insights 

and policy solutions related to the dynamic and changing global energy landscape. My remarks 

and written testimony represent my views and not the views of my colleagues or CSIS as an 

institution. 

The perspectives I will share with you today are related to my role as an energy analyst but also 

informed by my time working at, and with officials from, the Department of Energy over the 

course of my career, as well as the mentorship I have received from colleagues who were around 

during the creation of the department and sought to steward its development over the years. 

History and Performance 

The Department of Energy was created in the late I 970s during a strategic inflection point in the 

American energy narrative. Energy demand was outstripping energy supply and our growing 

dependence on imported energy resources, particularly oil, emerged as a strategic vulnerability in 

the wake of the Arab oil embargoes and war in the Middle East, and in the face of successive 

shortages and price spikes related to U.S. regulation and price controls. Also faced with forecasts 

of further declines in U.S. oil production, in April 1977, the Carter Administration issued the 

first National Energy Plan, laying out a vision for how to address the nation's energy challenges. 

It said: 

"The diagnosis of the U.S. energy crisis is quite simple: demand for energy is increasing, while 

supplies of oil and natural gas are diminishing. Unless the U.S. makes a timely adjustment before 

world oil becomes very scarce and very expensive in the 1980's, the nation's economic security 

and the American way of life will be gravely endangered. The steps the U.S. must take now are 

small compared to the drastic measures that will be needed if the U.S. does nothing until it is too 

late." 1 

Congress, in agreement with the administration's concerns, passed the Department of Energy 

Organization Act in 1977 which states: 

"The Congress of the United States finds that-

( 1) The United States faces an increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy resources; 

(2) This energy shortage and our increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies present a 

serious threat to the national security of the United States and to the health, safety and 

welfare of its citizen; 

1 Carter, Jimmy. "National Energy Plan Message of the President." The American Presidency 

Project. 29 Apr. 1977, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7423. 
104 


29537.039

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 3 

(3) A strong national energy program is needed to meet the present and future energy needs 

of the Nation consistent with overall national economic, environmental and social goals; 

(4) Responsibility for energy policy, regulation, and research, development and 

demonstration is fragmented in many departments and agencies and thus does not allow 

for the comprehensive centralized focus necessary for effective coordination of energy 

supply and conservation programs; and 

(5) Formulation and implementation of a national energy program require the integration of 

major Federal energy functions into a single department in the executive branch"2 

To meet these needs, the Department of Energy Organization Act pulled together disparate and 

important authorities and programs from around the federal government including the Federal 

Energy Administration (FEA) and the Energy Research and Development Administration 

(ERDA), among others, to "secure effective management [of those programs} ... and coordinated 

national energy policy."3 The Department did not absorb all energy-relevant federal authoritieslike public lands and offshore minerals leasing or environmental regulation which are now 

housed in the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency respectivelybut it did bring under one roof the nation's laboratory system and the civilian control of nuclear 

weapons stockpile stewardship, both of which gave the new agency enormous standing and 

authority. 4 

Over the years, DOE's most important contributions, in addition to successful nuclear stockpile 

stewardship and world-class scientific research, have been: 

(1) removing energy price controls; 

(2) working with Congress to establish some of the major energy policies and regulations that 

have shaped the U.S. energy landscape over the last 40 years; 

(3) establishing the United States as a technological leader across a range of fields including 

energy, transportation, medicine, and computer science; 

(4) protecting against and responding to energy supply disruptions, natural disasters, and critical 

infrastructure threats (not least of which in the maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve); 

and 

(5) creating a first-in-its-class statistical organization, the Energy Information Administration or 

EIA, to provide policymakers and the public with consistent access to unbiased and transparent 

energy data and analysis. 

The Department has proactively shaped the nation's energy landscape and has played an 

important role in navigating a range of energy crises from oil supply disruptions, major 

blackouts, environmental disasters, cyber incidents, and addressing nuclear non-proliferation 

issues. DOE has advanced development of new technologies and helped inform the public about 

important energy innovations over the years from nuclear power, oil sands development, 

2 "Department of Energy Organization Act". {91 Stat. SGS; 42 U.S.C. § 7101 note). 

https:/ /www .usbr.gov /power /legislation/doeorg. pdf. 3 Curtis, Charles B. "Reflections on James Schlesinger-- the Man, His Times, and the 

Department of Energy." Dept. of Energy Schlesinger Medal Ceremony, 19 Jan. 2017. 4 Ibid 
105 


29537.040

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 4 

liquefied natural gas, smart meters, and countless others. DOE has played a major role in 

creating and maintaining relationship with other countries based on common energy interests and 

challenges. It has supported global energy institutions and technology partnership and has played 

an important coordinating role in domestic energy policy formation. 

New Energy Inflection Point 

Today, the United States faces a new energy inflection point. For the majority of the last forty 

years, the overarching goal of U.S. energy policy has been to secure affordable and reliable 

energy supplies within the context of presumed increasing scarcity. Now, the United States is 

leading the world in a new age of perceived energy abundance. The most recognized face of this 

abundance is oil and natural gas. Over the last decade, the US resurgence in oil and natural gas 

production, thanks to onshore tight oil and shale gas resources, has been nothing short of 

remarkable.5 In the last 10 years, crude oil production grew by 75 percent and natural gas 

production by 45 percent, making the United States the largest oil and gas producer in the world. 

As a result, oil exports from the United States are growing (despite the fact that the United States 

still imports approximately 8 million barrels a day as well). During the first half of2017, the 

United States reached a new record by exporting more than 6 million barrels per day of crude oil 

and products to nearly 27 countries around the world.6 ln 2017, the United States became a net 

exporter of natural gas, and going forward exports of gas are expected to increase substantially as 

new liquefied natural gas export facilities come online. This development of U.S. oil and gas 

resources provided a significant boost to the U.S. economy and created a large number of jobs in 

the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and has had an important impact on global oil and natural 

gas markets. 7 

This abundance narrative extends far beyond oil and gas, however. Over the last decade 

renewable and advanced energy resources (like batteries, micro-grids, and other smart energy 

technologies) have become more affordable nearly everywhere in the word. Many of these 

advancements were aided by U.S. investments in research and development and the supportive 

policy environment fostered at a federal and state level. The combination of improving 

economics and performance, along with policy support, means that renewable energy penetration 

has soared in recent years as consumers no longer question the cost-competitiveness of these 

resources. According to a 2017 DOE report (graphic depiction by The New York Times below) 

the renewable energy industry provides a substantial number of jobs in the U.S. economy. By 

most accounts, demand for renewable energy resources will grow faster (albeit from a smaller 

base) than any other fuel source over the next several decades. 

5 In the World Energy Outlook 2017, the International Energy Agency states that the growth in 

US oil production over the last decade is the largest ramp-up in oil production in history. 6 French, Matthew, and Joseph Ralbovsky. "Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Exports Reach 

Record Levels in the First Half of 2017." Today in Energy, U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, 18 Oct. 2017, www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33372. 7 For more information please see two recent CSIS publications: U.S. Oil in the Global Economy 

(https://www.csis.org/features/us-oil-global-economy) and U.S. Natural Gas in the Global 

Economy (https://www.csis.org/features/us-natural-gas-global-economy) 
106 


29537.041

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 5 

Power creation jobs in 2016 

1.9 million 

Figure 1: Power Creation Jobs in 20168 

This new reality poses many new challenges and opportunities to governments, industry, 

innovators, and consumers. For example, despite being the largest oil and gas producer in the 

world, the United States is still vulnerable to energy supply disruptions in a globally integrated 

market. The United States experienced widespread production and refinery outages in the Gulf 

Coast of the United States just this past year and a major oil or to a less extent natural gas supply 

disruption elsewhere in the world would impact the prices and availability or resources upon 

which we and our allies rely. 

Electric power systems are becoming more distributed and sophisticated. This brings enormous 

benefits but also poses challenges to regulators and system operators, traditional utilities and 

power providers, as well as new market entrants and innovators. The electricity sector remains 

deeply interconnected with information systems upon which modern society increasingly relies. 

The proliferation of smart technologies will increase these interconnections and make them more 

complex. Industry and government are working hard to maintain system resilience and reliability 

in the face of cyber threats to our critical infrastructure. 

Countries around the world are competing to create new technologies, capture markets, and 

create economic opportunity for their citizens. Energy plays in important role in this dynamic. 

Cheap energy is a powerful stimulus to economic growth putting more money in the pockets of 

industry and consumers. The energy sector provides direct and indirect jobs that underpin local 

and regional economies and local communities. Energy resource and technology development 

provide trade and export opportunities that link the United States with larger market 

opportunities around the world. The competitive environment around energy has become more 

intense as energy supplies are more readily available. Providers of energy are looking to secure 

8 Popovich, Nadja. "Today's Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal." The New York Times, 25 Apr. 

2017, www. nytimes.com/interactive/2017 /04/25/ climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-notcoal.html. 
107 


29537.042

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 

new relationships in growing energy markets with implications for global energy trade and 

geopolitics. Governments are devising new strategies to grow the technologies of the future at 

home and ensure their competitiveness abroad. 

6 

Concerns over air pollution, water resources, and the global climate challenge are increasingly 

shaping the decisions of policymakers, regulators, investors, corporations and citizens. Energy 

stakeholders that do not consider the very real environmental security risks that must be 

addressed by society have fewer and fewer places to act unabated. Driven by these priorities 

countries around the world are enacting new policies and regulation, companies and investors are 

investing in cleaner energy technologies, and consumers are realizing more choice when it comes 

to the energy they choices they make. Examples of this include the proliferation of rooftop solar, 

energy efficient appliances and infrastructure, electric vehicles, and other new forms of 

technology. The current energy inflection point is one in which the United States has a great 

many inherent advantages but in which the potential for disruptive changes is higher than ever. 

Modernizing the Department of Energy 

The Department of Energy has an important role to play in addressing all of these challenges. 

Other representatives on the panel can speak to needs and capabilities of the department in the 

areas of stockpile stewardship, non-proliferation, and environmental remediation better than I 

can. I will just note as others have done that wide range of its mandates and expertise have given 

the department a schizophrenic identity at times; one that the public and even policymakers do 

not well understand. Managing the weapons, environmental remediation, scientific research and 

energy portions of the department of energy has been tricky to navigate over the years and is 

frequently cited as one of the shortcomings of the department. The last administration sought to 

separate out the managerial functions of the department into a separate undersecretary, 

consolidate the environmental stewardship functions, and bring together the various components 

of the research and development activities under one umbrella. Of course, each administration 

can exercise its own prerogative to arrange the various programs and offices as it sees fit, to best 

meet the missions of the department and or match the expertise of officials it chooses to appoint 

in various positions of leadership. The critical question is what configuration will best enable the 

department leadership, its employees and its contractors to fulfill those missions. 

The areas around which I have specific recommendations have to do with the department's role 

in preparing the United States for energy challenges of the present and the future. 

The DOE should take a leadership role in conducting analysis regarding the safety. reliability. 

and optimization ofthe nation's energy infrastructure. As stated earlier, the United States has 

increasing amounts of nearly all the fuels it consumes. Abundant supply does not, however 

equal energy security. Transmission, delivery and distribution infrastructure is critically 

important to ensuring adequate supplies of energy. The department recently sent a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asking it 

to take action to ensure reliable supplies of electricity for our nation's energy grid. While I do 

not agree with the problem as described or solution suggestion by the DOE NOPR, the DOE can 

and should play an active role in discussions and analysis of the adequacy and reliability of the 

country's energy infrastructure. The last administration also contributed important insights and 
108 


29537.043

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 

suggestions regarding the nation's transmission, distribution and mid-stream infrastructure as 

part of the first installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review. The administration before that, 

working with Congress, established new capacity to transmission congestion and established an 

office of electricity delivery and reliability. The DOE has a role to play in evaluating and 

recommending actions that might be taken by other agencies and departments to evaluate and 

address systemic risks to the nation's vital energy infrastructures. 

7 

The DOE should continue to maintain emergency preparedness planning and response (unctions. 

Most notably, DOE manages the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the world's largest 

government-owned and managed emergency stockpile of crude oil and home heating oil. The 

SPR plays an important role in ensuring the nation's ability to provide crude oil during time of 

disruption. While it has its shortcomings, the SPR has been released during times of disruption, 

most recently during the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast in 20 17. As I stated in my testimony 

SPR modernization to the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee in 2016 "the SPR is 

part of a much larger, globally coordinated system of emergency petroleum supplies that have 

been around since the oil market disruptions in the mid-1970s. These strategic stockpiles are 

perhaps one of the most visible and enduring examples of shared energy security policies among 

the world's major energy consumers. The SPR is a fundamental pillar of that system. At the 

same time, a great deal has changed since the advent of the global strategic stock system and the 

creation of the U.S. SPR. While the current context of oversupplied markets, low oil prices, and 

record levels of U.S. production may obscure the dangers of an oil supply disruption, it is 

important to be clear-eyed about existing threats facing global oil markets and the economic 

vulnerability associated with a potential disruption. The last forty years have proven time and 

again that we as analysts, policymakers, and market participants should be humble about our 

ability forecast future oil market dynamics and take prudent measures to protect against 

unanticipated supply disruptions."9 The DOE should maintain (modernize), and Congress should 

safeguard this important asset but further analysis is warranted about size, composition and 

location of the reserve given the changing oil crude and product flows and infrastructure required 

to adequately access the reserve in times of emergency. DOE should also consider how the 

international strategic stock systems (also created in the 1970s and including the U.S. SPR) is 

currently positioned and whether it could be configured to better meet the needs of a changing 

global oil market. 

Energy efficiency promotion should remain a core mandate o[the DOE. One of the core original 

mandates of the Department of Energy under the National Energy Plan was to enact efficiency 

standards and mandates. The efficiency gains of the United States have been our secret weapon 

to increase the energy productivity of our economy and reduce import reliance. According to the 

Alliance to Save Energy efficiency gains in the United States has doubled the energy 

9 ladislaw, Sarah. "Modernization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Related Energy 

Security Considerations." Statement before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources. 6 Oct. 2015, csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/legacy_files/files/attachments/ts151006_ladislaw.pdf. 
109 


29537.044

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 

productivity of the U.S. economy between 1980 and 2014. 10 The energy efficiency sector now 

employs 2.2 million people and saves hundreds of millions of dollars a year. 11 The role that the 

Department plays in setting efficiency standards is often overlooked but has paid important 

economic and security dividends. 

8 

Innovation is essential to meeting DOE missions across the board and should be strengthened. 

As other panelists will also explain, the role that DOE and the national laboratories play in the 

national research and development ecosystem is critical. At the beginning of this year DOE 

released a first ever state of the lab report that provided a detailed overview of the performance 

ofthe laboratory complex toward meeting their collective missions. It noted, "the extraordinary 

system of National Labs is unique and, along with America's research universities, underpins our 

innovation edge for economic productivity and job creation, security and environmental 

stewardship." 12 Several other key documents produced by the Department like the Quadrennial 

Technology Review and the crosscut report have been important ways in which the Department 

can evaluate its progress toward providing the innovations needed to meet the nation's energy 

challenges. 

The proper role of government in research and development is not universally agreed upon with 

some arguing for a more limited role in either scope (i.e. limit to basic research) or level (i.e. 

budget cuts requested by the Trump administration). Government does not constitute the entirety 

of the U.S. innovation landscape but can make important contributions through funding research 

not undertaken by private interests, feeding into the personnel and intellectual supply chain of 

the research community, and working collaboratively with private industry and universities to 

catalyze important areas of research. According to a recent report, since its inception, the 

Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy or ARPA-E has invested over $1.5 billion in 

research funding distributed across more than 35 programs and 500 projects, of which 45 

projects have received follow-on funding from the private sector totaling $1.8 billion and 36 

have resulted in the formation of new companies. 13 While it is just one of the offices engaged in 

research and development across the department, ARP A-E was born out a bipartisan mandate to 

provide vehicle for the department to identify and promote revolutionary advancement in 

fundamental and applied sciences. A recent National Academies review found that it was well on 

its way to fulfilling that mission. 14 

10 Van Wie McGrory, Laura. "Energy Productivity: Communicating the Economic Benefits of 

Energy Efficiency." Energy Efficiency: The Prosperity Fuel CSIS. Energy Efficiency: The Prosperity 

Fuel CSIS, 29 June 2017, CSIS. 

II Ibid 

12 United States Department of Energy, Cohen, Adam, et al. "Annual Report on the State of the 

DOE National laboratories January 2017." Jan. 2017. 

energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/DOE%20State%20of%20the%20National%20labs%20 

Report%2002132017 .pdf. 13 ladislaw, Sarah. Partnerships for Energy Innovation. CSIS, 27 Feb. 2017, 

www.csis.org/analysis/partnerships-energy-innovation. 

14 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. An Assessment of ARPA-E. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Chapter 2. https://doi.org/10.17226/24778. 
110 


29537.045

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 

Finally, climate change is clearly not a challenge around which this administration seems 

inclined to orient its energy policy. However, innovation will play an important role in in any 

energy future, including a carbon constrained one that effectively addresses global climate 

change. DOE has important contributions to make toward meeting this challenge, a great many 

of them in the area of research, development, and deployment arena. Many of these innovations 

would have important economic and security co-benefits that the administration does supportlike the development of competitive advanced nuclear reactors, cost-effective carbon capture, 

utilization, and storage strategies, and many others. The DOE should pursue innovation 

pathways that advance multiple objectives including the reduction of C02 and other greenhouse 

gases in the atmosphere. 

9 

Energy strategy and analysis are more important than ever so the DOE should maintain and 

strengthen its energy policy and analysis function. Given the important mandates DOE must 

fulfill and the strong technical expertise required to fulfill those missions, the Department has 

often been dismissed as a technical agency rather than one with policy oversight. Despite the 

clear role as a coordinator of energy policy across the government set out for it in the DOE 

organization act, the energy policy role has ebbed and flowed over the years depending on focus 

of a given administration. Over the years the policy office at DOE has been moved, renamed and 

reorganized a number of times and its staffing and standing within the department have 

fluctuated. It is critically important for DOE to have a strong energy policy and analysis 

function. The policy office provides critical input to the Secretary and the offices throughout the 

agency about energy trends, market developments, and policy options. Having a strong policy 

and analysis function also enables the department leadership to play a more active and 

authoritative role within the interagency policymaking process, and provides an excellent 

resource for industry and other energy stakeholders to engage in important areas of 

policymaking. One area where the policy office could be particularly helpful at this moment is to 

develop a deeper understanding of the ways in which the U.S. can harness its energy advantage 

to increase opportunity and mobility within the economy. The last administration made an 

investment in the policy analysis function at the department. It is an important investment that 

this administration should continue. 

Independent and impartial energy infOrmation is essential to the good policymaking. e(ficient 

markets. and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the 

environment. The government and the nation have consistently been served by the data 

collection, reporting and analytical function of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

EIA is a world-class organization that provides important data and analysis to the federal 

government and the public. EIA has done a remarkable job establishing itself as trusted source 

of reputable information. It provides market-relevant research on a regular basis, daily, weekly, 

monthly and annual reports. It responds to requests for information and analysis from Congress 

and its officials provide an important, policy-neutral voice in the energy policymaking process. 

Countries from around the world come to EIA to learn about how to replicate its form and 

function in their own government so they can derive the same benefits from an independent 

analytical agency within their own government system. Needless to say, EIA should continue to 

play this role going forward. 
111 


29537.046

Ladislaw: Written Testimony, House Energy and Commerce 1/9/2018 10 

DOE should increase its capabilities when it comes to understanding, managing and engaging in 

global energy issues. DOE plays an underreported role in managing international affairs and 

geopolitics as they relate to energy. DOE has within its organizational structure an office of 

International Affairs led by an assistant secretary. The office not only staffs the department 

leadership on their travel abroad and engagement with foreign counterparts but structures 

ongoing cooperative initiatives with other countries and serves as the point people for 

substantive engagement in international energy institutions and consortiums. This office should 

be strengthened and expanded to have a stronger analytical function designed to inform the 

secretary and DOE leadership's thinking about global energy trends and challenges. In recent 

years, the Department of State created an Energy Bureau to elevate the role of energy in foreign 

policy decision-making. This is an important goal and function at the Department of State that 

should be supported given the complex relationship between energy and many of our foreign 

policy objectives, but it should not detract from the need to have strong analytical capabilities at 

the Department of Energy as the United States must formulate its energy policy based on the 

expert understanding of a complex global array of policy, technology and commercial trends. 

Moreover, it is important for DOE to maintain its dominant analytical capabilities on energy 

because it practically serves as the lead agency on energy relations with other countries not least 

of which because most other countries around the world see their energy ministers as the top 

emissaries for energy discussion with other countries. This will only become more important as 

the United States seeks to forge new and different trade relationships with countries that are 

accustomed to have an honorary government role, if not direct involvement in (which I do not 

recommend), energy investment and trade deals. Relatedly, there has been a great deal of 

discussion about whether and how the Department of Energy should permit or approve exports 

of natural gas exports. In my view, the DOE played a useful, if not lengthy, role in evaluating the 

remarkable surge in U.S. natural gas production, its sustainability over time, and the potential 

impact exports of various amounts would have on natural gas prices and availability. The process 

for clearing through these approvals is moving much more quickly than when the issue initially 

arose and while there is room for Congress to hold DOE to a firm schedule for export approvals, 

I find it implausible that Congress would remove this authority from the department altogether. 

As we have seen recently in Australia, natural gas shortages can occur in even the most energy 

abundant countries and when that happens, governments value their ability to manage exports to 

protect domestic consumers. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Energy carries an important history of supporting the nation's security, 

economic, and environmental priorities and objectives. It was born during a time when the 

nation's energy outlook had shifted and the future looked dangerous and uncertain. Today's 

energy outlook is no less uncertain as the country prepares for more interconnected and 

interdependent energy system, driven by new consumers, new priorities, and stiff competition. 

Preparing for this future requires the same amount of dedication and commitment that the DOE 

has delivered for the last forty years. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on 

DOE modernization. I look forward to taking your questions. 
112 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Dr. Wasserman. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE WASSERMAN 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Stephen Wasserman. It 

is a pleasure to be at this hearing on modernization of the Department of Energy to discuss part of the Department’s science mission: 

the DOE scientific user facilities. DOE’s creation and operation of 

these facilities, an important part of its support of research and energy and the physical sciences, is a major success story of the Department. 

This morning, I appear on behalf of the Society for Science at 

User Research Facilities, SSURF, on whose board of directors I currently serve. SSURF is a new scientific association, founded in 

2016. It continues efforts that began 27 years ago to foster cooperation between the large research facilities of the U.S. Government, 

as well as between the facilities and the scientists who use them. 

As we peer into the Department of Energy’s future, it is useful 

to briefly look back at the path that has led to today. In 1945, Dr. 

Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of Scientific Research and 

Development during World War II, issued a report, ‘‘Science, the 

Endless Frontier,’’ in response to a Presidential request a year earlier. In his text, Dr. Bush stated that, ‘‘research involving expensive capital facilities beyond the capacity of private institutions 

should be advanced by active government support.’’ The current 

DOE user facilities are the result of such support. 

The facilities are the Nation’s shared toolbox for research and innovation. The individual tools are large, often extremely so. Access 

to them is merit-based, with each operating an independent review 

system for proposed experiments. 

The DOE Office of Science operates 26 user facilities. Additional 

ones support the security missions of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration. No other nation has the number and variety of scientific capabilities that U.S. scientists can avail themselves of here 

at home. 

The user facilities are embedded in our scientific psyche. Over 

30,000 scientists from university, industry, and government laboratories currently perform experiments at one or more facilities. 

These researchers come from all 50 states and from every continent, except Antarctica. Three hundred seventy-five companies 

use the DOE facilities, including more than 50 members of the Fortune 500. In addition, most Federal agencies which have a scientific component to their mission sponsor or perform research at 

DOE locations. 

Today, I would like to highlight two examples of the impact of 

the facilities. These represent only a minute sample of the thousands of research projects that are pursued each year within the 

DOE facility network. 

The first example comes from the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, OLCF. General Electric manufactures large turbines fueled by natural gas for the generation of electrical power. 

In 2015, GE used the Titan supercomputer at OLCF to simulate 

two turbine designs: one current, the other then under developVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
113 

ment. The simulations reproduced observations from the current 

system and predicted successful performance in the new model. 

Full scale tests of the new turbine later confirmed the simulations. 

The first of the new turbines, which increased efficiency by 2 percent, a major improvement in the field of power generation, were 

installed in Texas in mid-2017. 

The second example is from the DOE X-ray sources. These 

sources are vital to research and development in human health. 

Virtually every major pharmaceutical company in the U.S. uses 

these sources to probe the structures of proteins implicated in 

human disease. This area is one in which I have been involved for 

20 years, currently at Eli Lilly and Company. 

Scientists in the pharmaceutical industry continually investigate 

how potential new medicinal compounds interact with their biological targets. These efforts have aided the development of drugs to 

treat cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, and autoimmune diseases, as well 

as ongoing research to find approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer’s. 

New medicines whose developments included experiments at one 

of the DOE synchrotron sources can be found in each year’s approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recent example that 

is for me close to home, in September, the FDA approved 

abemaciclib, a new treatment for certain forms of breast cancer 

that was developed by Lilly. I and my co-workers at Lilly performed experiments at the Advanced Photon Source as part of the 

research that lead to this medicine. 

Today, our country is focused on the need to upgrade the Nation’s infrastructure. The user facilities are a type of infrastructure 

that, like transportation and utilities, needs to be maintained and 

improved. The DOE Office of Science has been an admirable steward of this infrastructure. However, the office has been handicapped by budgets whose buying power has significantly decreased 

over the last decade. 

Current fiscal constraints mean that renewal often occurs at the 

slower pace than the facility’s age and that timelines for upgrades 

are lengthened or delayed. The current levels of support have already left our Nation behind in the capabilities available at a small 

subset of the facilities. Continuing this trend risks a gap in innovation and technology between the United States and other nations. 

In conclusion, I would like to return to ‘‘Science, the Endless 

Frontier.’’ Near the end of his summary, Dr. Bush observed that 

responsibilities for scientific research are the proper concern of the 

government where they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our 

national security. We at SSURF and our colleagues in the user facility community could not agree more. The user facilities are a 

critical part of the greatness of the U.S. scientific endeavor. We 

need them for our economy, security, and quality of life. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman follows:] 

114 


29537.047

Stephen R. Wasserman 

Member of the Board of Directors 

Society for Science at User Research Facilities 

Senior Research Fellow 

Eli Lilly and Company 

January 9, 2018 

Summary 

The Department of Energy's scientific user facilities are the nation's shared toolbox for 

research and innovation. These tools, too large for any organization other that the 

government to build, play a vital role in the economic and scientific leadership of the 

United States. 

The DOE Office of Science, through its several program offices, has created and operates 26 

user facilities. Additional department facilities support the security mission of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration. The total suite of facilities offers an extremely diverse set 

of technical capabilities. 

More than 30,000 scientists from university, industry and government laboratories 

perform experiments at one or more user facilities. These researchers are from all 50 

states, as well as from other countries. 375 companies, including more than 50 of the 

Fortune 500, use the facilities as part of their internal research and development. 

The user facilities are essential centers for technical innovation. As part of the critical 

infrastructure of the United states, they must be strongly supported, maintained and 

upgraded. Current rates of investment risk the United States falling behind in the 

international competition in science, technology, and innovation. 

1 
115 


29537.048

Statement of 

Dr. Stephen R. Wasserman 

Member of the Board of Directors 

Society for Science at User Research Facilities 

Director, Lilly Research Laboratories Collaborative Access Team 

Senior Research Fellow, Discovery Chemistry Research and Technologies 

Eli Lilly and Company 

Before 

The United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

Subcommittee on Energy 

January 9, 2018 

2 
116 


29537.049

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and Members of the Subcommittee, 

My name is Stephen Wasserman. It is a pleasure to be at this hearing on Modernization of 

the Department of Energy to discuss the Department's scientific user facilities. DOE's 

creation and operation of these facilities, an important part of its support of research in 

energy and the physical sciences, is a major success story of the Department. 

This morning I appear on behalf of the Society for Science at User Research Facilities, 

SSURF, on whose Board of Directors I currently serve. SSURF is a new scientific 

association, founded in 2016. It continues efforts that began more than 25 years ago to 

foster cooperation between the large scientific research facilities of the US government, as 

well as between the facilities and the scientists who use them. Today SSURF links facilities 

supported by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, of which the 

majority are operated by DOE. Our society is a community of communities, a place where 

facility managers, staff and users work together to discover and provide cutting-edge 

science and capabilities. An important goal of SSURF is to assist the stakeholders of the 

user facilities, so that impact is as great as possible. 

As we peer into the Department of Energy's future, it is useful to briefly look back at the 

path that has led to today. The genesis of the DOE User Facilities is found more than 70 

years ago. In 1945, Dr. Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and 

Development during World War II, issued a report, Science, the Endless Frontier, in 

response to a Presidential request a year earlier. The report described a new framework 

for the scientific future of the United States which included government funding of research 

in universities and national laboratories. In his text Dr. Bush stated that "research involving 

expensive capital facilities beyond the capacity of private institutions should be advanced 

by active Government support". The current DOE User Facilities are the result of such 

3 
117 


29537.050

support. The role of the government in providing them, both up to now and in the future, is 

critical. 

The User Facilities are the nation's shared toolbox for research and innovation. The 

individual tools are large, often extremely so. They are located throughout the country. 

Access to the facilities is merit-based, with each operating an independent peer review 

system for proposed experiments. For researchers who will publish their results in the 

open literature, there are no fees. Organizations that undertake proprietary research 

reimburse the government for the full-cost to the facility of the experiments undertaken. 

The Department of Energy's Office of Science, through its several program offices, operates 

26 user facilities, many with multiple capabilities. Additional facilities support the security 

missions of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The facilities include X-ray 

sources, neutron sources, high-performance computers and computer networks, and 

particle accelerators for high energy physics. No other nation has the sheer number and 

variety of scientific capabilities that US scientists can avail themselves of here at home. 

The User Facilities are imbedded in our scientific psyche. Over 30,000 scientists from 

university, industry and government laboratories currently perform experiments at one or 

more user facilities. I These researchers come from aliSO states and from every continent 

except Antarctica. 375 companies use the DOE facilities, including more than 50 members 

of the Fortune 500. An indication of the facilities' effect on innovation can be seen in the 

fact that over 150 US small businesses make use of the experimental capabilities of the 

facilities. 

1 User statistics are from Office of Science User Facilities Fiscal Year 2015. 

https://science.energy.gov/-/media/ /pdf/user-facilities/Reports/DOE-SC-User-FacilitiesFY20 15-report.pdf 

4 
118 


29537.051

Most Federal agencies, which have a scientific component to their mission, sponsor or 

perform research at the User Facilities. These include the National Science Foundation, the 

National Institutes of Health, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US 

Geological Survey, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Departments of Energy, 

Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and State. 

Like the facilities themselves, the science undertaken is incredibly wide-ranging. Some 

experiments probe the fundamental characteristics of atoms and nuclear particles. Others 

yield results that can impact future technologies and products in the relative near term. 

Smart phones, pharmaceuticals, the strategic nuclear stockpile and environmental quality 

have all benefited from the existence of these often unique instruments. 

Today I would like to provide two examples of the impact of the facilities. These represent 

only a minute sample of the thousands of research projects, ranging in focus from the 

fundamental to the applied, that are pursued each year through the resources available at 

the user facilities. 

The first example comes from the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, OLCF. The 

General Electric company manufactures large turbines, fueled by natural gas, for the 

generation of electrical power. In 2014 GE noticed an instability in the combustion flame of 

their then current turbine design. Although the instability did not affect performance, GE 

wondered whether a similar instability would occur in the next generation turbine, 

scheduled to be tested in late 2015. GE, in cooperation with software provider Cascade 

Technologies, used the Titan supercomputer at OLCF to simulate both turbines. The 

calculations reproduced the instability found in the old turbine and predicted that such a 

phenomenon would not alter performance in the new one. Full-scale physical tests of the 

5 
119 


29537.052

new turbine several months later confirmed the simulations. The first of the new turbines, 

which increase efficiency by 2%, a major improvement in the field of power generation, 

were installed in Texas in mid-2017. And GE now has an effective predictive modeling tool 

for future design work, a breakthrough that would not have been reached without Titan. 

The DOE X-ray sources are vital to research and development in human health. Virtually 

every major pharmaceutical company in the US uses these sources to probe the structures, 

atom by atom, of proteins implicated in human disease. This area is one in which I have 

been involved for 20 years, currently at Eli Lilly and Company where I am director of the 

company's facility at the Advanced Photon Source (APS) of Argonne National Laboratory. 

My colleagues at Lilly and in the pharmaceutical industry continually investigate how 

potential new medicinal compounds interact with their biological targets to enhance or 

inhibit their function. These efforts have aided the development of drugs to treat cancer, 

diabetes, hepatitis, and autoimmune diseases, as well as ongoing research to find 

approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer's. New medicines whose developments included 

experiments at one of the DOE synchrotrons can be found in each year's approvals by the 

Food and Drug Administration. In a recent example that is for me close to home, in 

September the FDA granted approval for abemaciclib, a new treatment for certain forms of 

breast cancer that was developed by Lilly. I and my Lilly co-workers performed 

experiments at the APS as part of the research that led to this medicine. 

The type of cooperation between national laboratories and industry in the second example 

can also be found in cooperative interagency research between the user facilities and the 

National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Examples include the 

joint NSF /DOE partnership in basic plasma science and engineering, which includes use of 

the DOE user facilities. NIH has agreements with all four of the DOE synchrotron X-ray 

sources (Advanced Light Source, Advanced Photon Source, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation 

6 
120 


29537.053

Lightsource, National Synchrotron Light Source-II) to support beam lines for studies on 

biological materials. 

An often overlooked facet of the User Facilities is their staffs. The scientific personnel 

consist of dedicated and talented women and men who work, often at unusual hours, to 

enhance the capabilities of the facility equipment and the quality of the experiments 

undertaken by the users. At the same time the administrations of the facilities seek to 

continually improve the user experience. While most users only interact with the scientists 

and the user office, the facilities have cadres behind the scenes who ensure that the 

equipment functions properly, the experiments are as effective as possible and that the 

users, and those who fund them, obtain the results they need. 

Today our country is focused on the need to upgrade the nation's infrastructure. The user 

facilities are a type of infrastructure that, like transportation and utilities, needs to be 

maintained and improved. Renewal of the facilities does occur. Examples include the 

creation of the National Synchrotron Light Source-II to replace the then 30-year old NSLS 

as well as planned or proposed upgrades to three other DOE X-ray sources and the 

Spallation Neutron Source. The DOE Office of Science has been an excellent steward of this 

infrastructure. However, the Office has been handicapped by budgets whose buying power 

has significantly decreased over the last decade. Current fiscal constraints mean that 

renewal often occurs at a slower pace than the facilities age and that timelines for upgrades 

are lengthened or delayed. The latter increases the cost of modernization. Timely funding 

of these projects offers better value for the American people. The current levels of support 

have already left our nation behind in the capabilities available at a small subset of the 

facilities. Continuing this trend risks expanding the gap in innovation and technology 

between the United States and other nations. 

7 
121 


29537.054

In conclusion, I would like to return to Science, the Endless Frontier. The title of Dr. Bush's 

report indicates that the quest for scientific knowledge and the innovative technologies 

derived from that knowledge is continual. But this quest and the methodologies employed 

for it are not static. The User Facilities have evolved with time, ensuring that the tools 

available remain up to date and relevant. 

Near the end of his summary, Dr. Bush observed that "responsibilities (for scientific 

research} are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our 

jobs, and our national security .... The government should foster the opening of new 

frontiers and ... (science} is the modern way to do it." We at SSURF and our colleagues in 

the user facility community could not agree more. The user facilities are a critical part of 

the greatness of the US scientific endeavor. We urge the continued and expanded support 

of these "crown jewels" of our science and technology ecosystem. We need them for our 

economy, security and quality of life. 

Thank you. 

8 
122 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Reicher, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER 

Mr. REICHER. Thank you. 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the 

subcommittee, I am pleased to share my perspective on the DOE’s 

mission. 

I have spent more than a decade at the Department under four 

secretaries and have a deep respect for the agency. So it pains me 

to say that DOE, under the Trump administration, is heading in 

a problematic direction when it comes to the innovation, commercialization, and deployment of U.S. clean energy technology. 

The administration has sought unprecedented cuts in DOE’s 

budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity reliability, fossil energy, and nuclear power. It has proposed to eliminate the Loan Programs Office, ARPA-E, the State Energy Program, and the low-income weatherization program. It has begun 

putting the brakes on energy efficiency standards and has not reestablished the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. 

Let me be clear, DOE continues to make progress in critical 

areas, but this progress is slowing as important programs keep personnel, longstanding advisory functions, and related funding are 

hollowed out. These challenges come at a time when worldwide investment in clean energy is growing, roughly $750 billion annually 

today, and there is a global race for dominance in this massive 

market. 

The Chinese have a well-organized plan to dominate clean energy. From wind, solar, hydropower, and storage, to nuclear power, 

advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, carbon capture, and transmission, China is not only leading in manufacturing and deployment, but increasingly in R&D and commercialization, the traditional U.S. strong suits. 

This committee should look at the risk posed by these trends and 

ensure that DOE’s applying a full set of resources. We preceded our 

peril in hobbling the U.S. Government’s work with industry to advance our Nation’s competitive position in clean energy, a sector 

where much energy innovation has come from the U.S., often at 

taxpayer expense. 

My testimony addresses several issues. First, Congress should resist the administration’s proposed 69 percent cut in funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy or EERE, and urge the administration to propose robust funding in fiscal year 2019. In a 

June letter, all seven of us who are EERE assistant secretaries, 

both Republicans and Democrats, emphasized that cuts of this size 

would do serious harm. 

Second, this committee should resist the pending rescission of 

funds by House appropriators that would effectively end the work 

of DOE’s Loan Programs Office, LPO. LPO, originally authorized 

by this committee, is carrying out its emissions well, helping to 

commercialize advanced nuclear fossil and renewable energy as 

well as transportation technologies, and managing the existing $36 

billion investment portfolio. 

123 

In a June 4 letter to this committee that I would like to submit 

for the record, 17 CEOs wrote that the LPO is often the only way 

to get innovative energy technologies commercially deployed. LPO 

has $41 billion in remaining loan-making capacity that would be a 

big down payment on the trillion dollar infrastructure program 

that Congress may soon take up. 

Third, DOE’s Appliance Standards Program was one of the most 

effective approaches to saving energy, and has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Unfortunately, DOE recently put work on most new 

standards on hold, and could end up violating statutory deadlines. 

This committee should ensure that DOE does not advocate its important standard setting role. 

Fourth, a bipartisan effort over the last several years would open 

up congressionally authorized investment vehicles, master limited 

partnerships, private activity bonds, and real estate investment 

trusts to clean energy technologies, and thereby lower the cost of 

financing energy projects. The House should adopt the bipartisan 

MLP Parity Act, sponsored by Representatives Poe and Thompson, 

as well as Congressman Welch, and the bipartisan Carbon Capture 

Improvement Act sponsored by Representatives Curbelo and 

Veasey. 

Fifth, the need for electricity storage is growing fast with the significant increase in solar and wind. Congress and the administration should help advance both utility scale and distributed storage 

through R&D funding, grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, MLPs, 

and other tools. In this regard, Congress should resist the Trump 

administration’s proposed 61 percent cut in DOE energy storage 

R&D. 

Sixth, carbon capture and storage can cut emissions in both 

power generation and heavy industry. Over the past 20 years, DOE 

has relied on a variety of Federal tools—R&D funding grants, Federal tax credits, private activity bonds, and loan guarantees—to advance CCS and made good progress. The House should resist the 

Trump administration’s proposed 85 percent cut in DOE’s CCS 

R&D funding and adopt pending legislation that would improve the 

current CCS 45Q tax credit and authorize both master limited 

partnership and private activity bond funding. 

Seventh, the U.S. Government is the single largest energy user 

in the Nation, with an energy bill to taxpayers exceeding $23 billion. The committee should take note of a 2016 task force by a report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that proposes many 

ways to cut this bill and expand the deployment of clean energy on 

Federal lands. It should also resist the proposed 63 percent cut to 

the budget of DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program. 

Finally, this committee should encourage Secretary Perry to reactivate the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that has long provided important expert input into the Department’s programs and 

operations. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reicher follows:] 

124 


29537.055

Testimony of Dan W. Reicher 

Executive Director 

ofthe 

Stanford University Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance 

to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Hearing on the 

"Alignment and Execution of DOE's Missions: 

Advancing National and Energy Security in an Era of Energy Abundance" 

January 9, 2018 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittees, my name is Dan 

Reicher and I am pleased to share my perspective on the Department of Energy's mission. I am 

Executive Director of Stanford University's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, a 

joint center of Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where I teach 

graduate-level courses and lead a variety of research projects. I am testifYing in my individual 

capacity and my views do not necessarily reflect those of Stanford University. 

I am also a senior fellow (non-resident) at the Brookings Institution, have been a member of the 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board since 2013, and recently finished a 1 0-yearterm on the National 

Academy of Sciences Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. I also chair the board of 

directors of the American Council on Renewable Energy and am a board member of the American 

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

I have had substantial experience in both the private and public sectors. Prior to my role at Stanford, 

I was Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google. Prior to this position, I was 

President and Co-Founder of New Energy Capital, a private equity firm funded by the California 

State Teachers Retirement System and Vantage Point Venture Partners to invest in clean energy 

projects. Prior to this position, I was Executive Vice President ofNorthem Power Systems, a venture 

capital-backed renewable energy company. 

In the Clinton Administration, I served as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy, and Department of Energy 

Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff. I also served on President Obama's transition team where 

I helped develop the stimulus package for clean energy. Early in my career, I was an Assistant 

Attorney General in Massachusetts, a staff member of President Carter's Commission on the 

Accident at Three Mile Island, and a legal assistant at the U.S. Department of Justice. 
125 


29537.056

Introduction and Summary 

I have been asked to provide my perspective on the "alignment and execution of DOE's mission." 

There are a number of issues that face the DOE as it pursues its important science, energy, security 

and environmental responsibilities. I will focus on eight issues reflecting my current work in clean 

energy innovation, development, and deployment: 

1. Funding for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

2. The DOE Loan Programs Office 

3. The DOE Appliance Standards Program 

4. Federal Tax-Advantaged Finance Vehicles 

5. Federal Support for Electricity Storage 

6. The Federal Role in Carbon Capture and Storage 

7. Federal Energy Management 

8. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

Overall, I believe that the DOE, under the Trump administration, is heading in a problematic 

direction when it comes to the innovation, commercialization and deployment of U.S. clean energy 

technology. The Trump administration has sought unprecedented reductions in the budgets for 

DOE's applied energy offices: energy efficiency and renewable energy; electricity delivery and 

energy reliability; fossil energy; and nuclear energy. It has proposed to eliminate critical allied 

functions, like the Loan Programs Office, ARPA-e, the State Energy Program, and the 

Weatherization Assistance Program. It has begun to put the brakes on energy efficiency standardsetting for appliances and equipment. It has also reduced important input into the Department's 

programs and operations by, for example, failing to activate key advisory bodies like the Secretary 

of Energy Advisory Board. 

Let me be clear, DOE continues to make progress in critical areas and federal staff capabilities and 

national laboratory expertise remain strong. But I am concerned that this progress is slowing as 

important programs, key personnel, long-standing advisory functions, and related funding are 

hollowed out. 

