U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–932PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: 

MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2018 

Serial No. 115–45 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

January 30, 2018 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Marc A. Veasey, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 8 

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

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department 

of Energy 

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

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

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department 

of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 35 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 70 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 83 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: 

MANAGEMENT AND PRIORITIES 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

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

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

tAMAR S. SMITH, Te:o;as 

CHAIRMAN 

ltongrtss of th£ 'llnit£d ~tat£S 

i\ousc or 'Rcprcscntatiocs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HouSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 205~5-6301 

{2021 225-il371 www.scienctt.hous&.IJOV 

Full Committee 

Department of Energy: Management and Priorities 

Tuesday, January 30,2018 

!O:OOa.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, US Department 

of Energy 

The Honorable Mark Meneze, Under Secretary of Energy, US Department 

of Energy 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

January 30,2018 

TO: Members, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

FROM: Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Full committee hearing: "Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing titled Department of Energy: 

Management and Priorities on January 30,2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House 

Office Building. 

Hearing Purpose 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the announced Department of Energy (DOE) management 

reorganization and the impact this proposed reorganization could have on civilian research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application programs at the Department. This hearing 

will also examine the administration's goals and future funding priorities at the Department. 

Witness List 

• The Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy 

• The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Jimmy Ward of the Majority Staff at 202-225-0222. 
4 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, 

is going to substitute for our Ranking Member today, and we will 

recognize him momentarily. But I do want to say that the Chair 

notices the excellent turnout on his left and appreciate being able 

to look down the row and see everybody here just about, so I appreciate the good attendance. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

And welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Department of Energy: 

Management and Priorities.’’ 

I’ll recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement 

and then the Ranking Member. 

Today, we welcome Mr. Paul Dabbar, the Under Secretary for 

Science; and Mr. Mark Menezes, the Under Secretary of Energy, to 

testify about the Department of Energy’s priorities under this Administration. 

As the Committee awaits the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget 

request, our discussion today will focus on broad priorities and 

management at the DOE. DOE is the leading federal sponsor of research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in basic 

science research and technological development. 

Our witnesses today are responsible for managing the bulk of the 

DOE programs within the Science Committee’s jurisdiction, including over $9 billion in civilian research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs, as well as the DOE national labs. This amounts to 1/3 of the DOE’s budget. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, 

Secretary Perry explained that ‘‘America First’’ means maintaining 

American competitiveness around the world and being the lead provider of energy resources and technology on the global market. Significant investments in basic science research by foreign countries 

like China threaten America’s global standing as the leader in scientific knowledge. Without continued investment in basic and 

early-stage research at the DOE, the United States will lose its 

global technology edge. 

DOE must also invest in the research infrastructure that brings 

the best scientists in the world to the United States. That’s why 

this Committee has advanced bipartisan legislation to upgrade and 

construct best-in-the-world light sources, photon sources, and neutron sources to facilitate discovery science. 

The House has repeatedly passed legislation to authorize the construction of the Versatile Neutron Source, which would ensure that 

the next generation of nuclear reactors can be developed here in 

the United States. 

Last month, Secretary Perry announced a reorganization of the 

Department’s management structure. This reorganization restores 

the statutorily directed role of each Under Secretary, prioritizing 

the science and energy missions within DOE. This approach refocuses DOE civilian research programs on the basic and earlystage research that industry cannot perform. The two Under Secretaries share oversight responsibility for the national laboratory system. DOE’s national labs attract the best scientists, engineers, and 
5 

entrepreneurs from around the world, and it is critical that the system of labs operate efficiently. 

Our witnesses today also share jurisdiction over the many functions designed to foster cooperation across DOE programs such as 

crosscutting research initiatives, energy innovation hubs, and multipurpose research facilities. We look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses today about how they will maximize cooperation between 

their respective programs and work to prevent unnecessary duplication or cost overruns at the Department. 

By investing wisely in basic and early-stage research, the Department can achieve its goal of scientific discovery and technological breakthroughs for future generations. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
6 

For Immediate Release 

January 30,2018 

s 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald, Brandon VerYelde 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

Department of Energy: Management and Priorities 

Chairman Smith: Good morning. Today, we welcome Mr. Paul Dabbar, the under 

secretary for science, and Mr. Mark Menezes, the under secretary of energy, to testify 

about the Department of Energy's (DOE) priorities under this administration. 