These challenges come at a moment when two fundamental global trends are accelerating. First, 

world-wide investment in clean energy is growing, measuring roughly $750 billion today and with 

projected annual needs of more than $2 trillion to meet climate targets, according to the International 

Energy Agency. 1 Second, an unprecedented global race has broken out for dominance in this massive 

energy market. Among the competitors, the Chinese have a well-organized and executed plan to 

dominate the energy technology industry, with all of its associated economic, security and 

environmental benefits. From wind, solar, hydropower, and storage to nuclear power, advanced 

vehicles, energy efficiency, carbon capture, and transmission, China is not only leading the world in 

1 https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-cootent/uploads/20 17 /11/stanfordcleanenergyfinanceframingdoc 1 0·31 final.pdf at 3. 

2 
126 


29537.057

low-cost manufacturing and deployment of clean energy technology but increasingly in energy R&D 

and commercialization, traditionally the U.S. strong suit. 

The U.S. Congress, starting with this committee, should take a serious look at these trends and the 

risks they pose to the U.S. economy, security and environment. Rather than cutting budgets, 

dropping programs, laying off workers, and increasingly turning inward, the House and Senate 

should ensure that DOE is applying a full set of resources -robust federal funding, a strong federal 

work force, world-class expertise at the DOE labs, and a diverse set of Congressionally-authorized 

tools- to the opportunities and challenges of clean energy technology. We proceed at our peril in 

hobbling the U.S. government's work with industry to advance our nation's competitive position in 

clean energy, a sector where much of the innovation, over multiple decades, has come from the U.S., 

often at taxpayer expense. This is a moment when we should be strengthening not weakening the 

successful and long-standing industry-government partnership in clean energy technology so that 

five years from now we don't look back regretfully at the loss of U.S. leadership in this critical area. 

Summarizing my testimony: 

1. Funding for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Congress 

should resist DOE's proposed 69% cut in FY18 funding for DOE's Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and should urge the administration to propose 

robust funding in FY19. In a June 2017 letter from all seven former EERE Assistant 

Secretaries we emphasized that cuts of this magnitude in the FY18 budget would do serious 

harm to this office's critical work. Worldwide investment in clean energy now measures 

about $750 billion annually. Governments across the globe- and companies large and small 

- want a piece of this massive and growing economic pie, representing tens of trillions of 

dollars over the next three decades and millions of jobs. China, in particular, has made it a 

high priority to lead the global clean energy industry and, to this end, is reorganizing its R&D 

and deployment, and redoubling its efforts, in an array of clean energy technologies, many 

of them first developed in the U.S. at taxpayer expense. This is the moment for the U.S. 

government to step up to, not back from, this major opportunity. 

2. The DOE Loan Programs Office: This committee should resist the pending rescission of 

funds by House and Senate appropriators that would effectively end the work ofDOE's Loan 

Programs Office (LPO). LPO, originally authorized in the House by this committee, is 

carrying out its Congressionally-directed missions very capably, both helping to 

commercialize important energy and transportation technologies and managing the existing 

$36 billion investment portfolio successfully. In a January 4 letter to this committee, 17 

companies wrote that the "LPO represents the best and often only way to cross the barrier 

from developing innovative technologies to deploying those technologies commercially here 

in the U.S. and ultimately for export." LPO has $41 billion in remaining loan-making 

capacity that would be a substantial down payment on the energy portion of the trillion-dollar 

infrastructure program that Congress may soon take up. This capacity is one of the cheapest 

and quickest ways for the federal government to build important infrastructure, compared 

with other options. The LPO has already backed energy and transportation infrastructure 

projects involving transmission, storage, nuclear technology, battery production, and engine 

manufacturing. Avoiding a full rescission of LPO funding - i.e. retaining previously 
127 


29537.058

appropriated balances to maintain a range of $100-$200 million to support "self-pay" 

authority- would give U.S. companies access to a meaningful portion of the $41 billion in 

LPO capacity. 

3. The DOE Appliance Standards Program: This DOE program, first created by Congress 

in the 1970s, is among the nation's most successful and cost-effective approaches to saving 

energy in homes and businesses. It has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, 

DOE's Fall20 17 Regulatory Agenda puts work on most new standards on hold and, if carried 

out, will likely put the Department in violation of a series of statutory deadlines. Also, DOE 

has initiated a process to revamp the standards-setting process. While any process can be 

improved, the energy efficiency standard-setting process, developed over multiple 

administrations, works well and generally results in a high level of consensus among industry 

and advocates and large public benefits. DOE has also left four standards completed in 2016 

in regulatory limbo. This committee should ensure that DOE does not abdicate its important 

standard-setting obligations and any changes to the program should advance, not retard its 

effectiveness and leave the program flexibility for further evolution. 

4. Federal Tax-Advantaged Finance Vehicles: There has been a bipartisan effort over the last 

few years to open up long-standing Congressionally authorized investment vehicles 

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), Private Activity Bonds (PABs), and Real Estate 

Investment Trusts (REITs)- to clean energy technologies. These vehicles are attractive 

because they are tax-advantaged - either eliminating the double taxation of common 

corporate investment structures or providing a full exemption from federal taxation. As such, 

they can provide lower-cost financing to clean energy project developers. The House should: 

adopt the bipartisan "MLP Parity Act" sponsored by Representatives Poe and Thompson; 

adopt the bipartisan Carbon Capture Improvement Act, focused on P ABs, sponsored by 

Representatives Curbelo and Veasey; and, working with the IRS, should consider options to 

expand REIT eligibility for clean energy projects. 

5. Federal Support for Electricity Storage: With the significant growth of solar and wind 

generation in recent years the need for electricity storage capacity has grown as well. 

However, large-scale electricity storage, with the exception of pumped hydro, is relatively 

immature technologically, and the costs of a number of promising options are high. As a 

result, gas turbines often are needed to fill the gap when solar and wind are not available. 

Congress and the administration should pursue a well-organized approach to stimulating 

cost-effective utility-scale and distributed storage, supported by R&D funding, grants, tax 

credits, loan guarantees, MLPs, and other tools. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has 

proposed a 61% cut in DOE energy storage-related R&D in its FYI8 budget, versus FY17 

levels. Congress should ensure adequate R&D funding and advance these other tools. 

6. The Federal Role in Carbon Capture and Storage: CCS has broad application in cutting 

carbon emissions - from coal, natural gas, and biomass-fired power plants to industrial 

operations like oil refineries, ethanol facilities, steel production, cement plants, natural gas 

processing operations, and fertilizer production. While successfully operating in various 

industries, CCS has not yet been deployed at the scale or cost required for meaningful 

climate-related carbon controls. Over the past 20 years, DOE has relied on a variety of federal 

4 
128 


29537.059

support mechanisms and incentives R&D funding, grants, federal tax credits, private 

activity bonds and loan guarantees - to advance CCS and made good progress. The House 

should resist the Trump administration's proposed 85% cut in DOE's FY18 CCS R&D 

funding. It should also adopt pending legislation that would: improve the current CCS 45Q 

tax credit; provide access to MLP and PAB financing for carbon capture projects; and protect 

the DOE loan program from a pending rescission of funds. 

7. Federal Energy Management: The U.S. government is the single largest energy user in the 

nation with an energy bill to taxpayers exceeding $23 billion. The federal government owns 

350,000 buildings, more than a quarter of all U.S. land, tens of thousands of miles of 

transmission lines, and 400,000 non-tactical vehicles. There are a number of actions that 

could cut the federal government's own energy use and expand its deployment of clean 

energy. They are analyzed in a September 2016 report by a task force ofDOE's Secretary of 

Energy Advisory Board that I co-chaired with former U.S. Representative Ellen Tauscher, 

with assistance from DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). These actions 

include, for example: increasing and improving the use of Energy Savings Performance 

Contracts; reducing the federal real estate footprint; improving federal procurement of 

renewable energy; expanding clean energy development on federal lands; accelerating 

federal procurement of alternative fuel vehicles; increasing the role of federal Power 

Marketing Administrations in meeting federal energy goals; supporting DOD and GSA 

energy technology test beds; and increasing funding for FEMP. Regarding the last action, 

Congress should resist the Trump administration's proposal to cut FEMP FY18 funding by 

63%. 

8. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board: The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

(SEAB) has provided valuable advice to multiple secretaries for decades. The SEAB was 

active under DOE Secretary Moniz, producing reports and advising the Secretary on a range 

of matters, from technology development for environmental management, next generation 

high-performance computing, and nuclear non-proliferation to federal energy management, 

the DOE national laboratories (especially the NNSA weapons laboratories), the future of 

nuclear power, and methane hydrates. Secretary Perry has not activated the SEAB. This 

committee should encourage him to do so to improve input into the Department's programs 

and operations. 

My full statement follows: 

1. Funding for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

DOE is the single largest funder of clean energy innovation in the U.S., and our nation will be 

hindered in the global energy market without a strategic and well-funded DOE research portfolio, 

including basic science, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil energy, and 

electricity reliability. 

In June 2017, the entire group of Senate-confirmed Republican and Democratic Assistant Secretaries 

of Energy, who led the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) between 1989 
129 


29537.060

and 2017, wrote to DOE Secretary Perry, OMB Director Mulvaney, and House and Senate leadership.2 

We registered our deep concerns about the Administration's proposal to cut the EERE budget by 69% 

from FY2017levels, as detailed in the chart below from DOE's FYIS Budget in Brief. The seven of us 

noted that while we have not always agreed on the relative emphasis of various elements of EERE 

funding we are unified that cuts of this magnitude in the FYIS budget would do serious harm to this 

office's critical work and America's energy future. 

ENERGY E~FIOfNCY AND RENEWABlE ENERGY 

FV 2018 vs FV 2016 

$ 

Energy Effidency and Renewable Energy " Sustainable Transportation 

Vehicle Technologies 310,000 309,411 82,000 ·228,000 ·73.5% 

Bioenergy Technologies 225,000 224,571 56,600 ·168,400 ·74.8% 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies 100,950 100,758 45,000 -55,950 ·55.4% 

Total, Sustainable Transportation 635,950 634,740 183,600 ' -452,350 ·71.1% 

Renewable Energy 

Solar Energy 241,600 241,141 69,700 ·171,900 -71.2% 

Wind Energy 95,450 95,269 31,700 -63,750 -66.8% 

WaterPower 70,000 69,867 20,400 -49,600 -70.9% 

Geothermal Technologies 71,000 70,865 12,500 -58,500 -82.4% 

Total, Renewable Energy 478,050 477,142 134,300 -343,750 -71.9% 

Energy Effidency 

Advanced Manufacturing 228,500 228,066 82,000 -146,500 -64.1% 

Federal Energy Management Program 27,000 26,949 10,000 -17,000 -63.0% 

Building Technologies 200,500 200,119 67,500 -133,000 -66.3% 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program 265,000 264,496 0 -265,000 -100.0% 

Total, Energy Efficiency 721,000 719,630 159,500 ·561,500 ·77.9% 

Corporate Support 

Program Direction 155,000 154,705 125,849 -29,151 -18.8% 

Strategic Programs 21,000 20,960 0 -21,000 -100.0% 

Facilities and Infrastructure 62,000 61,882 92,000 +30,000 48.4% 

Total, Corporate Support 238,000 237,547 217,849 -20,151 -8.5% 

Subtotal, Energy Effldency and Renewable Energy 2,073,000 2,069,059 695,249 ·1,377,751 -66.5% 

Use of Prior Year Balances• 0 0 -59,100 -59,100 N/A 

Rescission of Prior Year Balances -3,806 0 +3,806 100.0% 

Total, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 2,069,194 2,069,059 636,149 -1,433,()45 -69.3% 

We emphasized that EERE-supported research, development, and demonstration in energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, transportation, clean energy manufacturing, and electric grid modernization are 

critical to encouraging U.S. innovation, creating good-paying jobs, cutting pollution, and ensuring 

American global competitiveness. Other critical EERE programs, with similar benefits, focus on setting 

efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, helping states deliver energy efficiency 

improvements, leading the federal government's efforts to reduce its own $23 billion annual energy 

bill, and cutting energy use in low-income homes. 

These programs saw massive proposed cuts in the Trump Administration's proposed FYI8 budget 

versus FY17levels: solar energy by 71%, wind energy by 66%, and geothermal energy by 82%; vehicle 

technologies by 74%; and building technologies by 66%. Some programs were proposed to be zeroed 

2 https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/06/0S/document gw 02.odf 

6 
130 


29537.061

out, including the Weatherization Assistance Program (W AP) and the State Energy Program (SEP). 

The Trump administration also proposed a 30% cut in EERE staffing. 

Congress has not finalized an FY18 budget and, as a result, EERE has been operating at roughly FY17 

levels, while programs proposed for elimination, like the SEP and W AP, are still functioning. Thus, 

DOE Secretary Perry recently announced $18.5 million in funding for an important new R&D 

consortium focused on off-shore wind. 3 It is doubtful DOE could have launched this initiative with the 

proposed 67% cut in wind program funding- from $95 million in FYI7 to $32 million in the 

administration's FY18 proposal. This funding reprieve has definitely been helpful in sustaining 

important EERE work but there remains significant uncertainty among DOE staff and their outside 

partners in the public and private sectors about the Department's programs, budgets and staffing. Thus, 

it is difficult to plan for weatherization of low-income homes around the country when not only funding 

but the very existence of a key federal program is at issue. This is particularly troubling, first, in a 

month when we've seen record-breaking cold in large parts of our country and heating fuel costs are 

rising and, second, in a program that has weatherized more than seven million low-income homes4 and 

in 20 l 5 leveraged $4.62 for every dollar invested by DOE. 5 

In our letter, we stressed that this is a particularly inauspicious time to cut the EERE budget. As noted 

above, worldwide investment in clean energy now measures about $750 billion annually. Governments 

across the globe - and companies large and small want a piece of this massive economic pie 

representing tens of trillions of dollars over the next three decades and millions of jobs. China, in 

particular, has made it a high priority to lead the globe in the clean energy industry and is reorganizing 

its energy R&D and deployment efforts in a broad array of clean energy technologies, many of them 

first developed in the U.S. at taxpayer expense. We analyzed China's commitment in one of these fastgrowing industries- solar photovoltaics- in a 2017 Stanford report funded by DOE.6 China not only 

dominates global production of photovoltaics but has become the world leader in solar deployment and 

has made vast strides in solar R&D, a remaining U.S. strength. It is telling that China intends to spend 

more than $360 billion on renewables through 2020 and create 13 million jobs.7 We ignore China's 

resolve- and success to date- at our peril. 

In our joint letter, we also emphasized that U.S. energy security, a key focus of Congress and the 

administration, requires a reliable and resilient electricity system. Fundamental performance 

characteristics of the grid are changing due to increasing use of variable supplies, electronic converters 

for motor drives, lights, and other equipment, and grid communications and control with the shift from 

analog to digital systems. These changes have the potential to improve grid economics and 

performance, but also require greater agility to optimize operations, reduce response time to system 

failures, and confront new vulnerabilities such as cybersecurity. R&D to develop the capabilities 

needed in a modernized grid is critical, yet the electric utility sector invests just 0.2 percent of sales in 

R&D. R&D by EERE and DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (with a 

proposed 48% cut in FY20 l 8) is pivotal in meeting these grid modernization challenges. 

3 https://cnergy.gov/articles/secretary-energy .. rick-perrv~announces·l85~million.oQffshore~wind~research 

4 httos://energy.gov/eere/articles/celebrating~40-years~america~s-weatherization-assistance-program 

5 https://energy.gov/sites/prodlfi!es/2017/05/f34/wap factsheet 08.2017.pdf 6 httos:llwww-cdn.law.stanford.edulwp-content/uploads/201710312017-03-20-Stanford-China-Reoort.pdf 

7 Reuters, January 5, 2017 http:/M"WW.reuters.corn!article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P 

7 
131 


29537.062

As six Republican Senators, led by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), wrote in June 2017, referencing 

EERE and other DOE offices, "We cannot lose the technological advantages we have gained through 

research and development. Governing is about setting priorities and the federal debt is not about 

Congress overspending on science and energy research each year."8 

Our group of former EERE leaders share this view and urged the Administration and Congress to set 

the FY 18 EERE budget at a level that will ensure the continued effectiveness of this critical federal 

program. I would urge the same as DOE and OMB prepare, and Congress considers, the FY19 budget. 

2. DOE Loan Programs Office 

A strong adjunct to DOE's applied energy work, the Department's Loan Programs Office (LPO) 

implements key programs that help innovative U.S. energy and transportation technologies cross the 

colorfully but accurately named, "valley of death" that sits between the early development of an 

advanced energy or vehicle technology and its full commercial deployment. By helping to overcome 

the major capital barrier to market entry, the LPO has increased U.S. private sector investment in 

advanced energy and vehicle technology deployment, with the attendant economic, environmental, 

and security benefits. 

President George W. Bush signed legislation launching the two key DOE loan programs under 

discussion today. Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, enacted by a Republican-led Congress, 

directed DOE to issue loan guarantees to support the commercial deployment of energy projects that 

"employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in 

service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued" and cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Title XVII program covers a number of eligible technologies including advanced fossil, nuclear, 

and renewable energy, and energy efficiency. 

Congress authorized the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program under 

Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. It authorizes the DOE to issue 

direct loans to auto manufacturers and component suppliers for manufacturing of advanced 

technology vehicles and associated components in the U.S. In contrast to the Title XVII program, 

where the applicant pays the "credit subsidy cost" (an estimate of the potential losses), Congress 

appropriated the funds to cover potential losses for the A TVM program in 2008, also under President 

Bush. 

President Obama signed a third bill in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the 

"stimulus bill"), that authorized a new temporary deployment-oriented loan guarantee program to 

stimulate job creation during the financial crisis and also appropriated funds to cover credit subsidy 

costs for borrowers. This program, meant to deploy already demonstrated technologies while credit 

markets were frozen during the financial crisis, built a number of "shovel-ready" energy projects 

before it expired in 2011. 

8 http:/ /www.sciencemag.org/news/20 17 /OS!key~republican-lawmakers·urge-trump-not-cut-doe--researcb 

8 
132 


29537.063

In contrast with federal grants, which constitute one-time expenditures to advance particular R&D 

goals, loans and loan guarantees are the federal financial mechanism that helps take technology 

advances from the laboratory and tum them into operating projects and companies. Thus, the 

innovative U.S. auto manufacturer Tesla Motors received a $465 million ATVM loan at a critical 

moment in its efforts to buy a shuttered former OM-Toyota manufacturing plant in California. The 

loan was pivotal in Tesla's efforts to not only reopen the factory but rapidly move from a novel 

concept employing largely contract manufacturing overseas to full-scale manufacturing operations 

in the U.S., creating more than 3000 full-time jobs in the process. Importantly, in 2013 Tesla repaid 

the federal government the remaining balance on its loan- nine years early and with interest. 

I believe the LPO remains well positioned to carry out its Congressionally-directed mission very 

capably, both helping to commercialize important energy and transportation technologies and 

managing the related investment portfolio successfully. Unfortunately, pending budget decisions in 

both the House and Senate would rescind previous appropriations necessary to fund both staffing of 

the LPO office and allow that office to exercise its existing $41 billion worth of LPO loan-making 

capacity. This committee, in conjunction with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 

originally developed the loan programs in 2005 and 2007 bipartisan energy legislation. Subsequent 

Congresses, also on a strongly bipartisan basis, supported the loan programs by appropriating funds 

in 2006 and again in 2008 to support over $50 billion worth of loan-making capacity. Today's 

appropriators are seeking to use these funds for other purposes and I would urge this committee to 

take a serious look at the dismantling of its good work-that fills a critical financial gap-through 

this pending rescission. 

The $41 billion in remaining LPO loan-making capacity, if not rescinded by the current Congress, 

would be a substantial down payment on the trillion-dollar infrastructure program that both 

Republicans and Democrats have talked about on Capitol Hill and that President Trump highlighted 

in his February 2017 Joint Address to Congress. In that speech, Mr. Trump emphasized the need for 

both "public and private capital" in advancing this infrastructure spending objective. The $41 billion 

in existing LPO authority is one of the cheapest and quickest ways for the federal government to 

build important infrastructure compared with several other options the administration and Congress 

are considering. 

To date, the DOE loan program has backed a variety of innovative energy infrastructure projects, 

for example: a high voltage transmission line in Nevada with more cost-effective construction; an 

electricity storage project in New York to address voltage fluctuations in the grid; engine 

manufacturing in Michigan that has improved, among other things, the fuel economy of the popular 

Ford F-150 truck; advanced battery manufacturing in Tennessee; and advanced nuclear reactors in 

Georgia. 

Importantly, the more than 30 loans and loan guarantees in the current DOE loan guarantee portfolio 

have demonstrated impressive financial performance. As of December 2016, there were $36 billion 

in loans, loan guarantees, and commitments made in the program, with $6.65 billion in loan principal 

and $1.79 billion in interest already repaid to the U.S. Treasury. Losses in the portfolio, as of 

December 2016, were barely half of the interest paid so far, or just over 2 percent of the program's 

commitments to date, and a tiny fraction of the $10 billion set aside by Congress to cover failed 

loans. 

9 
133 


29537.064

There is also a substantial portfolio of potential new projects. On January 4, executives of 17 

companies wrote to the chairs and ranking members of the full Energy and Commerce Committee 

and this subcommittee in support of the LPO. The companies have either pending loan guarantee 

applications or are preparing new applications focused on projects to commercialize fossil, nuclear, 

renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy storage, grid reliability, and advanced transportation 

technologies. The executives wrote: 

"The DOE LPO represents the best and often only way to cross the barrier from 

developing innovative technologies to deploying those technologies commercially here 

in the US. and ultimately for export. The LPO is a win-win-win for taxpayers, 

American energy innovation, and the communities and states where these investments 

are being made. The program's real costs are paid by the companies that submit 

applications, and each federal dollar of loan guarantees leverages approximately $10 

in private capital investment, which exceeds the Trump Administration's plans to 

leverage infrastructure investment at a ratio of 5:1. For these reasons, there are zero 

savings associated with removing loan authority, only the loss of American jobs and 

injury to American competitiveness. " 

Despite the overall success of the LPO portfolio- and the substantial portfolio of proposed projects 

-there has been much focus on a handful of losses. Most well-known among them is Solyndra, 

which was indeed a major loss under the now-expired 1705 program but it has been used for years 

to impugn the overall program more broadly. Wrapping the entire DOE loan program in the Solyndra 

blanket is unfortunate because, as described above, the full portfolio is in admirable shape. A key 

fact: LPO has about a 2% loss ratio, less than the loss ratio in the loan portfolios of just about every 

U.S. money center bank, and these banks are generally not making loans for energy projects 

deploying advanced technologies- and certainly not in the riskier commercialization stage. 

There is a recent compelling example of an energy infrastructure project supported by DOE's loan 

program. In December, 20 16, the Department made a $2 billion conditional loan commitment, that 

will be matched by $1.9 billion in private investment, for a project in Lake Charles, Louisiana that 

will convert oil-refining waste ("petcoke") into high-value methanol, a key industrial chemical used 

in paints, plastics, automotive parts and fuel blending. 9 The carbon dioxide captured in the process 

will be injected into Texas oil fields to enhance their production, with the C02 sequestered 

underground. The project involves more than I 000 construction jobs and 200 permanent jobs in 

Louisiana and supports about 300 enhanced oil recovery jobs in Texas. 

DOE's experienced staff of investment professionals is reviewing more than $50 billion worth of 

additional proposed new investments across 70 different energy-related projects for approval by 

Secretary Perry. The Lake Charles project, and new ones in the loan program pipeline, could benefit 

from a clear and immediate signal from Congress, the White House, OMB, DOE, and the Treasury 

Department that the federal government supports this existing energy infrastructure finance 

mechanism and that it will honor current government commitments and project applications. 

It would be short-sighted to entirely eliminate funding and lose the benefit of the experienced 

personnel, lessons learned, and skills developed in LPO to finance advanced energy infrastructure, 

9 https://energy.gov/articleslenergy-department-offers~conditional-commitment-first-advanced-fossil-energv-loan-guarantee 

10 
134 


29537.065

just as Congress turns to developing new programs to rebuild our aging infrastructure. This is 

especially the case when the cost of maintaining the program's loan guarantee and loan-making 

activities is so minimal. Avoiding a full rescission of LPO funding i.e. retaining previously 

appropriated balances to maintain a range of $100-$200 million to support "self-pay" authoritywould allow the private sector to continue to access a meaningful portion of the remaining LPO loan 

guarantee and loan-making capacity, allowing projects to move forward in 2018 and 2019. 

a. Why the Reluctance about LPO? 

There is an unfortunate view in our country today, mostly inside the D.C. beltway, that the federal 

government shouldn't play a role in commercializing energy technology. This view flies in the face 

of many decades of U.S. history- and basic business logic. The U.S. government, as have other 

governments around the world, has long played a vital and successful role in helping to overcome 

barriers to commercializing energy technology. It is a role that should continue, especially in light 

of unprecedented competition from other countries, in particular China. Two brief examples follow, 

involving commercial nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing, and a third regarding Carbon Capture 

and Storage (CCS) is discussed in a separate section below. 

i. Commercial Nuclear Power 

The federal government, in the Truman administration, financed the commercialization of civilian 

nuclear power, fully funding an Idaho reactor (EBR-I) where usable electricity was first generated 

from nuclear energy in 1951. The federal government spent approximately $5 50 million in current 

dollars on the Idaho project. 10 Further government-funded civilian reactors followed, including six 

years later the federally-financed Shippingport reactor in Pennsylvania, "the world's first full-scale 

atomic electric power plant devoted exclusively to peacetime uses."II It was not until 1960 that we 

saw "the first U.S. nuclear power plant built without government funding." 12 

The federal government has stayed in the nuclear power commercialization business helping to 

finance the scale-up of various technologies, some successful and some not. This includes federal 

funding of breeder reactors 13 and in recent years significant DOE investment in the development of 

small modular reactors, involving a number of U.S. companies. Additionally, the LPO has backed 

the construction of the first new reactors in the U.S. in decades. The Vogtle project in Georgia is 

using the "next generation of nuclear reactors that incorporate a number of new safety features, 

including .... passive safety systems that are able to respond in an emergency without any human 

intervention or electrical power." 14 There have undoubtedly been problems with the Vogtle project 

but that is often the nature of energy projects deploying newer technology. 

Looking ahead, a 2016 report by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board to Secretary of Energy 

Moniz concluded that the successful development, commercialization and deployment of advanced 

10 http://www4vip.inl.gov/ebr/ 

11 https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-oreparednesslhistorr.html 12 ld. 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki!Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project 14 https://www.energy.gov/articleslvogt1e-big·results-nuclear-power 

II 
135 


29537.066

reactor technologies in the U.S. at multi-gigawatt scale beginning in 2030 would require significant 

government investment, measured in the billions of dollars. 15 

The federal government, for decades, has been willing to step up, sometimes completely funding an 

initial commercial-scale nuclear project or cost-sharing it. From a business standpoint, the 

government's role makes eminent sense. Back in the 1950s there was no way that an individual 

company or private investor was going to take the full risk of developing an early nuclear power 

plant. The technical unknowns and safety concerns were simply too great. Without the major 

investment that the federal government made in the first generation of civilian reactors- measured 

in the billions of today's dollars plus the brainpower and facilities provided by federal labs -

commercial nuclear power would likely not have developed at the pace and scale that it did. 

ii. Hydraulic Fracturing 

The federal government played an important role in the commercialization of hydraulic fracturing 

("fracking"), the successful, albeit controversial, process by which the U.S. has been able to access 

substantial deposits of shale gas, tight gas and tight oil. The private sector, particularly pioneers like 

George Mitchell, were instrumental in the development of fracking but the federal government 

backed commercialization of this important technology in a variety of ways. These include: shale 

fracturing and direct drilling technologies developed by the federal government and federal labs; 

public-private shale drilling demonstration projects in the 1970s; the section 29 production tax credit 

for unconventional gas in effect from 1980 to 2002; federal funding of cost-shared fracking projects 

including Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well in 1991; and 3-D micro-seismic imaging developed 

by DOE's Sandia National Lab. As a 2102 study concluded: 

These federal investments, coordinated in close concert with gas industry 

representatives, were predicated upon a single mission: the commercialization of shale 

gas extraction technology. As a result of these efforts carried out over the course of 30 

years, shale gas went from inaccessible deposits locked in unfamiliar geologic 

formations to the fastest growing contributor to the nation's energy portfolio. 16 

The partnership between the federal government and the natural gas industry was crucial in the 

efforts to develop hydraulic fracturing. George Mitchell, often called the "father of fracking," was a 

bold businessman but he enjoyed strong backing from the federal government in getting his 

important technology to commercial scale. It is conceivable he and others in the private sector could 

have succeeded without government help, but it is highly doubtful given modem fracking's 

dependence on government-born technologies like 3-D seismic imaging from DOE's Sandia 

National Lab, along with tax credits and early government cost-shared projects. 

These and many other examples point to the long-standing role the federal government has played 

- through Republican and Democratic administrations alike in commercializing energy 

technology. Energy project developers and investors often can't or won't shoulder all the risk 

inherent in the initial commercial scale-up of an energy technology, where a project can cost 

1

' https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi!es/2016/l O/f33/9-22-

16 SEAB%20Nuclear''lo20Power"/o20TF%20Report"lo20and%20transmittal.pdf 16 http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/shale gas fracking history and 

12 
136 


29537.067

hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars and there are multiple reasons the first-time project 

can fail. 

Outside of the energy context we don't generally have this debate about whether the federal 

government should back technology development and deployment. Thus, the government, through 

DARPA, has had a major hand in the development and application of revolutionary technologies 

ranging from the Internet and videoconferencing to GPS and the Cloud. 17 

b. China's Energy Dominance 

There is another reason why the federal government should continue its efforts in clean energy 

technology commercialization. As noted in the introduction, the Chinese government and private 

sector have a well-organized and executed plan to dominate the clean energy technology industry, 

with all of its attendant economic, security and environmental benefits. From wind, solar, 

hydropower, and storage, to nuclear power, advanced vehicles, CCS, and transmission, China is not 

only dominating in low-cost manufacturing and domestic deployment but increasingly in energy 

technology R&D and commercialization, traditionally the U.S. strong suit. 

As noted above, in March 2017, our Stanford center issued a major report, funded by DOE, on the 

Chinese solar industry. The report spells out just how far the Chinese have come in solar R&D, 

including recently posting an important world record in solar cell efficiency. The report also analyzes 

the well-organized approach that Chinese government and industry are taking to solar 

commercialization and deployment, all focused on dominating the global solar industry. 18 In a 

related New York Times op-ed, 19 my colleague Jeff Ball and I argued that: 

[T]he Chinese industry is innovating technologically .... contrary to a long-held myth 

that all China can do is manufacture others' inventions cheaply. It's expanding its 

manufacturing footprint across the globe. And it's scrambling to import more efficient 

ways of financing solar power that have been pioneered in the West. The United States 

needs to take these shifts into account in defining an American solar strategy that 

minimizes the cost of solar power to the world while maximizing the long-term benefit 

to the American economy. " 

I would add that our country needs to do the same with respect to a broad range of renewable, 

nuclear, fossil, transportation and grid-related technologies. One of the ways to do that is to maintain 

the strong energy technology commercialization vehicle put in place by President George W. Bush 

and a Republican Congress in the form of the DOE loan program. 

In the next twenty years, the International Energy Agency projects that the world will spend roughly 

48 trillion dollars on energy infrastructure, one of the biggest economic opportunities of the 21'' 

century. China is on a well-organized march to grab the biggest piece of this economic pie. We 

ignore China's resolve- and impressive success to date- at our peril. And it is this situation that 

17 http://www.alphr.comlfeatures/373546110-brilliant-daroa-inventionslpage/Oil 

'' https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-contentluploads/20 17103120 17-03-20-Stanford-China-Reoort.pdf 19 https://www.nytimes.com/20 J 7/03/21/opinion/making~solar-big-enough·to-matter.html? r=O 

13 
137 


29537.068

makes the attacks on federal energy technology commercialization, like the DOE loan guarantee 

program, so misguided. 

I urge you to reexamine the course that has been charted by your colleagues on the Appropriations 

Committee that would effectively shutter the DOE Loan Programs Office, as a minimal amount of 

funding can enable this program to remain readily available to support upcoming infrastructure 

initiatives. If members of this authorizing committee are interested in working to refine the programs 

to be more effective, I'm confident you will find many willing allies in the industry who can provide 

good advice. I'm equally confident that if you allow these programs to be shuttered by rescissions 

of already appropriated dollars in pending funding bills, American energy innovation will suffer in 

a manner that we cannot quantify until the innovation and job creation opportunities pass us by. 

3. DOE Appliance Standards Program 

The DOE appliance standards program, first created by Congress in the 1970s, and repeatedly 

revised and expanded since, sets a floor for efficiency for everyday products bought by consumers 

and business. It is among the nation's most effective approaches to saving energy. These savings 

translate into pocketbook savings for consumers and businesses, create jobs, and make our energy 

systems more resilient and reliable. In sum and as explained below: 

• The typical household spends about $500 less per year on utility bills than if these standards 

had not been adopted; 

• In 2014, savings for businesses due to efficiency standards totaled $23 billion; 

• Research shows that standards boosted the number of domestic jobs by 340,000 in 2011; 

• Because efficiency is distributed in homes and businesses across the country, it is the most 

reliable and resilient of any energy resource. 

Even as standards have eliminated the most inefficient choices from the marketplace, the total range 

of available consumer choices has increased and product quality improved. Recent research finds 

that the prices for products affected by standards, contrary to expectations, have generally declined. 

Standards cause the energy efficiency feature to become incorporated in all products rather than just 

high-end products and spur innovations that lead to the next level of energy efficiency improvement. 

In general, manufacturers prefer national standards to a patchwork of state standards. A wellfunctioning national standards program also provides manufacturers with regulatory predictability 

and creates a level competitive field. When the federal standards program stalls out, state activity 

ramps up to fill the regulatory void, as it is now doing in California and New York. 

Standards have long-standing bipartisan support. Legislation signed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 

created 13 standards and laws signed by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush expanded the 

number of products subject to standards. These laws charge DOE with keeping standards up to date 

with technological change. In 2017, the Trump administration gave final approval to four standards 

that DOE developed under the Obama administration: a rare area of regulatory agreement spanning 

the two administrations. Just last month, Congress approved two narrow bills on unanimous consent 

to address specific unanticipated problems with specific standards, demonstrating the ongoing 

bipartisan cooperation that is a hallmark of this program. 

14 
138 


29537.069

However, several areas of concerns are emerging: 

• DOE's Fall 2017 Regulatory Agenda puts work on most new standards on hold. This plan, 

if carried out, will likely put DOE in violation of a series of statutory deadlines; 

• DOE has initiated a process to revamp the standards-setting process. While any process can 

be improved, in general the energy efficiency standard-setting process, developed over 

multiple administrations, works well and results in a high level of consensus and large public 

benefits; 

• DOE has left four standards completed in 2016 in regulatory limbo: these standards would 

save consumers $11 billion and provide regulatory certainty for manufacturers. DOE should 

complete these standards. 

a. Background on Energy Efficiency Standards 

Saving energy has long been an area of bipartisan agreement. Cost-effective energy-efficiency 

investments lower utility bills for both households and businesses, boosting the economy, improving 

U.S. competitiveness and creating jobs. Saving energy also strengthens the reliability and resiliency 

of our energy systems. For example, more efficient air conditioners mean less strain on our electric 

grids on hot summer days, reducing the risks of costly power outages. Reducing energy waste also 

conserves domestic energy resources, strengthening America's position in global markets both today 

and in an uncertain future. 

Working with industry and the national labs, DOE has served a crucial role in fostering improved 

energy efficiency through early-stage research, technology demonstration and deployment, and a 

system of minimum efficiency standards for everyday products. These standards provide a floor for 

efficiency, ensuring purchasers a basic level of energy efficiency performance. The subsections 

below address key issues in the DOE standards program. 20 

b. The "Little Engine that Could": Saving Energy and Money for Consumers and 

Businesses 

In the letter discussed above from all seven former EERE Assistant Secretaries we wrote: 

[F]ederal appliance and equipment efficiency standards, set by EERE since 1987, are 

the little engine that could when it comes to stimulating massive low-cost energy 

savings. DOE estimates that existing efficiency standards will, on a cumulative basis, 

save consumers nearly $2 trillion on their utility bills between 1987 and 2030. While 

not without occasional controversy, the standards have long enjoyed bipartisan 

support. Standards for many types of residential, commercial, and industrial equipment 

are required to be regularly updated in order to capture the impact of technology 

advances and push these advances into the market. Thus, a refrigerator in 1973 used 

about 1900 kWh of electricity per year but federal R&D and standards have helped 

drop that electricity use to about 400 kWh per year, saving a typical household roughly 

$150 per year. 

20 This section draws on comments filed with DOE in July 2017 by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. the Alliance to 

Save Energy and several others. 

15 
139 


29537.070

Altogether, according to a recent study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

(ACEEE) and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), a typical U.S. household spends 

about $500 less on their utility bills each year than they would have if no appliance standards had 

been adopted. These savings work out to about 16% of the typical household's utility bill spending.21 

Standards also improve efficiency for a suite of the most common products used in commercial 

buildings and industry, including lighting, HV AC equipment, motors, and refrigeration products. 

Altogether, businesses saved $23 billion in 2015 due to existing standards.22 Saving energy boosts 

employment. When consumers and businesses spend or invest the money saved on utility bills, 

economic activity increases. An econometric study by ACEEE estimated that savings from standards 

resulted in 340,000 more jobs in the U.S. economy in 2010 than would have been the case absent 

any standards. 23 This estimate does not account for more recently adopted standards or for the 

possibility that the costs to comply with standards have been lower than predicted. Job creation will 

grow as the economic savings from standards grow.24 

Similarly, saving energy with improved efficiency standards helps make our energy systems more 

resilient and reliable. Since efficiency is distributed throughout homes and businesses, it is not 

subject to the disruptions or price fluctuations that affect power generation and distribution. It is the 

most resilient and reliable of energy resources. For example, the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council found that, in 2014, existing federal standards avoided the need to produce nearly 8,000 

gigawatt-hours per year of electricity (an amount equivalent to the output of two to three 300-500 

MW power plants). As savings grow in the years ahead, an additional 25,000 gigawatt-hours per 

year (equivalent to six to nine power plants' production) of costly system expansions in the 

Northwest will be avoided.25 

c. Effects on Consumer Choices, Product Performance and Prices 

Product manufacturers not only meet efficiency standards, they often exceed them. And they do so 

while providing consumers with expanded choices, improved product performance, and, perhaps 

most surprisingly, without raising prices. This finding is counter-intuitive but it turns out that 

standards that remove the most inefficient choices from the market actually enhance available 

consumer choices. These results are supported by both casual observation as well as rigorous 

quantitative research. 

A visit to the lighting aisle and appliance department at any Home Depot, Lowe's or other lighting 

or appliance retailer will readily reveal the dizzying array of innovative choices available for 

consumers. For example, partly due to lighting standards (both those in effect today and those 

21 "Energy Saving States of America." Appliance Standards Awareness Project and American Council for an Energy~Efficient 

Economy. 2017. p. 1. 22 1bid. p. 6. 23 Gold, R. and S. Nadel. Appliance and Equipment Standards Jobs: A Moneymaker and Job Creator in all 50 States. ACEEE. May 

2011. 

24 Energy-sector emissions reductions are another co-benefit of cost-effectively saving energy. DOE has never used emissions 

reductions to cost~ justify an efficiency standard: in effect, the emission savings are a substantial side benefit, achieved while 

meeting the goals described herein. 25 2014 data from https://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/energy·efficiency/home/ 2035 data from "Seventh Northwest Conservation 

and Electric Power Plan." Document 2016-2, February 2016. p. 12-19. 

https://www.nwcounci1.org/medial714992617thplanfina1 chap 12 conservationres.pdf 

16 
140 


29537.071

required to take effect in 2020) and partly due to public- and private-sector investments in research 

and development, lighting products offer some of the best-case studies on energy efficiency. The 

U.S. led the light-emitting diode (LED) lighting revolution, and American consumers now have 

countless choices of bulbs, fixtures, controls, and "smart" features, all while LED prices have 

decreased by 94% since 2008.26 Likewise, DOE's clothes washer standards, negotiated over several 

rounds between industry and efficiency supporters, have spurred manufacturers to develop a wide 

array of very efficient products (including both top- and front-loading) that not only save energy, 

but according to Consumer Reports, clean clothes betterY From light bulbs, to clothes washers, to 

refrigerators, to commercial rooftop air conditioners, buyers of products regulated by DOE have 

more and better choices than ever before. 

Research published by Resources for the Future (RFF) found that product performance often 

improved as new standards took effect. In addition, their research showed that, "product reliability 

has improved considerably since our case study appliances were first covered under federal 

(standards) ... "28 Similarly, a 2012 study by ASAP and ACEEE examined ten regulated products 

before and after standards took effect and found that product performance generally stayed the same 

or improved and new features became available.29 

Even as product choices and efficiency have improved, prices have declined. Researchers at the 

London School of Economics (LSE) reviewed the existing literature finding that, contrary to DOE's 

predictions, "a number of studies provide empirical evidence showing the correlation between 

imposing energy efficiency standards and, surprisingly, declining prices of durable goods."30 Their 

own analysis of price data confirmed that prices declined after standards took effect. 31 The LSE 

researchers concluded: 

We find no evidence to suggest that more stringent energy efficiency standards hurt 

consumers by increasing price or lowering quality. Rather, we find evidence that price 

declines and quality improvements accelerate with stricter standards, which 

unambiguously improves consumer welfare, excluding external pollution-related 

benefits. 32 

How can improvements in efficiency and quality occur at the same time as price declines? The LSE 

researchers investigated this question and concluded: "we find evidence supporting policy-induced 

innovation, wherein firms lower prices of older models as they are forced to introduce new models 

meeting new, stricter efficiency standards.'m In other words, as standards take effect, the price of 

older, but still compliant products comes down and manufacturers introduce new, high-end models 

26 U.S. DOE. The Future Arrive for Five Clean Energy Technologies- 2016 Update. p. 8 27 Consumer Reports. The Best Washers/or $800 or Less: These workhorses of the laundry room handle loads for less. Last 

updated: July 12,2017 12:30 PM 28 M. Taylor, C.A. Spurlock, H.C. Yang. Confronling Regulatory Cost and Qualily Expectations: An Exploration ofTechnical 

Change in Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards. Resources for the Future. October 20115. p. 70. 29 Mauer et al. Better Appliances: An Analysis of Performance, Features and Price as Efficiency Has Improved ASAP and ACEEE, 

May 2013. 30 Brucal and Roberts. p. 3 31 Brucal and Robert p. 24 32 Brucal, A. and M. Roberts. Do energy efficiency standards hurt consumers? Evidence from household appliance sales. Grantham 

Research Institute/London School of Economics. March 2017. p. 2. 33 Brucal and Roberts. p. 28. 

17 
141 


29537.072

with new features to capture profits from consumers willing to pay premium prices for the latest 

thing. In addition, manufacturer innovation, sparked by the need to redesign for a new standard, 

finds new ways of producing the regulated product that not only improves efficiency, but also other 

aspects of the product and the process for making it. 

Of course, for any product category, there will almost always be some poor performing products on 

the market, whether the product is subject to efficiency standards or not. Anecdotes about a particular 

clothes washer or dishwasher that performs poorly should not be read as an indictment of all 

appliances in that category. Poorly performing products, subject to standards or not, will be weeded 

out by the competitive market. Existing law provides protections against standards that would harm 

product performance. Thus DOE is not permitted to set a standard at a stringency level which would 

impair the utility (effectiveness) of the product. 

d. Effects on Manufacturers 

Although they may not agree with every decision DOE makes, manufacturers that produce products 

subject to national standards are generally supportive of well-functioning national requirements for 

three reasons: avoidance of a patchwork of state regulation; regulatory predictability; and, through 

experience, they have learned that business can thrive even as standards increase. 

Absent federal standards, some states choose to develop their own energy efficiency requirements. 

During periods offederal inactivity, the interest level in many of the states goes up. For example, a 

dozen states enacted their own standards laws in the 2000s34 after the federal government had fallen 

behind on 23 legal deadlines for updating federal standards.35 Due to federal preemption, states 

mostly focus on products outside of the scope of federal standards, but some exceptions to federal 

preemption exist and states sometimes pursue these exceptions. In 2017, state governments began 

to gear up state regulatory efforts once again to fill what many fear is a developing federal void. 

California ramped up work, issuing new standards for several products, and, just last week, the 

governor of New York announced state action to establish energy efficiency standards, in part due 

to the "abdication" of this function by the federal government. 36 

Second, the existing federal schedule and approach to standards provides regulatory predictability. 

Manufacturers know when standards for their products will be reviewed, the criteria for increased 

standards, and that they will be able to participate in an open, public decision-making process. Statelevel processes are less predictable. In addition, backlogs in DOE regulatory work inevitably result 

at some point in a push to catch up. For example, in response to more active oversight by Congress 

and in response to deadline litigation, DOE, in 2006, developed a five-year plan to catch up on its 

22 missed legal deadlines. Instead of an even, predictable cadence of review, manufacturers 

experienced a lull from 200 I to 2005, then heightened regulatory activity starting in 2006. Upon 

taking office in 2009, President Obama prioritized meeting legal obligations for new standards. The 

combination of catching up on missed legal deadlines and complying with deadlines for reviewing 

34 See https://appliance-standards.orgfsites/default/tiles/State status grid 3.pdf 35 U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Long-standing Problems with DOPs Program for Setting Efficiency Standards 

Continue to Result in Forgone Energy Savings" Jaouary 2007. This report pegged the cost of DOE delays at $28 billion. 36 See https:/ /www.governor.ny.gov/news/govemor-cuomo-unveils-20th-proposal-20 18-state-state-new-yorks-cJean-energy-iobsand-climate 

18 
142 


29537.073

new standards enacted by Congress in 2005 and 2007 resulted in an unprecedented level of revised 

standards during the Obama presidency. 

Third, manufacturers, many of which have now been regulated for three decades or longer, have 

learned that when they anticipate and plan for improved standards, their companies can thrive as 

they provide improved products for their customers. Undoubtedly, those companies which fail to 

plan or improve their products will suffer compared to their competitors, but standards and the 

associated test procedures and efficiency ratings provide a level playing field for all. 

Occasionally, some have asserted that higher efficiency standards have caused manufacturers to 

move jobs to lower labor cost markets. However, the loss of manufacturing jobs to lower-wage 

economies has affected all manufacturing, whether a given product must meet efficiency standards 

or not. Where American jobs have been lost, it is often because factories did not keep up with new 

technologies and became uncompetitive. In fact, the substantial levels of employment in making 

many regulated products in the U.S. (e.g. many types of home appliances and commercial 

equipment) suggests that regulation may bolster domestic employment. Efficiency standards drive 

innovation and reliance on new technologies which can help keep U.S. plants competitive. 

e. Bipartisan Support, Even in 2017 

Even as the Trump administration has prioritized rolling back Obama-era regulations, appliance 

standards have proven to be an area of some agreement. For example, three standards completed by 

the Obama administration that were eligible for Congressional Review Act (CRA) repeal last year 

(and which have support from product manufacturers) did not attract CRA resolutions.37 Even more 

telling, the Trump administration gave final regulatory approval to four standards developed during 

the Obama administration: these standards are a rare area of regulatory agreement spanning the 

change in administrations. 38 

These areas of agreement build on decades of bipartisanship when it comes to standards. Ronald 

Reagan signed the 1987 law establishing the first national standards, while George H.W. Bush and 

George W. Bush signed major expansions enacted by strong bipartisan majorities. Just last month, 

Congress unanimously enacted two narrow appliance standards bills (S. 2030 and H.R. 518): one 

aligned the dates for two standards affecting ceiling fans and their lights and another exempted 

certain specialized products from the external power supply standard. These bills demonstrate that 

when unanticipated problems do emerge with existing standards that DOE is unable to remedy, 

interested parties can come together to jointly recommend fixes to Congress that gain bipartisan, 

even universal, support. 

f. Emerging Areas of Concern 

While there has been tremendous achievements to date with appliance, lighting and equipment 

standards, including some advanced in 2017, several areas of concern are emerging. Recently, the 

administration published a plan that appears to put most standards development work on indefinite 

37 The three standards finalized in 2016 which were eligible for CRA repeal concerned dehumidifiers, ceiling fans and devices with 

rechargeable batteries. A CRA resolution was filed for a test procedure for compressors. but did not come to a vote. 

"82 Fed. Reg. 24211,24214,24218, and 31808. 

19 
143 


29537.074

hold. In addition, some have called for revamping the process by which standards are developed and 

the administration has opened an administrative process for considering changes. Finally, several 

standards completed in 2016 remain in limbo, creating regulatory uncertainty and leaving savings 

on hold. 

i. DOE's new regulatory plan 

The DOE's regulatory plan released in December re-categorized twenty standards proceedings and 

seventeen test methods from active rulemakings to long-term actions. Long-term actions are 

described as topics on which the agency plans no action in the next 12 months. Many of these 

proceedings have legal deadlines that have passed or that are coming up. This plan may signal that 

the Department does not intend to meet statutory deadlines for the review of existing standards and 

test procedures.39 Of course, when DOE reviews a standard, it may determine that improvements are 

not merited. But, in many cases, improvements will make sense. Analysis completed in 2016 found 

that the next round of updates to national standards due to be completed over the period 2017 to 

2025 has the potential to save consumers and business about $43 billion on utility bills annually by 

2035. Cumulative savings could reach $1.1 trillion by 2050.40 In addition, manufacturers have 

stressed the need to complete test procedure revisions in advance of standards reviews. By delaying 

test procedure work, a key aspect of the standard-setting process, DOE could have to revise standards 

before test procedures have been adequately reviewed, a problematic way to proceed. 

ii. DOE's new standard-setting process 

DOE also recently initiated a process for revising the standards-setting process. The agency is 

holding a public meeting today on this very topic, soliciting written input, and intends to publish an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.41 

The DOE's process for developing and revising efficiency standards has evolved and improved over 

the decades. The standards-development process in place today dates in part to my tenure at the 

Department. In 1996, DOE convened a Federal Advisory Committee of interested parties to write 

guidance on the process for developing new standards. The "Process Rule," published that year, 

improved the predictability of the regulatory process, increased transparency, and helped reduce the 

cost and time required for the rulemaking process, among other objectives (I 0 CFR, Part 430, 

Appendix A to Subpart C). That process helped us complete a number of important cost-effective 

energy-saving standards between 1997 and 2001 when I led the EERE office.42 

During the early years of the George W. Bush administration, progress on new standards lagged 

despite the reforms included in the Process Rule. Congress intervened, first with the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 which directly enacted fifteen new standards and subsequently with the Energy 

39 See press coverage at "The Energy 202: Energy Department pressing pause on rules to make your appliances more efficient 

critics charge "Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2017. Oddly, the week after the Regulatory Agenda was published, the Department 

published two actions that had been identified as long-term actions. 40 A. de Laski, J. Mauer et al. ''Next Generation Standards: How the National Energy Efficiency Standards program Can Continue to 

Drive Energy, Economic and Environmental Benefits," Appliance Standards Awareness Project and American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy. August 2016. p vii. 41 82 Fed Reg 59992. 42 Mauer, et al. p. 6. 

20 
144 


29537.075

Independence and Security Act of2007, which, in addition to directly enacting additional standards, 

made statutory changes to the standards-setting process. Most notably, the 2007 law provided for 

regular reviews of all standards and the underlying test procedures on a predictable, statutorilyrequired schedule. The agency has just begun to implement the regular reviews provision enacted in 

2007. None of the three reviews completed to date under this provision have been controversial: one 

resulted in no change to the standard and the other two changes were broadly supported by 

manufacturers and others. 43 The revised law also promotes negotiated standards. In response to the 

legislative changes, DOE published additional guidance in 20 I 0. 44 DOE also created a new Federal 

Advisory Committee in 2012 to further foster negotiation. The Trump administration recently 

decided to retain this Federal Advisory Committee. 

In sum, the process for developing standards has evolved considerably since 1996 and for the better. 

The process has worked well in recent years, yielding a high degree of consensus, in part due to an 

emphasis on negotiation and in part due to DOE's adherence to statutory deadlines. While some 

DOE decisions have been controversial, these are the exceptions. As this administration looks to 

revise the process, it should protect the elements that enabled success and avoid adding new steps 

or unnecessary complexity that will increase costs and hinder progress. 

In another recent Federal Register notice, DOE floated the idea of shifting from minimum standards 

to average standards, similar to those used for automobile and truck efficiency.45 The minimum 

standards approach has worked well for appliance standards. Averaging approaches require more 

data submitted by manufacturers and are administratively more complex. Averaging approaches may 

also undermine existing state- and utility-based efficiency efforts by allowing manufacturers to 

offset efficiency gains in some products with greater sales of inefficient products. In general, moving 

away from a tried and true, successful approach to one that adds complexity and cost and reduces 

savings does not make sense. 

iii. New standards in limbo 

DOE issued five final standards in late 2016 that, due to a required additional review period to 

identify errors, had not been published in the Federal Register by the beginning of the Trump 

administration. Subsequently, the Trump administration published one of these five standards 

(concerning walk-in coolers). But the other four remain in regulatory limbo. Several states and 

advocacy groups have sued, arguing that DOE has a non-discretionary obligation to publish the final 

rules since no substantive errors were identified. Together, these four standards would save $11 

billion according to the DOE analyses for the rulcmakings. 46 Most of the standards have considerable 

manufacturer support. For example, makers of portable air conditioners support DOE publication of 

that final rule. DOE should at a minimum publish those standards that have consensus support and, 

preferably, all of them. 

43 These concerned central air conditioners (one of the rules approved by the Trump administration) and dehumidifiers (a rule that 

was eligible for CRA repeal). 44 httos://energy.gov/gc/articlesldoe~announces~changes~energy~conservation-standards-proccss 

45 82 Fed Reg 56181. 46 See Lawsuit Update: DOE Inaction Costs Consumers BiHions. 

21 
145 


29537.076

4. Federal Tax-Advantaged Financing Vehicles 

Tax-advantaged financing vehicles are another adjunct to DOE's support for clean energy 

technology through R&D funding, loans, and standards. In the mode of "teaching old dogs new 

tricks," there has been a bipartisan effort over the last few years to open up long-standing 

Congressionally authorized investment vehicles to clean energy technologies. These vehicles are 

attractive because they are tax-advantaged- either eliminating the double taxation of common 

corporate investment structures or providing a full exemption from federal taxation. As such, they 

provide lower-cost financing to project developers, particularly as compared with "tax equity" 

investment using tax credits. There are three tax-advantaged structures currently in the mix. 

a. Master Limited Partnerships 

The first tax-advantaged structure involves Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), authorized by 

Congress in 1981 and used to provide tax-advantaged financing primarily to U.S. oil and gas 

pipelines and related infrastructure, with more than $500 billion worth of projects financed to date. 

MLPs are taxed as partnerships, but their ownership interests trade like corporate stock. As a result, 

they avoid the double taxation of corporate vehicles as the income of the partnership passes through 

directly to investors. At the same time, they enjoy the advantages of broad public stock issuance, 

thereby opening up energy investment opportunities for millions of U.S. retail investors. 

The MLP structure provides access to large amounts oflow-cost capital for energy projects provided 

by a significant number of investors. However, MLPs, as currently authorized, do not extend to 

renewables and other clean energy technologies.47 

Recent bipartisan legislation is pending in both the House and Senate to open up MLPs to investment 

in a broad range of clean energy technologies including renewables, energy efficiency, CCS, 

electricity storage, biofuels, cogeneration and more. The Senate bill was introduced by Senators 

Moran (R-KS) and Coons (D-DE) and the companion House bill by Representatives Poe (R-TX) 

and Thompson (D-CA).48 MLPs could provide a true "level playing field" via their tax-advantaged 

structure, open to the vast majority of energy projects, and providing lower-cost financing than often 

available today. 

b. Private Activity Bonds 

The second tax-advantaged vehicle involves Private Activity Bonds (PABs). PABs, issued by or on 

behalf of a local or state government, were used in the 1970s and 1980s to finance tens of billions 

of dollars ofU.S. projects, deploying an array of then advanced technologies to capture air pollutants 

like particulates and sulfur dioxide. Like municipal bonds, P ABs are exempt from federal tax and 

support a public benefit, but they are used by private not public entities, (e.g., investor-owned 

utilities). However, the authority for PAB-financed air pollution control projects ended in tax 

legislation in 1986. A pending Senate bill introduced by Senators Portman (R-OH) and Bennet (D47 F. Mormann and D. Reicher~ '"How to Make Renewable Energy Competitive," New York Times, June 1, 2012, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/ooinion/how-to-make-renewable-energy-competitive.htmJ?smid=tw-share. 

48 httns·//www.coons senate gov/newsroom/press-releases/sens-coons-moran-reps-poe-thompson-introduce-bioartisan-bicamerallegislation-to-leve1-the-playing-field-for-clean-energy 

22 
146 


29537.077

CO) would reinstate this authority for CCS projects49, as would a companion bill in the House 

introduced by Representatives Curbelo (R-FL) and Veasey (D-TX). 50 The legislation would provide 

access to this long-term, low-cost fixed-rate debt that has often been unavailable in developing U.S. 

CCS projects. Interestingly, the independent power producer NRG was able to use PAB financing 

at a recent Texas CCS project because the plant was located in a hurricane zone where financing 

authorities that are not generally available are sometimes opened up to encourage rebuilding 

following a disaster. 51 Developers of other CCS projects, including one focused on cutting emissions 

from natural gas-fired generation, are interested in access to this financing tool, outside of disaster 

zones. 52 

c. Real Estate Investment Trusts 

The third tax-advantaged structure involves Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). REITs, first 

authorized by Congress in 1960, have cost-effectively raised capital on public markets for 

commercial real estate, hospitals, hotels, natural gas pipelines, electricity distribution lines, cell 

towers and billboards. They boast a market capitalization of more than $900 billion. Like MLPs, 

REITs avoid the double taxation of corporate vehicles and enjoy the advantages of public stock 

issuance, allowing smaller individual investors to invest in large diversified portfolios of incomeproducing properties. 

In May 2014, the IRS proposed new regulations to clarify the definition of real property for the 

purposes ofREIT eligibility. 53 The proposed rulemaking would expand REIT eligibility to solar and 

potentially other renewables without the need for Congressional action. Access to the REIT structure 

could help renewable energy projects reduce their financing costs and help move solar energy and 

potentially other renewables closer to grid parity and, ultimately, subsidy independence. The IRS 

finalized the rule in August 2016 but, in sum, extended REITs to renewables in only a limited 

fashion. 54 It would be worth the IRS taking a second look at REIT-eligible clean energy projects or 

Congress taking up the issue. 

5. Electricity Storage 

With the significant growth of solar and wind generation in recent years, the need for electricity 

storage capacity has grown as well. However, large-scale electricity storage, with the exception of 

pumped hydro, is relatively immature technologically, and the costs of a number of promising 

options are high. As a result, gas turbines often fill the gap when solar and wind are not available. It 

is important to emphasize that storage is needed at both utility scale (e.g., pumped hydro) and at 

distributed scale (e.g., behind-the-meter battery packs). 

49 https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/20 17/4/oortrnan-bennet-introduce-bi11-to-he1p-finance-carbon-capture-andstorage-projects 

so https://curbelo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentiD-1400 51 https://www. washingtonoost.com/news/powernost!paloma/the-energy-202/20 17 /12/04/the-energy-202-hurricanes-could-sweepin-carbon-capture-projects-in-gulf-coast-but-the-tax-overhaul-could-stoP: 

it15a24bd6930tb0469e883f9c4/?utm term .93a68618c631 

52Id. 

53 https:llwww.gpo.govlfdsys/granuleiFR·2014-05-1412014-IIll5 See also http:/llaw.stanford.edulwpcontentluploads/2015107/ITC-Report·to-DOE-FINAL-Jan-20!5.pdf 

54 https://www.mwe.com/en/thought~leadership/publications/20 16/09/final~regulations~define~reai~propertv~for-reits 

23 
147 


29537.078

Key federal as well as state policies can stimulate the development and deployment of storage. The 

Congress and administration need to consider federal policy and finance tools to advance both 

utility-scale and distributed storage projects. These include R&D funding, grants, tax credits, loan 

guarantees, MLPs, REITs, Energy Savings Performance Contracts and other tools. Unfortunately, 

the Trump administration has proposed a 61% cut in DOE energy storage-related research in its 

FY18 budget versus FY17 levels. A funding cut of this level would affect critical private and public 

sector work, including path-breaking work at DOE's Argonne National Laboratory and the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. Congress should ensure adequate funding for this R&D. A 2016 bill 

(H.R. 5640), the Electricity Storage Innovation Act, would have authorized $150 million annually 

for basic research into advanced batteries. It would, however, have specifically prohibited spending 

funds for commercialization of storage technologies and it did not authorize research regarding any 

other storage technology besides batteries. 

On another front, the IRS is developing guidance on the extent to which energy storage integrated 

with a solar project can qualify for the 30 percent federal solar ITC. The IRS ruling will be limited 

in various respects and, in the face of this, bipartisan legislation-the Energy Storage Tax Incentive 

and Deployment Act of 2017 - was introduced in the House (H.R. 4649) that would, among other 

things, extend the ITC to a range of distributed and utility-scale storage technologies. Additionally, 

as discussed above, bipartisan legislation (S. 2005 and H.R. 4118) is pending in the House and 

Senate that would open up MLPs to storage projects. Other federal policies include potential 

availability of R&D tax credits for early-stage storage companies and the Department of Defense 

and civilian agencies increasing the use of storage in grid resilience efforts. 

Beyond these tools, it is important to take account of wholesale rates and their potential impact on 

the deployment of storage. To this end, in April2016, FERC initiated Docket No. ADI6-20-000 to 

examine whether barriers exist to the participation of electric storage resources in the capacity, 

energy and ancillary service markets, potentially leading to unjust and unreasonable wholesale rates, 

and whether any tariff changes are warranted. FERC followed up with a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking titled "Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent System Operators."55 

Storage is part of a larger package of options - energy efficiency, demand response, grid 

management, fast-firing gas turbines, broader regional electricity markets, and faster dispatch- to 

deal with intermittent renewables. The administration and Congress should consider the range of 

federal policy options, and associated investment vehicles, that can ensure smart and cost-effective 

integration of these approaches. The states also have a major role to play. 

6. Carbon Capture and Storage 

As the discussion above indicates, there are an array of tools- R&D funding, federal grants, loans, 

tax incentives, standards and beyond at the president's disposal- to drive clean energy innovation, 

commercialization and deployment. While well intentioned, this tool kit was assembled in a 

haphazard manner- and used today- without enough consideration as to how each tool relates to 

the others, what new ones are needed, which ones might be phased out, and how they all might be 

"https://www.ferc.govlwhats-new/comm-meet/20161111716/E-l.pdf 

24 
148 


29537.079

better integrated. The federal approach to CCS is an example of this complex situation and several 

bipartisan bills have been introduced that would begin to rationalize and improve the portfolio of 

tools supporting CCS. 

CCS scrubs carbon emissions from power plant and industrial exhausts and then pipes and stores 

them thousands of feet underground in geologic formations already proven capable of holding saline 

water or oil and gas for long periods of time. Increasingly, industry is also developing innovative 

ways to utilize captured C02 in commercial products, including plastics, cement, chemicals and 

agricultural products. At the January 2016 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, 

the Global C02 Initiative was launched to accelerate development of these innovative "CCUS" 

approaches. As an emission reduction approach, CCS has broad applications across the energy 

spectrum, from coal, natural gas and biomass-fired power plants to industrial operations like oil 

refineries, ethanol facilities, steel production, cement plants, natural gas processing operations, and 

fertilizer production. 

The International Energy Agency projects CCS contributing one-sixth of total C02 em1ss1on 

reductions required in 2050 from the power sector as well as industrial operations (which themselves 

produce about one-fifth of global carbon emissions). This is a massive contribution built on the back 

of various CCS technologies that, while in operation in various industries, have generally not been 

deployed at the scale or cost required for meaningful climate-related carbon controls. At the same 

time, with the Trump administration's proposed withdrawal of EPA's Clean Power Plan, there is 

little in the way of direct federal regulatory control of carbon emissions. 

Projects deploying CCS solely for pollution control purposes must therefore take on extra capital 

costs and operating expenses to capture a pollutant for which there is currently no direct regulatory 

mandate or market price. The lone exception on the market side is the long-standing use of C02 for 

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). For several decades, C02 has been pumped into old oil fields to 

enhance production. While this creates an economic use for C02, its value is tied to the price of oil 

and, with falling hydrocarbon markets in recent years, COz prices have dropped as well. As a result, 

in most cases EOR revenues cannot cover the full capital and operating expenses of CCS. The federal 

government, over the last three administrations, has stepped into this complex situation in order to 

accelerate the development and deployment of CCS. 

a. The Importance of DOE Support for CCS 

DOE launched its program to develop and commercialize CCS technology in !997. Over the past 

20 years, it has relied on a variety of federal support mechanisms and incentives R&D funding, 

grants, federal tax credits, private activity bonds and loan guarantees- to advance the technology. 

This array of federal support, measured in the billions of dollars, has helped advance first-time 

applications of CCS at a number of different types of U.S. facilities. The notable examples of these 

are a coal-fired power plant in Texas, an ethanol plant in Illinois, a Texas oil refinery and, most 

recently, a project that is helping to demonstrate CCS technology in natural gas-fired power 

generation. 

The NRG Petra Nova project near Houston, Texas was completed on time and on budget and is 

America's first commercial-scale retrofit of a coal-fired power plant with post-combustion 

25 
149 


29537.080

technology. Petra Nova captures 90 percent of the C02 emissions from a 240 MW slipstream at the 

existing W.A. Parish Plant for use and storage in a nearby oil field. The Archer Daniels Midland 

Illinois CCS project in Decatur, Illinois captures up to 1.1 million tons of C02 each year from a 

major ethanol production facility for storage in a nearby deep saline formation. 

DOE support also includes, as discussed above, the LPO's issuance, in late 2016, of a conditional 

commitment for the first loan guarantee made under the Department's $8 billion Advanced Fossil 

Energy Project solicitation. The $2 billion loan guarantee would back the world's first methanol 

production facility to employ carbon capture technology, in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The captured 

carbon dioxide would be utilized for EOR with geologic storage in Texas. 

It is unlikely that utilities or energy companies would have shouldered the cost alone of the initial 

applications of CCS at U.S. power plants, refineries, chemical production plants, and other industrial 

facilities. While some of the underlying technologies, for example amine chemistry, have been used 

in other industries, the technical risks of a new application were too great for an individual company 

or utility. This is particularly the case given current CCS economics in the U.S.- with no serious 

price on carbon emissions, no state CCS mandates, and a volatile market for the sale of C02 (tied to 

the price of oil) for EOR. 

b. Federal Tools in Support of CCS 

In sum, CCS is not driven by traditional regulatory requirements for control of C02 or a revenue 

model generally robust enough to pay for CCS. CCS deployment for power and industrial pollution 

control is instead looking to achieve financial feasibility based upon a mix of current and potential 

federal incentives and tax-advantaged financing mechanisms, plus the volatile commodity sales 

market for C02 used in EOR. The federal approach to date has been inadequate, with an array of 

tools on the books or proposed, but no integrated approach that will really drive CCS to a point 

where major private sector investment can take it to scale in both the power and industrial sectors. 

These existing and proposed tools include: 

• R&D • Loan Guarantees 

• Grants • Master Limited Partnerships 

• Investment Tax Credits • Private Activity Bonds 

• Geologic Storage Tax Credits • Price Stabilization Contracts 

DOE R&D funding has been critical in advancing CCS but, unfortunately, the Trump 

administration's proposed FY18 budget for DOE would cut CCS R&D by about 85% from FYI7 

levels. Congress should resist this massive reduction. DOE grants have also helped push some CCS 

demonstration projects over the finish line, but they were largely creatures of stimulus funding. 

There are current federal CCS tax credits designed to stimulate both projects that capture carbon 

dioxide (IRC Section 48A and 488) and others that geologically store it (IRC Section 45Q). 

However, these credits have proven problematic given limitations in terms of amount, scope and 

duration. A significantly improved approach to the current C02 geologic storage tax credit is pending 

26 
150 


29537.081

in bipartisan bills in the House 5

6 and Senate. 57 These bills would extend and expand the credit by 

increasing the value of the credit and replacing the soon-to-expire cap on available credits with a 

time-limited window to commence project construction. In the House, the Carbon Capture Act (H.R. 

3761), was introduced by Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX-11) and is 

currently co-sponsored by 45 representatives from different political backgrounds and many regions 

of the country. In the Senate, the FUTURE Act, was introduced by Senators Heidi Heitkamp (DND), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rl), and John Barrasso (R-WY) and 

is co-sponsored by 25 senators. There is also a broad coalition of outside support for these policies 

- from industry to labor unions to environmental groups. 

As discussed above, CCS is also included in pending bipartisan House and Senate bills to open up 

Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) to financing clean energy projects. Also, as discussed above, 

pending bipartisan House and Senate bills would extend Private Activity Bond (PAB) authority to 

CCS projects, providing an attractive incentive modeled on pollution control projects financed using 

this mechanism in the 1970s and 1980s. 

There is also discussion of creating a C02 sales revenue stabilization mechanism for C02 capture 

projects to address the volatility of C02 sales revenue for EOR that results from a contractual linkage 

to the market price of oil. This approach could authorize DOE to enter into "price stabilization 

contracts," also known as "Contracts for Differences," that could potentially be designed to be 

revenue neutral. The U.K. uses this type of contract to stabilize electricity price revenues for 

renewable energy projects that dispatch into volatile U.K. power markets. A provision directing the 

U.S. DOE to study such a mechanism was included in the Senate energy bill in the previous 

Congress. 

Finally, with the Trump administration's proposed withdrawal of EPA's Clean Power Plan, 

greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, are not federally controlled in the U.S., nor are 

there significant federal controls on most industrial carbon emissions, with the exception of methane 

emissions in the oil and gas industry (but not oil refining). 

One major question about CCS involves its cost. Some argue that the technology is simply too 

expensive and cite over-budget projects that have been cancelled. This contention does not reflect 

several important matters. First, CCS has broad applications across a range of both industrial 

operations and power technologies. Costs can differ substantially among these applications and for 

some, especially in the industrial sector, CCS may be the only available carbon-control option. 

Second, cost per ton of carbon abated is generally a better measure of CCS economics than dollars 

per MWh. CCS projects generally measure up well under the first criterion. The second criterion 

often obscures the cost of"firming up" variable generation, but some CCS projects measure up well 

even under that criterion. Third, recent CCS projects, especially those involving "post-combustion" 

rather than "pre-combustion" CCS technologies, have in fact met their financial goals. Thus, the 

NRG Petra Nova project in Texas, noted above, was completed on time and on budget and is 

operating well today. 

56 https://conaway.house.gov/newsldocumentsingle.aspx?DocumentiD=398277 57 https://www.heitkarnp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/9/heitkamo·capito~whitehouse-barrasso~make-bipartisan-push-for· 

carbon·capture-technology-during-symposium-in-washington 

27 
151 


29537.082

Overall, Congress and the administration should take a thorough look at CCS: analyzing existing 

and proposed policy mechanisms as well as current and potential revenue models and the interactions 

between them and developing an integrated and effective approach to accelerating CCS deployment. 

This should start with adequate CCS R&D funding and, to this end, Congress should resist DOE's 

proposed 85% FYI8 budget cut. On a different front, CCS tax credits, properly structured, could 

incentivize equity investment in projects, while PABs could stimulate the availability of low-cost 

debt, and MLPs could provide a "liquidity event" for the initial equity investors and mitigate the 

large "exit valuation" risk these projects otherwise face. 

Importantly, any consideration of CCS should look at both power and industrial emissions and 

involve both underground storage and alternative beneficial uses of C02 such as cement, chemicals, 

plastics, fuels, and beyond. Congress and the administration should also consider the international 

dimensions ofCCS. Ten countries, including the U.S. and China, explicitly declared CCS as part of 

their commitments under the Paris Agreement, and many key countries accept CCS as a compliance 

mechanism. With the Trump administration's pending withdrawal from the Paris Agreement these 

international dynamics should be revisited. 

7. Federal Energy Management 

The U.S. government is the single largest energy user in the nation with an energy bill to taxpayers 

exceeding more than $23 billion. The federal government owns 350,000 buildings, more than a 

quarter of all U.S. land, tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines, 400,000 non-tactical 

vehicles, and in recent years has developed, hosted and procured more renewable energy than any 

other entity in the United States. There are a number of opportunities that could both green up the 

federal government's own energy use and accelerate the development and deployment of clean 

energy more broadly. They are explored in a September 2016 report by a task force of the 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) that I co-chaired with former U.S. Representative 

Ellen Tauscher.58 This was an important SEAB topic, in part because DOE's Federal Energy 

Management Program has major responsibilities on this front. More broadly, and as I wrote in a 

2017 op-ed, President Trump, as "CEO" of"U.S. Energy Inc."- and with a strong real estate 

background- could do much to advance these opportunities.59 Some brief examples: 

a. The Federal Government as Technology Test Bed 

The DOD and the General Services Administration (GSA) in recent years have used their many 

buildings and related power infrastructure to demonstrate and evaluate next generation energy 

technologies important to DOD's defense mission and GSA's function as the nation's largest 

landlord. With !50 demonstrations completed or underway, these "technology test beds"- GSA's 

Green Proving Ground and DOD's Installation Energy Test Bed- have helped advance an array of 

energy technologies including microgrids, new building controls, condensing boilers, and advanced 

chillers. The administration should build on this success. There are, however, two challenges. First, 

these programs are not well coordinated with the DOE's energy technology programs, particularly 

those related to building technologies. The R&D "push" ofDOE's work must be better aligned with 

58 httos://energy.gov/sites/prod/fi1es/2016/11/f34/9-22-16 Report of SEAB Federal Energy Management TF w transrnitta1.pdf 59 http://thehiU.comlblogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/307719-as-nresident-trump·will·be-ceo·of-us-energy 

28 
152 


29537.083

the demonstration and validation "pull" of the DOD and GSA test beds. Second, both test beds are 

oversubscribed and their already modest budgets are declining. 

b. Cut the Federal Government's Energy Bill 

Congressional legislation and a series of executive orders going back decades have directed the 

federal government to cut its energy use and, in the process, reduce its $23 billion annual energy bill 

to taxpayers. The administration and Congress can accelerate progress to date by expanding 

investment in energy efficiency upgrades in federal buildings through direct appropriations as well 

as a compelling alternative Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs). ESPCs are an 

arrangement under which a private third-party invests in an energy conservation measure in a federal 

building and is repaid over time from a portion of the resulting energy savings. ESPCs have become 

a major tool for federal agencies, are an important alternative to appropriated funds, and enjoy strong 

bipartisan support. The White House and DOE need to resolve several outstanding issues concerning 

ESPC scope and implementation, adopt new dollar-denominated ESPC goals, and improve systems 

to track progress. The federal government can also help accelerate use of ESPCs in energy upgrades 

of state and local public buildings as well as private facilities. 

c. Reduce the Federal Real Estate Footprint 

The next administration should consider what may be the most compelling way to reduce the federal 

government's energy footprint and that is by reducing its real estate footprint. There is an important 

opportunity to cut energy consumption through a modest decrease in the federal facility footprintat both DOD and civilian facilities- a reduction that federal agencies themselves favor. Previous 

federal downsizing has demonstrated the direct and significant connection between cutting square 

footage and reducing energy use. Thus, the DOD, between 1988 and 2001, cut its real estate footprint 

by 3 5 percent, and its facility energy consumption decreased by a corresponding 36 percent, saving 

billions of dollars in the process. The challenge is the reluctance of Congress to authorize new cuts 

in federal facility space, especially at the DOD. Congress has turned down a series of administration 

requests since 2012 for authority to further downsize DOD facilities through the Base Realignment 

and Closure (BRA C) process. But additional BRAC authority is something the administration and 

Congress might come to terms on in the interest of greater DOD efficiency and effectiveness and 

the civilian side might be addressed at the same time as part of a comprehensive deal. Meanwhile, 

there are innovative ways to tackle the up-front cost of federal facility downsizing, including a 

"space-saving performance contract" analogous to an ESPC, as discussed above. 

d. Improve Federal Procurement of Renewable Energy 

The federal government is a major purchaser of clean energy, but it could be doing a great deal more 

both to green up its own operations and accelerate cost reductions in clean energy technologies and 

to improve financing mechanisms more generally. The key mechanism by which federal agencies 

-and the private sector- procure renewables is a power purchase agreement (PP A), which allows 

a developer to finance an energy project in exchange for a federal agency's long-term commitment 

to buy the power at an established price. Despite the benefits of PPAs and PPA-like mechanisms, 

agencies face major impediments to their use, including statutory limitations and the complexity of 

the federal procurement process. The DOD and civilian agencies have had a range of challenges 

29 
153 


29537.084

using PPAs that have complicated and slowed federal procurement of renewable energy. For 

example, under federal law, civilian agencies can typically only enter into PPAs with a maximum 

duration of I 0 years, while power developers typically need commitments of at least 20 years in 

order to finance a project. The SEAB report to Secretary Moniz, noted above, makes a set of 

recommendations aimed at removing such impediments to the use of PPAs and expanding the use 

of alternatives. 

e. Increase the Role of the Power Marketing Administrations in Renewable Energy 

Deployment and Transmission Development 

The PMAs - Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration 

(WAPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA) and Southeastern Power Administration 

(SEPA) -are an arm of DOE that markets electricity generated at federal hydropower facilities 

primarily to "preference customers," municipally-owned electric utilities and rural electric 

cooperatives. There are multiple ways the administration could make greater use of the PMAs in 

advancing clean energy development while being mindful of the PMAs' core obligations to their 

preference customers. The PMAs own tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines and have 

financing and eminent domain authority that could be used to both upgrade existing lines and build 

new ones- both essential to the large-scale and rapid build-out of U.S. renewables. The PMAs 

also have authority to purchase non-hydro power to supplement their hydroelectricity resources 

when necessary. Some of these purchases should come from other renewable resources, particularly 

as these technologies are increasingly cost competitive. Finally, the PMAs can also take more active 

roles in operational activities vital to clean energy and transmission: Regional Transmission 

Organizations, Energy Imbalance Markets, and transmission planning under FERC Order 1000. 

f. Address Barriers to Expanding Clean Energy Development on Federal Lands 

There is a major potential for renewable energy development on federal lands making up more 

than one-quarter of all U.S. territory but a number of issues, including a complex permitting 

process and concerns about wildlife impacts, have limited the deployment of wind, solar and other 

renewables. The administration, led by the Department of the Interior, needs to reduce uncertainty 

and delay surrounding the assessment of wildlife impacts, formulate a new and improved permitting 

approach for future energy development on federal lands, and increase research on technology that 

can improve species conservation. The Obama administration made good progress on this front, but 

there is more that needs to be done, particularly to ensure increased access to federal property for 

both utility-scale renewables and transmission development, while being careful about important 

conservation and wildlife values. 

g. Increase Federal Deployment of Alternative Fuel Vehicles 

The U.S. government has the single largest vehicle fleet in the nation - currently some 400,000 

non-tactical vehicles. Three departments largely control the fleet: the General Services 

Administration (39 percent), the U.S. Postal Service (33 percent), and the Department of Defense 

(28 percent). The challenge is that multiple administrations have made little progress in greening up 

this fleet through the use of alternative fuels - including biofuels, electricity, natural gas and 

hydrogen- despite specific direction in an array of federal legislation and executive orders. As a 

30 
154 


29537.085

result, although alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) acquisition rates have come close to meeting the 

requirements of the 1992 Energy Policy Act (which mandates that 75 percent of new acquisitions be 

AFVs), actual alternative fuel use in federal fleets was only 3.9 percent of total fleet fuel 

consumption in 2015. Federal fleet access to biofuels for "flex-fuel" vehicles has been one challenge. 

The other challenge involves plug-in electric cars and trucks where federal procurement has been 

miniscule because agencies have largely focused on the higher first cost rather than the lower lifecycle costs typical of these vehicles. There are a number of steps the administration and Congress 

can take to address these problems. Among these are to ensure that the federal government does a 

better job of accounting for the full life-cycle cost of vehicle acquisitions, that it takes advantage of 

innovative financing mechanisms to cut the up-front cost of AFVs, and that the U.S. Postal Service 

use its current need to replace its 180,000 light-duty vehicle fleet to maximize the deployment of 

AFVs. 

h. Increase Funding for DOE's Federal Energy Management Program 

DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) has played a key role since the 1970s in 

advancing progress in energy management across all federal agencies. FEMP plays a leadership role 

with respect to energy goals set out in multiple pieces of federal legislation and executive orders. It 

is positioned within EERE to coordinate technologies, policies, and expertise from multiple other 

DOE offices and a range of federal programs. The bipartisan SEAB task force felt strongly that the 

administration should seek significant increases over time in FEMP's budget. The task force said: 

"Based on discussions with FEMP officials there are priority funding areas ... involving the Federal 

Energy Efficiency Fund, Technology Demonstration and Validation Efforts, Metering Acceleration, 

Data Management, Federal Utility Bill Management, and Cybersecurity." There are a number of 

other areas discussed in the SEAB task force report where additional funding would advance key 

federal energy management goals. 

The FY2016 FEMP budget was $27 million. The Obama administration requested $43 million for 

FY17; the enacted level was $27 million. The Trump administration unfortunately headed in the 

opposite direction from the SEAB recommendation, requesting just $10 million in FY18. The 

administration should increase rather than cut FEMP's budget, given the program's important 

responsibilities and ability to help mine savings from the federal government's $23 billion taxpayerfunded energy bill and otherwise make the government a leader in the energy arena. 

8. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) "provides advice and recommendations to the 

Secretary of Energy on the Department's basic and applied research and development activities, 

economic and national security policy, educational issues, operational issues and any other activities 

and operations of the Department of Energy as the Secretary may direct."60 

The SEAB was active under Secretary Moniz, producing reports and advising the Secretary on a 

range of matters, from technology development for environmental management, next generation 

high-performance computing, and nuclear non-proliferation to federal energy management, the DOE 

60 https://""ww.energy.gov/seab/secretary-energy-adviso-rv-board 

31 
155 


29537.086

national laboratories (especially the NNSA weapons laboratories), the future of nuclear power, and 

methane hydrates. Each report, after submission, was formally assessed by DOE staff and both 

documents posted on the DOE SEAB website.61 

Over the years, SEAB reports have figured prominently in major DOE management decisions, 

budget requests, research priorities, policy recommendations, and beyond. I have served on the 

SEAB since 2013 and was also involved with the SEAB under the three Clinton administration 

energy secretaries for whom I served. 

To date, Secretary Perry has not appointed a new SEAB. This is unfortunate given the range of 

complex and controversial issues DOE currently faces. As John Deutch, recent SEAB chair -

whose DOE experience extends back to the Carter administration- said in December: "SEAB has 

proven useful to most DOE secretaries and senior officers since the agency was founded. It is an 

independent group of experts that offer constructive advice and carry the Department's message 

when requested to Congress and to the public." I strongly recommend that a reconstituted SEAB be 

activated early in 2018. 

61 https://energy.gov/seab/listings/seab~reoorts 

32 
156 


29537.087

Summary of Testimony- Dan W. Reicher- House E&C- Energy Subcommittee- 119/18 Hearing 

DOE, under the Trump administration, is heading in a problematic direction when it comes to the Department's 

mission to advance the innovation, development, and deployment of U.S. clean energy technology. The 

administration has sought unprecedented reductions in the budgets for DOE's applied energy offices: EERE, fossil, 

nuclear, and electricity. It has proposed to eliminate critical allied functions, like the Loan Programs Office, ARPA-e, 

the State Energy Program, and the Weatherization Assistance Program. It has begun to put the brakes on energy 

efficiency standard-setting for appliances. And it has reduced important input into the Department's programs and 

operations by, for example, failing to activate the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. DOE continues to make 

progress in critical areas and federal staff capabilities and national laboratory expertise remain strong. But I am 

concerned that this progress is slowing as important programs, key personnel, long~standing advisory functions, 

and related funding are hollowed out 

These challenges come at a moment when two fundamental global trends are accelerating: first, world-wide 

investment in clean energy is growing rapidly and, second, an unprecedented global race has broken out for 

dominance in this massive energy market. Among the competitors, the Chinese bave a well-organized plan to 

dominate the energy technology industry, with all of its associated economic, security and environmental benefits. 

This is a moment when we should be strengthening not weakening the successful and long-standing industrygovernment partnership in clean energy technology so that five years from now we don't look back regretfully at the 

loss of U.S. leadership in this critical area. I will focus on eight issues reflecting my current work: 

1. Funding for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Congress should resist DOE's 

proposed 69% cut in FY18 funding for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and should urge 

the administration to propose robust funding in FY19. In a June 2017 letter from all seven former EERE Assistant 

Secretaries we emphasized that cuts of this magnitude in the FY18 budget would do serious harm to this office's critical 

work. Worldwide investment in clean energy now measures about $750 billion annually. Governments across the globeand companies large and small -want a piece of this massive and growing economic pie, representing tens of trillions of 

dollars over the next three decades and millions of jobs. China, in particular, has made it a high priority to lead the global 

clean energy industry and, to this end, is reorganizing its R&D and deployment and redoubling its efforts in an array of 

clean energy technologies, many of them developed in the U.S. at taxpayer expense. This is the moment for the U.S. 

government to step up to, not back from, from this major opportunity. 

2. The DOE Loan Programs Office: This committee should resist the pending rescission of funds by House and 

Senate appropriators that would effectively end the work of DOE's Loan Programs Office (LPO). LPO is carrying out its 

Congressionally-directed missions very capably, both helping to commercialize important energy and transportation 

technologies and managing the existing $36 billion investment portfolio successfully. In a January 4 letter to this 

committee, 17 companies wrote that the "LPO represents the best and often only way to cross the barrier from developing 

innovative technologies to deploying those technologies commercially here in the U.S. and ultimately for export." LPO has 

$41 billion in remaining loan-making capacity that would be a substantial down payment on the energy portion of the 

trillionRdollar infrastructure program that Congress may soon take up. This capacity is one of the cheapest and quickest 

ways for the federal government to build important infrastructure, compared with other options. The LPO has already 

backed energy and transportation infrastructure projects involving transmission, storage, nuclear technology, battery 

production, and engine manufacturing. A voiding a full rescission of LPO funding - i.e. retaining previously appropriated 

balances to maintain a range of$100-$200 million to support "self-payn authority -would give U.S. companies access to a 

meaningful portion of the $41 billion in LPO capacity. 

3, The DOE Appliance Standards Program: This DOE program, first created by Congress in the 1970s, is among 

the nation's most cost-effective approaches to saving energy in homes and businesses. It has long enjoyed strong bipartisan 

support. Unfortunately, DOE's Fall 2017 Regulatory Agenda puts work on most new standards on hold and, if carried out, 

will likely put the Department in violation of a series of statutory deadlines. Also, DOE has initiated a process to revamp 

the standards-setting process. While any process can be improved, the energy efficiency standard-setting process, 

developed over multiple administrations, works well and generally results in a high level of consensus among industry and 

advocates and large public benefits. DOE has also left four standards completed in 2016 in regulatory limbo. This 

committee should ensure that DOE does not abdicate its important standard-setting obligations and any changes to the 

program should advance, not retard, its effectiveness and leave the program flexibility for further evolution. 

1 
157 


29537.088

4. Federal Tax-Advantaged Finance Vehicles: There has been a bipartisan effort over the last few years to open up 

long-standing Congressionally authorized investment vehicles - Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), Private Activity 

Bonds (PABs), and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)- to clean energy technologies. These vehicles are attractive 

because they are tax-advantaged - either eliminating the double taxation of common corporate investment structures or 

providing a full exemption from federal taxation. As such, they can provide lower-cost financing to clean energy project 

developers. The House should: adopt the bipartisan "MLP Parity Act" sponsored by Representatives Poe and Thompson; 

adopt the bipartisan Carbon Capture Improvement Act, focused on PABs, sponsored by Representatives Curbelo and 

Veasey; and, working with the IRS, should consider options to expand RElT eligibility for clean energy projects. 

5. Federal Support for Electricity Storage: With the significant growth of solar and wind generation in recent 

years the need for electricity storage capacity has grown as well. However, large-scale electricity storage, with the 

exception of pumped hydro, is relatively immature technologically, and the costs of a number of promising options are 

high. As a result, gas turbines often are needed to fill the gap when solar and wind are not available. Congress and the 

administration should pursue a well-organized approach to stimulating cost-effective utility-scale and distributed storage, 

supported by R&D funding, grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, MLPs, and other tools. Unfortunately, the Trump 

administration has proposed a 61% cut in DOE energy storage-related R&D in its FY18 budget, versus FY17 levels. 

Congress should ensure adequate R&D funding and advance these other tools. 

6. The Federal Role in Carbon Capture and Storage: CCS has broad application in cutting carbon emissions -

from coal, natural gas, and biomass-fired power plants to industrial operations like oil refineries, ethanol facilities, steel 

production, cement plants, natural gas processing operations, and fertilizer production. While successfully operating in 

various industries, CCS has not yet been deployed at the scale or cost required for meaningful climate-related carbon 

controls. Over the past 20 years, DOE has relied on a variety of federal support mechanisms and incentives - R&D 

funding, grants, federal tax credits, private activity bonds and loan guarantees - to advance CCS and has made good 

progress. The House should resist the Trump administration's proposed 85% cut in DOE's FY18 CCS R&D funding. It 

should also adopt pending legislation that would: improve the current CCS 45Q tax credit; provide access to MLP and PAB 

financing for carbon capture projects; and protect the DOE loan program from a pending rescission of funds. 

7. Federal Energy Management: The U.S. government is the single largest energy user in the nation with an energy 

bill to taxpayers exceeding $23 billion. The federal government owns 350,000 buildings, more than a quarter of all U.S. 

land, tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines, and 400,000 non-tactica1 vehicles. There are a number of actions that 

could cut the federal government's own energy use and expand its deployment of clean energy. They are analyzed in a 

September 2016 report by a task force of DOE's Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that I co-chaired with former U.S. 

Representative Ellen Tauscher, with assistance from DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). These actions 

include, for example: increasing and improving the use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts; reducing the federal real 

estate footprint; improving .federal procurement of renewable energy; expanding clean energy development on federal 

lands; accelerating federal procurement of alternative fuel vehicles; increasing the role of federal Power Marketing 

Administrations in meeting federal energy goals; supporting DOD and GSA energy technology test beds; and increasing 

funding for FEMP. Regarding the last action, Congress should resist the Trump administration's proposal to cut FEMP 

FY18 funding by 63%. 

8. The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board: The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) has provided 

valuable advice to multiple secretaries for decades. The SEAB was active under DOE Secretary Moniz, producing reports 

and advising the Secretary on a range of matters, from technology development for environmental management, next 

generation high-performance computing, and nuclear non~proliferation to federal energy management, the DOE national 

laboratories (especially the NNSA weapons laboratories), the future of nuclear power, and methane hydrates. Secretary 

Perry has not activated the SEAB. This committee should encourage him to do so to improve input into the Department's 

programs and operations. 

2 
158 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Powell. 

STATEMENT OF RICH POWELL 

Mr. POWELL. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member 

Rush, and other committee members. My name is Rich Powell, executive director of the ClearPath Foundation. 

ClearPath develops conservative policies that accelerate clean energy deployment. We advocate for innovation over regulation, educating policymakers and conducting and supporting independent 

policy analysis. A note, we receive no funding from industry. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on 

DOE modernization. Refocusing the Department’s key research and 

development programs is crucial to securing American clean energy 

dominance internationally and facilitating a cleaner, more reliable, 

and affordable domestic energy supply. 

Our Nation is rapidly approaching a crossroads. Coal makes up 

a third of American power production, and the average plant will 

likely retire by 2030. Half of U.S. nuclear plants could close by 

2040. Refurbishing or replacing these facilities presents a once in 

a century opportunity to develop domestic advanced industries. 

Meanwhile, global energy demand is projected to grow by 28 percent by 2040. The market in India alone is estimated at $2.7 trillion. A homegrown, U.S. advanced energy economy can seize this 

opportunity. If our Nation does not rise to that challenge, we run 

the risk of falling behind. In fact, we already are. 

China, in particular, is already outflanking us on next generation 

technology. It is bringing an advanced nuclear reactor online this 

year at a time when the U.S. is struggling just to keep its existing 

fleet afloat and doesn’t even have a fast test reactor available for 

American entrepreneurs to test new designs. China is already the 

global leader in solar manufacturing and superefficient coal technology and is rapidly advancing in batteries and electric vehicles. 

The best way for America to outcompete in future energy markets is to develop increasingly advanced technologies that can best 

rival offerings, as we did with the fracking revolution for our shale 

resources. We may not be able to beat China with cranes and concrete, but we can win in high-skilled manufacturing of carbon capturing fuel cells, printable solar panels, and modular advanced reactors. 

But these breakthroughs do not happen overnight. Hydraulic 

fracturing and today’s solar and wood technologies took decades 

and significant investment from both private and public sources before their widespread deployment. 

The private sector is often ill-positioned to pioneer new and capital-intensive technologies alone. DOE must remain central to 

America’s clean energy innovation dominance, linking academic research and commercial products. Too often, however, we think of 

DOE’s R&D role in terms of research capabilities or dollars spent, 

rather than delivering disruptive new technologies to solve particular problems or address market challenges. Spending more with 

a business-as-usual approach will not win the global energy innovation race. 

159 

The Department should reorient itself toward moonshot technology goals that empower industry to tackle the challenges of 

breakthrough technologies. Clearly articulated, longterm research 

priorities could insulate critical RD&D efforts from changing political winds. Used appropriately, they would leverage limited Federal 

resources towards the most important priorities. 

Big goals at DOE have worked before. The 2011 SunShot Initiative aligned secretary-level resources to reduce the cost of solar 

power by 75 percent within 10 years. Last year, DOE reached the 

goal ahead of schedule. More such goals are needed. For example, 

an advanced nuclear MoonShot could implement Secretary Perry’s 

call for an increased emphasis on the development of new nuclear 

technologies. 

For ambitious technology development goals to succeed, the Department should implement a few systematic reforms. First, DOE 

should adopt more private sector management practices. Major 

Moonshots and interim subgoals could provide yardsticks to evaluate progress. If specific bets don’t meet milestones, dollars should 

be redirected; a practice common today at ARPA-E. 

Second, a soup-to-nuts approach to energy research is needed, especially for capital intensive technologies such as carbon capture 

and advanced nuclear. Striking a balance of supporting demonstration while avoiding market interference is a delicate one, but is 

necessary to maintain international competitiveness. Prematurely 

ending private-public research projects raises the risks that our rivals will commercialize them instead. 

China has no philosophical objection to funding applied science. 

They are happy to take American basic research and add applied 

dollars to demonstrate and commercialize them, reaping the benefits of our creations. 

In conclusion, America has an opportunity to lead the global 

market for clean, reliable, and affordable energy. But without a 

more focused and nimble government partner, American entrepreneurs are likely to lose the clean energy race. A recommitment 

to leading global energy innovation would not only improve our 

geopolitical position, it would reduce emissions and maintain low 

consumer prices, while seizing a multitrillion dollar opportunity. 

ClearPath applauds the committee for taking on this important 

and overdue task and stands ready to assist its legislative efforts. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:] 

160 


29537.089

Testimony of Richard J. Powell 

Executive Director, ClearPath Foundation 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy 

January 9, 2018 

Good afternoon Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and other members of the committee. 

My name is Rich Powell, and I am the Executive Director of the ClearPath Foundation. 

ClearPath is a 50l(c)3 organization focused on conservative policies that accelerate clean energy 

deployment in the power sector. We support solutions that advance the wide array ofbaseload 

clean energy technologies- including next-generation nuclear, hydropower, cleaner fossil fuel 

technologies and grid-scale storage solutions that improve grid efficiency, including the 

integration of additional renewable sources such as wind and solar. Our core mission advocates 

markets over mandates and bolstering technological innovation rather than implementing stifling 

regulation. ClearPath provides education and analysis to policymakers, collaborates with relevant 

industry partners to inform our independent research and policy development, and supports 

mission-aligned grantees. An important note: we receive zero funding from industry. 

Staying Ahead of the Curve 

I commend Chairman Upton for kicking off the first of a series of hearings focused on 

Department of Energy (DOE) reforms that ensure the effective execution of its core national, 

economic and energy security missions. Reauthorizing and modernizing key research, 

development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs is essential to securing our nation's role as a 

global technology innovation leader while facilitating a cleaner, more reliable, and affordable 

domestic electricity supply for the American public. 

As Secretary Perry noted to the Subcommittee last October: "America is at the beginning of an 

energy renaissance." Domestic oil, natural gas and solar energy production are at record highs, 

while improvements in efficiency allow us to do more with less energy. As a result, North 

American energy prices are historically low and may stay that way for the foreseeable future. 

This era of abundance must not make us complacent. Staying ahead of the curve and reinventing 

energy systems is slower than turning a supertanker, requiring a decade or more of lead time for 

cutting-edge technologies to mature. Hydraulic fracturing, as well as today's solar and wind 

technologies, took several decades and significant investment from both private and public 

sources before widespread commercial deployment. It is essential that our nation capitalize on 

this era of abundance and invest in the technologies needed to meet the electricity needs of 

tomorrow. 

America is rapidly approaching a crossroads. While coal makes up a third of American power 

production, the average plant will reach retirement age by 2030. Replacing or refurbishing these 
161 


29537.090

plants presents a once-in-a-century opportunity to deploy advanced energy technologies and 

build new domestic supply chains. 

Global energy demand is expected to grow 28% by 2040. This market in India alone is valued at 

$2.7 trillion by 2040. A homegrown U.S. advanced energy economy can shape and even lead 

such a market, furthering our energy security, geopolitical influence and economic opportunities 

abroad. If our nation does not rise to that challenge, we run the risk of falling behind. In fact, we 

already are. 

China is seizing the opportunity and outflanking us. It's attracting advanced nuclear talent, 

bringing two high temperature gas reactors online early this year, at least half a decade before 

even our most ambitious plans. China is already the global leader in solar manufacturing, a 

technology American entrepreneurs invented in partnership with the Department of Energy. 

China is deploying the most efficient coal plants in the world. And the future bounty under 

development and early deployment in China is of even greater significance, including ultracheap good scale batteries and cutting edge nuclear reactors. 

DOE's Critical Role In America's Innovation Engine 

The Department of Energy and its 17 national laboratories, partnered with the nation's premiere 

research universities and facilities, constitute the most comprehensive energy research and 

development network in the world. As the largest funder of physical sciences research in the 

United States, it has spurred many technological advances of the modem energy eraengineering, materials science, computing, physics, health sciences and more. The Department, 

labs and their predecessors pioneered civilian nuclear energy, funded many of the core 

technologies used in fracking, and produced the first solar cell. The Department is a critical link 

between university research and commercial products. The private sector alone is often unwilling 

to assume the risk of pioneering new and capital-intensive technologies, especially in the heavily 

regulated and risk-averse power sector. Many power companies are regulated and most are 

structurally discouraged from buying first-of-a-kind technologies. 
162 


29537.091

Source: Annual Report on the Status of the National Labs 

It is our belief at ClearPath that the Department must modernize if our nation is to export 

technologies of the future to meet the world's rapidly growing energy appetite. America's 

specialty is in cutting-edge technology development and manufacturing, not in mass-production 

of commodity goods. 

To that end, the best way for the United States to play a role in meeting future energy demand is 

to develop increasingly advanced technologies that can outcompete rival nations. We may not be 

able to beat China with cranes and concrete, but we can in building printable solar panels, 

modular nuclear plants, carbon capturing fuel cells and other energy tools of tomorrow. 

Therefore, a strong commitment to energy innovation and a modem DOE is essential for: (I) 

improving the nation's geopolitical position as foreign competitors, such as China and Russia, 

invest in advanced energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) concepts; (2) 

enhancing American energy independence with more clean, reliable and affordable generation 

technologies; and (3) seizing a multi-trillion dollar economic development opportunity that will 

revitalize domestic manufacturing and create thousands of high-paying jobs. 

We can and should aim for clean, reliable and affordable U.S. energy dominance. 

But simply spending more taxpayer dollars with a "business as usual" approach will not achieve 

these goals. While funding is a critical component, collaboration with the private sector must be 

improved to make innovations more readily transferable to industry and able to thrive in 

international markets. 
163 


29537.092

The last major overhaul to our national energy strategy was the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 

many aspects of power generation have greatly changed since then. Modem market realities such 

as low-cost natural gas, the declining cost of wind and solar technology and greater competition 

in clean energy technology from China should prompt a reconsideration of the Department's 

R&D priorities. 

In addition to adapting to the current market environment, DOE can maintain our domestic 

competitive advantages with long-term research priorities rooted in nonpolitical market and 

technology projections. Science and research should be nonpartisan enterprises, operating on 

longer terms than year-to-year appropriation bills or four-year election cycles. 

The Need for DOE "MoonShot" Energy Technology Goals 

Too often, we think of DOE's role in terms of capabilities, or dollars spent on priority topics. We 

rarely ask what outcomes DOE is actually working towards. President Kennedy's original 

MoonShot concept, proven more than half a century ago, has withstood the test of time. DOE has 

found success at times emulating the MoonShot model, with clearly articulated goals aligning all 

the management and funding of the Department from the Secretary's desk to the scientists bench. 

Unfortunately, the concept has only been sparingly used. The last administration provided a 

noteworthy, but narrowly implemented blueprint with its 2011 SunShot Initiative. It aligned 

secretary-level, interdisciplinary resources on reducing the cost of solar power by 75% within I 0 

years. Last year, the Department reached its goal years ahead of schedule. More federal energy 

innovation goals are needed to maximize the commercial impact of DOE's vast capabilities and 

resources. 

Clearly articulated, long-term research priorities would insulate critical RD&D efforts from 

changing political whims. Ambitious technology development goals provide a way for the 

Department to avoid micromanaging the day-to-day operations of national labs and universities 

while preserving clear guidance. Critical parts of the DOE research portfolio, including nuclear 

energy and energy storage, lack systematized goals with high level buy in and adequate 

resources. Establishing more technology-inclusive goals would leverage limited federal dollars 

and resources to drive down cost and bring breakthrough technologies to the marketplace. 

Secretary Perry has recently called for an increased emphasis on the development of advanced 

reactor technologies, including small modular reactors, stating they should play an important role 

in the American clean energy portfolio while presenting unique export opportunities. This is just 

one area that a MoonShot approach could be applied. A public-private advanced nuclear energy 

research initiative focused on tackling key performance challenges could demonstrate 

breakthrough reactors and have significant market opportunities. 
164 


29537.093

Co-develop the Goals with Industry 

Where applicable, the DOE should work closely with the private sector to meet mutual goals. 

This includes ensuring no undue regulatory burden on energy technology companies, utilizing 

funding opportunities for the private sector where appropriate, and partnering with private 

entities to develop technologies under larger MoonShot goals. 

Adopt Private-Sector Management Practices 

Relevant funding and management decisions should also be recalibrated around these MoonShot 

goals. Major "MoonShots" and corresponding subgoals should be used as a yardstick to evaluate 

the progress within research portfolios. Emulating the private sector, if specific technologies do 

not realize expected milestones or show progress, support should be reduced or cut and directed 

to more promising areas. This stands in contrast with the common practice of short-term research 

initiatives for "flavor of the month" technologies pushed by political appointees, as well as 

continuing research projects that are not bearing fruit. Additionally, the Department should be 

empowered to make the necessary human resource decisions for success, such as the ability to 

offer more competitive wages and terminate employees that do not meet expectations. 

Maximize Private-sector Coordination 

The DOE should look to prove business models with the private sector. One pragmatic solution 

is the Innovative Pathways funding program, which optimizes new private-sector financing 

mechanisms for energy innovation and commercialization. In some cases such as in finance, the 

private-sector is far better equipped to deliver on the goals of the Department than universities or 

national labs. 

Finally, it is also crucial that the DOE works closely with the private sector to realize the 

completion of its technology MoonShots. Prematurely ending government support raises the risk 

that our rivals will commercialize them instead. For example, China has become the global 

leader in solar and lithium-ion manufacturing, and it is rapidly cementing its leadership role in 

nuclear plant construction. They have no philosophical objection to funding applied research, 

and are happy to take the fruits of American basic research and add applied dollars to 

demonstrate and commercialize them, thus reaping the benefits. A soup-to-nuts approach to 

energy research is needed - especially for capital intensive projects such as advanced nuclear and 

carbon capture projects. These sentiments have been echoed by diverse industry stakeholders, 

including the National Coal Council, the Carbon Utilization Research Council and NuScale 

Power. Striking a balance of appropriately supporting successful technology demonstration while 

avoiding market interference is a delicate one, but is necessary to maintain international 

competitiveness. 
165 


29537.094

Concluding Remarks 

The Department needs to be more flexible in operation, without sacrificing accountability. The 

national laboratories have been prone to 'research drift' without an explicit national energy 

policy. Goals allow flexibility at the Jabs while ensuring accountability. 

America has an opportunity to lead the global market for clean, safe, affordable and reliable 

electricity generation. Without a more focused and nimble government partner, American 

entrepreneurs are likely to lose the clean energy race to other geopolitical powers such as China, 

squandering an immense economic opportunity. An innovation-centric energy strategy would 

allow America to cut its own emissions far more cheaply than regulatory hammers, such as the 

"top down" Obama Administration approach, while creating rather than strangling American 

entrepreneurs and export opportunities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide remarks. ClearPath is eager to assist the 

Committee in providing ideas for updating the outdated programs and existing authorizations in 

current law around the new Moonshot energy technology goals outlined above. We applaud the 

Committee for taking on this important and overdue task to help ensure the Department of 

Energy has the relevant statutory authorities it needs to modernize and facilitate the research, 

development, and demonstration of cutting-edge energy technologies. 
166 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you all for your testimony. I know it has 

been a long hearing, and you were here promptly when the gavel 

came down at 10 o’clock. I have a couple of questions, as I know 

the members do here. 

Dr. Wasserman, I was pleased to hear you talking about some 

very positive things, particularly relating to what Lilly has been 

doing and the funding to offset some of the buying power for new 

drugs and devices. As you know, this committee passed, every one 

of us, passed on a 51 to nothing vote in the last Congress, 21st 

Century Cures, which accelerates breakthrough drugs to address 

disease. We worked hard to make sure that there were the appropriate offsets for more funding for the NIH and other resources. 

Have you at all looked at what we did as it relates to the advancement of new technologies in the medical side? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Only slightly, Chairman. As we look at new 

technologies, as a company, we are always looking for ways to improve our goal of getting medicines to the patients who need them 

as soon as possible. So the things that the government has done 

to foster that, including our use of the facilities, developing other 

new technologies, leveraging the things that both that NIH and 

DOE have created for us to improve our efficiency in the laboratory. 

As you know, it is a long slog to get a drug to market. And, for 

example, the experiments that I mentioned today on breast cancer 

were done, I think, 7 years ago, and the approval came down. But, 

again, we know it is difficult to get a drug to market, and every 

advantage that we can come up with sponsored by the government 

or with the own initiative within the industry. 

Mr. UPTON. We worked very closely with Dr. O’Neese, particularly as it related to the DOE user facilities as part of that legislation. He was a very constructive partner as we worked together. 

Dr. Zacharia, you have watched our committee’s action and you 

know that we have been very involved in cybersecurity. And I 

guess the question that I have for you is, what do you see as we 

try to avoid unnecessary duplication but still ensure breakthroughs 

in cyber defenses and response capabilities, in particular, in regard 

to advanced supercomputing capabilities to address those challenges? 

Mr. ZACHARIA. Chairman Upton, thank you very much. So cybersecurity clearly is a challenge for a system like ours or a society 

like ours because the adversary only has to succeed once, whereas 

we have to be 100 percent foolproof. And so the approach that we 

have taken working with the Department is to make sure that the 

cost of penetrating critical assets is increasingly higher. So just like 

if your own home, the higher the walls, gates, et cetera, the alarm 

systems, it forces the people to go look elsewhere. And so cybersecurity, broadly speaking, is focused on new tools and technologies 

and software solutions, building on the computing capabilities that 

we have, the supercomputing capabilities that we have. But also 

within the DOE space, we also focus on the cyber physical systems 

where you are also not just focused on the penetration of computing and information technology, but really the gateway into grid 

and energy grid systems, which is a big challenge, as was noted in 

the previous panel. 

167 

And, Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one more comment about 

the question about the Cures Act, is that, as you—the DOE supercomputer systems are used effectively in working with a joint program between NCI and DOE and working with a private sector, in 

this particular case, GlaxoSmithKline, in developing a pilot project 

where the computing capability and the data analytics are being 

brought forward to look at much more targeted personalized medicine initiatives. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reicher, I am quite interested in your influent overall proposal—your influent program, but in general, I am interested in 

your whole thrust here, and I think you have been pretty specific, 

and that means a lot to this committee in terms of some of your 

recommendations. But I only have 5 minutes, so I want to zero in 

on the weatherization program and the EERE recommendations in 

general. 

We are in the midst of extremely cold weather throughout the 

Nation, and has this weatherization program been effective, and 

has there been a return on the investment? I mean, what is the 

cost of the investment, in your opinion, into the weatherization program? 

And, secondly, how will low income families be impacted if this 

program were completely phased out? And what would the effect 

be on local jobs if this program were to be phased out? 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Rush, the Weatherization Assistance Program 

has been a very successful program. More than 7 million homes 

have been weatherized around the United States to date. I think 

it is every $1 of Federal investment leverages between $4 and $5 

of outside investment, so it is a good government leverage in that 

way. It comes at a moment when it is not only cold out, but we 

are seeing a pretty big increase in the cost of heating fuels, as oil 

prices increase, as natural gases prices increase. So it does a lot in 

that way. I think much of the review of that program, and I know 

Oak Ridge has done some of it, has been fairly positive about the 

program, to date. 

And there is some great job production in this program. It really 

puts local people to work going in and, first, measuring what is 

leaking in a house, and secondly, blowing in insulation and fixing 

windows. So it has got all the right hallmarks. So I really, really 

hope that we don’t see the elimination of this program. It has been 

supported for decades. Forty years anniversary, I think, was last 

year. So I am a big fan. 

Mr. RUSH. From your previous work at Argonne, can you speak 

to some of the innovative works that have taken place in the energy storage field? This is for Dr. Levy, I am sorry. 

Dr. Levy, you worked at Argonne. Can you share any insight into 

some of the most promising potential breakthroughs in the beyond 

lithium program? What are some of the possibilities that can help 

move us forward into the future in regards to storing energy and 

developing a more resilient and efficient 21st century electricity 

grid? 

168 

Mr. LEVY. Thank you, Mr. Rush. First of all, I must confess, I 

have been away from Argonne for 2 years, and I am a couple of 

years out of date. And I think in the battery business, that is an 

important 2 years. 

They were having very promising results in improving storage, 

and of course, that is important for two reasons. It is important in 

order to use intermittent sources of energy. It is also important for 

all sorts of other applications. So there is nothing but gain to be 

had there. 

I think the best I can offer you in terms of specifics is to get back 

to you after talking to some of the people at Argonne. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you 

all being here. 

What the intent of what I think the administration is trying to 

do is, and what we are trying to do, is look at the Department of 

Energy after 40 years, and how do you update it? How do you modernize it? How do you make it efficient? And really how do you tell 

the story? I think part of the problem is the public really doesn’t 

know the story, and that is part of our challenge too. 

I have been to Argonne and I have been to Oak Ridge, but those 

are special trips that people have to make. And if you are not a 

member from that area, then you just don’t get there. So we have 

got great scientists, they work real hard. 

And then the other part is, you know, Members of Congress easily can go back to why did we create the Department of Energy? 

And if you go back to the history, remember, it was the energy crisis of the 1970s, which some of us were a lot younger then. And 

then we get to Congress and we still have an energy crisis. 

So the creation of the Department of Energy in the 1970s didn’t 

solve the crisis. And I would argue that it is individual investment. 

And right now, it is the fracking technology that really has transformed this whole world’s view now, not just within the continental 

United States, but really the international energy markets. I also 

do a lot in eastern European freedom issues, so the energy extortion by the Russians is real. 

So that is kind of the intro into my questions. I want to go to 

Ms. Ladislaw first in addressing the SPRO. I was a big SPRO supporter when we were importing a lot of crude oil, and we are, but 

we are also exporting. So we are having that debate, right, $2 million to modernize it, and then what, right? I have been quoted as 

saying, ‘‘I am not even sure why that should be part of our portfolio 

anymore.’’ I think in your statement you disagree with that, and 

I would ask why. 

Ms. LADISLAW. Thanks very much for the question and for your 

interest in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I find you are right, 

a lot of people don’t know about its existence in addition to all the 

things that the Department of Energy has done over the years. I 

was not around the Department’s creation. I have worked with—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let’s go to someone else then. No. 

Ms. LADISLAW. I have worked with people that were, though. And 

what I find really interesting is that, as we remember it, the Department was created during a time of crisis, and we thought it 

169 

was going to get much worse. And a lot of it had to do with deregulating our domestic environment and making a whole suite of challenges and deciding that we were going to commit to this internationally connected and efficient market for oil and gas and things 

like that. And we have pursued that for 40 years. And I actually 

think that the Department and the United States should take a lot 

of credit for that system that we have created. It is what is going 

to allow us to sell a lot of the oil and gas resources that we have 

in a free and open market, and I think that is a huge advantage. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just go ahead, real quick, because I am 

running out of time. 

Ms. LADISLAW. I was just going to say, I think that the reality, 

though, is that we have, as forecasters, been wrong, time and time 

again over that 40-year period about near-term market changes, 

whether we are going to have enough resources or not have enough 

resources. And a lot of that has to do with situational type of 

things that we couldn’t foresee, like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

and things like that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Just because I want to be respectful of my colleagues’ time. So, we have got the Bakken now and we have got 

the Pennsylvania shale, we have got, obviously the oil sands, we 

have got Keystone, and hopefully eventually we will get Keystone 

XL Pipeline. And we now, after much consternation, export crude 

oil, which I think has been a huge benefit. It has been a benefit 

for our identification location recovery, keeping the prices at a 

place where we still have people looking in the continental United 

States, and so I think that has been a net plus for the country and 

for jobs and the economy. 

I get from your testimony, and correct me if I am wrong. I think 

that is true for LNG too. And I would like to hear your comments 

on that. Do you believe that that would be the same type of response if we were more active in LNG exports? 

Ms. LADISLAW. Sure. I think LNG exports are certainly good for 

the U.S. economy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Great. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Castor. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the 

witnesses for your very interesting testimony. 

I have to say, Mr. Reicher, I share your concern that the Trump 

administration’s policies they are putting forth in the beginning of 

the administration appear to want to hollow out our Department 

of Energy, and that would be to the detriment of this great country. 

At this time, it just doesn’t seem like the way they are thinking 

matches the challenges that we face and takes advantage of all of 

the fantastic technological advances and natural gas revolution, 

and as Ms. Ladislaw said, the energy abundance that we have at 

this point. 

You, Mr. Reicher, pointed to the drastic cuts in clean energy, the 

electric grid operations, the next generation energy technology. You 

pointed to the inexplicable back peddling on energy efficiency 

standards for household appliances. But you have particular expertise as the former assistant secretary for EERE. Will you explain 

the consequences of such drastic diminishment of energy efficiency 

170 

and renewable energy under what the Trump administration has 

put forward? 

Mr. REICHER. So I think it hurts us in a variety of ways. I think 

it hurts us in terms of people’s pocketbooks, if we really do pull 

back, if we don’t take advantage of the savings that we can 

achieve, if we don’t take advantage of a variety of other things, 

weatherizing people’s homes. So I think it hits there. 

It obviously hits from an environmental standpoint. We have 

made a lot of progress in cutting carbon emissions, both because of 

the rise of natural gas, but also because of the deployment of a variety of renewables. It definitely hits us in terms of our competitiveness. And I will have to tell you, I am very worried about what 

we are doing. 

We published a major report at Stanford that actually DOE funded, looking at the Chinese solar industry and how it is that it has 

gotten so very strong. And it has gotten so very strong because 

there is a highly organized effort in China, industry and government, in each of these major energy technology categories to begin 

to, essentially, own these energy industries. They now make 70 

percent of the world’s solar panels. And it is not just cheap manufacturing, it is also now R&D. 

The Chinese are getting very good at solar R&D. They are getting very good at nuclear R&D. They are getting very good in carbon capture, in transmission. And I really worry that, from a competitiveness standpoint, we’re going to really hurt ourselves. And 

it is, in fact, this industry government partnership that has been 

active for the last 40-50 years that has really kept us in the ball 

game. 

And, lastly, I will say, much of what China is moving forward 

with was technology invented in the United States, and a lot of 

that at government expense, taxpayer expense. So I really think we 

need to think from a competitiveness standpoint where we are 

headed. 

Ms. CASTOR. And your point is not lost on me on how much it 

is costing the rise in carbon pollution because I come from the 

State of Florida, and I think the insurance industry earlier yesterday or at the end of last week released the totals for the damages 

from hurricanes. Now, the direct link isn’t there, but what the consensus is that these extreme weather events are intensified because of higher carbon levels. We have the best scientists in the 

world and we have the technological edge, why would we cede that 

to China? 

Ms. Ladislaw, you also highlighted the importance of energy efficiency. You said it is important to the economy and it pays great 

dividends for security. Could you expand on your concerns about 

receding in America’s leadership on energy efficiency and renewables? 

Ms. LADISLAW. Sure. Working for a security organization, I think 

people think, in particular at this time of abundance, that the way 

that you are secure is you have more, right? If you just have more, 

then you are thereby secure. 

I think the original sort of mandate for the Department of Energy was to use less and produce more, more in variety and more 

in quantity, and that use less piece has been huge. The Alliance 

171 

to Save Energy has remarkable figures that I included in my testimony about how much the U.S. has saved. And I think that what 

we are finding now is, around the world, developing countries that 

don’t want to develop along the same lines that the United States 

did, want to benefit from purchasing those technologies or making 

those technologies themselves. It is a very competitive marketplace 

out there for additional energy efficiency. 

And we shouldn’t forget that part of the reason why the United 

States has enough oil to export today is not just because we 

produce it, but it is because we use so much less of it than we 

thought we were going to. And so I think that energy efficiency just 

struggles from being one of those untold stories with really big 

strategic advantages both today and that we can pay forward to 

the future as well. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the panel 

for joining us today. It has been enlightening testimony. 

Mr. Powell, you and I both agree that as Congress looks to allocate scarce resources, that investment in basic research has great 

value in terms of translating into the seed corn of future economic 

opportunity. 

In that regard, I was enthused by your talk about setting MoonShot approach. Can you expand on how setting technology 

moonshots can ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars versus 

the status quo? 

Mr. POWELL. Sure. Thanks very much for the question. So I 

think we should remember that the sort of energy miracle of this 

past decade, the shale gas revolution, was heavily influenced by research conducted at the Department of Energy, on hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, diamond-headed drill bits. It is very possible the shale gas revolution would not have occurred without that 

research at DOE in partnership with private industry. 

And so the question is, how do we produce more of those miracle 

technologies? In our view, it is very hard to get somewhere if you 

don’t know where you are going. And so one first step is simply to 

establish the sorts of performance benchmarks that we are looking 

for, for new sort of miracle technologies. So what does an advanced 

reactor look like that would actually be right for today’s energy 

market. So smaller, more modular to build, probably a much lower 

cost point for energy. And then aligning resources at DOE to overcome bottlenecks to achieve a goal like that. 

Again, in the SunShot Initiative, they put a very aggressive timebased, cost-based goal out there. They broke down every part of the 

cost of grid scale solar systems, and they subjected each of those 

parts of the costs to very rigorous research and analysis and found 

ways to overcome them, and then helped rapidly bring them down. 

So we think that this kind of approach could be applied to advanced carbon capture technologies, grid scale storage, advanced 

nuclear, certainly in the transportation space, and certainly in the 

industrial emissions space as well. 

Mr. FLORES. That takes me to the second part of my question. 

You said that ClearPath engages collaboratively with outside organizations, businesses, and think tanks about the future of energy 

172 

in this country. And in that regard, can you share with us any insights you have as to examples of moonshots that Congress and the 

DOE should be considering—— 

Mr. POWELL. Sure. 

Mr. FLORES. When it comes to the energy space? 

Mr. POWELL. Well, I think one that is low-hanging fruit is grid 

scale storage. So we have talked a lot across this hearing about 

grid scale storage today. The nice thing about grid scale storage is 

actually you have a lot of dollars, a lot of bang for the buck in expanding. So if we were to set a goal of, say, grid scale storage systems at less than $100 per megawatt hour, that would be a disruptive change. Right? It would greatly improve the ability for grid 

scale storage to compete with peaker power plants. It would also 

be very good for the further expansion of solar and wind technologies. 

And to accomplish a goal like that might only be incremental 10 

of millions of dollars in appropriations in a year. But it is simply 

having that focus and increasing that level of ambition. 

Mr. FLORES. What is another example? You and I have talked 

about advanced nuclear in the past. 

Mr. POWELL. Yes. Certainly, advanced nuclear. So if we were to 

set a goal, a very ambitious performance-based goal to say, empower the private sector to demonstrate four advanced nuclear reactors within a decade, we are actually on track with a number of 

our programs already, like the Advanced Reactor Concepts Program, that is working with two advanced reactor developers right 

now, X-energy and the Southern-TerraPower collaboration on Molten Chloride Fast Reactor. 

So we have a new scale power as well that could certainly qualify 

for something like that. So we have a number of horses already in 

the race, and this would encourage us to get more advanced reactor 

developers into collaboration with DOE and hopefully get four of 

those demonstrated. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. Ms. Ladislaw, as you discussed in your 

testimony, and as many of us on this panel know, the change in 

the U.S. energy profile has really had huge geopolitical impacts. 

And the State Department’s primary mission is diplomacy, but the 

Department of Energy has a critical role there to play as well, 

whether it is to authorize exports or provide technical assistance on 

trade energy flows. In your view, what should Congress do to support the Department of Energy’s international affairs mission, in 

30 seconds or less? 

Ms. LADISLAW. Thanks very much for your question. 

I think, first and foremost, it is really important to recognize the 

work that the Department is doing, both in science and technology 

and on policy evaluation in an international affairs realm. So the 

Department of Energy Bureau is a wonderful department, and I 

fully support that as well. I think that sometimes it leads to an either/or; should it be at the State Department or at the Department 

of Energy, they should be complements to each other. There is 

enough to analyze and act on out there that they should be able 

to be both very robust and complementary offices. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. Again, I thank the panel for their testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

173 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ladislaw, I really appreciated your written testimony. You 

highlighted the original congressional intent from the findings of 

the DOE Organization Act. I think it is clear that Congress intended for DOE’s mission to evolve alongside our Nation’s energy 

challenges. We need to face the issues of our time. In the 1970s, 

it was oil use and reliance on foreign oil. Today, we should be considering our Nation’s current and future energy needs. 

So, Ms. Ladislaw, in the spirit of DOE Organization Act, is support for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D consistent 

with the original goals of the Department? 

Ms. LADISLAW. I believe so. 

Mr. TONKO. As I mentioned during the first panel, I think DOE’s 

role in supporting innovation is essential. And based on everyone’s 

testimony, it sounds like you would likely agree with that assessment. I think that, obviously, there is great opportunity for job 

growth with R&D and energy efficiency. 

Dr. Zacharia, the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium is a great 

example of DOE working with public and private stakeholders and 

making significant R&D investments in order to solve energy challenges and make the U.S. a global leader. Integrating new technologies into our electricity system is one of the challenges to fostering a cleaner and more reliable grid. 

Can you explain the role that national labs play in fulfilling 

DOE’s mission, and how grid modernization fits into those priorities? 

Mr. ZACHARIA. Thank you very much. 

So the national labs clearly sit between academia industry in 

maturing important technology. In this area, the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium is a consortium of a number of laboratories. 

We work closely together. And as we deploy a number of intermittent sources, one of the key challenges is really being able to make 

sure that the grid is resilient and reliable. And the way we have 

done that is actually both in terms of doing research, but also 

working in partnership with industry. Let me give you an example. 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory has worked very closely with 

electric power board in Chattanooga, which is a small city scale 

utility. And we worked very closely in deploying power electronics 

such that the grid system can be managed very effectively. And 

today, as a result of that, the citizens of Chattanooga, when a 

storm comes through, and they only see a blip because the grid is 

obviously be able to manage and work around that. 

One of the challenges in doing that is that, as you make the system much more interconnected, there is also the concern about security. And so we are also working very closely with them to make 

sure that it is secure. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And as I mentioned, DOE must address the energy issues of our 

times, along with grid modernization and the seamless integration 

of more clean energy resources into our energy mix. I believe DOE 

has a critical role to pay in one of the greatest environmental, economic, and national security challenges of our lifetime, that being 

climate change. 

174 

Does anyone on the panel wish to comment on the responsibility 

that the Department has in helping to develop climate solutions? 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Tonko, I think the Department has a great opportunity to develop climate solutions. It has been working on them 

for decades. And I think we are at a moment, though, where I 

think we have got to keep the pedal to the metal in terms of investment. And I say this with a very broad range of technologies in 

mind. It is everything from renewables and efficiency to nuclear to 

carbon capture, energy efficiency technology. We talk a lot about 

standards, but there is a lot that can be done. 

So I think this is both a great opportunity. And I think if we are 

going to both succeed at addressing climate—but we are always 

going to profit as a country in addressing the climate problem, we 

have two very strong reasons we should be moving forward. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And Ms. Ladislaw. 

Ms. LADISLAW. I just wanted to second that last point of Dan’s. 

I do think that it is a shortcoming of our political process that on 

one hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. On the other hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. There is a lot of benefit that can come to 

the U.S. economic system, to our national security, to all of our 

strategic objectives from leaning forward into some of the climate 

challenge issues. And I think that the Department would be well 

served in doing that. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. Reicher, I was struck by your comments about EERE and 

weatherization. And I think they do meet both social and economic 

goals being able to provide for sound-paying jobs and addressing a 

more energy friendly environment. I know that in upstate New 

York, a weatherization assistance program is critical. Some of the 

coldest weather that comes into upstate, and we just saw it, subzero for days in a row. It is some of the toughest, poorest areas of 

the state with lowest household income. And it is a social economic 

justice thing that we can advance. So thank you for your comments. 

Mr. REICHER. I just want to say, I grew up in upstate New York. 

I not only know how cold it is, but I also know how snowy it is. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. It has been both this year. So thank you 

very much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the 

work the Clemson University is doing with their Duke Energy 

eGRID. I am proud to represent my alma mater, Clemson University, as it is in my district, and the research work they are doing 

at facilities all the across the State of South Carolina in partnership with other universities, funding agencies and industry partners is extremely impressive. 

At Clemson’s Restoration Institute in Charleston, South Carolina 

at Clemson has what may be considered the world’s largest and 

most capable electric grid emulator called the Duke Energy eGRID. 

eGRID has the ability to dynamically model electrical power grid 

175 

conditions anywhere in the U.S. or the world. With this world class 

and unparalleled facility, Clemson’s technical staff and students 

are making great advances in grid modernization and grid security 

through their work at eGRID. 

The eGRID is a key enabler of testing half-hour devices that are 

critical components of the power grid infrastructure, such as extra 

high voltage transformers. Failure of components such as these 

transformers will likely cause widespread power outages, which 

can be very difficult to recover from due to lack of spares, logistics 

of moving them, and long lead times for their construction. Critical 

components like these transformers can be damaged from attacks 

such as EMPs, geomagnetic disturbances from solar activity and 

cyber attacks. Clemson has acquired one of these high voltage, high 

power transformers at eGRID further positioning Clemson with the 

unique capabilities. 

Through R&D and testing of these critical components and systems, Clemson University’s eGRID facility will be instrumental in 

modernizing and securing the U.S. grid. And I invite anyone on the 

committee that would love to go and see that drivetrain facility and 

eGRID facility in Charleston, it is worth the trip. 

So, Mr. Powell, you mentioned in your testimony the importance 

of the DOE working with private sector to meet mutual goals. The 

Clemson-Duke Energy eGRID is a prime example of successful collaboration with the private sector to advance innovation by not 

solely depending on taxpayer dollars. Can you provide other examples of collaboration with the private sector to advance the goal of 

modernizing the DOE? 

Mr. POWELL. Sure. 

Well, the one that has been most consequential in the past decade, or the past two decades, was probably Mitchell Energy collaborating with the Office of Fossil Energy to develop shale technologies. That is probably the one that was the most and best 

known. I think another one that has been very, very successful has 

been the collaboration between NuScale Energy and the Department of Energy, particularly the Office of Nuclear Energy, in developing a small modular reactor technology. So that collaboration has 

now resulted in a successful filing for a license with the NRC. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you see MSRs as a really viable nuclear energy 

alternative? 

Mr. POWELL. Well, in the United States, we see smaller reactors 

as the only viable nuclear energy alternative—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. But at any given time, we have got 100 nuclear reactors floating around the seas of the world and the United States 

Navy without a single mishap. And I believe, and one that believes, 

that that SMR or type technology is a solution for powering small 

cities, or even large communities, so—— 

Mr. POWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you have other examples? 

Mr. POWELL. Just to finish on that. Our power grid today really 

rewards smaller power plant technologies. And so the smaller that 

we can make the reactors, the more points that applicability that 

those will be, that those will be around the country. 

I think we have seen very successful development in the wind 

sector in public-private partnerships, in the Wind Technology CenVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
176 

ter at the National Renewable Lab that has really brought down 

the price further for very large wind turbine technologies as well 

as. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. And speaking of SMRs, which kind of piqued 

an interest of mine in thorium or molten salt reactors. 

Is DOE working the private sector at all on thorium reactors, to 

your knowledge? 

Mr. POWELL. I will have to get back to you on that. I am not sure 

that there is any current thorium work underway. They are working on molten salt reactors, so that is where the fuel is also the 

coolant, and it circulates through the reactor. There is currently 

several active points of research and an active collaboration between DOE and Southern Company and TerraPower, which is the 

Bill Gates’-backed nuclear development company. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything further. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses here today. I particularly 

liked the testimony of Mr. Powell talking about researching and 

figuring out new ways to use the fuels that will power the world, 

not just the United States, in the future. 

But with that, I will yield my time to Mr. Shimkus of Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Morgan. I appreciate that. And I really 

want to make sure I took the time. I appreciate you being here. 

And also, you are an important panel. Again, as I said earlier, we 

are trying to figure out should we look at reauthorizing the DOE 

and what should be its assigned roles. And I do a lot of stuff in 

the nuclear space, too. And I want to ask a question. It is going 

to go to Dr. Levy first. And it is really about organization. 

So the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, is 

a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy 

responsible for enhancing national security through the military 

application of nuclear science. But there are some people who question the efficiency of that, since it is semi-autonomous. 

In fact, Admiral Richard Mies noted the separation of DOE’s support functions from the NNSA created a problem concerning the 

Secretary’s governance over the nuclear security mission. They 

noted, ‘‘What CEO of the successful company would permit one of 

the largest, most demanding and unforgiving missions to be quarantined from the headquarters’ staff. Or to use an operational metaphor, how could the commander of a ship at sea fulfill his or her 

duty if 40 percent of the crew were, ‘‘separately organized’? That 

would be both inefficient and risky.’’ 

Do you agree with that? 

Mr. LEVY. I don’t think I do, although I am not sure the present 

implementation of the separation is ideal. I think there is a way 

to do it. This is an issue that the Augustine-Mies panel took up in 

great detail. One of the suggestions was that NNSA just be a separate agency. And their conclusion was, for a mission that important, they needed cabinet level support and cabinet level input. 

My own personal opinion, and it is my personal opinion, the 

panel hasn’t come to a conclusion on this, is that it is a doable 

177 

thing, but it will take a lot of attention at the highest levels of the 

Department of Energy, primarily the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the administrator, the Under Secretary, operating together very well. 

Right at the moment, there is a lot of overlap. There is a lot— 

certainly, the Secretary of Energy—I am not sure one looks at the 

Secretary of Energy as the commander of the ship, or the chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs. There has to be somebody responsible for it, 

and he is responsible to somebody. At the moment, I think there 

is overlap, which is not a very good situation, and I think that is 

one of the things that is important to clear up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think that is good. 

Ms. Ladislaw, have you looked at this from your think tank 

arena? 

Ms. LADISLAW. It is not an area of expertise for me. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. And I would raise it to the chairman as something we should look at as we move in this direction. 

The last thing I wanted to also address is—I mean, because there 

is such a different—a broad breadth is this, Dr. Wasserman, on the 

supercomputing issue, because we—I know that we—we are not 

Kim Il Jong II, so we don’t blow off our nuclear weapons anymore 

because we supercompute, and we trust it, which is hard for many 

of us to believe. But we do. 

And so in this—but I got confused, and that is why I ask questions, because that is the best way to find out the answers. DOE 

is moving to an exoskeleton larger supercomputing ability. Is that 

separate than what the National Science Foundation is doing on it? 

Doesn’t it operate in conjunction with other universities’ supercomputing operations? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. The exoscale effort, and I am not directly involved in it, but one of my colleagues at Lilly is, actually, as part 

of a DOE advisory panel. It is a partnership with lots going into 

it. 

Let me pause for a minute. You said it is hard to believe that 

you can believe the simulation. In the example in GE I gave you, 

which admittedly is not a national security weapons type of simulation. But in this simulation, they could look at things that they 

could not measure in the real world. And so they could make a lot 

of progress in the simulation because you could do that. To build 

the actual test mock-up and try to do it physically would have not 

only been cost-prohibitive, but would have required a whole doubling of their infrastructure. So the exoscale is partnership. And as 

you can tell, if you look at the statistics, the U.S. leapfrogs with 

other countries. Currently China is ahead. We will catch up. I am 

sure they will change that in the future. 

But the ability to use this to look at things. When I started my 

scientific career, the type of simulations we look at would have 

been fantasy. And today, the exquisite nature of not only the computer hardware, but the software developments the people have 

found to use that hardware as efficiently as possible are exquisite. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I appreciate. I yield back my time. 

The University of Illinois has Blue Waters, which is part of the 

NSF grant, and it is an awesome facility. 

And I yield back. 

178 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel. 

I am going to direct my questions to Mr. Reicher, because he has 

got Vermont roots, and I want to acknowledge the good work everyone has done. But none of you made the wise decision to spend as 

much time in Vermont as he did. But thank you. 

You heard, I think, the first panel, and there was some discussion in that panel about the standard setting process. And I am 

going to ask you three questions, so I want you to be brief on each 

one. But can you just address that process and what you think 

makes sense to do and what the dangers are if we fall behind in 

what has been, I think, a bipartisan commitment to the standards? 

Mr. REICHER. So very quickly, Mr. Welch, there are two things 

going on. One, there are concerns that DOE is not going to move 

ahead. They kind of put a hold on issuing standards. The second 

thing they are doing is reevaluating the standard setting process. 

We did that back in the 1990s, made a lot of improvements. Improvements have been made since. I am hopeful that they won’t go 

ahead and do more than they need to do at this point, because it 

is a pretty good process. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Next thing is there is a bipartisan effort 

to have master limited partnership status apply to clean energy 

projects. We have got Republican and Democratic sponsors to that, 

and I am one of the lead sponsors. 

Can you just offer your thoughts on the benefits that that would 

provide to the clean energy sector? 

Mr. REICHER. So master limited partnerships have been a very 

important tool for financing oil and gas infrastructure to the tune 

of about $500 billion. When the law was passed, though, by Congress in the 1980s, renewables and lots of other things were not included. You, Mr. Poe, others, Mr. Portman, and Mr. Moran in the 

Senate have introduced legislation that would open up these MLPs 

to all these other things. CCS, storage renewables efficiency, and 

it would be a big step because it would cut the cost of financing 

for these major energy projects. And as we ramp down the tax credits for solar and wind, we should ramp in this master limited partnerships approach. 

Mr. WELCH. OK. I hope that is something we can work on, Mr. 

Chairman. We have got a Ted Poe from Texas and Peter Welch 

from Vermont, so there is some bipartisan and strange bedfellow 

situations there, so let’s see if we can do something. 

On Federal energy management, the Federal Government’s en- ergy bill, as you know, is $23 billion a year. And a number of us 

on this committee, Republicans and Democrats, have been really 

trying to extend energy saving performance contracts. We have had 

a knotty problem on the scoring where it is a Byzantine process to 

try to get there to be resolution between OMB and this CBO. 

Can you comment on what the opportunities are if we go very 

aggressively in pursuit of energy savings performance contracts, 

which, as my colleagues know, don’t cost taxpayers any money. The 

companies that bid on doing retrofitting of our Federal buildings 

put the money up to do that, and then they get repaid from the 

energy savings that benefit them with the payback, and benefit the 

taxpayers. 

179 

Mr. REICHER. Yes. Very quickly. It is a great alternative to appropriating funds to upgrade Federal buildings. There are 350,000 

buildings. We could do a lot to cut this $23 billion energy bill. But 

there are these difficulties in scoring, the disagreements between 

OMB, CBO, and the Hill. We put out a report, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, in 2016, on Federal energy management. We 

looked at a whole number of issues, a big number of opportunities. 

And one of them that we explored were ESPCs. And we have suggested some ways that you might fix that process, so I would encourage you to take a look at that report. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back. Thank you all. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate our scientists being here. We have still with us the 

ranking Democrat on Mr. Upton’s subcommittee, the ranking Democrat on Mr. Shimkus’ subcommittee—Mr. Shimkus was here until 

I walked in. He left—myself as vice chairman. And we have all 

been tasked with the chairman, Mr. Walden, to perhaps do a DOE 

reauthorization bill, which we have had a number of questions 

about. Part of that is going to be to look at the role of the national 

laboratories. 

I think it is fair to say that if we were starting from scratch we 

wouldn’t have 17 national laboratories, but we do. Some of those 

are pretty obvious. Los Alamos, Sandia, some of our weapons laboratories. I think some of them show the need for more robust research. The renewable energy laboratory would fall into that category. I know Mr. Tonko is a big supporter of that. But some of 

them are not so obvious. 

I don’t know who to ask this question of, maybe Mr. Reicher. Do 

we need 17 national laboratories today? 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Barton, I think I am outside of my area of expertise right now. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I just poked at random. If you don’t feel qualified—— 

Mr. REICHER. I will tell you this, that there is just an amazing 

breadth of strength in those labs. Obviously, you know better than 

I, the politics of shutting down labs is—— 

Mr. BARTON. Not good. 

Mr. REICHER [continuing]. Not good. 

Mr. BARTON. It depends on your point of view. From the point 

of view of keeping it open, it is very good. 

Mr. REICHER. Right. But I guess what I would say is I would 

take a look at the missions of each and really assess what they are 

doing, because I think they have all developed areas of expertise. 

Argonne, for example, is really one of the world leaders in advanced battery technologies, looking at things other than lithium. 

And you go across the board, there is just so much there. So missions should come first as you do on your analysis. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, let me give an example that I know a little 

bit about. Once upon a time, there was a national laboratory in 

process called the Superconducting Super Collider. It was going to 

be in my congressional district. In fact, the main campus would 

have been about 10 miles from where I live right now. And obviVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:00 Sep 10, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-90 CHRIS
180 

ously, if we would have built it, I would have been a big supporter 

of it. But we didn’t build it. We decided to go a different path. And 

we are putting quite a bit of money over in Europe at CERN, but 

we still have the Stanford Linear Accelerator. We still have 

Fermilab. We still have Brookhaven. Do we need all of those national laboratories studying high energy physics given the fact that 

we decided to put most of our eggs in the European basket at 

CERN? 

Mr. WASSERMAN. Mr. Barton, if I may. The people at the national 

labs are incredibly creative. And as the example of the Stanford 

Linear Accelerator. Its original for which it was built around 1962 

when it started, is no longer part of the DOE. It has been 

repurposed. And instead of a particle accelerator to smash things 

into each other to look at the fundamental forces of nature, it is 

now the basis of the Linac Coherent Light Source, which is an xray source rather than an atom smasher. 

And so this creativity, even though the infrastructure is still 

there, things that have outlived their life have now found a new 

use. And, in fact, the linear accelerator there, the LCOS, is an example of interlaboratory cooperation. For example, there is a device 

called an undulator—we won’t go into that today—which is the 

basis of it. Much of the development work for those undulators 

were done at Argonne, where they had a lot of expertise at the advanced photon source on this type of device. 

So this creativity means that we can repurpose things. It also 

means that we can take multiple approaches to a difficult problem. 

As scientists, we wish that innovation were a linear path, but it is 

not. And often finding the best solution requires looking at several 

different ways to do it and finding the best one at the end. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, my time has expired. I understand the quality 

of our scientists and our researchers. I don’t deny that. I also understand the political reality that DOE has facilities in 30 different 

states. So that is 60 percent of the states. So any time you try to 

change something, it is going to be, especially in the Senate, a political difficulty. 

But I do think if we are going to reauthorize the Department it 

is only fair to the taxpayers that we do take a quick look, a serious 

look at the existing laboratories. Again, I do not deny that they can 

be repurposed. I don’t deny that they do good work. I know for a 

fact from my experience with the Super Collider, we got a lot of 

brainpower that came to Texas. And most of it stayed. Not all of 

it but most of it. And it has benefited our state. So I am good for 

that. But I just think we owe it, if we are really going to do this 

reauthorization, that we ought to take a look at the existing structure. 

Mr. Powell. And my time’s expired, so I am at the mercy of the 

chairman here. 

Mr. POWELL. I will say very, very quickly. 

I think the key thing to look at is not whether we need 17 labs, 

but whether we need 17 labs, all of whom say they can do almost 

anything, right? I think because the mission of the labs has shifted 

back and forth, they have gotten themselves—Dr. Zacharia might 

kill me for saying this—have gotten themselves into a posture 

where they are ready to go for any administration with any set of 

181 

priorities. And I would just build on Mr. Reicher’s point that we 

should be much clearer about what each lab is excellent at and 

then align those centers of excellence with top-down direction and 

goals. 

Mr. BARTON. I guess my final question. Did we find the topquark yet? That was the whole purpose of the Super Collider, to 

find the top-quark. 

Did we find it? 

Mr. LEVY. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. We did find it. 

Well, good. 

Mr. ZACHARIA. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me a little bit of 

time. 

The laboratories are really where the integration of the missions 

occur. And so if you look at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, it is 

one of the largest science and energy laboratory, about $1.5 billion. 

It is funded through 1,000 proposals that RPIs have to compete. So 

in some sense, laboratories bring core capabilities, a combination of 

people, unique facilities, and programs. And we competed for the 

best ideas that funded. So in some sense, the labs thrive in a 

meritocracy. And so what I would say is that if one focuses on the 

mission of the Department, then the laboratories will self-select 

based on their capabilities and abilities to support the missions of 

the Department. 

Mr. BARTON. I appreciate the chairman’s discretion. Thank you. 

And I appreciate you all being here. 

Mr. UPTON. Yield now to a very patient Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Powell, the eastern power grid has been experiencing some 

extreme stress due to what is still now a very cold weather, although today’s not so bad. Part of the reason the grid has maintained its reliability has been—and I am getting to the issue of fuel 

diversity—has been the diversity of fuel sources on the grid. Share 

with me your perspective on what DOE’s role should be to ensure 

grid reliability. And obviously this comes on the heels of a report 

and a FERC 5–0 decision yesterday, I think there is a lot of innings 

left in this game, and I am just curious on your perspective? 

Mr. POWELL. So obviously, this has become a pretty contentious 

topic about whether there is a diversity or a resiliency problem on 

the grid as it currently stands. 

I think the reality, as it stands today, is that we are headed toward a grid dominated by natural gas power generation. And so 

the question that we have to ask ourselves is, is that a problem? 

Most of the modeling says it is not a problem. In this cold snap, 

for example, this winter, the natural gas system has worked well, 

and there hasn’t been a resiliency problem with the grid. But we 

can imagine events where an attack on a pipeline or especially a 

major hub could make that a significant issue over reliance on one 

type of fuel. And we can imagine events where even if there is not 

a supply disruption, you could have significant price spikes to that 

fuel source, and that might result in sort of economic pain. 

And so I think now the discussion is, is there some other characteristic, diversity or resilience or something like that that we 

need to find and define and quantify, and should that be worked 

182 

into the authority of FERC to ensure that, in addition to reliability 

and affordability, this resiliency characteristic is there as well. 

We do think that there are ways that we can define and value 

that resiliency characteristic that would not be overly disruptive to 

the existing order of the wholesale markets. The wholesale markets 

have delivered a lot of benefits to the country in terms of reliability 

and affordability. And so we think that it can be defined in a way. 

An added benefit of defining it would be nuclear generators are a 

particularly resilient power source, and so, we think that adding 

that into the power mix would go a long way to helping support 

our existing nuclear fleet. 

Mr. COSTELLO. We have heard some discussion here about China 

and its role in the energy technology research development and deployment space. What do you believe we need to do as a country? 

And what is DOE’s proper role in order to ensure that we don’t 

play second fiddle to China? 

Mr. POWELL. Thanks for that. I was pleased to participate in that 

event together discussing this more deeply a few weeks back. 

So I think the first and most important thing is that we need to 

signal that we are going to make a deep commitment to some of 

these technology areas where China is also making a very deep 

commitment. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Is that RPE? Is that somewhere else? Is that 

purely within DOE? Where else does that come about? 

Mr. POWELL. So much of it is in DOE. We discussed a bit today 

about making sure that our trade standards are correctly putting 

the right burden on industry so that we are actually able to compete in places like Saudi Arabia to build nuclear reactors there. I 

think we need to make a clear commitment at DOE through the 

continuation of RPE and through major mission-oriented goals and 

commitments to these technologies that we are actually going to 

put the resources into these technologies so that our innovators 

don’t then need to go over to China to get the commercialization 

benefits. 

If you look at just one company, for example, UET, it is a vanadium flow battery technology that was developed at the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, spun out of it by some of our best 

researchers. China identified the technology and its commercial applications, and so now they are sort of funding the commercialization and spin-up. And they are buying, I believe, the largest flow 

battery in the world which will be deployed in China and not in 

the United States. 

And so finding ways where we can make similar commitments 

and actually show our innovators that we are serious about that, 

we will make investors and we will make innovators sort of not flee 

to China but develop a scale for innovation here at home. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Final question for everyone. We have a potential 

for an infrastructure bill. Let’s just say $50 billion is allocated to 

energy infrastructure. 

Where is that best deployed? Anyone? 

Mr. ZACHARIA. Well, I will take the $50 billion since no one else 

will. 

183 

So there are a number of areas where there are both science infrastructure, but also infrastructure such as small modular reactor 

that have been discussed. 

In some instances, this discussion becomes academic in terms of 

whether you are going to have a nuclear Renaissance or not, because if the supply chain goes away, it becomes very, very difficult 

to reboot the nuclear energy industry. And we are only a few years 

away, in my view, that, if there is not a procurement of some sort, 

then that industry will go away. And this is somewhat analogous 

to the supercomputing industry. 

About 10 years ago, the intelligence community was really concerned that the supply chain was going to go away. And the Nation 

stepped in and basically did the investments in leadership computing and the procurements that ensued that kept the supply 

chain. 

Likewise, with SMR, one of the opportunities that you have is 

that, for example, in places like Oak Ridge and Idaho where we 

have a baseload and need between Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

and Y-12 of about 150 megawatts. That is two units of small modular reactor. One way to incentivize the specific client adoption 

would be for the government to say is at least explore whether that 

is a good use of investment in infrastructure to actually buy down 

the risk of first applying deployment in a small modular reactor. 

But also there are signs, shovel-ready signs infrastructure, that is 

again looking for resources. And so those are some of the areas 

that I would consider for investment. 

Mr. REICHER. Mr. Costello, if I could quickly give you an answer. 

There is already $41 billion available today in the DOE loan program. It is allocated $12.5 billion for advanced nuclear, $8.5 billion 

for advanced fossil, $4.5 billion for renewables, and then a big 

chunk in the transportation side. We are about to see a rescission 

by appropriators in both the Senate and the House that would prevent major companies from getting access to that $41 billion. 

So that is available today. It is going to cost a couple hundred 

million that already was appropriated by the Congress a number 

of years ago. And if we could avoid that rescission, that $41 billion 

across the board would be available. It goes directly to what you 

just heard, because sitting over at the DOE right now in the loan 

program office are applications, both part 1 and part 2, for the 

Vogtle reactor, the NuScale reactor, the Terrestrial reactor, and a 

couple of more. 

So you don’t need to find $50 billion. You need to make sure that 

$200 or $300 million is not rescinded by appropriators that would 

basically shut down the loan program office at DOE. And I can’t 

say this strongly enough to all of you. Put that $200 million, $300 

million back into effect, and you are going to have tens of billions 

available in the form of loan guarantees for nuclear, for fossil, and 

for renewables. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very helpful. I waived on, and I am 3 minutes 

over. So I don’t know if I am going to ever get back on this subcommittee again. 

Thank you, Mr. Upton. 

184 

Mr. UPTON. I want to thank all of you for being here. Seeing no 

other members wishing to ask questions, we are almost ready to 

adjourn. 

I am going to ask you unanimous consent to submit two letters 

into the record, a letter on EERE and a letter on the loan program 

itself. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. UPTON. And pursuant to committee rules, I will remind all 

members that they have got 10 business days to submit additional 

questions for the record. And I would ask that witnesses submit 

the response, if you can, within 10 business days. Certainly, for the 

first panel, Mr. Rush had a number of questions we would like the 

answers back. 

Mr. RUSH. No. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you a question. 

Based on Mr. Reicher’s passionate request concerning the $41 million loan program, do you have any reaction to—— 

Mr. UPTON. Well, I wish we were appropriators. That is not a 

role that we have. Sometimes we can take over. This is the most 

powerful committee and the oldest, and we don’t have that authority. I have supported the loan program, I would say that. I have 

supported the appropriations. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I think maybe it might be in order for 

a bipartisan effort on both sides of this committee to make our concerns heard with the Appropriations Committee. And I would be 

willing to join with you and other members of the committee to 

have a meeting or send some letters, but I think our voices should 

be heard. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, and I know that we are all anxious to see the 

administration’s budget. We are going to have the opportunity to 

ask Secretary Perry questions about that as it gets submitted and 

take action on the floor. So I appreciate the gentleman’s interest. 

Mr. Welch. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, I think we need to do something as a committee. That is a very compelling loss. If we forego these loan guarantees, it is really going to hurt the collective efforts of both sides 

of this aisle. 

And you have done this before, but this committee really needs 

to speak out, I think. 

So thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. And if there are no further questions, we stand adjourned. 

Thank you all for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

185 


29537.095

June 8, 2017 

The Honorable Mike Simpson 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

and Water Development, 

and Related Agencies 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Appropriations 

2362-B Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and 

Water Development 

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

184 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Water Development, 

and Related Agencies 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Appropriations 

2362-B Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Diarme Feinstein 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Energy and Water Development 

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

188 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Fiscal Year 2018 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Budget 

Dear Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, Chairman Alexander, and Ranking 

Member Feinstein: 

The U.S. Department of Energy is the single largest funder of clean energy innovation in 

the United States, and our nation will be hindered in the global energy market without a 

strategic and well-funded DOE research portfolio, including basic science, energy 

efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil energy, and electricity reliability. 

We are the entire group of Senate-confirmed Republican and Democratic Assistant Secretaries of 

Energy who led the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) between 

1989 and 2017. We are particularly concerned about the Administration's recent proposal to cut 

the EERE budget by 69% from FY2017 enacted levels. While we have not always agreed on the 

relative emphasis of various elements of the EERE budget we are unified that cuts of this 

magnitude in the proposed FY18 budget will do serious harm to this office's critical work and 

America's energy future. 

EERE-supported research, development, and demonstration in energy efficiency, 

transportation, renewable energy, clean energy manufacturing and electric grid 

modernization are critical to encouraging U.S. innovation, creating good-paying jobs, 
186 


29537.096

cutting pollution, and ensuring American global competitiveness. Other important EERE 

programs, with similar benefits, focus on setting efficiency standards for appliances and 

equipment, helping states deliver energy efficiency improvements, leading the federal 

government's efforts to reduce its own $23 billion annual energy bill, and cutting energy 

use in low-income homes. 

This is a particularly inauspicious time to cut the EERE budget. World-wide investment 

in clean energy now measures in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. 

Governments across the globe--and companies large and small-want a piece of this 

massive economic pie representing tens of trillions of dollars over the next three decades 

and millions of jobs. China, in particular, has made it a high priority to lead the globe in 

the clean energy industry and is reorganizing its energy R&D and deployment efforts in a 

broad array of clean energy technologies, many of them first developed in the U.S. at 

taxpayer expense. It is telling that China intends to spend more than $360 billion on 

renewables through 2020 and create 13 millionjobs. 1 We ignore China's resolve-and 

success to date--at our peril. 

U.S. energy security, a key focus of Congress and the administration, requires a reliable 

and resilient electricity system. Fundamental performance characteristics of the grid are 

changing due to increasing use of variable supplies, electronic converters for motor 

drives, lights, and other equipment, and grid communications and control with the shift 

from analog to digital systems. These changes have the potential to improve grid 

economics and performance, but also require greater agility to optimize operations, 

reduce response time to system failures, and confront new vulnerabilities such as 

cybersecurity. R&D to develop the capabilities needed in a modernized grid is critical, 

yet the electric utility sector invests just 0.2 percent of sales in R&D. R&D by EERE and 

DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (with a proposed 48% cut) 

is pivotal in meeting these grid modernization challenges. 

Finally, federal appliance and equipment efficiency standards, set by EERE since 1987, 

are the little engine that could when it comes to stimulating massive low-cost energy 

savings. DOE estimates that existing efficiency standards will, on a cumulative basis, 

save consumers nearly $2 trillion on their utility bills between 1987 and 2030. While not 

without occasional controversy, the standards have long enjoyed bipartisan support. 

Standards for many types of residential, commercial, and industrial equipment are 

required to be regularly updated in order to capture the impact of technology advances 

and push these advances into the market. Thus, a refrigerator in 1973 used about 1900 

kWh of electricity per year but federal R&D and standards have helped drop that 

electricity use to about 400 kWh per year, saving a typical household roughly $150 per 

year. 

As six Republican Senators wrote earlier this month, referencing EERE and other DOE 

offices, "We cannot lose the technological advantages we have gained through research 

1 Reuters, January 5, 2017 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBNl4P06P 
187 


29537.097

and development. Governing is about setting priorities and the federal debt is not about 

Congress overspending on science and energy research each year." We share this view 

and we urge you to set the FY18 EERE budget at a level that will ensure the continued 

effectiveness of this critical federal program. 

We would be honored to meet with you and share our views on the EERE budget and, 

more broadly, how to improve the productivity of the entire DOE energy RD&D 

portfolio in a bipartisan effort to secure America's energy future. 

Sincerely, 

Dan W. Reicher, EERE, 1997-2001 

DOE Chief of Staff, 1996-1997 

DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy (Acting) 

1995-1996 

(President Bill Clinton) 

Cathy Zoi, EERE, 2009-2011 

DOE Under Secretary (Acting), 2010-2011 

(President Barack Obama) 

David Garman, EERE, 2001-2005 

DOE Under Secretary, 2006-2007 

(President George W. Bush) 

Mike Davis, EERE, 1989-1992 

(President George H.W. Bush) 

cc: 

David Danielson, EERE, 2012-2016 

Program Director, ARPA-e, 2009-2012 

(President Barack Obama) 

Alexander "Andy" Karsner, EERE, 2006-2008 

(President George W. Bush) 

Christine A. Ervin, EERE, 1993-1997 

(President Bill Clinton) 

Chairman and Ranking Member, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations 

Chairman and Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Democratic Leader 

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Leader 
188 


29537.098

January 4, 2018 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Bobby Rush 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Pallone, Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and 

Subcommittee Ranking Member Rush: 

As the Congress considers how to fund the government through fiscal year (FY) 2018 and 

beyond, we urge you to support the Department of Energy's (DOE) Loan Programs Office 

(LPO). As executives of 17 companies, we are investing in projects with pending loan guarantee 

applications or preparing for new applications based on the good faith notion that this DOE 

program would function as stipulated in law and as Congress intended. We are deeply concerned 

that proposals to eliminate authority for this critical program, which largely funds itself and 

mobilizes private capital, will destroy thousands of pending jobs and hinder the growth of 

critically-needed U.S. domestic energy production. Eliminating it also defeats America's effort 

to maintain a leadership position with regard to energy innovation and "Dominance." 

Our companies represent a wide range of innovative energy and efficient manufacturing 

technologies including advanced fossil, nuclear, and vehicle technologies, as well as renewable 

energy technologies such as advanced energy storage and grid management solutions for 

reliability. The DOE LPO represents the best and often only way to cross the barrier from 

developing innovative technologies to deploying those technologies commercially here in the 

U.S. and ultimately for export. 

The LPO is a win-win-win for taxpayers, American energy innovation, and the communities and 

states where these investments are being made. The program's real costs are paid by the 

companies that submit applications, and each federal dollar of loan guarantees leverages 

approximately $10 in private capital investment, which exceeds the Trump Administration's 

plans to leverage infrastructure investment at a ratio of 5:1. For these reasons, there are zero 

savings associated with removing loan authority, only the loss of American jobs and injury to 

American competitiveness. 

This program has already proven its ability to deliver: It has closed more than $30 billion of 

loans, loan guarantees, and conditional commitments covering more than 30 projects that 

represent $50 billion in total project investment in the U.S. economy. These investments 
189 


29537.099

represent 56,000 direct and indirect jobs across 20 states. Projects still in the pipeline for 

approval that would be killed by the spending bills proposed in the House of Representatives and 

Senate for FY 18 amount to an additional $40 billion in near-term investments in America's 

energy infrastructure that would put another 75,000 Americans to work in good, high paying 

jobs. These are not hypothetical jobs of the future; these are jobs on projects that are ready to 

begin construction near-term- as soon as their loan guarantees are issued. Further, the current 

$41 billion of authority in the LPO, with its focus on important energy infrastructure, represents 

a significant here-and-now down payment on the $1 trillion goal the President has set for U.S. 

infrastructure spending. 

LPO financing for innovative energy projects has proven its ability to de-risk these innovative 

technologies and to unlock commercial investment in future projects. For instance, before 2009, 

there were zero utility-scale solar farms located in the U.S. But after the LPO provided project 

financing to five first-of-a-kind installations, today 50 such solar farms are going forward with 

commercial financing. 

Many of our companies have already spent tens of millions of dollars in connection with our 

applications to meet the government's stringent requirements for a loan guarantee. Our 

companies have hired engineers, acquired land, complied with environmental reviews, and 

negotiated power purchase or other off-take agreements. Eliminating funding at this late stage 

would literally pull the rug out from underneath our projects, just when we are ready to move 

forward with the LPO. 

Unless appropriation bills for FY 18 and beyond protect authority for the program, our economy 

could sacrifice a generation of innovations in energy technology. Longer-term, future projects 

that will seek private sector lending once they have been proven commercial with the help of the 

LPO would be jeopardized, damaging U.S. competitiveness and domestic job growth. These 

technologies will eventually be proven, but that proof may be forced offshore. We are in a 

competitive race with China and other countries for leadership of the multi-trillion dollar global 

industry in energy innovation, and the LPO is one of the country's best tools to enhance U.S. 

competitiveness with superior leverage on federal commitments. 

We hope you will support the DOE Loan Program, by maintaining its authority and monitoring 

its progress, and ensure that these private sector investments are made to build and modernize 

our domestic energy infrastructure. 

Respectfully yours, 

Michael C. Darcy 

Chief Executive Officer 

Michael Oster 

Chief Executive Office 

2 
190 


29537.100

D' Arcinoff Group 

ENREVO PYRO 

PE,~~ Chief Exec;~~cer EnRevoPyro 

Ray Crabbs 

President & CEO 

Chesapeake Integrated BioEnergy 

Complex, LLC 

novvr 

Jeffrey Brown 

President & CEO 

NovviLLC 

Q51~;;;~LC ~ LIFE 

~ President . 0 

Green Life US 

Alberto Morales 

Legal Representative 

Ionic-Fuels International Holdings, S.A.P.I. de C.V. 

am sTAR IIICJ ENERGY HOLDINGS 

y_z;,~ 

Steven Estes 

Chief Executive Officer 

Star Energy Holdings, LLC 

3 
191 


29537.101

REDEFINING ENERGY 

Daniel A. Burciaga Peter Heinzelman 

President & CEO Chief Financial Officer 

ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. Alevo USA Inc. 

c:f6 

bioamber· 

President 

BioAmber Inc. 

~tgsiluria TECHNOLOGIES 

Robert D. Trout 

President & CEO 

Siluria Technologies, Inc. 

TERRESTRIAL 

ENERGY USA 

Simon · 

Chief Executive Officer 

Terrestrial Energy Inc. 

Founder & CEO 

New Steel International, Inc. 

4 
192 


29537.102

greenlets® 

Brett 

~· Hauser 

Chief Executive Officer 

Greenots 

·~e;;v•l•pm•nt 

~~palachia CfOUtt 

·:::::7.7 

Chief Executive Officer 

Appalachia Development Group, LLC 

Oooble • Green Bridge 

NW 

INNOVATION 

WORHS 

£--/) 

Simon Zhang 

Chief Executive Officer 

NW Innovation Works 

5 
193 


29537.103

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

Qtongte!i!i of tbt Wnittb ~tatt!i 

~ou~e of l\epre~entatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-£115 

The Honorable Dan Brouillette 

Deputy Secretary 

U.S. Department of Energy 

! 000 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Mr. Brouillette: 

M!ljority (202)225-2927 

Minority {202)225-3641 

February 8, 20! 8 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on January 9, 20!8, to testify at the 

hearing entitled "DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and Energy 

Security of the United States." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains open 

for ten business days to penn it Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are attached. 

The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows:(!) the name of the Member whose 

question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in bold, and (3) your 

answer to that question in plain text. 

Also attached are Member requests made during the hearing. The format of your responses to these 

requests should follow the same format as your responses to the additional questions for the record. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions and requests with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, February 23, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to 

Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2!25 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e~mailed in Word format to kelly.co!lins@mai!.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 

-
194 


29537.104

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN UPTON 

Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette 

DOE's National Security Mission 

Ql. The Department's national security mission and supporting activities plays a critical role 

in advancing and protecting our nation's national security. The National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) maintains our nuclear weapons deterrent, supports key nonproliferation programs, and prepares to respond to national emergencies. Other DOE 

programs also advance national security programs, and DOE is a member of the 

Intelligence Community. Much of the focus on DOE's national security activities is 

centered on NNSA facilities and the three NNSA managed national laboratories; 

however, the other national labs, such as Idaho, Pacific Northwest, and Oak Ridge 

National Laboratories also provide key national security services. The recent realignment 

separated the management of the Science laboratories from the remaining energy 

laboratories, thus all three Under Secretaries oversee a portion of the national security 

imperative. How will you assure that certain national security programs are not siloed and 

this most important DOE mission is fully recognized? 

A I. The Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) in particular, is charged with important and enduring missions vital to the 

national security of the United States. To accomplish these missions, NNSA maintains 

crosscutting capabilities that enable it to advance world-class science, technology, and 

engineering. NNSA manages three national security laboratories and five nuclear 

weapons production facilities, but also draws upon the expertise and core capabilities of 

the remaining DOE national laboratories. 

The Under Secretary for Nuclear Security/NNSA Administrator works closely with the 

Under Secretaries of Energy and Science to build a stronger, more collaborative and 

mission-focused culture across DOE and the 17 national laboratories and nuclear 

weapons production facilities. 

NNSA is active in many DOE-led boards and committees. The Laboratory Operations 

Board (LOB), for example, meets monthly to explore streamlining and collaborative 

opportunities between DOE, NNSA, and their national laboratories. The LOB supports 

implementation of energy, science, and national security programs by providing a forum 

for discussion and developing solutions to complex-wide challenges. 
195 


29537.105

Each DOE laboratory has a unique mix of core capabilities meant to be a resource for the 

Department's science, energy, and national security needs. NNSA has adopted the DOE's 

Office of Science's annual lab planning process for its three national security laboratories 

and tailored it to NNSA's specific mission. NNSA also actively participates in the 

process that the Office of Science conducts on behalf of its ten national laboratories, as 

well as the four labs overseen by the Under Secretary for Energy. NNSA reviews the 

strategic plans from a national security perspective to ensure that the laboratories 

maintain the capabilities needed to meet national security priorities now and in the future. 

The annual strategic planning process ensures that DOE and its national laboratories 

remain aligned on research priorities, infrastructure investments, and stewardship of core 

capabilities to address the science, energy, and national security missions. 

DOE Realignment and Reorganization 

Q2. In 2013, then-Secretary Moniz announced as part of a DOE reorganization that he was 

combining the programs under the Office of Science with the applied energy programs 

under the newly created Under Secretary of Science and Energy. At the time, he noted 

this was done partially "to closely integrate and move quickly among basic science, 

applied research, technology demonstration, and deployment." 

Q2a. Your testimony notes the Department's recent realignment was executed to fully 

implement thisAdministration's agenda. Will you please describe for the Committee the 

rationale for returning to the former structure and how you will assure that the 

communication and collaboration between the sciences programs are not siloed from the 

work funded through the energy offices? 

A2a. On December 15, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced its intent to 

modernize the agency's organizational structure to advance its policy goals consistent 

with its statutory requirements. 

Under the DOE Organization Act, the Secretary of Energy has the authority to organize 

the Department to successfully further the Department's mission and support and advance 

the policy priorities of the new Administration. This Administration's energy priorities 

include: achieving U.S. energy dominance; protecting our energy and national security; 

advancing innovation; and improving outcomes in environmental management. 

2 
196 


29537.106

Under the new plan, the Office of Under Secretary for Science and Energy (established in 

2013 during the previous Secretary's tenure) has been separated into two Under Secretary 

positions, restoring the three Under Secretaries outlined in statute: the Under Secretary of 

Energy; the Under Secretary for Science; and the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security 

and NNSA Administrator. The Under Secretary of Energy will focus on energy policy, 

applied energy technologies, energy security and reliability, and certain DOE-wide 

management functions, while the Under Secretary for Science will focus on supporting 

innovation, basic scientific research, and environmental cleanup. These measures will 

enhance DOE's focus on early-stage scientific research and development and energy 

technology innovation, while improving environmental and legacy management 

outcomes. 

Communication and collaboration between offices within DOE, including our labs, as 

well as external stakeholders is an important and integral part of daily operations. This 

coordination will continue between science programs and energy offices under the new 

structure. 

Q2. In 2013, then-Secretary Moniz announced as part of a DOE reorganization that he was 

combining the programs under the Office of Science with the applied energy programs 

under the newly created Under Secretary of Science and Energy. At the time, he noted 

this was done partially "to closely integrate and move quickly among basic science, 

applied research, technology demonstration, and deployment." 

Q2b. What are your views on elevating the Department's cross-cutting energy emergency and 

cybersecurity incident planning, response, and coordination functions? 

A2b. Cybersecurity, energy security, and emergency response are priorities for DOE, and the 

Department is working closely with stakeholders across Federal agencies, industry, law 

enforcement, and state governments to ensure resilience is factored into ongoing grid 

modernization efforts. In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, DOE 

works with its energy sector partners, through forums such as the Electricity Subsector 

Coordinating Council (ESCC) and Oil and National Gas Subsector Coordinating Council 

(ONG SCC), to prioritize efforts to strengthen cybersecurity preparedness in the energy 

sector, improve capabilities for cyber incident response and recovery, and accelerate 

innovative research and development of resilient energy delivery systems. The effects of 

3 
197 


29537.107

Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico highlight DOE's important mission in natural disaster 

response for energy supply disruptions. 

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act provides additional authority to 

the Department for securing defense critical electric infrastructure against physical, cyber, 

geomagnetic, and electromagnetic disturbances. 

To that end, the Secretary of Energy announced in January the establishment of an Office 

ofCybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER). This 

organizational change will enable the Department to strengthen its role as the sectorspecific agency for the energy sector under Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21 ): 

Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, support expanded national security 

responsibilities, and better address natural disasters and emerging threats. 

Q3. I understand that DOE is continuing the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, 

which consists of 13 National Labs coordinating to address major challenges associated 

with maintaining, protecting, and updating our aging national electricity infrastructure. 

This model helps ensure subject matter experts throughout the complex utilize unique 

skills to tackle a big problem. 

Q3a. Are there similar big issues which would benefit from such an approach? 

A3a. We plan to expand the GMLC to include the Offices of Nuclear Energy and Fossil 

Energy, and we are evaluating where else this model can be applied across the enterprise. 

Q3b. The purpose of the Consortium offers the opportunity to fully capture the contractor 

system, yet the funding for the projects still is disbursed in minimal increments and 

therefore limiting the ability to "think big" and pursue game changing ideas. This budget 

atomization is detrimental to achieving DOE's mission. What options are you considering 

for improving budgetary management as part of this consortium? 

A3b. Grid Management Laboratory Consortium project funding was distributed incrementally 

primarily due to continuing resolutions until the Department had full-year appropriations. 

We are hopeful that the recently enacted two-year budget agreement will allow more 

timely appropriations, which could avert the need to fund activities this way. 

4 
198 


29537.108

DOE Field Offices 

Q4. DOE maintains field offices at all of the National Laboratory sites. The field offices 

serve as DOE's eyes and ears to oversee the M&O contractor that runs the labs; however, 

high staffing levels combined with excessive micromanagement can inhibit the "GOCO" 

model, where the contractor runs the day to day operations at the Lab. Do you recognize 

that bloated field office staffing may lead to greater transactional interactions with the 

labs and what is your vision for the field office's role? 

A4. The Department has a responsibility to provide oversight to each ofits national 

laboratories. DOE utilizes a tailored approach of oversight at our national laboratories 

based on the complexity, risk, and amount of work at each site. Specific areas of Federal 

oversight include contract management by warranted DOE contracting officers, project 

management, and facility and worker safety. 

For example, within the Office of Science (SC), the Ames National Laboratory has an 

annual budget of about $48M per year in funding and no nuclear facilities and has a site 

office with only 4 Federal FTEs, while Oak Ridge National Laboratory has an annual 

budget of nearly $1.4 B per year and multiple high risk nuclear facilities and has a site 

office of 40 Federal staff providing oversight. DOE continuously analyzes the amount 

and complexity of work at each national laboratory to determine the best balance of 

Federal presence. 

Throughout DOE, Contractor Assurance Systems (CAS) are utilized to enable reduced 

Federal site presence. Successful CAS programs rely on a "trust but verify" approach to 

contract oversight. This enables the appropriate amount of oversight without duplicating 

M&O contractor efforts and leverages the internal assurance systems existing at each of 

the labs. While CASs are in varied degrees of maturity throughout DOE, SC has seen 

positive results in the management of its M&O contracts where effective assurance 

systems are in place. 

In August 2016, DOE initiated a pilot project known as the "Revolutionary Working 

Group" (RWG) contract model at SLAC National Accelerator Facility. This contract 

modification was designed to increase trust between Federal and laboratory personnel, 

remove redundant requirements, and move decision making to the lowest possible level, 

5 
199 


29537.109

including delegation from Federal to laboratory personnel where appropriate. This model 

has enabled DOE to reduce the SLAC Federal site office personnel by nearly 50% and is 

estimated to generate about $2.8 M per year in cost savings/avoidance at SLAC. 

In April2017, DOE initiated expansion of the RWG model contract to other SC labs, 

including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. These contract modifications are 

expected to be approved by the end ofFY 2018. 

Additionally, all of the other Department Program Offices have been directed to analyze 

whether these contract modifications would be appropriate to implement at their sites. 

Q5. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy was first funded in the 2009 

Stimulus legislation and now, over eight years later, a handful of programs have been 

funded and completed, with the opportunity to evaluate the overall impact of those 

projects. How is DOE going to review ARPA-E's efficiency and determine the best path 

forward to assure value for taxpayer funding? 

AS. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) programs and projects 

will ultimately be measured by their impact on U.S. energy dominance. The Fiscal Year 

(FY) 19 Budget proposes to eliminate ARPA-E because the potential for ARPA-E's 

efforts to overlap with R&D being carried out, or which should be carried out, by the 

private sector 

The program currently reviews various impact indicators to measure progress. The 

primary metrics are the amount of private sector follow-on funding, the number of new 

companies and strategic partnerships formed to move products towards deployment, and 

the number of patents and publications. As of February 2018:: 1) ARPA-E has provided 

approximately $1.8 billion in early-stage R&D funding across more than 600 projects 

through 43 focused programs and three open funding solicitations (OPEN 2009, OPEN 

2012, and OPEN 2015); 2) since 2009, a group of 136 project teams have attracted more 

than $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on funding; 3) 71 projects have formed new 

companies, 109 projects have partnered with other government agencies for further 

development, and an ever-increasing number of technologies have been incorporated into 

products sold on the market today; and 4) ARPA-E projects have generated 1,634 peer6 
200 


29537.110

reviewed journal articles, , and 248 patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

Office of Project Management 

Q6. The previous Administration established the Office of Project Management in 2015 to 

provide additional oversight for large capital projects, some of which have proven 

troublesome for the Department to appropriately manage. What is your vision for this 

office and are there other project oversight gaps that you view as opportunities to 

address? 

A6. Our Administration is committed to implementing sound project management principles 

and proven industry best practices. To address challenges with DOE's most complex 

projects, DOE is adopting a risk-based approach to project management that focuses 

resources on projects that require senior-level management attention and oversight. In 

addition, we are continually improving our policies and practices to reflect lessons 

learned and to model effective approaches to project management. As part of ongoing 

strategic reform efforts, DOE has also partnered with our national laboratories to institute 

common sense reforms that incentivize project management excellence, promote 

accountability and help ensure that projects are consistently delivered on cost and 

schedule. The Office of Project Management is playing a critical role in leading these 

reforms to address deficiencies and unmet needs, improve performance, and promote 

transparency by continually assessing projects performance. In addition, the Office 

continues to provide oversight to ensure sound project management planning, especially 

when validating cost estimates. 

7 
201 


29537.111

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON 

Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette 

Q 1. With the passage of the FAST Act in 2015, Congress designated the Department of 

Energy the lead Sector-Specific Agency for cybersecurity for the energy sector. As you 

know, the nation's energy infrastructure is a highly interdependent network of oil and 

natural gas pipelines and electric facilities with overlapping jurisdictional boundaries. As 

the Sector-Specific Agency, DOE is responsible for coordinating multiple federal and 

state agencies, in addition to infrastructure owners and operators, to keep the system 

running safely. 

Q1a. Would you please describe the coordination conducted with the Department of Homeland 

Security and other agencies as it relates to cybersecurity for pipelines? 

Ala. Pipelines are part of the transportation sector. The Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) provides overall cybersecurity leadership across the Government, while DHS and 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) are the sector-specific agencies (SSA) for the 

transportation sector. DOE is the SSA for cybersecurity across the energy sector. In 

addition to the FAST Act designation for cybersecurity for the energy sector, Department 

of Energy (DOE) also serves as the SSA for energy under Presidential Policy 

Directive 21 (PPD 21 ): Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience and the lead 

Federal agency for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #12- Energy under the National 

Response Framework. 

Department of Energy (DOE) has established a productive public-private partnership 

with government partners and the pipeline industry to secure the transport of oil and 

natural gas. DOE, through the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 

(OE), works with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Protection and 

Programs Directorate (NPPD), Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Coast 

Guard, and Infrastructure Security Compliance Division, as well as the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to streamline pipeline security and safety 

initiatives as they relate to resilience and reliability. 

8 
202 


29537.112

DOE OE and DHS NPPD co-chair the Energy Government Coordinating Council 

(EGCC), which convenes groups listed above, as well as others such as the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Natural 

Resources Canada, to foster a shared national homeland security strategy as it relates to 

energy infrastructure. 

DOE OE and DHS are the government co-chairs of the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector 

Coordinating Council (ONG SCC), which is the primary vehicle for coordination with all 

operational segments of the oil and natural gas industry-drilling, exploration and 

production, marketing, processing, refining, service and supply, transmission, and 

distribution on a variety of security and resilience issues, with cybersecurity as a standing 

agenda item. The ONG SCC meets three times a year with senior cybersecurity and 

physical security representatives from industry to enable the public and private sectors to 

coordinate oil and natural gas security strategies, activities, and communication to 

support the Nation's homeland security mission. 

Q I b. Are there actions that Congress should take to clarify authorities or reallocate resources 

to improve the safety and security of the nation's pipeline system? 

A I b. Under PPD-21, DOE is designated as the SSA for the energy sector. DOE coordinates 

with DHS's Transportation Security Administration and DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration on matters related to the safety and security of the 

Nation's pipelines, and DOE works closely with interagency partners to fully support the 

private sector in its protection efforts. As the SSA, DOE also co-chairs the ONGSCC and 

EGCC, which provide a forum for information sharing between all responsible public and 

private officials. The ONG SCC also includes a Standing Pipeline Working Group and is 

an invaluable resource in DOE's emergency response efforts. 

9 
203 


29537.113

Q8: "What are the list of schools and universities that has received funding over the past 10 years from 

your department, as well as the amounts distributed to each university?" 

AS: The following tables list the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) funded institutions of 

higher education. The fiscal year (FY) funding listed with each Institution of Higher Education is the sum 

of fiscal year funds obligated to that institution for all active awards at that institution. A "$0" indicates 

active award(s) forward-funded in a previous fiscal year; a negative(-$) funding amount reflects a 

deobligation, most likely resulting from a PI leaving the institution and moving to another. 

DOE Office of Science Awarded Institutions of Higher Education by Fiscal Year 

Prepared in response to the Question for the Record (QFR) by the Honorable Bobby L. Rush, for the 

House Energy and Commerce Hearing, January 9, 2018. 

FY 2017 

\Institution 

Abilene Christian University 

Arizona State University 

Auburn University 

Baylor University 

Boise State University 

Boston College 

Boston University 

Bowie State University 

Bowling Green State University 

Brandeis University 

Brigham Young University 

Brown University 

Bryn Mawr College 

California Institute ofTechnology 

California State University- Dominguez Hills 

California State University- Fullerton 

California State University- Long Beach 

California State University- Northridge 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Case Western Reserve University 

Central Michigan University 

Chapman University 

Clark Atlanta University 

Clark University 

Clarkson University 

Clemson University 

Cleveland State University 

College of Charleston 

FY 2017 Funding \ 

$675,000 

$1,673,132 

$2,584,661 

$427,397 

$0 

$980,000 

$2,760,001 

$150,000 

$427,335 

$670,000 

$589,446 

$3,416,877 

$150,000 

$18,781,139 

$0 

$0 

$255,000 

$0 

$3,509,171 

$755,576 

$1,199,999 

$497,450 

$0 

$0 

$570,000 

$881,942 

$602,178 

so I 

1 
204 


29537.114

!Institution 

College of William and Mary 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Columbia University 

Cornell University 

Creighton University 

CUNY- Advanced Science Research Center (CUNY-ASRC) 

CUNY- Baruch College 

CUNY- City College 

CUNY- lehman College 

CUNY- Queens College 

Dartmouth College 

Drexel University 

Duke University 

Emory University 

Florida A&M University 

Florida Institute of Technology 

Florida International University 

Florida State University 

George Mason University 

George Washington University 

Georgetown University 

Georgia Institute ofTechnology 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc. 

Hampton University 

Harvard Medical School 

Harvard University 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

Indiana State University 

Indiana University 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology 

Jackson State University 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kansas State University 

Kent State University 

lehigh University 

lewis & Clark College 

louisiana State University and A&M College 

louisiana Tech University 

Marquette University 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Miami University 

Michigan State University 

FY 2017 Funding I 

$1,525,759 

$2,098,861 

$3,486,586 

$6,895,156 

$7,030,280 

$669,000 

$0 

$435,000 

$1,748,189 

$313,000 

$340,000 

$0 

$250,000 

$9,427,753 

$831,439 

$191,000 

$290,000 

$807,000 

$5,811,193 

$0 

$455,000 

$920,000 

$4,226,727 

$722,000 

$746,408 

$3,450,260 

$6,511,859 

$420,000 

$0 

$3,333,999 

$3,378,802 

$485,969 

$2,586,172 

$3,961,192 

$2,193,717 

$1,469,452 

$0 

$3,869,073 

$0 

$510,845 

$42,815,208 

-$630,000 

$115,503,792 1 

2 
205 


29537.115

/Institution 

Michigan Technological University 

Mississippi State University 

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

Montana State University 

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology 

New Mexico State University 

New York University 

Norfolk State University 

North Carolina Central University 

North Carolina State University 

North Dakota State University 

Northeastern University 

Northern Arizona University 

Northern Illinois University 

Northwestern University 

Ohio State University 

Ohio University 

Oklahoma State University 

Old Dominion University 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation 

Oregon State University 

Princeton University 

Purdue University 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York (CUNY) 

Rutgers, State University of New Jersey- New Brunswick 

Rutgers, State University of New Jersey- Newark 

Rutgers, State University of New Jersey- Piscataway 

Saint Michael's College 

San Diego State University 

San Francisco State University 

San Jose State University 

Santa Clara College 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology 

Southern Illinois University- Carbondale 

Southern Methodist University 

Stanford University 

SUNY Binghamton 

SUNY- Stony Brook University 

SUNY- University at Albany 

Swarthmore College 

Syracuse University 

Temple University 

FY 2017 Funding / 

$0 

$1,420,000 

$150,000 

$2,396,710 

$5,000 

$808,000 

$2,608,083 

$0 

$774,004 

$2,638,000 

$0 

$1,535,750 

$1,294,739 

$342,000 

$16,083,141 

$11,117,968 

$902,000 

$419,000 

$671,241 

$853,000 

$1,339,099 

$5,541,791 

$7,606,922 

$1,680,726 

$0 

$523,000 

$941,026 

$979,059 

$0 

$540,427 

$417,000 

$355,285 

$0 

$436,000 

$0 

$1,011,000 

$8,333,492 

$3,100,000 

$11,290,812 

$1,006,797 

$105,000 

$920,017 

$4,714,318/ 

3 
206 


29537.116

!Institution FY 2017 Funding I 

Tennessee Technological University $617,490 

Texas A&M Agrilife Research $0 

Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station $0 

Texas A&M University $6,803,796 

Texas A&M University- Commerce $144,000 

Texas A&M University- Galveston $0 

Texas Christian University $448,579 

Texas Tech University $480,000 

Tufts University $1,770,000 

Tulane University $69,000 

University of Alabama $2,342,094 

University of Alabama- Birmingham $816,980 

University of Alaska- Fairbanks $425,000 

University of Arizona $2,791,915 

University of Arkansas $450,000 

University of California- Berkeley $13,898,705 

University of California- Davis $9,163,765 

University of California- Irvine $8,215,691 

University of California Los Angeles $16,578,297 

University of California- Merced $823,999 

University of California- Riverside $4,000,000 

University of California- San Diego $14,353,692 

University of California- Santa Barbara $7,904,667 

University of California- Santa Cruz $3,040,975 

University of Central Florida -$146,288 

University of Chicago $3,397,193 

University of Cincinnati $927,000 

University of Colorado- Boulder $9,617,564 

University of Colorado - Denver $555,000 

University of Connecticut $1,567,795 

University Of Delaware $5,161,001 

University of Florida $4,155,825 

University of Georgia $1,550,471 

University of Hawaii $1,974,000 

University of Houston $1,087,000 

University of Idaho $395,312 

University of Illinois- Chicago $1,832,069 

University of Illinois- Urbana-Champaign $14,358,568 

University of Iowa $472,000 

University of Kansas $702,000 

University of Kentucky $2,177,000 

University of Maine $0 

University of Maryland -Baltimore County $402,0121 

4 
207 


29537.117

Institution 

University of Maryland- College Park 

University of Massachusetts -Amherst 

University of Massachusetts -lowell 

University of Miami (Coral Gables & South Campuses) 

University of Miami (School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Science) 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Mississippi 

University of Missouri- Columbia 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska- lincoln 

University of Nevada- Reno 

University of New Hampshire 

University of New Mexico 

University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill 

University of North Georgia 

University of North Texas 

University of Notre Dame 

University of Oklahoma 

University of Oregon 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Richmond 

University of Rochester 

University of San Diego 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation 

University of South Dakota 

University of South Florida 

University of Southern California 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas- Arlington 

University of Texas- Austin 

University of Texas- Dallas 

University of Texas- El Paso 

University of the Pacific 

University of Toledo 

University of Utah 

University of Vermont and State Agricultural College 

University of Virginia 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire 

University of Wisconsin- Madison 

FY 2017 Funding 

$8,393,684 

$3,531,578 

$1,120,078 

$0 

$449,546 

$12,830,642 

$12,477,000 

$315,000 

$2,252,672 

$0 

$4,755,111 

$0 

$192,000 

$2,075,000 

$6,393,034 

$0 

$630,000 

$7,945,003 

$1,195,000 

$1,246,000 

$6,499,878 

$0 

$3,849,988 

$0 

$2,400,736 

$587,835 

$0 

$0 

$3,339,000 

$10,837,194 

$1,232,000 

$13,900,619 

$370,000 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$2,130,853 

$251,032 

$5,385,003 

$18,170,368 

$150,000 

S6o,527,49o 1 

5 
208 


29537.118

Institution 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee 

University of Wyoming 

Utah State University 

Valparaiso University 

Vanderbilt University 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Washington State University 

Washington University in St. louis 

Wayne State University 

Wellesley College 

West Virginia University 

Western Michigan University 

William Marsh Rice University 

Yale University 

FY 2016 

!Institution 

Abilene Christian University 

Alfred University 

Arizona State University 

Auburn University 

Baylor University 

Boise State University 

Boston College 

Boston University 

Bowie State University 

Bowling Green State University 

Brandeis University 

Brigham Young University 

Brown University 

California Institute ofTechnology 

California State University- Dominguez Hills 

California State University- Fullerton 

California State University- Northridge 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Case Western Reserve University 

Central Michigan University 

Chapman University 

Clark Atlanta University 

FY 2017 Funding 

$215,341 

$1,450,000 

$1,462,336 

$315,000 

$2,059,000 

$1,084,837 

$3,304,482 

$2,721,488 

$9,710,327 

$1,416,679 

$8,000 

$1,699,191 

$0 

$4,072,157 

$5,577,000 

FY 2016 Funding j 

$0 

$0 

$2,215,659 

$2,132,872 

$265,000 

$510,847 

$15,000 

$3,780,285 

$300,000 

$50,000 

$2,302,000 

$988,354 

$4,158,297 

$17,371,858 

$235,000 

$96,000 

$345,000 

$3,143,461 

$1,935,000 

$1,785,845 

$499,715 

$24o,ooo 1 

6 
209 


29537.119

!Institution 

Clark University 

Clemson University 

College of William and Mary 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Columbia University 

Cornell University 

Creighton University 

CUNY- Baruch College 

CUNY- Hunter College 

CUNY- Lehman College 

Dakota State University 

Dartmouth College 

Drexel University 

Duke University 

Emory University 

Florida A&M University 

Florida Institute ofTechnology 

Florida International University 

Florida State University 

George Mason University 

George Washington University 

Georgetown University 

Georgia Institute ofTechnology 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc. 

Gordon Research Conferences 

Hampton University 

Harvard Medical School 

Harvard School of Public Health 

Harvard University 

Hofstra University 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

Indiana State University 

Indiana University 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kansas State University 

Kent State University 

Lehigh University 

Lewis & Clark College 

Louisiana State University and A&M College 

Louisiana Tech University 

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology 

FY 2016 Funding I 

$0 

$2,049,997 

-$241,999 

$1,042,776 

$6,467,321 

$11,277,991 

$6,132,947 

$0 

$0 

$377,096 

$0 

$8,477 

$812,067 

$430,000 

$7,928,000 

$1,715,137 

$0 

$290,000 

$1,256,935 

$8,809,477 

$5,000 

$1,891,000 

$340,000 

$8,876,313 

$1,139,987 

$188,005 

$719,000 

$435,000 

$2,999,999 

$5,482,224 

$0 

$865,000 

$0 

$5,850,877 

$5,815,856 

$5,272,945 

$4,915,866 

$1,017,000 

$2,487,953 

$255,194 

$3,143,986 

$130,000 

$59,479,soo 1 

7 
210 


29537.120

!Institution 

Miami University 

Michigan State University 

Michigan Technological University 

Mississippi State University 

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

Montana State University 

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology 

New Mexico Consortium 

New Mexico State University 

New York University 

Norfolk State University 

North Carolina Central University 

North Carolina State University 

North Dakota State University 

Northeastern University 

Northern Arizona University 

Northern Illinois University 

Northwestern University 

Ohio State University 

Ohio University 

Oklahoma State University 

Old Dominion University 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation 

Oregon State University 

Portland State University 

Princeton University 

Purdue University 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

I 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York 

(CUNY) 

Rutgers, State University of New Jersey- New Brunswick 

Rutgers, State University of New Jersey- Newark 

Saint Michael's College 

San Diego State University 

San Francisco State University 

Santa Clara College 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology 

Southern Illinois University- Carbondale 

Southern Methodist University 

Stanford University 

SUNY- Binghamton 

SUNY- University at Albany 

SUNY- University of Buffalo 

FY 2016 Funding I 

$630,000 

$112,68S,495 

$428,576 

$403,000 

$150,000 

$3,404,404 

$87,146 

$0 

$465,000 

$3,412,004 

$0 

$0 

$2,319,000 

$150,000 

$1,199,725 

$1,296,114 

$840,000 

$12,556,172 

$10,582,212 

$1,324,000 

$812,000 

$0 

$1,434,000 

$0 

$0 

$10,692,812 

$8,950,735 

$2,133,758 

$920,500 

$5,056,670 

$0 

$0 

$525,000 

$0 

$0 

$372,000 

$371,088 

$800,000 

$10,166,821 

$3,193,903 

$1,172,745 

$539,998 

8 
211 


29537.121

I Institution FY 2016 Funding I 

Swarthmore College $0 

Syracuse University $1,219,010 

Temple University $5,225,349 

Tennessee Technological University $115,000 

Texas A&M Agrilife Research $397,298 

Texas A&M Research Foundation $0 

Texas A&M University $6,359,773 

Texas A&M University- Commerce $104,000 

Texas A&M University- Galveston $0 

Texas Engineering Experiment Station $0 

Texas Tech University $820,391 

Tufts University $1,035,000 

Tulane University $0 

University of Alabama $1,245,756 

University of Alabama -Birmingham $569,589 

University of Alabama- Huntsville $0 

University of Alaska- Fairbanks $0 

University of Arizona $3,828,224 

University of Arkansas $3,262,502 

University of California- Berkeley $11,387,941 

University of California - Davis $11,744,910 

University of California - Irvine $8,466,870 

University of California Los Angeles $17,687,956 

University of California -Merced $649,411 

University of California- Riverside $8,441,146 

University of California -San Diego $13,334,515 

University of California -Santa Barbara $7,388,638 

University of California- Santa Cruz $4,019,587 

University of Central Florida $1,165,000 

University of Chicago $4,734,001 

University of Cincinnati $910,000 

University of Colorado- Boulder $0 

University of Colorado- Denver $11,434,286 

University of Connecticut $3,177,361 

University of Delaware $5,053,825 

University of Florida $4,470,000 

University of Georgia $1,850,625 

University of Hawaii $2,098,000 

University of Houston $2,462,275 

University of Idaho $393,162 

University of Illinois- Chicago $1,298,000 

University of Illinois- Urbana-Champaign $16,028,842 

University of Iowa $2,37o,oo1 1 

9 
212 


29537.122

Institution 

University of Kansas 

University of Kansas Medical Ctr. Res. lnst., Inc. 

University of Kentucky 

University of Maine 

University of Maryland -Baltimore County 

University of Maryland -College Park 

University of Massachusetts -Amherst 

University of Massachusetts- Lowell 

University of Memphis 

University of Miami (Coral Gables & South Campuses) 

University of Miami (School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Science) 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Mississippi 

University of Missouri -Columbia 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska- Lincoln 

University of Nevada - Reno 

University of New Hampshire 

University of New Mexico 

University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill 

University of North Texas 

University of Notre Dame 

University of Oklahoma 

University of Oregon 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Richmond 

University of Rochester 

University of San Diego 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation 

University of South Dakota 

University of South Florida 

University of Southern California 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas- Arlington 

University of Texas- Austin 

University of Texas- Dallas 

University of Texas- El Paso 

University of the Pacific 

University of Toledo 

University of Tulsa 

FY 2016 Funding 

$2,161,103 

$0 

$2,138,463 

$150,000 

$0 

$11,007,939 

$3,541,932 

$350,000 

-$164,290 

$0 

$374,867 

$12,378,362 

$9,645,362 

$382,000 

$1,533,000 

$180,000 

$4,875,126 

$1,989,976 

$1,673,896 

$1,270,646 

$6,819,952 

$1,012,701 

$9,567,811 

$1,190,000 

$2,897,000 

$7,287,000 

$0 

$5,249,788 

$0 

$3,146,254 

$200,000 

$120,000 

$1,329,577 

$5,075,894 

$9,422,057 

$1,953,000 

$15,388,622 

$1,172,386 

$0 

$0 

$0 

so I 

10 
213 


29537.123

Institution 

University of Utah 

University of Vermont and State Agricultural College 

University of Virginia 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire 

University of Wisconsin- Madison 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee 

University of Wyoming 

Utah State University 

Valparaiso University 

Vanderbilt University 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Washington State University 

Washington University in St. Louis 

Wayne State University 

West Virginia University 

William Marsh Rice University 

Yale University 

FY 2015 

!Institution 

Abilene Christian University 

Alfred University 

Arizona State University 

Auburn University 

Auburn University at Montgomery 

Barnard College 

Baruch College (CUNY) 

Baylor University 

Binghamtom University (SUNY) 

Boston College 

Boston University 

Bowling Green State University 

Brandies University 

Brigham Young University 

Brown University 

California Institute ofTechnology 

California State University- Fullerton 

California State University- Northridge 

FY 2016 Funding 

$3,963,221 

$586,000 

$5,597,924 

$20,423,801 

$150,000 

$46,418,320 

$1,624,444 

$824,657 

$531,000 

$0 

$3,231,000 

$300,000 

$3,958,890 

$2,612,332 

$6,810,674 

$1,632,504 

$798,119 

$2,545,239 

$7,666,916 

FY 2015 Funding I 

$420,000 

$27,806 

$2,169,922 

$1,928,267 

$0 

$0 

$360,000 

$279,920 

$3,300,000 

-$110,733 

$3,131,785 

$188,000 

$1,756,603 

$0 

$4,64S,395 

$17,365,590 

so 

S11o,ooo 1 

11 
214 


29537.124

lrnstitution 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Case Western Reserve University 

Central Michigan University 

Chapman University 

City College of New York (CUNY) 

Clark Atlanta University 

Clark University 

Clarkson University 

Clemson University 

Clemson University Research Foundation 

College of Charleston 

College of William and Mary 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Columbia University 

Cornell University 

Creighton University 

Dakota State University 

Dartmouth College 

Drexel University 

Duke University 

Emory University 

Florida A&M University 

Florida Institute of Technology 

Florida International University 

Florida State University 

George Mason University 

George Washington University 

Georgetown University 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Georgia State University 

Hampton University 

Harvard Medical School 

Harvard School of Public Health 

Hofstra University 

Hope College 

Hunter College (CUNY) 

Illinois Institute ofTechnology 

Indiana State University 

Indiana University 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kansas State University 

FY 2015 Funding I 

$2,915,319 

$740,000 

$563,393 

$498,618 

$749,000 

$80,000 

$64,871 

$3,718 

$2,740,000 

$35,000 

$149,933 

$1,481,296 

$932,609 

$7,573,351 

$10,862,666 

$8,334,153 

$0 

$4,000 

$571,000 

$655,000 

$8,715,383 

$685,812 

$155,542 

$290,000 

$466,000 

$5,126,426 

$74,360 

$612,000 

$170,000 

$5,256,509 

$754,244 

$1,200,000 

$435,000 

$2,999,998 

$0 

$374,500 

$50,000 

$520,000 

$330,000 

$5,934,828 

$3,096,182 

$4,825,659 

$3,395,ooo 1 

12 
215 


29537.125

!Institution 

Kent State University 

lehigh University 

lehman College (CUNY) 

louisiana State University and A&M College 

louisiana Tech University 

Marine Biological laboratory 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Miami University 

Michigan State University 

Michigan Technological University 

Mississippi State University 

Missouri University of Science and Technology 

Montana State University 

New Jersey Institute of Technology 

New Mexico Consortium 

New Mexico State University 

New York University 

New York University- Brooklyn 

Norfolk State University 

North Carolina Central University 

North Carolina State University 

North Dakota State University 

Northeastern University 

Northern Arizona University 

Northern Illinois University 

Northwestern University 

Ohio State University 

Ohio University 

Oklahoma State University 

Old Dominion University 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation 

Oregon State University 

Portland State University 

President and Fellows of Harvard College 

Princeton University 

Purdue University 

Queens College (CUNY) 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York 

(CUNY) - Hunter College 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey- New 

Brunswick 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey- Newark 

FY 2015 Funding I 

$1,261,000 

$3,551,912 

$0 

$2,922,999 

$208,000 

$350,000 

$67,286,961 

$690,000 

$111,091,114 

$95,810 

$826,000 

$708,000 

$2,912,085 

$5,000 

$247,966 

$465,000 

$3,767,273 

$0 

$112,000 

$0 

$4,633,006 

$150,000 

$871,131 

$1,251,375 

$394,000 

$13,436,565 

$8,783,815 

$1,431,458 

$365,482 

$167,000 

$2,317,000 

$660,634 

$210,000 

$8,760,491 

$8,750,077 

$9,862,507 

$120,000 

$2,118,000 

$0 

$2,015,469 

$360,000 

13 
216 


29537.126

[Institution FY 2015 Funding I 

Saint Michael's College $145,000 

San Diego State University $1,035,000 

San Francisco State University $340,000 

Santa Clara College $71,250 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology $292,000 

Southern Illinois University $99,999 

Southern Methodist University $1,159,000 

Stanford University $6,585,518 

State University of New York (Suny) -Delhi $0 

SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry $0 

Swarthmore College $148,000 

Syracuse University $774,053 

Temple University $6,442,488 

Tennessee Technological University $240,000 

Texas A&M Agrilife Research $401,498 

Texas A&M Research Foundation $367,000 

Texas A&M University $6,662,884 

Texas A&M University- Commerce $155,000 

Texas A&M University- Galveston $300,000 

Texas Engineering Experiment Station $1,049,757 

Texas Tech University $419,888 

Tufts University $545,000 

Tulane University $449,999 

Union College -$39,557 

University at Albany (SUNY) $340,898 

University of Akron $0 

University of Alabama $997,000 

University of Alabama- Huntsville $0 

University of Alaska Fairbanks $100,000 

University of Arizona $2,408,838 

University of Arkansas $150,000 

University of Buffalo (SUNY) $1,154,940 

University of California- Berkeley $12,340,255 

University of California - Davis $11,303,042 

University of California - Irvine $7,224,854 

University of California -La Jolla $2,219,311 

University of California- los Angeles $18,056,224 

University of California- Merced $922,707 

University of California- Riverside $7,990,382 

University of California -San Diego $14,043,131 

University of California- Santa Barbara $8,886,342 

University of California- Santa Cruz $2,821,000 

University of Central Florida $977,124 1 

14 
217 


29537.127

!Institution 

University of Chicago 

University of Cincinnati 

University of Colorado- Boulder 

University of Connecticut 

University of Delaware 

University of Florida 

University of Georgia 

University of Hawaii 

University of Houston 

University of Idaho 

University of Illinois- Champiagn 

University of Illinois- Chicago 

University of Iowa 

University of Kansas 

University of Kentucky 

University of Louisiana Lafayette 

University of Louisville 

University of Maryland- Baltimore County 

University of Maryland- College Park 

University of Massachusetts- Amherst 

University of Massachusetts- Lowell 

University of Memphis 

University of Miami (Coral Gables & South Campuses) 

I University of Miami (School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Science) 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Mississippi 

University of Missouri 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska 

University of Nevada -las Vegas 

University of Nevada -Reno 

University of New Hampshire 

University of New Mexico 

University of North Carolina -Charlotte 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

University of North Dakota 

University of North Georgia 

University of North Texas 

University of Notre Dame 

University of Oklahoma 

University of Oregon 

FY 2015 Funding I 

$6,784,013 

$818,000 

$10,034,212 

$3,567,562 

$4,955,274 

$4,217,678 

$2,857,583 

$1,802,000 

$1,672,000 

$915,000 

$15,332,923 

$865,000 

$2,407,000 

$1,532,000 

$915,000 

$63,390 

$0 

$1,346,020 

$8,901,029 

$3,618,800 

$340,000 

$75,000 

$455,823 

$365,050 I 

$15,144,515 

$12,611,402 

$412,000 

$2,573,171 

$0 

$4,349,088 

$0 

$3,315,268 

$1,503,000 

$1,220,993 

$12,540 

$7,238,033 

$0 

$0 

$54,000 

$9,260,684 

$4,449,034 

s2,s28,8oo 1 

15 
218 


29537.128

11 nstitution 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Puerto Rico- Central Administration 

University of Richmond 

University of Rochester 

University of San Diego 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation 

University of South Dakota 

University of South Florida 

University of Southern California 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas -Arlington 

University of Texas -Austin 

University of Texas- Dallas 

University of Texas- El Paso 

University of The Pacific 

University ofToledo 

University ofTulsa 

University of Utah 

University of Vermont And State Agricultural College 

University of Virginia 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee 

University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire 

University of Wisconsin- Madison 

University of Wyoming 

Utah State University 

Valparaiso University 

Vanderbilt University 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Washington State University 

Washington University in St. louis 

Wayne State University 

West Virginia University 

Western Michigan University 

William Marsh Rice University 

Xavier University of louisiana 

Yale University 

York College (CUNY) 

Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

McGill University 

Monash University 

FY 2015 Funding I 

$7,781,000 

$0 

$396,000 

$4,156,580 

$165,000 

$1,096,955 

$0 

$0 

$741,018 

$3,123,693 

$4,490,365 

$1,010,000 

$20,454,745 

$693,000 

$394,290 

$334,131 

$0 

$100,000 

$4,825,598 

$154,745 

$4,737,000 

$17,552,015 

$1,206,486 

$150,000 

$49,798,299 

$4,158,858 

$558,000 

$210,000 

$2,163,000 

$347,196 

$2,526,312 

$1,448,300 

$7,986,509 

$3,840,000 

$380,000 

$0 

$4,757,672 

$0 

$9,727,000 

$95,000 

$0.00 

$0.00 

S583,64s.oo 1 

16 
219 


29537.129

Institution 

University of Luxembourg 

University of Reading 

FY 2014 

!Institution 

Abilene Christian University 

Alfred University 

Arizona State University 

Auburn University 

Baylor University 

Boise State University 

Boston College 

Boston University 

Bowling Green State University 

Brandeis University 

Brigham Young University 

Brown University 

California Institute of Technology (CaiTech) 

California State University Fullerton 

California State University Northridge 

California State University, Dominguez Hills 

Carnegie Mellon University 

Case Western Reserve University 

Central Michigan University 

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania 

City College of New York (CUNY) 

City College of New York (CUNY), Baruch College 

City College of New York (CUNY), Hunter College 

City College of New York (CUNY), Lehman College 

City College of New York (CUNY), Queens College 

Clark Atlanta University 

Clark University 

Clemson University 

College of William and Mary 

Colorado School of Mines 

Colorado State University 

Columbia University 

Cornell University 

Creighton University 

FY 2015 Funding 

$199,269.00 

$0.00 

FY 2014 Funding I 

$187,000 

$28,551 

$1,531,096 

$1,025,000 

$233,000 

$30,000 

$1,534,355 

$5,592,987 

$188,000 

$1,456,000 

$389,999 

$6,652,832 

$24,339,716 

$96,000 

$110,000 

$55,000 

$3,199,299 

$881,396 

$592,393 

$0 

$534,919 

$490,000 

$231,249 

$240,000 

$218,000 

$80,000 

$63,260 

$2,627,421 

$2,375,419 

$1,698,855 

$5,531,252 

$8,137,052 

$8,065,399 

$669,ooo 1 

17 
220 


29537.130

!Institution 

Dartmouth College 

Drexel University 

Duke University 

Emory University 

Florida A&M University 

Florida Institute ofTechnology 

Florida International University 

Florida State University 

George Mason University 

George Washington University 

Georgetown University 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Georgia State University 

Hampton University 

Harvard Medical School 

Harvard School of Public Health 

Harvard University 

Hope College 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

Indiana State University 

Indiana University 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology 

Johns Hopkins University 

Kansas State University 

Kent State University 

Lehigh University 

Lorna Linda University 

Louisiana State University and A&M College 

Louisiana Tech University 

Marine Biological Laboratory 

Marshall University Research Corporation 

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) 

Miami University 

Michigan State University 

Michigan Technological University 

Mississippi State University 

Montana State University 

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology 

New Mexico State University 

New York University 

New York University Langone Medical Center 

FY 2014 Funding I 

$444,000 

$650,000 

$8,782,978 

$1,179,817 

$334,000 

$246,000 

$923,683 

$5,147,782 

$784,879 

$1,761,000 

$530,000 

$7,656,257 

$1,641,292 

$690,000 

$435,000 

$3,000,000 

$9,613,894 

$0 

$569,000 

$0 

$6,516,702 

$3,249,383 

$5,599,101 

$4,135,950 

$882,000 

$1,851,953 

$0 

$3,393,999 

$208,000 

$744,512 

$0 

$66,360,027 

$360,000 

$7,094,686 

$2,200,384 

$884,000 

$2,383,679 

$100,000 

$902,000 

$4,917,764 

so I 

18 
221 


29537.131

I Institution 

Norfolk State University 

North Carolina Central University 

North Carolina State University 

North Dakota State University 

Northeastern University 

Northern Arizona University 

Northern Illinois University 

Northwestern University 

Ohio State University 

Ohio University 

Oklahoma State University 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation 

Oregon State University 

Portland State University 

Prairie View A&M University 

Princeton University 

Purdue University 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

Rice University 

Rutgers- State University of New Jersey, Newark 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

Salk Institute for Biological Studies 

San Diego State University Research Foundation 

San Francisco State University 

Southern Illinois University 

Southern Methodist University 

Stanford University 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Albany 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Binghamton 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Buffalo 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Delhi 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Stony Brook 

State University of New York (SUNY)- Syracuse 

Swarthmore College 

Syracuse University 

Temple University 

Tennessee Technological University 

Texas A&M University- College Station 

Texas A&M University- Greenville 

Texas Engineering Experiment Station -College Station 

Texas Tech University 

FY 2014 Funding I 

$110,000 

$697,000 

$4,261,S50 

$383,000 

$1,106,000 

$481,313 

$805,000 

$15,191,050 

$10,009,876 

$1,068,886 

$851,000 

$1,713,000 

$1,510,382 

$210,000 

$272,000 

$11,470,892 

$12,652,780 

$2,858,090 

$5,217,409 

$0 

$3,309,315 

$135,000 

$343,000 

$100,000 

$99,999 

$1,063,000 

$10,098,656 

$956,335 

$3,000,000 

$628,968 

$0 

$8,216,388 

$80,000 

$107,000 

$835,009 

$4,713,881 

$101,000 

$5,391,978 

$3,535,000 

$923,520 

s1,165,ooo 1 

19 
222 


29537.132

Institution 

The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College 

Tufts University 

Tulane Educational Fund 

Union College 

University of Akron 

University of Alabama 

University of Alabama- Huntsville 

University of Alaska- Fairbanks 

University of Arizona 

University of Arkansas 

University of California- Berkeley 

University of California- Davis 

University of California -Irvine 

University of California -los Angeles 

University of California- Merced 

University of California- Riverside 

University of California- San Diego 

I 

University of California- San Diego, Scripps Institute of 

Oceanography (510) 

University of California- San Francisco 

University of California- Santa Barbara 

University of California- Santa Cruz 

University of Central Florida 

University of Chicago 

University of Cincinnati 

University of Colorado 

University of Connecticut 

University of Delaware 

University of Florida 

University of Georgia 

University of Hawaii 

University of Houston 

University of Idaho 

University of Illinois- Chicago 

University of Illinois- Urbana-Champaign 

University of Iowa 

University of Kentucky 

University of louisiana- lafayette 

University of louisville 

University of Maine 

University of Maryland- Baltimore 

FY 2014 Funding 

$150,097 

$1,917,478 

$80,000 

$34,000 

so 

$1,006,600 

$590,000 

$764,338 

$3,767,312 

$10,000 

$10,255,051 

$10,630,393 

$10,620,182 

$20,172,635 

$1,366,202 

$7,363,707 

$17,034,333 

$1,649,543 

$124,601 

$7,778,021 

$2,934,013 

$759,708 

$5,096,928 

$914,000 

$12,431,012 

$2,129,000 

$5,017,067 

$4,850,902 

$3,259,829 

$2,877,309 

$2,527,000 

$95,000 

$1,528,392 

$17,362,725 

$1,062,000 

$1,313,960 

$50,367 

$73,000 

$30,000 

$443,691 1 

20 
223 


29537.133

!Institution 

University of Maryland- College Park 

University of Massachusetts- Amherst 

University of Massachusetts- Lowell 

University of Memphis 

University of Miami 

University of Michigan 

University of Minnesota 

University of Mississippi 

University of Missouri- Columbia 

University of Missouri- Rolla (Mo. Univ of Sci and Tech) 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska 

University of Nevada - Las Vegas 

University of Nevada- Reno 

University of New Hampshire 

University of New Mexico 

University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill 

University of North Dakota 

University of North Georgia 

University of North Texas 

University of Notre Dame 

University of Oklahoma 

University of Oregon 

University of Pennsylvania 

University of Puerto Rico- Mayaguez 

University of Puerto Rico- San Juan 

University of Rhode Island 

University of Richmond 

University of Rochester 

University of South Carolina 

University of South Florida 

University of Southern California 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas- Arlington 

University of Texas- Austin 

University of Texas- Dallas 

University of Texas- El Paso 

University of the Pacific 

University of Toledo 

University of Tulsa 

University of Utah 

FY 2014 Funding I 

$9,388,447 

$4,095,796 

$731,000 

$75,000 

$653,212 

$16,737,338 

$14,540,972 

$264,000 

$720,878 

$337,000 

$36,000 

$1,395,589 

$133,667 

$1,705,857 

$1,074,000 

$2,586,353 

$6,925,918 

$126,306 

$93,000 

$673,999 

$9,184,086 

$3,800,653 

$4,976,022 

$8,265,672 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$56,000 

$3,590,964 

$1,572,892 

$1,230,714 

$3,326,201 

$4,898,719 

$1,070,654 

$15,425,928 

$866,000 

$589,820 

$80,181 

$500,000 

$0 

$5,923,195 1 

21 
224 


29537.134

Institution 

University of Virginia 

University of Washington 

University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire 

University of Wisconsin- Madison 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee 

University of Wyoming 

Utah State University 

Vanderbilt University 

Virginia Commonwealth University 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

(Virginia Tech) 

Washington State University 

Washington University 

Wayne State University 

West Virginia University 

Western Michigan University 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute 

Xavier University of Louisiana 

Yale University 

FY 2013 

!Institution 

ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 

ALFRED UNIVERSITY 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

AUBURN UNIVERSITY 

BARNARD COLLEGE 

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 

BOSTON COLLEGE 

BOSTON UNIVERSITY 

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY 

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 

BROWN UNIVERSITY 

CALIFORNIA INST. OF TECHNOLOGY 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. DOMINGUEZ 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. FULLERTON 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. LONG BEACH 

CALIFORNIA STATE UN IV. NORTHRIDGE 

FY 2014 Funding 

$5,668,787 

$21,546,876 

$150,000 

$51,049,202 

$1,334,426 

$2,226,090 

$410,000 

$2,862,057 

$1,527,196 

$3,856,991 

$1,895,347 

$9,142,507 

$2,485,000 

$952,932 

$100,000 

$0 

$149,799 

$8,299,000 

FY 2013 Funding I 

$187,000 

$S3,000 

$2,380,000 

$1,310,000 

$0 

$423,000 

$152,000 

$617,000 

$3,895,000 

$188,000 

$1,354,000 

$305,000 

$6,171,000 

$23,118,000 

$0 

$96,000 

$0 

s11o,ooo 1 

22 
225 


29537.135

11 nstitution FY 2013 Funding I 

CALIFORNIA STATE. U. SAN MARCOS $60,000 

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY $1,836,000 

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UN IV. $1,053,000 

CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY $350,000 

CHEYNEY UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVA $0 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, BARUCH COLLEGE $0 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, CITY COLLEGE $545,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, HUNTER COLLEGE $533,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, QUEENS COUNTY $120,000 

CITY UN IV. OF NEW YORK, LEHMAN COLLEGE $80,000 

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, YORK COLLEGE $93,000 

CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY $80,000 

CLARK UNIVERSITY $68,000 

CLARKSON UNIVERSITY $101,000 

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY $764,000 

COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY $1,293,000 

COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES $987,000 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY $5,641,000 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY $9,899,000 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY $8,790,000 

CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY $215,000 

DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY $8,000 

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE $503,000 

DREXEL UNIVERSITY $500,000 

DUKE UNIVERSITY $2,626,000 

EMORY UNIVERSITY $1,182,000 

FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY $0 

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY $284,000 

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $163,000 

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UN IV. $675,000 

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY $4,839,000 

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY $129,000 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $1,370,000 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY $260,000 

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $4,001,000 

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY $613,000 

HAMPTON UNIVERSITY $340,000 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY $10,267,000 

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY $0 

IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY $0 

IlliNOIS IN ST. OF TECHNOLOGY $538,000 

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY $0 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON $4,858,000 

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY $3,263,000 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY $3,900,000 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY $3,580,000 

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY $870,000 

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY s1,501,ooo 1 

23 
226 


29537.136

!Institution FY 2013 Funding I 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY $4,683,000 

LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY $185,000 

LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION $154,000 

MASSACHUSETIS INST. OF TECHNOLOGY $52,020,000 

MIAMI UNIVERSITY $333,000 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY $31,643,000 

MICHIGAN TECH. UNIVERSITY $672,000 

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY $848,000 

Missouri University of Science and Technology $150,000 

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY $754,000 

NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $164,000 

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, LAS CRUCES $708,000 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY $1,401,000 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, POLYTECHNIC $90,000 

NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY $105,000 

NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UN IV. $100,000 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY $3,335,000 

NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY $240,000 

NORTH GEORGIA COLLEGE & STATE U. $93,000 

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY $1,263,000 

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY $1,119,000 

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY $374,000 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY $12,160,000 

OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE $0 

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY $6,510,000 

OHIO UNIVERSITY $1,075,000 

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY $888,000 

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY $1,701,000 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY $810,000 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY $6,849,000 

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY $250,000 

PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY $127,000 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY $11,615,000 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY $8,898,000 

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INST. $1,888,000 

RICE UNIVERSITY $3,219,000 

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY $180,000 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK $3,614,000 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEWARK $181,000 

SAINT MICHAELS COLLEGE $33,000 

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY $277,000 

SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY $185,000 

SMITHSONIAN ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY $475,000 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION $253,000 

SOUTH DAKOTA, UNIVERSITY OF $945,000 

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY $99,000 

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY $741,000 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY su,967,ooo 1 

24 
227 


29537.137

!Institution FY 2013 Funding I 

STATE BOARD OF COMMUNITY COLLEG $0 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY $301,000 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO $566,000 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT DELHI $0 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK $9,104,000 

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTON $150,000 

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE $107,000 

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY $805,000 

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY $1,154,000 

TENNESSEE TECH. UNIVERSITY $94,000 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION $6,654,000 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COMMERCE $94,000 

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY $1,047,000 

TUFTS UNIVERSITY $959,000 

TULANE UNIVERSITY $153,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY $7,413,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS $10,691,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE $6,010,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES $18,063,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT MERCED $1,154,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDE $4,277,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO $12,168,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO $163,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA $6,494,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ $3,496,000 

U. OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN $14,896,000 

U. OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY $0 

U. OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK $8,809,000 

U. OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST $4,905,000 

U. OF MASSACHUSETTS, LOWEll $322,000 

U. OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL $2,214,000 

UNION COLLEGE $34,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ARLINGTON $959,000 

UNIVERSITY OF AKRON $122,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT HUNTSVILLE $437,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT TUSCALOOSA $1,377,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS $1,354,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA $4,263,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETVILLE $400,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA $1,008,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO $4,417,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI $876,000 

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER $10,923,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT $1,697,000 

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE $3,000,000 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA $4,764,000 

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA $2,559,000 

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII $2,56o,ooo 1 

25 
228 


29537.138

!Institution FY 2013 Funding I 

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON $1,499,000 

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO $0 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $1,121,000 

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA $1,485,000 

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS $1,029,000 

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY $1,459,000 

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE $69,000 

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE $78,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MAINE $649,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS $75,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI $621,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN $13,950,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS $10,305,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI $118,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI $2,084,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, liNCOLN $959,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, OMAHA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS $0 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO $2,948,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE $814,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO $2,628,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA $121,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS $606,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME $6,054,000 

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA $4,199,000 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON $3,621,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $6,578,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH $2,954,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, MAYAGUEZ $0 

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN $69,000 

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND $0 

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND $98,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER $5,738,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA $3,452,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA $555,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA $3,646,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE $6,017,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN $15,019,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, DALLAS $1,014,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, EL PASO $232,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, HEALTH SC. CTR. $0 

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC $81,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH $4,352,000 

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT $330,000 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA s2,2oo,ooo 1 

26 
229 


29537.139

Institution FY 2013 Funding 

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEA TILE $17,349,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, EAU CLAIRE $0 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON $48,492,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE $1,187,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING $1,663,000 

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY $303,000 

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY $2,225,000 

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY $741,000 

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE $2,724,000 

VIRGINIA, UNIVERSITY OF $4,221,000 

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY $1,505,000 

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $7,671,000 

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY $1,702,000 

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY $150,000 

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY $485,000 

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE $0 

WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY $121,000 

XAVIER UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA $144,000 

YALE UNIVERSITY $6,371,000 

FY 2012 

!Institution FY 2012 Funding I 

ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY $187,000 

ALFRED UNIVERSITY $75,000 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY $2,349,000 

AUBURN UNIVERSITY $1,237,000 

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY $270,000 

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY $75,000 

BOSTON COLLEGE $760,000 

BOSTON UNIVERSITY $4,110,000 

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY $365,000 

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY $1,172,000 

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY $242,000 

BROWN UNIVERSITY $5,701,000 

CALIFORNIA INST. OF TECHNOLOGY $22,880,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. DOMINGUEZ $55,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. FULLERTON $96,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE U. LONG BEACH $40,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE UN IV. NORTHRIDGE $110,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY EAST BAY $121,000 

CALIFORNIA STATE. U. SAN MARCOS $60,000 

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY s3,o22,ooo 1 

27 
230 


29537.140

jlnstitution FY 2012 Funding I 

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UN IV. $864,000 

CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY $217,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, BARUCH COlLEGE $240,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, CITY COLLEGE $659,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, HUNTER COLlEGE $929,000 

CITY U. OF NEW YORK, QUEENS COUNTY $0 

CITY UN IV. OF NEW YORK, LEHMAN COlLEGE $80,000 

CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY $80,000 

CLARK UNIVERSITY $0 

CLARKSON UNIVERSITY $99,000 

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY $805,000 

COlLEGE OFWILLIAM AND MARY $1,401,000 

COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES $905,000 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY $4,080,000 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY $9,234,000 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY $6,699,000 

CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY $231,000 

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE $220,000 

DREXEL UNIVERSITY $576,000 

DUKE UNIVERSITY $7,653,000 

EMORY UNIVERSITY $1,012,000 

FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY $31,000 

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY $370,000 

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $226,000 

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UN IV. $1,009,000 

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY $4,201,000 

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY $266,000 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $1,014,000 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY $260,000 

GEORGIA STATE UN IV. RES. FOUND. $615,000 

GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH CORP $4,323,000 

HAMPTON UNIVERSITY $550,000 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY $8,918,000 

HOPE COlLEGE $840,000 

IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY $0 

ILLINOIS INST. OF TECHNOLOGY $510,000 

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY $110,000 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON $5,264,000 

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY $2,698,000 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY $4,092,000 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY $4,384,000 

KENT STATE UNIVERSITY $1,635,000 

LANGSTON UNIVERSITY so I 

28 
231 


29537.141

I Institution FY 2012 Funding I 

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY $944,000 

LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY $0 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY $3,960,000 

LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY $246,000 

LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION $154,000 

MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY $855,000 

MASSACHUSETIS INST. OF TECHNOLOGY $46,422,000 

MIAMI UNIVERSITY $80,000 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY $31,263,000 

MICHIGAN TECH. UNIVERSITY $788,000 

MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UN IV. $0 

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY $861,000 

Missouri University of Science and Technology $335,000 

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY $788,000 

NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY $169,000 

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, LAS CRUCES $727,000 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY $4,383,000 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, POLYTECHNIC $449,000 

NEW YORK, STATE U. OF BINGHTN $150,000 

NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY $105,000 

NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UN IV. $239,000 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY $4,255,000 

NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY $240,000 

NORTH GEORGIA COLLEGE & STATE U. $93,000 

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY $817,000 

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY $153,000 

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY $11,568,000 

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY $6,803,000 

OHIO UNIVERSITY $1,016,000 

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY $691,000 

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY $1,528,000 

OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERS $307,000 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY $2,111,000 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY $6,979,000 

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY $220,000 

Prairie View A & M University $416,000 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY $12,010,000 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY $9,658,000 

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INST. $3,305,000 

RICE UNIVERSITY $3,377,000 

ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY $564,000 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK $4,434,000 

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEWARK s112,ooo 1 

29 
232 


29537.142

!Institution FY 2012 Funding I 

SAINT MICHAELS COLLEGE $33,000 

SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY $473,000 

SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY $200,000 

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY $0 

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY $7,000 

SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF MINES $0 

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY $200,000 

SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY $907,000 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY $14,664,000 

STATE BOARD OF COMMUNITY COLLEG $0 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY $516,000 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO $942,000 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT DELHI $0 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK $9,022,000 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK AT SYRACUSE $0 

STATE U. OF NEW YORK, PURCHASE COLLEGE $115,000 

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE $111,000 

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY $781,000 

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY $1,132,000 

TENNESSEE TECH. UNIVERSITY $101,000 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE STATION $8,872,000 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, COMMERCE $57,000 

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY $855,000 

THE CITADEL $23,000 

TUFTS UNIVERSITY $1,143,000 

TULANE UNIVERSITY $344,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY $8,514,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS $11,562,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE $7,318,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES $18,999,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT MERCED $615,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT RIVERSIDE $4,174,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN DIEGO $16,785,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO $568,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA $6,629,000 

U. OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ $2,461,000 

U. OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN $12,699,000 

U. OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY $128,000 

U. OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK $9,259,000 

U. OF MASSACHUSETIS, AMHERST $4,914,000 

U. OF MASSACHUSETIS, DARTMOUTH $174,000 

U. OF MASSACHUSETIS, LOWELL $350,000 

U. OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL $3,624,ooo 1 

30 
233 


29537.143

!Institution FY 2012 Funding I 

U. OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE $0 

U. OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CTR $0 

UNION COLLEGE $33,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ARLINGTON $870,000 

UNIVERSITY OF AKRON $440,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT HUNTSVILLE $474,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT TUSCALOOSA $1,140,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS $221,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA $3,517,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETVILLE $165,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA $1,524,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO $4,671,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI $958,000 

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER $11,029,000 

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT $2,157,000 

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE $3,306,000 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA $4,333,000 

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA $3,926,000 

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII $2,532,000 

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON $2,273,000 

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO $95,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO $1,487,000 

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA $1,596,000 

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS $1,058,000 

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY $1,541,000 

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE $0 

UNIVERSITY OF MAINE $620,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS $0 

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI $1,316,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN $14,255,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, DULUTH $45,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS $9,722,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI $349,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI $2,753,000 

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA $65,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN $1,374,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, OMAHA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS $554,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO $3,300,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE $1,901,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO $2,921,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA $116,000 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS $6o9,ooo 1 

31 
234 


29537.144

!Institution FY 2012 Funding I 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA $0 

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME $5,828,000 

UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA $3,511,000 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON $3,529,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA $7,617,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH $5,373,000 

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO, SAN JUAN $1,551,000 

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND $23,000 

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND $196,000 

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER $6,746,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA $70,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA $3,384,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA $123,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA $800,000 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA $2,894,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE $6,808,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN $13,939,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, DALLAS $786,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, EL PASO $60,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, HEALTH SC. CTR. $0 

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC $99,000 

UNIVERSITY OF TULSA $45,000 

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH $5,097,000 

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT $322,000 

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA $7,009,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE $17,338,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON $51,097,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE $1,433,000 

UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING $982,000 

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY $397,000 

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY $2,278,000 

VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY $789,000 

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE $2,507,000 

WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY $10,000 

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY $2,504,000 

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY $9,852,000 

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY $1,875,000 

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY $429,000 

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY $482,000 

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE $142,000 

WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY $89,000 

XAVIER UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA $0 

YALE UNIVERSITY $8,367,ooo 1 

32 
235 


29537.145

FY 2011 

!Institution 

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 

Alfred University, Alfred, NY 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Auburn University, Auburn University, AL 

Barnard College, New York, NY 

Baylor University, Waco, TX 

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 

Board of Regents University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 

Boise State University, Boise, ID 

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 

Brown University, Providence, Rl 

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 

California State University Dominguez Hills Foundation., Carson, CA 

California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 

California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 

California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 

California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 

Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Ml 

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, Cheyney, PA 

Chicago Office of the Board of Education, Chicago, IL 

City University of New York, City College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, College of Staten lsi, Staten Island, NY 

City University of New York, Hunter College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, Lehrnan College, Bronx, NY 

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 

Clark University, Worcester, MA 

Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 

Columbia University, New York, NY 

Connecticut State University, Hartford, CT 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 

Creighton University, Omaha, NE 

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 

DePaul University, Chicago, IL 

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 

Duke University, Durham, NC 

Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 

FY 2011 Funding I 

$197,000.00 

$78,836.00 

$2,253,270.00 

$1,584,761.00 

$150,000.00 

$210,000.00 

$2,469,300.00 

$39,776,493.00 

$1,510,207.00 

$152,000.00 

$188,000.00 

$1,107,000.00 

$470,000.00 

$6,641,256.00 

$122,512.00 

$23,947,519.00 

$58,000.00 

$96,000.00 

$40,000.00 

$110,000.00 

$60,000.00 

$4,683,243.00 

$307,310.00 

$452,136.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$609,608.00 

$38,302.00 

$810,000.00 

$80,000.00 

$80,000.00 

$65,452.00 

$660,144.00 

$1,369,060.00 

$1,256,902.00 

$3,829,216.00 

$10,613,902.00 

$80,000.00 

$9,393,221.00 

$229,000.00 

$484,213.00 

$0.00 

$474,914.00 

$8,395,889.00 

$1,040,000.00 

$59,933.oo I 

33 
236 


29537.146

Jtnstitution 

Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia 

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 

Florida International University, Miami, FL 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

George Washington University, Washington, DC 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 

Hampton University, Hampton, VA 

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 

Howard University, Washington, DC 

Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 

Indiana University, Indianapolis, Bloomington, IN 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, lA 

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 

Kent State University, Kent, OH 

Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster UK, LA 1 4Y 

Langston University, Langston, OK 

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 

Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 

Louisiana State University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 

Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 

Lutheran University Association, Inc., Valparaiso, IN 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 

McGill University, Montreal, Canada 

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

Miami University, Oxford, OH 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, M I 

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml 

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 

Monash University, Clayton. Australia 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Nevada System of Higher Education - Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 

Nevada System of Higher Education - Reno. Reno, NV 

New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Las Cruces, NM 

New York University, New York, NY 

Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 

North Carolina Central Univ., Durham, NC 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 

North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, GA 

Northeastern University, Boston, MA 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 

FY 2011 Funding J 

$421,349.00 

$356,999.00 

$199,000.00 

$1,118,792.00 

$3,363,745.00 

$474,876.00 

$1,784,960.00 

$901,874.00 

$590,807.00 

$5,673,679.00 

$472,500.00 

$5,182,571.00 

$23.400.00 

$1.488,000.00 

$688,606.00 

-$232,715.00 

$2,999,315.00 

$4,369,776.00 

$3,957,306.00 

$1,445,965.00 

$47,759.00 

$70,000.00 

$1,492,794.00 

$477,805.00 

$3,923,107.00 

$248,000.00 

$211,000.00 

$60,114,071.00 

$138,514.00 

$200,000.00 

$146,951.00 

$20,332,561.00 

$1,218,970.00 

$0.00 

$1,022,978.00 

$175,000.00 

$349,293.00 

$1,073,574.00 

$180,000.00 

$61,418.00 

$164,774.00 

$775,000.00 

$3,317,149.00 

$110,000.00 

$283,000.00 

$5,210,233.00 

$90,000.00 

$133,000.00 

$2,396,772.00 

$o.oo 1 

34 
237 


29537.147

!Institution 

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 

NV System of Higher Ed OBO Desert Res lnst-LV, Reno, NV 

NV System of Higher Ed OBO Desert Res lnst-Reno, Reno, NV 

Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Ohio University, Athens, OH 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Stillwater, OK 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation, Norfolk, VA 

Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 

Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, NY 

Polytechnic Institute of New York University, New York, NY 

Portland State University, Portland, OR 

Prairie View A&M Research Foundation, Prairie View, TX 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

Regents of the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 

Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 

Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

Research Foundation of CUNY on behalf of Hunter College CUNY, NY 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York 

Research Foundation on behalf of Baruch College CUNY, NY 

Rush University Medical Center. Chicago, IL 

Rutgers- State Universtty of New Jersey, Newark, Newark, NJ 

Rutgers -The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 

Saint Michael's College, Colchester, VT 

San Diego State University Foundation. San Diego, CA 

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 

San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose, CA 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SO 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 

Stanford University, Palo Alto. CA 

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 

State University of New York Delhi, Delhi, NY 

State University of New York, Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 

State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst, NY 

State University of New York, Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 

State University of New York, Syracuse, Syracuse, NY 

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 

Syracuse University, Syracuse. NY 

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 

Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, College Station, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, Commerce, Commerce, TX 

FV 2011 Funding I 

$538,000.00 

$14,778,809.00 

$370,996.00 

$170,714.00 

$65,000.00 

$6,821,297.00 

$1,075,511.00 

$963,202.00 

$1,098,000.00 

$150,000.00 

$547,356.00 

$2,097,271.00 

$0.00 

$6,299,692.00 

$720,172.00 

$100,000.00 

$220,000.00 

$473,000.00 

$8,372,439.00 

$8,438,667.00 

$155,147.00 

$8,643,403.00 

$3,685,255.00 

$3,097,560.00 

$145,000.00 

$82,491.00 

$176,000.00 

$0.00 

$538,124.00 

$4,382,615.00 

$33,000.00 

$291,361.00 

$140,000.00 

$110,955.00 

$0.00 

$454,812.00 

$11 ,205,840.00 

$701,744.00 

$0.00 

$150,000.00 

$827,615.00 

$9,456,396.00 

$87,000.00 

$114,000.00 

$757,000.00 

$814,320.00 

$97,000.00 

$4,745,803.00 

$3,683,310.00 

$121 ,744.oo 1 

35 
238 


29537.148

\Institution 

Texas Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, TX 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 

The Citadel, Charleston, SC 

The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel 

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, MA 

The Regents of the Univ. of Calif., U.C. San Diego, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California - UCSD, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, San D, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

The Regents of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 

The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 

The Trustees of Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 

Trustees of Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 

Trustees of Boston University, Boston, MA 

Trustees of Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 

Tufts University, Medford, MA 

Tulane Educational Fund, New Orleans, LA 

Union College, Schenectady, NY 

University of Akron, Akron, OH 

University of Alabama Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, AL 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 

University of California, Merced, Merced, CA 

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 

University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 

University of Colorado at Denver & Health Sc. Ctr., Aurora, CO 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 

University of Delaware, Newark, DE 

University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom 

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., Athens, GA 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 

University of Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

FY 2011 Funding \ 

$663,181.00 

$1,360,202.00 

$23,000.00 

$2,757,703.00 

$350,994.00 

$2,654,357.00 

$13,498,256.00 

$0.00 

$12,832,796.00 

$2,233,951.00 

$5,548,042.00 

$3,878,722.00 

$11 '134,519.00 

$534,000.00 

$14,131,236.00 

$3,689,045.00 

$1,334,999.00 

$4,398,020.00 

$4,596,217.00 

$1,759,340.00 

$194,113.00 

$33,000.00 

$401,591.00 

$537,568.00 

$1,941,548.00 

$2,100,728.00 

$2,811,026.00 

$0.00 

$315,000.00 

$169,354.00 

$7,624,879.00 

$21,133,120.00 

$1,238,931.00 

$4,413,070.00 

$689,811.00 

$6,499,770.00 

$4,649,005.00 

$1,141,334.00 

$4,887,147.00 

$930,000.00 

$150,000.00 

$2,186,313.00 

$486' 000.00 

$4,961,295.00 

$198,485.00 

$5,581,838.00 

$3,021 '193.00 

$2,332,666.00 

$2,067,155.00 

$1,668,o31.oo I 

36 
239 


29537.149

!Institution 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 

University of Iowa, Iowa City, lA 

University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc .. Lawrence, KS 

University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY 

University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada 

University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc .. Louisville, KY 

University of Maine System, Orono, ME 

University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland Biotechnology lnst., Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 

University of Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Lowell, MA 

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 

University of Miami, Medical Campus, Miami, FL 

University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minneapolis, MN 

University of Mississippi, University, MS 

University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE 

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 

Universtty of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 

University of North Dakota Research Foundation, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Texas. Denton, TX 

University of Notre Dame Du Lac, Notre Dame, IN 

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 

University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. PA 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR 

University of Puerto Rico Central Administration, San Juan, PR 

University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom 

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rl 

University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation, Columbia, SC 

University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 

University of Southern California, LOS ANGELES, CA 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 

University of Texas Arlington, Arlington, TX 

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 

University of Texas Dallas, Richardson, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at San A, San Antonio, TX 

FY 2011 Funding I 

$17,618,063.00 

$2,066,984.00 

$1,027,741.00 

$1,506,000.00 

$470,994.00 

$105,000.00 

$620,000.00 

$126,675.00 

$0.00 

$267,504.00 

$11,539,380.00 

$0.00 

$7,171,781.00 

$175,001.00 

$228,000.00 

$142,120.00 

$741,030.00 

$45,000.00 

$361,000.00 

$0.00 

$65,000.00 

$0.00 

$1,291,000.00 

$1,438,079.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$3,566,000.00 

$793,753.00 

$7,227,295.00 

$4,529,130.00 

$180,977.00 

$7,331,094.00 

$3,227,300.00 

$734.800" 00 

$810,000.00 

$278,884.00 

$22,000.00 

$184,200.00 

$7,587,066.00 

$63,000.00 

$3,454,296.00 

$1,190,200.00 

$625,000.00 

$4,267,371.00 

$6,436,488.00 

$942,101.00 

$115,650.00 

$858,000.00 

$0.00 

$44o.n3.oo I 

37 
240 


29537.150

!Institution 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 

University of Texas, Austin, TX 

University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, TX 

University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 

University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 

Utah State University, Logan, UT 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

Washington University, St Louis, MO 

Wayne State University, Detroit, Ml 

West Virginia University Research Corporation, Morgantown, WV 

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Ml 

William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 

Wright State University, Dayton, OH 

Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA 

Yale University, New Haven, CT 

FY 2010 

Institution 

Abile.ne Christian University, Abilene, TX 

Alfred University, Alfred, NY 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Auburn University, Auburn University, Al 

Barry University, Inc., Miami, FL 

Baylor University, Waco, TX 

Bethune-Cookman University Inc., Daytona Beach, FL 

Board of Regents NSHE obo University of Nevada Las Vegas, las Vegas, NV 

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 

Board of Regents University of Nebraska lincoln, lincoln, NE 

Boise State University, Boise, ID 

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 

Bronx Community College, CUNY on behalf of, New York, NY 

Brown University, Providence, Rl 

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 

FY 2011 Funding I 

$600,000.00 

$13,907,514.00 

$609,121.00 

$135,000.00 

$242,000.00 

$5,328,866.00 

$341,593.00 

$7,236,481.00 

$18,605,004.00 

$554,349.00 

$972,812.00 

$440,909.00 

$1,997,626.00 

$735,027.00 

$3,151,104.00 

$2,803,098.00 

$8,899,333.00 

$1,629,000.00 

$426,472.00 

$300' 000.00 

$4,496,000.00 

$138,949.00 

$448,454.00 

$170,290.00 

$8,944,o9o.oo I 

FY 2010 Funding 

$197,000 

$82,674 

$2,530,334 

$1,785,226 

$1,166,400 

$240,523 

$243,000 

$777,600 

$7,633,722 

$60,071,638 

$2,850,818 

$143,888 

$365,800 

$1,566,000 

$313,500 

$486,000 

$5,153,307 

$26,433,074 

38 
241 


29537.151

California State University Dominguez Hills Foundation., Carson, CA 

California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA 

California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 

California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 

California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 

California State University, San Bernardino, CA 

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 

Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Ml 

City University of New York, City College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, College of Staten lsi, Staten Island, NY 

City University of New York, Hunter College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, Lehman College, Bronx, NY 

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 

Clark University, Worcester, MA 

Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

College of Saint Elizabeth, Morristown, NJ 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 

Columbia University, New York, NY 

Connecticut State University, Hartford, CT 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 

Creighton University, Omaha, NE 

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 

Davidson College, Davidson, NC 

DePaul University, Chicago, IL 

Dowling College, Oakdale, NY 

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 

Duke University, Durham, NC 

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Ml 

Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 

Florida International University, Miami, FL 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

George Washington University, Washington, DC 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 

Hampton University, Hampton, VA 

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 

Howard University, Washington, DC 

Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 

Indiana University, Indianapolis, Bloomington, IN 

$58,000 

$241,000 

$96,000 

$113,516 

$176,671 

$194,400 

$5,188,890 

$487,976 

$153,753 

$745,032 

$38,302 

$781,906 

$59,865 

$80,000 

$64,021 

$1,451,882 

$972,000 

$1,204,101 

$1,977,190 

$5,970,600 

$10,741,864 

$649,000 

$9,605,138 

$228,000 

$369,783 

$51,286 

$72,000 

$0 

$413,500 

$9,953,505 

$0 

$486,000 

$1,132,113 

$913,090 

$276,500 

$2,057,999 

$4,729,567 

$631,467 

$1,454,393 

$799,216 

$509,771 

$5,431,003 

$1,105,000 

$6,090,268 

$46,000 

$30,000 

$673,726 

$220,000 

$220,000 

39 
242 


29537.152

Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, lA 

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 

Kent State University, Kent, OH 

Langston University, Langston, OK 

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 

Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 

Louisiana State University and A&M College; Baton Rouge, LA 

Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 

Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 

Lutheran University Association, Inc., Valparaiso, IN 

Marshall University Research Corporation, Huntington, WV 

Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, North Adams, MA 

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge, MA 

Miami Dade Community College- Hialeah Campus, Hialeah, FL 

Miami University, Oxford, OH 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml 

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Morris College, Sumter, SC 

Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 

Nevada System of Higher Education - Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology, Newark, NJ 

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, Las Cruces, NM 

New York University, New York, NY 

New York, State Univ Research Foundation, Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 

Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 

North Carolina Central Univ., Durham, NC 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 

North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, GA 

Northeastern University, Boston, MA 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 

Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Ohio University, Athens, OH 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Stillwater, OK 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation, Norfolk, VA 

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 

Polytechnic Institute of New York University, New York, NY 

Portland State University, Portland, OR 

Prairie View A&M Research Foundation, Prairie View, TX 

$3,964,756 

$4,797,029 

$4,302,044 

$1,387,163 

$70,000 

$2,097,000 

$377,919 

$6,681,871 

$S84,860 

$486,000 

$181,000 

$4,765,715 

so 

$63,701,095 

$388,800 

$681,649 

$23,858,226 

$3,035,185 

$889,380 

$871,000 

$175,000 

$823,889 

$1,458,000 

$26,000 

$1,926,332 

$221,743 

$725,000 

$4,194,214 

$130,000 

$105,000 

$180,000 

$4,281,078 

$5,189,650 

$121,000 

$2,561,924 

$1,712,851 

$1,096,000 

$15,054,005 

$60,000 

$7,683,252 

$1,100,539 

$742,146 

$2,408,001 

$560,620 

$3,218,048 

$11,419,338 

$100,000 

$753,098 

$659,000 

40 
243 


29537.153

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

Regents of the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 

Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 

Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

Research Foundation of CUNY on behalf of Hunter College CUNY, NY 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York Research 

Foundation CUNY, New York, NY 

Research Foundation on behalf of Baruch College CUNY, New York, NY 

Rutgers- State University of New Jersey, Newark, Newark, NJ 

Rutgers- The State University of New Jersey, New, New Brunswick, NJ 

San Diego State University Foundation, San Diego, CA 

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 

San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose, CA 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SD 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 

Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT 

St. Bonaventure University, Saint Bonaventure, NY 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 

State University of New York, Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 

State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst, NY 

State University of New York, Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 

State University of New York, Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 

State University of New York, Syracuse, Syracuse, NY 

Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 

Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 

Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, College Station, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, Commerce, Commerce, TX 

Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 

The Citadel, Charleston, SC 

The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

The New School, New York, NY 

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, MA 

The Regents of the Univ. of Calif., U.C. San Diego, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California- UCSD, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, SanD, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

The Regents of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 

$11,916,435 

$9,993,532 

$674,961 

-$2,922,155 

$3,938,714 

$2,446,524 

$240,000 

$82,491 

$95,000 

$487,565 

$5,294,120 

$286,379 

$120,552 

$108,274 

$15,000 

$333,281 

$1,573,000 

$972,000 

$534,600 

$12,064,974 

$853,344 

$242,645 

$1,069,783 

$486,000 

$11,880,693 

$120,000 

$0 

$972,000 

$207,852 

$763,000 

$2,077,542 

$95,000 

$7,737,750 

$3,540,594 

$547,240 

$0 

$1,707,278 

$28,000 

$2,759,358 

$972,000 

$2,588,685 

$14,236,976 

$80,000 

$15,336,410 

$2,403,152 

$10,099,469 

$2,465,944 

$13,317,667 1 

41 
244 


29537.154

The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 

The Trustees of Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX 

Transylvania University, Lexington, KY 

Trustees of Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 

Trustees of Boston University, Boston, MA 

Trustees of Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 

Tufts University, Medford, MA 

Tulane Educational Fund, New Orleans, LA 

Union College, Schenectady, NY 

Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ-Newark, Newark, NJ 

University of Akron, Akron, OH 

University of Alabama Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, AL 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 

University of California, Merced, Merced, CA 

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 

University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

University of Delaware, Newark, DE 

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., Athens, GA 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 

University of Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 

University of Iowa, Iowa City, lA 

University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS 

University of Kansas Medical Ctr. Res. lnst., Inc., Kansas City, KS 

University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY 

University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc., Louisville, KY 

University of Maine System, Orono, ME 

University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland Biotechnology lnst., Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 

University of Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA 

$572,000 

$13,804,608 

$5,233,883 

$0 

$631,800 

$3,150,736 

$4,658,222 

$5,313,547 

$3,030,177 

$2,590,358 

$33,000 

$0 

$417,864 

$1,933,600 

$1,933,449 

$2,554,136 

$4,813,408 

$457,982 

$165,000 

$13,736,104 

$22,731,396 

$1,158,904 

$4,426,459 

$631,574 

$8,700,166 

$4,529,263 

$1,656,589 

$5,408,701 

$763,354 

$2,206,246 

$3,938,873 

$7,511,050 

$4,644,132 

$3,394,462 

$1,769,262 

$2,312,759 

$18,464,570 

$1,677,867 

$1,188,805 

$3,888,000 

$1,521,999 

$447,200 

$0 

$139,804 

$0 

$187,559 

$15,163,718 

$291,600 

$6,807,755 

42 
245 


29537.155

University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Lowell, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Worcester, MA 

University of Miami, Medical Campus, Miami, Fl 

University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minneapolis, MN 

University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 

University of Mississippi, University, MS 

University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE 

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Texas, Denton, TX 

University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, lA 

University of Notre Dame Du Lac, Notre Dame, IN 

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR 

University of Puerto Rico Central Administration, San Juan, PR 

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rl 

University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation, Columbia, SC 

University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 

University of Southern California, LOS ANGELES, CA 

University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN 

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 

University of Texas Arlington, Arlington, TX 

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 

University of Texas Dallas, Richardson, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at San A, San Antonio, TX 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 

University of Texas, Austin, TX 

University ofTexas, El Paso, El Paso, TX 

University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 

Utah State University, Logan, UT 

$174,993 

$228,000 

$291,600 

$1,006,246 

$61,057 

$601,158 

$532,000 

$0 

$65,000 

$486,000 

$1,281,000 

$1,175,000 

$209,871 

$50,000 

$1,542,065 

$923,400 

$6,866,388 

$4,251,672 

$7,746,118 

$4,020,284 

$322,650 

$490,000 

$1,274,991 

$299,886 

$7,608,488 

$81,637 

$3,372,979 

$2,447,648 

$962,909 

$4,434,446 

$972,000 

$0 

$7,407,408 

$1,547,264 

$125,482 

$1,035,000 

$0 

$357,753 

$475,000 

$15,717,552 

$424,575 

$971,000 

$6,571,954 

$1,290,773 

$7,723,446 

$20,638,632 

$718,207 

$2,878,379 

$986,732 

43 
246 


29537.156

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

Virginia State University, PETERSBURG, VA 

Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

Washington University, StLouis, MO 

Wayne State University, Detroit, Ml 

West Virginia University Research Corporation, Morgantown, WV 

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Ml 

Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT 

Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 

Whitworth University, Spokane, WA 

William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 

Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 

Wright State University, Dayton, OH 

Yale University, New Haven, CT 

McGill University, Montreal, Canada 

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 

University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada 

University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 

Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster UK, LA14Y 

University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 

Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia 

Monash University, Clayton, Australia 

FY 2009 

\Institution 

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Auburn University, Auburn University, AL 

Baylor University, Waco, TX 

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 

Board of Regents University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 

Boise State University, Boise, ID 

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 

Brown University, Providence, Rl 

Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 

California Institute ofTechnology, Pasadena, CA 

California State University Dominguez Hills Foundation., Carson, CA 

California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA 

California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 

California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 

$3,858,970 

$499,591 

$4,376,790 

$322,936 

$4,362,173 

$8,389,110 

$1,721,778 

$771,791 

$1,850,358 

$874,800 

$133,003 

$291,600 

$5,265,149 

$62,324 

$254,843 

$110,552 

$10,876,755 

$391,769.00 

$295,000.00 

$84,677.00 

$367,358.00 

$270,000.00 

$60,965.00 

$130,446.00 

$385,120.00 

$242,726.00 

FY 2009 Funding I 

$321,000 

$15,938,157 

$669,340 

$218,000 

$3,662,789 

$20,137,078 

$2,274,901 

$143,889 

$0 

$195,000 

$3,533,099 

$232,887 

$8,137,900 

$58,000 

$110,000 

$73,529 

so I 

44 
247 


29537.157

\Institution 

California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 

Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Ml 

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, Cheyney, PA 

Chicago Office of the Board of Education, Chicago, IL 

City University of New York, City College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, College of Staten lsi, Staten Island, NY 

City University of New York, Hunter College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, Lehman College, Bronx, NY 

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 

Clark University, Worcester, MA 

Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 

Columbia University, New York, NY 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 

Creighton University, Omaha, NE 

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 

DePaul University, Chicago, IL 

Dominican University, River Forest, IL 

Dowling College, Oakdale, NY 

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 

Duke University, Durham, NC 

Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL 

Florida International University, Miami, FL 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

George Washington University, Washington, DC 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA 

Hampton University, Hampton, VA 

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 

Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 

Howard University, Washington, DC 

Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 

Indiana University, Indianapolis, Bloomington, IN 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, fA 

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 

Kent State University, Kent, OH 

FY 2009 Funding \ 

$88,588 

$2,613,800 

$188,000 

$154,556 

$462,429 

$0 

$416,077 

$35,894 

$400,000 

$84,967 

$80,000 

$59,999 

$2,834,192 

$791,172 

$1,008,934 

$3,514,475 

$19,943,497 

$23,757,976 

$200,000 

$630,610 

$70,000 

$462,429 

$9,713 

$340,000 

$5,085,010 

$1,253,381 

$53,000 

$353,999 

$0 

$206,000 

$458,603 

$2,539,167 

$2,846,097 

$572,696 

$558,160 

$351,513 

$351,000 

$3,037,143 

$462,429 

$46,000 

$1,899,483 

$477,897 

$20,000 

$220,000 

$1,339,343 

$2,502,927 

$2,028,014 

$860,102\ 

45 
248 


29537.158

!Institution 

Langston University, langston, OK 

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 

lorna linda University, Lorna Linda, CA 

louisiana State University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 

louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 

Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge, MA 

Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 

Miami University, Oxford, OH 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Nevada System of Higher Education -las Vegas, las Vegas, NV 

New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, las Cruces, NM 

New York University, New York, NY 

New York, State Univ Research Foundation, Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 

Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 

North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, GA 

Northeastern University, Boston, MA 

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, ll 

Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale, VA 

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 

NV System of Higher Ed OBO Desert Res lnst-Reno, Reno, NV 

Occidental College, los Angeles, CA 

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Ohio University, Athens, OH 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Stillwater, OK 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation, Norfolk, VA 

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 

Portland State University, Portland, OR 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

Regents of the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 

Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 

Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

Research Foundation of The City University of New York d/b/a 

Research Foundation CUNY, New York, NY 

Research Foundation on behalf of Baruch College CUNY, NY 

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North 

Chicago, ll 

Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, ll 

FY 2009 Funding I 

$70,000 

$1,591,033 

$242,935 

$3,631,673 

$1,672,287 

$42,599,213 

$0 

$135,299 

$12,414,171 

$2,043,628 

$1,046,000 

$175,000 

$1,082,603 

$345,442 

$212,603 

$695,000 

$1,682,447 

$130,000 

$70,000 

$2,796,251 

$5,702,148 

$121,000 

$1,235,625 

$397,000 

$0 

$31,354,572 

$452,930 

$0 

$3,183,843 

$125,000 

$1,764,301 

$991,000 

$123,541 

$2,970,367 

$27,875,934 

$214,618 

$21,649,286 

$4,489,150 

$479,975 

$3,849,765 

$2,418,336 

$1,452,973 

$82,491 

$85,000 

$462,429 

$924,858 

46 
249 


29537.159

!Institution 

Rutgers- State University of New Jersey, Newark, Newark, NJ 

Rutgers- The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 

San Diego State University Foundation, San Diego, CA 

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SD 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 

State University of New York Delhi, Delhi, NY 

State University of New York, Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 

State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst, NY 

State University of New York, Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 

State University of New York, Syracuse, Syracuse, NY 

Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 

Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, College Station, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, Commerce, Commerce, TX 

Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 

Texas Tech University, lubbock, TX 

The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, MA 

The Regents of the Univ. of Calif., U.C. San Diego, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents oft he University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, San D, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

The Regents of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 

The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 

The Trustees of Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 

Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 

Trustees of Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 

Trustees of Boston University, Boston, MA 

Trustees of Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 

Tufts University, Medford, MA 

Tulane Educational Fund, New Orleans, LA 

Union College, Schenectady, NY 

University of Akron, Akron, OH 

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, Al 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 

University of California, Los Angeles, los Angeles, CA 

FY 2009 Funding I 

$240,958 

$2,631,098 

$94,925 

$4,800 

$15,000 

$1,026,699 

$211,667 

$9,982,942 

$509,723 

$0 

$1,513,287 

$535,057 

$6,882,414 

$120,000 

$0 

$324,000 

$583,231 

$93,000 

$2,772,723 

$600,000 

$369,943 

$67,167 

$1,340,915 

$2,798,458 

$0 

$5,331,202 

$8,693,552 

$5,013,962 

$2,741,137 

$1,677,495 

$25,410,833 

$15,000 

$8,579,301 

$20,706,994 

-$235,631 

$893,000 

$2,170,776 

$3,001,928 

$673,197 

$665,318 

$33,000 

$122,000 

$2,192,432 

$881,339 

$14,900,634 

$459,992 

$7,934,729 

s1o,1o6,011 1 

47 
250 


29537.160

!Institution 

University of California, Merced, Merced, CA 

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 

University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

University of Delaware, Newark, DE 

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., Athens, GA 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 

University of Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 

University of Iowa, Iowa City, lA 

University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS 

University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY 

University of Louisville Research Foundation, Inc., Louisville, KY 

University of Maine System, Orono, ME 

University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland Biotechnology lnst., Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 

University of Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Lowell, MA 

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 

University of Miami, Medical Campus, Miami, FL 

University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minneapolis, MN 

University of Mississippi, University, MS 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 

University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 

University of North Dakota Research Foundation, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Texas, Denton, TX 

University of Notre Dame Du Lac, Notre Dame, IN 

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR 

University of Puerto Rico Central Administration, San Juan, PR 

University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

FY 2009 Funding I 

$800,597 

$2,985,620 

$99,941 

$20,685,500 

$1,128,408 

$957,034 

$3,433,854 

$312,156 

$839,782 

$21,900,985 

$4,562,174 

$2,395,193 

$1,222,766 

$825,000 

$980,849 

$9,966,964 

$1,656,228 

$536,000 

$1,370,500 

$107,000 

$867,000 

$0 

$400,000 

$887,172 

$7,524,721 

$462,429 

$18,127,050 

$168,000 

$270,778 

$797,909 

$43,000 

$550,000 

$49,996 

$314,554 

$812,963 

$0 

$212,268 

$2,543,360 

$1,250,000 

$1,321,907 

$17,602,921 

$4,095,900 

$4,345,315 

$1,813,285 

$230,000 

$440,000 

$176,280 

$4,977,977 1 

48 
251 


29537.161

I Institution 

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation, Columbia, SC 

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 

University of Southern California, LOS ANGELES, CA 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 

University of Texas Arlington, Arlington, TX 

University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 

University of Texas Dallas, Richardson, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Texas Health Science Center at San A, San Antonio, TX 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 

University of Texas, Austin, TX 

University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, TX 

University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 

Utah State University, Logan, UT 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

Washington University, StLouis, MO 

Wayne State University, Detroit, Ml 

West Virginia University Research Corporation, Morgantown, WV 

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Ml 

Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 

William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 

Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC 

Yale University, New Haven, CT 

McGill University, Montreal, Canada 

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada 

Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster UK, LA14Y 

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom 

University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom 

University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 

Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia 

FY 2009 Funding I 

$70,000 

$4,433,404 

$878,908 

$17,082,386 

$3,536,994 

$318,999 

$118,869 

$905,000 

$170,000 

$233,381 

$350,000 

$21,677,341 

$388,903 

$865,614 

$3,219,588 

$1,407,657 

$6,215,578 

$9,795,489 

$1,087,341 

$595,000 

$554,915 

$2,419,107 

$372,500 

$1,666,308 

$2,548,981 

$6,863,913 

$1,579,500 

$1,679,506 

$4,029,158 

$133,141 

$4,076,000 

$87,470 

$5,723,465 

$137,241.00 

$545,325.00 

$243,267.00 

$85,887.00 

$0.00 

$199,680.00 

$84,730.00 

sz47,9so.oo 1 

49 
252 


29537.162

FY 2008 

!Institution 

Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 

Alabama A&M University Research Institute, Normal, AL 

Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 

Auburn University, Auburn University, AL 

Baylor University, Waco, TX 

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 

Board of Regents University of Nebraska lincoln, lincoln, NE 

Boise State University, Boise, ID 

Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 

Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 

Brown University, Providence, Rl 

California Institute ofTechnology, Pasadena, CA 

California State University Dominguez Hills Foundation., Carson, CA 

California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA 

California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 

California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 

Chicago Office of the Board of Education, Chicago, IL 

City University of New York, City College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, Hunter College, New York, NY 

City University of New York, Lehman College, Bronx, NY 

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 

Clark University, Worcester, MA 

Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 

Columbia University, New York, NY 

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 

Creighton University, Omaha, NE 

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 

Davidson College, Davidson, NC 

DePaul University, Chicago, IL 

Dominican University, River Forest, IL 

Dowling College, Oakdale, NY 

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 

Duke University, Durham, NC 

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 

EARTH University Foundation, Atlanta, GA 

Elizabeth City State University, Elizabeth City, NC 

Emory University, Atlanta, GA 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$191,000 

$479,000 

$90,923 

$2,637,770 

$2,172,484 

$80,000 

$3,201,599 

$50,788,097 

$1,907,546 

$143,889 

$160,000 

$1,076,000 

$547,500 

$1,521,807 

$13,229,056 

$58,000 

$110,000 

$96,000 

$188,224 

$3,152,729 

$372,000 

$956,000 

$581,334 

$225,029 

$49,107 

$80,000 

$54,844 

$2,276,218 

$707,400 

$1,880,393 

$5,493,646 

$8,372,095 

$5,220,032 

$200,000 

$527,501 

$69,762 

$68,000 

$573,000 

$20,795 

$215,000 

$9,066,183 

$145,609 

-$62,461 

$0 

$1,420,613 1 

50 
253 


29537.163

!Institution 

Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Fl 

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fl 

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fl 

Florida International University, Miami, Fl 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 

George Washington University, Washington, DC 

Georgetown University, Washington, DC 

Georgia State University Research Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA 

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 

Hampton University, Hampton, VA 

Harvard College, Cambridge, MA 

Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 

Howard University, Washington, DC 

Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, ll 

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 

Indiana University, Indianapolis, Bloomington, IN 

Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, lA 

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 

Kent State University, Kent, OH 

Langston University, langston, OK 

lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 

lorna linda University, lorna linda, CA 

louisiana State University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 

louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 

lutheran University Association, Inc., Valparaiso, IN 

Massachusetts College of liberal Arts, North Adams, MA 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 

Medical College of Georgia Research Institute Inc, Augusta, GA 

Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 

Miami University, Oxford, OH 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml 

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 

Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 

Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 

Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA 

Nevada System of Higher Education- las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 

New Jersey Institute ofTechnology, Newark, NJ 

New Mexico State University, las Cruces, Las Cruces, NM 

New York Industrial Retention Network, New York, NY 

New York University, New York, NY 

New York, State Univ Research Foundation, Buffalo, NY 

Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$40,000 

$355,000 

$0 

$164,000 

$977,000 

$4,012,813 

$403,093 

$1,027,453 

$364,000 

$400,666 

$3,814,761 

$387,511 

$3,037,821 

$525,000 

$40,000 

$602,690 

$430,000 

$50,000 

$15,000 

$1,449,440 

$3,209,788 

$4,213,468 

$818,548 

$67,000 

$1,390,312 

$765,588 

$1,943,587 

$1,732,960 

$162,000 

$239,000 

$45,082,502 

$250,284 

$148,752 

$313,364 

$9,336,827 

$2,786,828 

$0 

$753,502 

$175,000 

$1,576,269 

$26,000 

$1,471,000 

$160,222 

$675,000 

$479,000 

$3,708,001 

$108,341 

S157,ooo 1 

51 
254 


29537.164

!Institution 

North Carolina Central Univ., Durham, NC 

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 

North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 

North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, GA 

Northeastern University, Boston, MA 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 

Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 

Northwestern University Chicago Campus, Chicago, IL 

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 

Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Ohio University, Athens, OH 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Stillwater, OK 

Old Dominion University Research Foundation, Norfolk, VA 

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 

Portland State University, Portland, OR 

Prairie View A&M Research Foundation, Prairie View, TX 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

Regents of the University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 

Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 

Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 

Regents of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 

Research Foundation of CUNY on behalf of Hunter College CUNY, NY 

Rollins College, Winter Park, FL 

Rutgers- State University of New Jersey, Newark, Newark, NJ 

Rutgers- The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 

San Diego State University Foundation, San Diego, CA 

San Diego, University of, San Diego, CA 

San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 

San Jose State University Foundation, San Jose, CA 

South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SD 

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Carbondale, !L 

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 

State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 

State University of New York Delhi, Delhi, NY 

State University of New York, Binghamton, Binghamton, NY 

State University of New York, Buffalo, Amherst, NY 

State University of New York, Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 

Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 

Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 

Texas A&M Research Foundation, College Station, TX 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$74,000 

$4,446,450 

$322,000 

$107,000 

$1,087,697 

$1,756,208 

$315,916 

$259,943 

$8,870,021 

$60,000 

$7,253,119 

$1,032,061 

$1,582,171 

$1,035,262 

$224,582 

$3,377,319 

$8,680,947 

$718,869 

$201,000 

$8,080,476 

$7,596,446 

$185,915 

$1,802,515 

$4,606,940 

$1,842,935 

$145,000 

$29,022 

$430,188 

$1,857,612 

$75,000 

$45,000 

$118,000 

$101,504 

$420,000 

$349,554 

$847,143 

$7,615,641 

$936,592 

$0 

$92,645 

$585,113 

$8,281,034 

$234,652 

$346,000 

$1,263,000 

$674,642 

$91,000 

$3,780,872 1 

52 
255 


29537.165

!Institution 

Texas A&M University, College Station, College Station, TX 

Texas A&M University, Commerce, Commerce, TX 

Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 

Texas Agrilife Research, College Station, TX 

Texas Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, TX 

Texas Tech University, lubbock, TX 

The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 

The President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, MA 

The Regents of the Univ. of Calif., U.C. San Diego, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California - UCSD, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 

The Regents of the University of California, SanD, La Jolla, CA 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 

The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 

The Regents of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 

The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 

The Trustees of Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX 

Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 

Trustees of Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 

Trustees of Boston University, Boston, MA 

Trustees of Indiana University, Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 

Tufts University, Medford, MA 

Tulane Educational Fund, New Orleans, LA 

Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Al 

Union College, Schenectady, NY 

Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ-Newark, Newark, NJ 

University of Akron, Akron, OH 

University of Alabama Huntsville, Huntsville, Al 

University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, Al 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

University of Arkansas at little Rock, little Rock, AR 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 

University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 

University of California, los Angeles, los Angeles, CA 

University of California, Merced, Merced, CA 

University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 

University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 

University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fl 

University of Chicago, Chicago, ll 

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

University of Delaware, Newark, DE 

University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$2,505,236 

$60,000 

$82,833 

$479,000 

$549,916 

$798,001 

$2,119,150 

$561,850 

$8,704,792 

$80,000 

$12,364,571 

$2,464,939 

$7,120,688 

$1,044,890 

$6,354,101 

$585,000 

$2,841,881 

$2,712,672 

$207,925 

$175,447 

$782,551 

$3,672,211 

$4,420,482 

$1,320,043 

$2,189,052 

$106,687 

$89,000 

$241,869 

$122,000 

$164,489 

$1,380,436 

$511,476 

$2,410,780 

$414,220 

$149,973 

$5,746,862 

$25,056,829 

$969,043 

$4,298,121 

$1,139,909 

$6,052,312 

$5,073,287 

$582,381 

$3,881,699 

$1,167,666 

$1,218,876 

$4,195,051 

$4,515,976 1 

53 
256 


29537.166

!Institution 

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., Athens, GA 

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 

University of Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 

University of Iowa, Iowa City, lA 

University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS 

University of Kentucky Research Foundation, lexington, KY 

University of louisville Research Foundation, Inc., Louisville, KY 

University of Maine System, Orono, ME 

University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland Biotechnology lnst., Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 

University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 

University of Massachusetts at Boston, Boston, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA 

University of Massachusetts, Lowell, lowell, MA 

University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minneapolis, MN 

University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 

University of Mississippi, University, MS 

University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 

University of Montana, Missoula, MT 

University of Nebraska Kearney, Kearney, NE 

University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE 

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 

University of North Dakota Research Foundation, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 

University of North Texas, Denton, TX 

University of Notre Dame Dulac, Notre Dame, IN 

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 

University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, PR 

University of Puerto Rico Central Administration, San Juan, PR 

University of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, PR 

University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 

University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 

University of South Carolina Research Foundation, Columbia, SC 

University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 

University of Southern California, LOS ANGELES, CA 

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 

University of Texas Arlington, Arlington, TX 

University of Texas Dallas, Richardson, TX 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$4,308,789 

$2,583,021 

$1,035,512 

$1,137,690 

$11,847,476 

$2,028,241 

$780,000 

$815,000 

$37,305 

$1,792,073 

$123,624 

$0 

$309,727 

$7,622,266 

$479,000 

$7,787,905 

$153,000 

$42,000 

$573,000 

$448,000 

$160,000 

$65,000 

$0 

$1,913,000 

$713,186 

$1,068,172 

$363,032 

$2,391,000 

$500,000 

$1,108,000 

$5,657,258 

$3,801,778 

$6,820,620 

$1,593,308 

$205,000 

$440,000 

$0 

$63,000 

$5,207,997 

$34,000 

$1,207,595 

$1,052,000 

$656,330 

$5,971,892 

$440,468 

$6,735,690 

$768,011 

$856,1041 

54 
257 


29537.167

!Institution 

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 

University of Texas, Austin, TX 

University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 

University of Washington, Seattle, Seattle, WA 

University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 

Utah State University, Logan, UT 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston Salem, NC 

Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

Washington University, StLouis, MO 

Wayne State University, Detroit, Ml 

West Virginia University Research Corporation, Morgantown, WV 

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Ml 

Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 

William Marsh Rice University, Houston, TX 

Wright State University, Dayton, OH 

Yale University, New Haven, CT 

McGill University, Montreal, Canada 

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 

Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia 

Monash University, Clayton, Australia 

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom 

University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom 

University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 

FY 2008 Funding I 

$877,000 

$404,381 

$5,675,486 

$229,359 

$4,310,511 

$109,740 

$4,047,128 

$19,851,211 

$774,811 

$654,344 

$214,001 

$1,926,364 

$182,500 

$2,418,722 

$956,000 

$3,517,184 

$5,218,244 

$1,066,000 

$1,398,964 

$375,000 

$145,472 

$3,708,080 

$105,112 

$10,754,303 

$130,339.00 

$539,325.00 

$0.00 

$96,340.00 

$88,853.00 

$199,682.00 

S91,6o9.oo 1 

55 
258 


29537.168

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER RUSH 

Q I. What is the plan for moving forward with the Minorities in Energy (MIE) Initiative, 

which was designed to increase minority participation within the agency, as well as 

within the broader energy sector? 

Q 1 a. What are the level of resources devoted to this initiative, including funding and 

personnel? 

Ala. The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity (ED) has allocated $!.3M and five fulltime employees to administer the Minorities in Energy Initiative and implement 

stakeholder engagement and outreach activities. 

Q 1 b. What are the programs currently being funded within the Minorities in Energy Initiative 

and what are the levels of funding for each of these programs? 

A 1 b. DOE provides financial assistance awards and contracts to Minority Serving Institutions 

(MS!s) and minority businesses in support of research activities at the Department of 

Energy (DOE) laboratories; paid internships; scholarships; the formation of strategic 

public-private partnerships; and stakeholder engagement and outreach initiatives. Based 

on the FY 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, it is estimated that the total funding 

allocation for MS!s across DOE's complex will range from $32M-$33M. This funding is 

in addition to the $!.3M invested by ED to conduct stakeholder engagement activities in 

support of STEM education and minority businesses, technical assistance, and workforce 

development programs. Specifically, DOE provides opportunities for underserved groups 

and communities to do the following: 

• Build Capacity- DOE provides financial assistance awards to enable MSis to 

strengthen their STEM capabilities by collaborating with the Department's national 

laboratories and scientific facilities. Also, MSI grantees are given opportunities to 

participate in the Visiting Faculty Program (VFP), which supports 10-week research 

appointments for faculty to collaborate on a research project with scientists at the 

DOE national laboratories. 

• Engage in STEM Education and Workforce Development Programs- The 

Department provides financial assistance support to enable MSis and other 
259 


29537.169

underserved groups to obtain scholarships and participate in internship/apprenticeship 

opportunities hosted by the DOE program offices in collaboration with the DOE 

national laboratories and/or minority-owned businesses. 

• Obtain Technical Assistance- DOE provides information, tools and resources to 

MSis and minority businesses to enable them to successfully compete for federal 

grants, contracts, and research opportunities. 

• Participate in Outreach and Engagement Activities- The Department conducts 

stakeholder engagement and outreach activities targeted towards MSis and 

underserved communities with the dual goal of building awareness of career and 

business opportunities in DOE and developing pathways for underrepresented groups 

to connect with the energy sector. 

Q1c. What are the objectives of this initiative and how will those objectives be measured? 

A 1 c. The Department is committed to building a more diverse and inclusive workforce 

pipeline by harnessing the full range of talent that our country has to offer. The new ED 

Director, James Campos, who was confirmed on April 9, 2018, by the United States 

Senate will be examining MIE's objectives and metrics to determine how best to leverage 

the program. Historically, MIE's objectives included: (1) increasing the number of 

qualified applicants from minority businesses and MS!s who receive research funding 

opportunities and participate in training programs; (2) building awareness among 

underserved communities of the career opportunities in DOE and the energy sector; (3) 

developing pathways for underserved communities to connect with energy sector 

employers; and (4) establishing a consortium ofMSis and minority businesses to enhance 

their capabilities and increase their ability to compete for federal and private 

opportunities on a broader scale. Success, or lack thereof, was measured by whether the 

objectives were accomplished. 

Q 1 d. What is the time line for reaching those objectives? 

A 1 d. Going forward, the new ED Director, James Campos will establish appropriate time lines 

after a comprehensive review of the MIE Initiative is completed. 

2 
260 


29537.170

Q2. What are the plans for the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity moving forward? 

Q2a. What are level of resources devoted to this department, including funding and personnel? 

A2a. The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity's FY2018 budget is $10.169 million and is 

comprised of 3 7 FTEs. 

Q2b. Who is leading the OIED department and what is their background working on issues of 

diversity and inclusion? 

A2b. The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity (ED) is led by James E. Campos, who was 

confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2018. Mr. Campos has a distinguished career 

serving in both the public and private sectors. Prior to his Senate appointment, Mr. 

Campos served as the Senior Advisor on Economic Development & Strategic 

Planning/Government Affairs to the College President of Nevada State College (NSC). 

NSC is a Minority Serving Institution and the only four-year, comprehensive public 

college in the State of Nevada that places a special emphasis on the advancement of a 

diverse and largely underserved student populations. Mr. Campos also served a three-year 

term on the Nevada Equal Rights Commission beginning in 2011, and was the Deputy 

Administrator for Workforce Solutions for the Department of Employment, Training, and 

Rehabilitation in the State of Nevada. Mr. Campos' public sector experience also includes 

an appointment as the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs for the State of Nevada where 

he established an Ombudsman for Minority Affairs in the Consumer Affairs Division and 

Nevada Commission of Minority Affairs. He also served as a Member of the Nevada 

Workforce Investment Board in 2009, and on two ofthe Workforce Sector Councils from 

2014 to 2017. Mr. Campos has been active in a number of community organizations, 

including (among others) the Latino Coalition Board of Directors. Mr. Campos was 

recognized in 2011 in the Las Vegas "In Business Magazine's" top five most influential 

Hispanics in business. He served as an adjunct college professor, teaching courses in 

organizational operations, international management, marketing, strategy, public relations 

and human resources. Mr. Campos holds B.A. and M.S. degrees from the University of 

Maryland, an M.B.A. from the University of Glasgow, Scotland, and an Executive 

Program Certificate from Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. Mr. 

Campos is also a strong advocate for diversity and inclusion, minority education and 

3 
261 


29537.171

community development, minority business and economic development, and workforce 

initiatives. 

Q2c. What are the objectives of this department and how will those objectives be measured? 

A2c. Director Campos is conducting an extensive review of all programs under his purview 

and is still in the process of determining his priorities, including goals, objectives and 

metrics. 

Q2d. What is the time line for reaching those objectives? 

A2d. As noted immediately above, Director Campos needs time to evaluate carefully his 

priorities before establishing time lines for accomplishing his goals and objectives. 

Q3. What is the percentage or number of minorities in decision-making and leadership 

positions within the Secretary's office? 

A3. As of July 7, 2018, there were a total of21 Federal employees in decision-making and 

leadership positions within the Office of Secretary. Of those 21 personnel, 1 employee 

(4.76%) was a minority (African American). 

Q4. What is the percentage or number of minorities on the Institutional Review Board? 

a. How many members make up the Institutional Review Board in total? 

b. How many members of the Institutional Review Board are African American? 

c. How many members of the Institutional Review Board are Latino? 

d. How many members of the Institutional Review Board are women? 

A4. As ofJuly 7, 2018, the Central DOE Institutional Review Board was comprised offour 

Federal employees, with all four being female and one being African American. 

QS. What is the percentage or number of minorities on the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board? 

a How many members make up the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board in total? 

b. How many members of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board are African 

American? 

c. How many members of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board are Latino? 

d. How many members of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board arewomen? 

AS. As of July 25, 2018, there were no members serving on the Secretary of Energy Advisory 

Board (SEAB). The Department of Energy is in the process of standing up the SEAB. 

4 
262 


29537.172

Q6. What is the percentage or number of minorities that make up the Senior Executive 

Service? 

a. How many members of the Senior Executive Service are there in total? 

b. How many members of the Senior Executive Service are African American? 

c. How many members of the Senior Executive Service are Latino? 

d. How many members of the Senior Executive Service are women? 

A6. As of July 7, 2018, there were a total of 406 people serving in the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) within the Department of Energy. Ofthose 406 personnel, 69 employees 

(16.9%) were minorities (with 29 being AfricanAmerican and 13 being Latino), and 99 

(24.4%) were women. 

Q7. How much money, in total dollars, does the Office of Science dole out in the form of 

research grants, scholarships, and other funding to schools and universities? 

A 7. The total Office of Science funding to all Institutions of Higher Education by fiscal year 

is listed in the table below: 

Fiscal Total SC Funds To All 

Year Institutions of Higher 

Education 

FY 17 $751,350,751 

FY 16 $800,855,708 

FY 15 $803,587,449 

FY 14 $752,309,087 

FY 13 $663,395,000 

FY 12 $698,760,000 

FY II $730,917,121 

FY 10 $887,127,015 

FY09 $734,782,644 

FYOS $611,477,429 

Q8. What are the list of schools and universities that has received funding over the past 10 

years from your department, as well as the amounts distributed to each institution? 

AS. The list of institutions of higher education awarded funds by the DOE Office of Science 

over the past I 0 fiscal years (FY 2008 - FY 20 17) is over 50 pages long and provided in 

a separate attachment. 

5 
263 


29537.173

Q9. What is the percentage of funding that has gone to Minority Serving Institutions 

including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions 

over the past I 0 years? 

A9. The following table provides the funding and percentage of SC funding to Minority 

Serving Institutions (MSis). 

Fiscal SC Funds to SC Funds to SC Funds to Total SC Funds SC Funds To All Percent of 

Year HBCUs* HS!s* AANAPIS!s* to MS!s ** Institutions of Higher ll!E Funds to 

Education MS!s* 

FY 17 $2 197 381 $39 528 243 $95,343 748 $117 180139 $751 350.751 15.60% 

FY 16 $959,000 $42,700,328 $92,483,896 $112,196,926 $800,855,708 14.01% 

FY 15 $1,547,542 $38,283,698 $86,139,581 $106,949,586 $803,587,449 13.31% 

FY 14 $2,332,799 $46,019,174 $95,119,738 $117,616,739 $752,309,087 15.63% 

FY 13 $1,180,000 $35,353,000 $81,890,000 $102,358,000 $663,395,000 15.43% 

FY 12 $1,760,000 $39,051,000 $87,425,000 $105,468,000 $698,760,000 15.09% 

FY 11 $2,039,189 $44,308,367 $80,224,874 $107,681,559 $730,917,121 14.73% 

FY 10 $5,182,026 $55,441,492 $111,497,799 $145,566,315 $887,127,015 16.41% 

FY09 $1,433,428 $55,040,157 $60,053,960 $104,553,203 $734,782,644 14.23% 

FY08 $2,038,121 $42,191,949 $81,692,761 $ll3,113,809 $611,477,429 18.50% 

* 1-flstoncally Black Colleges and Umversiiies (HBCUs); H1spamc Servmg lnsmutwns (f!Sls); Asran Amencan and 

Native American Pacific islander Serving Institutions (AANAP!Sls); Institutions of Higher Education (!HE) 

**Some institutions of higher education meet eligibility criteria and self~report for more than one MSJ category thus 

the sum of.first three columns will be greater that this column. 

Q 10. How many minority directors are there of the 17 national labs? 

AI 0. There are currently three minority laboratory directors, and 10.4% of all senior leadership 

positions (laboratory directors, deputy directors, associate laboratory directors) are 

current held by people that fall in to categories of underrepresented minorities or other 

people of color. A full summary of demographics at the laboratories can be found here -

https://nationallabs.org/staff/diversity/. 

Q 1 Oa. How many African American directors are there of the 17 national labs? 

A lOa. There are currently no African American laboratory directors. 

QIOb. How many Latino directors are there of the 17 national labs? 

A 1 Ob. There are currently no Latino laboratory directors. 

Q I Oc. How many women directors are there of the 17 national labs? 

A I Oc. There are currently no women laboratory directors. 

Q11. What is the approximate dollar amount of contracts that the 17 national labs dole out to 

private companies and vendors? 

All. In FY 2016 the 17 national laboratories had over $3.78 available for subcontract awards. 

6 
264 


29537.174

Q 12. Is there a goal or objective to include a percentage of minority contractors and vendors 

for all of the lab contracts? 

Al2. Federal agencies have specific contracting goals, including specific percentage goals for 

small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, servicedisable veteran-owned small business, and Historically Underutilized Business Zone 

(HUBZone) small businesses. These standard goals, as shown below, are used as the 

subcontracting goals for the national laboratories. 

Ql3. What percentage of these national lab contracts are given out to minority contractors and 

vendors? 

Al3. In FY 2016, the latest year for which reporting has been finalized, the Department met its 

subcontracting goals for small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small 

businesses, and HUBZone small businesses. 

Ql4. Is there a plan in place to increase minority participation for contracting and vending 

opportunities with the national labs? 

A 14. The Department of Energy Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

(OSDBU) has developed a strategic plan for improving performance in all small business 

contracting and subcontracting goals, including achieving the Department's goals for 

small disadvantaged businesses and HUBZone small businesses. 

7 
265 


29537.175

Q 14a. Please specify what that plan entails. 

A 14a. The plan includes strategies for making it easier for small businesses to engage with the 

U.S. Department of Energy, cultivating more productive and collaborative relationships 

with internal stakeholders, and improving agency performance in the Small Business 

Administration's four graded socioeconomic subcategories. 

Q 14b. What resources, in funding and personnel, will be devoted to carrying out the plan to 

increase minority participation for contracting and vending opportunities with the 

national labs? 

A 14b. In addition to the eleven staff members of OSDBU, each major program has a small 

business program manager responsible for tracking its program's performance in all of 

the statutorily mandated small business goals and finding ways to improve their 

performance. The OSBDU budget in FY 2017 was $2,994,000. 

Q 14c. What is the time line for reaching these objectives? 

Al4c. The national laboratories are meeting their goals for disadvantaged small business, 

women-owned small businesses, and HUBZone small businesses. 

8 
266 


29537.176

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNORED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!ongrt~~ of tbt W:ntttb ~tatt~ 

;!)ou~e of ll\epre~entatibe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Mark Menezes 

Under Secretary 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S. W, 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Mr. Menezes: 

Majority (202)225-2927 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

February 8, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on January 9, 2018, to testify at 

the hearing entitled "DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and 

Energy Security of the United States." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, February 23, 20!8. Your responses should be 

mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to kelly.collins({i)mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
267 


29537.177

QUESTIONS FROM REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON 

Under Secretary of Energy Mark Menezes 

Ql. As you may know, I have worked in a bipartisan matter with my good friend Mr. Rush on 

legislation to promote a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce. In that 

legislation we establish a clearinghouse for information and guidance on job training and 

other workforce development programs for energy and manufacturing jobs. 

Qla. Are there current programs within the Department of Energy that we can point our 

constituents to who are looking for jobs, internships, fellowships and the like? 

Ala. The Department of Energy (DOE) actively promotes access to careers in energy and 

recruits for jobs in a variety of occupations in support of DOE's missions. Federal 

opportunities within DOE can be found on USAJobs at www.usajobs.gov or on the DOE 

jobs site www.energy.gov/jobs. In addition to federal employment or internship 

opportunities, there are a variety of other programs available. throughout the Department 

for the public and your constituents looking for jobs, internships, and fellowships, 

including experiential learning and job training programs available through DOE funded 

grants. Specifically: 

• Grant/contract funded job training programs: Job training programs provide 

opportunities for specialized training in existing, and emerging, jobs in the energy 

industry. DOE sponsors these programs through grants and contracts with private 

companies. Examples of the types of job training programs funded by the 

Department include: 

o The Power for Vets Program- Smart Grid Workforce Training Program: 

Training program designed to prepare veterans for careers in the utility and 

electrical manufacturing industries for Smart Grid related jobs. 

http://www.incsys.com/power-applications/doe-projects/ 

o Advanced Manufacturing Office Traineeship Program: Implements masterslevel training programs designed to train a new generation of advanced 

manufacturing engineers to fill workforce needs across industry, national labs, 

and universities. 

10 
268 


29537.178

Round I: https://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-awards-6-

million-universities-tennessee-and-virginia-advance-masters 

Round 2: https://energy.gov/eere/articles/department-encrgy-selectsgeorgia-tech-and-uconn-train-next-generation-manufacturing 

• Graduate and Postdoctoral Programs: DOE sponsors many research training and 

fellowship programs to provide graduate and post-graduate students opportunities to 

gain first-hand research experience in particular energy and energy sciences related 

fields, to provide training in science and engineering critical to the DOE mission and 

to address workforce needs at the DOE national laboratories and energy industries 

that will further advance the DOE mission and national energy goals. Examples of 

the types of opportunities sponsored by the Department include: 

o DOE Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship Program: Supports, for up 

to four years, graduate students in fields of study that utilize DOE's high 

performance computing (HPC) capabilities to solve problems in science and 

engineering essential to address DOE mission needs. The program, supported 

by the DOE Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), requires students do a HPC-focused research 

practicum at a DOE national laboratory as part of their graduate studies. 

Skilled scientists and engineers in the HPC industry are essential to advancing 

all aspects of national science and energy innovation in the U.S. 

https://www.krellinst.org/csgf/ 

o The DOE Office of Science Graduate Student Research Program: Supports 

supplemental research awards to graduates students to conduct part of their 

graduate thesis research at a DOE National Laboratory for 3 to 12 months, in 

collaboration with a DOE laboratory scientist or engineer. The program offers 

access to world-leading capabilities at the DOE labs and exposure to DOE 

mission critical science and energy challenges. 

https://science.energy.gov/wdts/scgsr 

• Stipend-based Internship Programs: Through sponsorship of stipend-based 

internship programs, DOE provides experiential learning opportunities at the DOE 

Federal sites and its national laboratories to expose undergraduate students and recent 

11 
269 


29537.179

graduates to national science and energy challenges and prepare them for career 

opportunities in a broad range of sectors, including the energy industry. Through 

these programs, students receive a stipend allowance while they gain exposure to jobs 

related to their academic area of study within the DOE complex. Many graduates of 

these stipend-based programs go on to accept jobs with DOE, DOE national 

laboratories, or energy-related jobs in the private sector. Examples of the types of 

stipend-based internship programs sponsored by the Department include: 

o DOE Scholars Program: Provides seasonal or year-round stipend-based 

student internship opportunities in a variety of disciplines. Students are placed 

in offices at DOE headquarters and at DOE federal offices across the U.S. 

https://orise.orau.gov/doescholars/ 

o Minority Educational Institution Student Partnership Program: Offers seasonal 

internship opportunities in DOE federal offices that provide practical 

experience related to a variety of academic majors, including Engineering, 

Science, Social Sciences, and Business. https://doemeispp.org/ 

o EERE Robotics Internship Program: Offers seasonal internship opportunities 

to students of robotics within the private industry or a DOE National 

laboratory. https://orise.orau.gov/roboticsinternship/aboutappointment/index.html 

o Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship Program: Offers hands-on research 

experience with the Office of Fossil Energy for under-represented students in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Students in other fields 

may apply. https://orise.orau.gov/mlef/ 

o Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship Program: Places undergraduate 

students in I 0 week or 16 week research intensive internships within the DOE 

National Laboratories under the mentorship of DOE laboratory scientists and 

engineers. Research opportunities are available at all 17 DOE national 

laboratories and include scientific and engineering areas that span the 

DOE/NNSA missions. https://science.energy.gov/wdts/sulil 

o Community College Internships Program: Places community college students 

in technical training internship opportunities across the DOE national 

12 
270 


29537.180

laboratories. With a more regional focus, community college students are 

trained in technical areas both unique to the DOE national laboratories and to 

the industries that support the DOE 

mission. https://science.energy.gov/wdts/cci/ 

o DOE Florida International University Science and Technology Workforce 

Initiative: A partnership between the Office of Environmental Management 

and Florida International University that offers seasonal fellowships in 

research and development pertaining to next-generation technology 

development for environmental cleanup, and robotics and remote sensing. 

https://fellows.fiu.edulapply/ 

Qlb. Can you tell us about programs within the labs complex that work with universities or 

community colleges to help with this endeavor? 

AI b. DOE and its National Laboratories oversee several programs that work with universities 

or community colleges to promote a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce. 

While the list below is not exhaustive, it does provide examples of workforce 

development programs within the DOE National Laboratory complex: 

• The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's Grid School and 

Conference, supported by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), convenes 

graduate students and postdocs from across applied mathematics, physics, operations 

research, computation, complex systems, control theory, and electrical/systems 

engineering with academic researchers to help nucleate a new interdisciplinary, 

collaborative, and enduring R&D community on future electrical grid and 

infrastructure challenges. 

• The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) engages in a variety of 

educational outreach programs to prepare the Nation's students for careers in science 

and technology. Additionally, NETL, through the Oak Ridge Institute for Sciences 

and Education (ORISE), offers a range of college and postgraduate internship 

programs that allow students to work in a laboratory setting. 

• LANL's National Security Education Center provides internships and specialized 

training programs to attract potential full-time employees. The Center includes a 

13 
271 


29537.181

variety of part- to full-time internships, often targeting diverse or under-represented 

populations in areas related to STEM, including programs for technicians. 

• The Berkeley Lab Undergraduate Research (BLUR) program places students from 

two- and four-year institutions in paid internships in science, engineering, technical 

areas, and public administration. Participants work with scientists, engineers, 

technicians, and STEM professionals on projects related to the Lab's research 

program. 

• The Office oflndian Energy Policy and Programs offers a college student internship 

program for undergraduate and graduate students who are familiar with Native 

American culture and tribal issues. Interns provide support on Office oflndian 

Energy-funded projects and assist a cross-disciplinary team to perform specific 

technical tasks in the field and at DOE's Sandia National Laboratories. 

• The Minority Educational Institution Student Partnership Program offers talented 

high school, undergraduate and graduate students summer internship positions with 

the DOE and its National Labs. Positions involve scientific research or a focus on 

policy, business, and government relations. 

The Department recently hired a senior advisor that will work with the programs to assess 

and address the following: 1) future workforce and skills needs of the DOE enterprise; 2) 

workforce hiring challenges and best practices across the DOE enterprise. 

Finally, in 2015, DOE created an online database to track energy and manufacturing 

workforce training programs: https://energy.gov/eere/education/federal-energy-andmanufacturing-workforce-training-programs. 

14 
272 


29537.182

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE PETER WELCH 

Thank you for your participation and insight as part of our committee's recent DOE 

Modernization hearing. I was very glad to hear that the Department is committed to meeting 

statutory deadlines in the appliance and equipment standards program. However, I am concerned 

that this support is not reflected in the Fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory 

Actions, which moved 20 standards and 17 test procedures to "Long-Term Actions," for which 

the Department expects no regulatory action over the next twelve months. 

As of this month, the Department has missed statutory or court deadlines for nine products, 

including six that the agency has now moved to the "Long-Term Action" category. The 

regulatory agenda appears to put the agency on track to miss even more legal deadlines in 2018. 

Some later deadlines would also seem impossible to meet unless work is started now. 

I would like to request more details on how the Department plans to meet these statutory 

deadlines. 

I. What action is the Department taking on, and when do you expect to complete each stage 

for, each of the standards that is already overdue: 

a. Small electric motors NOPR (due March 2016) 

b. Furnaces final rule (court settlement target of April2016) 

c. Pool heaters NOPR (April2016) 

d. Water heaters NOPR (April 20 16) 

e. Clothes dryers NOPR (April 20 17) 

f. Room air conditioners NOPR (April 2017) 

g. Cooking products final rule (June 20 17) 

h. Refrigerators and freezers NOPR (September 20 17) 

i. Fluorescent lamp ballasts NOPR (November 2017) 

2. What action is the Department taking on, and when do you expect to complete each stage 

for, each ofthe standards due in 2018: 

a. Commercial packaged boilers final rule (due March 2018) 

b. Clothes washers NOPR (May 2018) 

c. Commercial water heaters final rule (May 20 18) 

15 
273 


29537.183

d. Specialized classes of commercial air conditioners (including computer room, 

water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and variable refrigerant flow air conditioners) 

(April-May 2018) 

3. What action is the Department taking on, and when do you expect to complete each stage 

for, each of the other standards with statutory deadlines in the coming years: 

a. Metal halide lamp fixtures final rule (due January 20 19) 

b. Distribution transformers NOPR (April2019) 

c. Microwave ovens NOPR (June 2019) 

d. Walk-in coolers and freezers final rule (January 2020) 

e. External power supplies NOPR (February 2020) 

f. Commercial refrigeration equipment final rule (March 2020) 

4. The Department is also behind on test procedures. What action is the Department taking 

on, and when do you expect to complete each stage for, each of the test procedures with 

statutory deadlines: 

a. Water source heat pump test procedure (due December 2014) 

b. Room air conditioners test procedure (January 20 18) 

c. Fluorescent lamp ballasts test procedure (May 20 18) 

d. Automatic commercial ice makers test procedure (January 2019) 

e. General service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and 

incandescent reflector lamps test procedure (January 2019) 

f. Clothes washers test procedure (March 2019) 

g. Commercial air conditioning and heating equipment test procedure (May 20 19) 

h. Single-package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure (May 

2019) 

i. Three-phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure (May 

2019) 

j. Dishwashers test procedure (October 20 19) 

16 
274 


29537.184

k. Microwave ovens test procedure (January 2020) 

I. Clothes dryers test procedure (August 2020) 

m. Plumbing products test procedure (October 2020) 

n. Televisions test procedure (October 2020) 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1-4 

The Department of Energy's (DOE or The Department) mission is to ensure America's 

security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges 

through transformative science and technology solutions. 

The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) is a semiannual, government-wide publication that provides important public notice and 

transparency about proposed regulatory and deregulatory actions within the Executive 

Branch. The document highlights agency priorities, promotes planning and coordination 

and encourages public participation in the regulatory process. The Agenda provides a 

"snapshot" of the various regulatory and deregulatory activities underway at each agency 

at the time of its publication. 

Agencies compile information for their entries in the Agenda based on defined 

rulemaking stages. One of those stages is called "Long-Term Actions." For purposes of 

the Agenda, Long-Term Actions are those items under development but for which the 

agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication 

of the particular edition of the Agenda. Some of the entries in this section may contain 

abbreviated information. That an item is listed in the Long-Term Action category does 

not mean that no work is underway. Often, it is quite the opposite. This is particularly 

true of rulemakings under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 94-

163, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq. "EPCA") (EPCA). These ru1emakings are typically multiyear activities that require extensive data gathering and analysis to prepare documents for 

public review and comment. 

17 
275 


29537.185

As the Agenda is prepared on a semi-annual basis, it is continually updated to provide 

accurate information for the time at which it is released. Information in the Fall2017 

Agenda was accurate at the time it was made public. The Department is currently 

engaged in preparation of the Spring 2018 Agenda. When that edition of the Agenda is 

published it will update information about DOE rulemakings accurate for the time of its 

release. Each subsequent edition of the Agenda will likewise be updated to provide 

information as each DOE rulemaking moves through the various stages of the required 

process. 

Moreover, as noted in question 5 below, and as DOE agrees, it is important that DOE has 

test procedures in place prior to engaging in rulcmaking to revise or establish an energy 

conservation standard. This is necessary to ensure parties understand the technical 

parameters that will be assessed in considering whether more stringent standards are 

justified for a particular product. However, the statutory time lines for completing both 

test procedure and standards rulemakings do not always coincide with such a step-wise 

approach. For example, in the questions above there is requested information about both 

energy conservation standard and test procedure rulemakings for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, for which the statutory deadlines arguably prevent completing the test procedure 

rulemaking before undertaking the standards rulemaking. The same may also be true for 

microwave ovens. As a result, while DOE is committed to meeting its legal obligations, 

the Department is also committed to undertaking the necessary steps to ensure that its 

regulatory actions are well informed and appropriately analyzed. Therefore, as DOE 

works to complete legally mandated regulatory proceedings it will engage in test 

procedure actions first. This timing will be reflected in the Department's portion of the 

Spring 2018 Agenda. 

That said, as outlined in the February 2018 "Energy Conservation Standards Activities: 

Report to Congress," DOE in this Administration has made progress in meeting its legal 

obligations with respect to the appliance and equipment standards rulemakings. The 

report is posted at: https://www.encrgy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/02/f49/report-tocongress-on-energy-conservation-standards-activities-appliances.pdf. 

18 
276 


29537.186

Please note that some dates could change as the regulatory agenda is updated. DOE is 

also working hard to meet its upcoming legal obligations. 

Q5. Some manufacturers have told this committee that it is important to complete test 

procedures before rulemakings on standards to enable more informed consideration of 

proposed standards. Will the delays in any of the test procedure rule makings listed above 

delay setting standards for those products? 

A5. In the mid-1990s, the Department published a document entitled "Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation 

Standards for Consumer Products," codified at I 0 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A. 

DOE generally has used the procedures in this document to prescribe energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for both consumer products and commercial equipment 

pursuant to EPCA. These procedures are commonly referred to as the "Process Rule." 

DOE's objectives in establishing these procedures include: (I) providing for early input 

from stakeholders; (2) increasing predictability of the rulemaking timetable; (3) 

increasing the use of outside technical expertise; ( 4) eliminating problematic design 

options early in the process; (5) fully considering non-regulatory approaches; (6) 

conducting a thorough analysis of impacts; (7) using transparent and robust analytical 

methods; (8) articulating policies to guide selection of standards; and (9) supporting 

efforts to build consensus on standards. The Process Rule provides that final, modified 

test procedures will be issued prior to issuance of a notice of proposed rule making on 

proposed energy conservation standards. 

DOE has heard from numerous parties that, consistent with the Process Rule, it should 

apply the resources needed to gather necessary technical information and develop 

appropriate test procedures before commencing a rulemaking to consider new or 

amended energy conservation standards. Interested parties have asserted that it is 

necessary to finalize the test procedures before beginning work on a standards 

rulemaking to ensure that the effects of the test procedure on compliance with the 

standard can be analyzed, and to ensure that commenters can provide effective comments 

on both proposed test procedures and standards rules. 

19 
277 


29537.187

DOE is committed to following the Process Rule to ensure its rulemaking decisions are 

well-informed and appropriately vetted before publication, even if that means taking 

additional time. In DOE's view, engaging stakeholders in the rulemaking process is time 

well spent. In fact, DOE recently published a Request for Information seeking comments 

and information from interested parties to assist DOE in identifying potential 

modifications to its Process Rule, as a way to achieve meaningful burden reduction while 

continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations in the development of 

energy conservation standards and test procedures. DOE also held a public meeting to 

receive input from interested parties on potential improvements to the Process Rule. The 

comment period on the RFI closed recently. DOE is currently reviewing the comments 

received. To be clear, DOE wants to ensure that it has the process right when it engages 

in energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemakings. As such, reviewing and 

updating the Process Rule is DOE's top priority for the Appliance Standards Program at 

this time. 

Q6. The Department has not completed a report to Congress on appliance energy efficiency 

rulemakings since the 20'h report in August 2016, although one is required every six 

months. When will the Department submit the next report? 

Q6. DOE submitted it's most recent "Energy Conservation Standards Activities: Report to 

Congress" in February, 2018. The report is posted at: 

https ://www.energy. gov Is ites/prod/fi les/2 0 1 8/02/f4 9/report-to-congress-on-energyconservation-standards-activities-appliances.pdf. 

Q7. Another five standards were finalized in December 2016 but were subject to an error 

correction process. According to the Department's procedures ( 10 CFR 430 and 431 ), 

these should have been published in the Federal Register after a 45-day review period, 

but four of them still have not been published. When will the Department publish the 

final rules for portable air conditioners, air compressors, uninterruptable power supplies, 

and commercial packaged boilers, and what has delayed the final publication? 

A7. The subject matter of this question is the subject of current litigation. The Department 

does not comment on issues that are the subject of litigation. 

20 
278 


29537.188

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

~ongre!S!S of tbt ~nittb ~tatr!S 

~ou~e of 1.\tprt~tntatibt~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Paul Dabbar 

Under Secretary for Science 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear Mr. Dabbar: 

Majority !2021225-2927 

Minority !202)225-3641 

February 8, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on January 9, 2018, to testifY at 

the hearing entitled "DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and 

Energy Security of the United States." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, February 23, 2018. Your responses should be 

mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to kelly.collins@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
279 


29537.189

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN 

Under Secretary for Science Paul Dabbar 

Q I. The Savannah River Site (SRS) is an integral DOE industrial complex responsible for 

environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup, and waste management and 

disposition of nuclear materials. The SRS complex covers 198,344 acres, or 310 square 

miles, encompassing parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties in South Carolina. 

Although this is no longer in my district, SRS greatly affects the entire state. 

I would like to inquire about the status of DOE's approval of the Advance Manufacturing 

Collaborative (AMC) project in Aiken, SC. 

This project is a public private partnership that combines the unique capabilities of the 

DOE National Laboratories, industrial enterprises and educational institutions to drive the 

long-term sustainability of the U.S. manufacturing sector. 

The construction of this 60,000 square foot facility on the University of South Carolina 

Aiken campus would promote the Savannah River National Laboratory's advanced 

technology partnerships with industry and academia. The AMC project has a highly 

experienced development team in place and partners representing excellent businesses 

and universities. The economic impact for South Carolina is huge and the AMC will add 

to the state's strong manufacturing sector. 

It is my understanding that the project has been languishing in the Department for over a 

year. Can you tell us what is holding up its approval? 

AI. The AMC project would alleviate the substandard and inadequate infrastructure of the 

Savannah River National Laboratory. In addition, the proposed project would benefit the 

Department's mission by enabling development of advanced technologies and processes 

that would improve worker safety, reduce costs and shorten the schedule for cleanup of 

the Savannah River Site. The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to assess how the 

benefits of this project can be realized in cost-effective manner. 

21 
280 


29537.190

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!Congrc~~ of tbc Wnitcl.l ~tate~ 

J!)ouse o{ 1\epresentatibes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 

The Honorable Frank Klotz 

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Dear General Klotz: 

Majority {202)225-2927 

Minority {202)225-3641 

February 8, 2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on January 9, 2018, to testify at 

the hearing entitled "DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and 

Energy Security of the United States." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (l) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, February 23, 2018. Your responses should be 

mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed in Word format to kelly.collins@nlail.house.~ov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony he fore the 

Subcommittee. 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
281 


29537.191

QUESTION FROM REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON 

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

General Frank G. Klotz 

DOE Modernization: Advancing DOE's Mission for National, Economic, and Energy 

Security of the United States 

Q l. We will hear testimony on the next panel about the need to manage long term change in 

the nuclear enterprise-and that managing change in an organization like the NNSA is 

difficult. The testimony indicates that DOE and NNSA have yet to develop a strategic 

plan to address longstanding accountability and management problems. If these problems 

are not addressed, they will contribute to the erosion of the nation's ability to maintain 

our nuclear deterrent. 

Qla. Will you talk about how you're working with the Secretary to make sure there is a 

strategic plan? And what you are putting in place to measure progress in making reforms? 

AI. With the release of the December 2017 National Security Strategy and the February 2018 

Nuclear Posture Review, it is imperative that we achieve modern, flexible, and resilient 

nuclear capabilities that are safe and secure in order to deter 21st century threats and 

reassure our allies. To meet this critical national security goal, in 2018, National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) is taking a holistic approach to strategic planning and is 

bringing together planning efforts for the nuclear security enterprise, including 

programmatic offices and the management & operating contractors. NNSA is ensuring 

that all strategic planning eiTorts complement one another and cascade from the 

Department's strategic plan where nuclear security goals and objectives are identified. 

Looking across the nuclear security enterprise, NNSA is examining the existing strategic 

and program plans and processes, in addition to laboratory plans, to ensure mission goals, 

effective management and oversight, and accountability are aligned and achieved. 

In addition, a strong and healthy governance and management structure and culture are 

both critical for NNSA's continuing success in delivering on its national security 

commitments. Governance is implemented through a collaborative partnership between 

the Federal and contractor organizations to accomplish a common mission while 

preserving the Federal independence needed to effectively function in its self-regulatory 

role. NNSA is taking significant steps in adopting, implementing, and practicing an 

22 
282 

Æ 


29537.192

improved governance structure, which will lead to an improved mission-focused, 

performance-based culture. NNSA has embraced three core principles to guide our 

governance reform efforts: (1) meet all national security mission objectives by enhancing 

mission awareness and integrating strategic planning and resource management; (2) 

continuously improve performance by establishing and emphasizing clear lines of 

authority and accountability and streamlining decision-making; and (3) build enduring 

and trusted partnerships by enhancing communication and strengthening collaboration. 

The effectiveness ofNNSA measures to improve governance and implement the desired 

changes in NNSA's culture is already visible. Nevertheless, progress should 

continuously be assessed and effectiveness of reforms measured with a mind to long-term 

sustainability and lasting improvements in performance. 

23