As the committee awaits the president's fiscal year 2019 budget request, our 

discussion today will focus on broad priorities and management at the DOE. 

DOE is the leading federal sponsor of research in the physical sciences and is a world 

leader in basic science research and technological development. 

Our witnesses today are responsible lor managing the bulk of the DOE programs within 

the Science Committee's jurisdiction, including over $9 billion in civilian research, 

development. demonstration, and commercial application programs, as well as the 

DOE national labs. This amount is one-third of the DOE's budget. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Secretary Perry 

explained that "America First" means maintaining American competitiveness around 

the world and being the lead provider of energy resources and technology on the 

global market. 

Significant investments in basic science research by foreign countries, like China, 

threaten America's global standing as the leader in scientific knowledge. Without 

continued investment in basic and early-stage research at the DOE, the U.S. will lose its 

global technology edge. 

DOE must also invest in the research infrastructure that brings the best scientists in the 

world to the U.S. That's why this committee has advanced bipartisan legislation to 

upgrade and construct best-in-the-world light sources, photon sources and neutron 

sources to facilitate discovery science. 

The House has repeatedly passed legislation to authorize the construction of the 

Versatile Neutron Source, which would ensure that the next generation of nuclear 

reactors can be developed here in the United States. 
7 

Last month, Secretary Perry announced a reorganization of the department's 

management structure. This reorganization restores the statutorily directed role of each 

under secretary, prioritizing the science and energy missions within DOE. 

This approach refocuses DOE civilian research programs on the basic and early-stage 

research that industry cannot perform. 

The two under secretaries share oversight responsibility for the national laboratory 

system. DOE's national labs attract the best scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs 

from around the world, and it is critical that the system of labs operate efficiently. 

Our witnesses today also share jurisdiction over the many functions designed to foster 

cooperation across DOE programs- such as crosscutting research initiatives, energy 

innovation hubs and multi-purpose research facilities. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they will maximize 

cooperation between their respective programs and work to prevent unnecessary 

duplication or cost overruns at the department. 

By investing wisely in basic and early-stage research. the department can achieve its 

goal of scientific discovery and technological breakthroughs for future generations. 

### 
8 

Chairman SMITH. Before I recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

let me just say to my colleagues that I have a Judiciary Committee 

markup going on, and I’m going to need to leave after my questions. And the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the Energy 

Subcommittee, Mr. Weber, will stand in as acting Chairman. 

I now recognize the substitute Ranking Member, the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Veasey, for his comments. 

Mr. VEASEY. Chairman Smith, thank you very much. And I 

would like to let everybody know if you have not already heard 

that the Ranking Member of the Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas, she is at home. She lost her brother that was the 

youngest in their family. That’s the second sibling that she’s lost 

in the last three months, and so I hope you that will keep her in 

her your thoughts and prayers. 

Also, Chairman Smith, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and thank you, Under Secretary Dabbar, and Under Secretary 

Menezes, for being here today. I’m very pleased that we are finally 

beginning to hold hearings with Senate-confirmed representatives 

of the Administration that are here testifying today. I hope that 

means that we’ll finally have Secretary Rick Perry, our former Governor of Texas, in this room shortly after the President’s 2019 

budget is released, which was the common practice for this committee before last year. 

There are a wide range of issues regarding direction and management of DOE’s incredibly important portfolio of facilities and 

programs that I hope we will be able to discuss in depth this morning. I’d like to start off this conversation by touching on just a few 

of them. And at this point it shouldn’t surprise anyone here that 

I’m very concerned, as are many, about the Department’s proposed 

budget for 2018. I’m sure I speak for many of my Democratic colleagues when I say that I am even more concerned about what it 

implies about the Administration’s priorities going forward. 

That budget proposal would cut sustainable transportation and 

renewable energy by 70 percent and energy efficiency by 80 percent. It would also cut critical research on the electric grid and fossil fuels in half. It would cut the Office of Science by 17 percent 

and nuclear energy by 30 percent, and it would eliminate ARPA– 

E, the Loan Programs Office, and our entire portfolio of Energy Innovation Hubs. All of these programs have strong records of success to justify not only their existence but increased investments. 

These proposed cuts make no sense at all. As many of my colleagues have pointed out before, we won’t balance the budget by 

slashing our research funding. For an insignificant short-term deficit reduction, we will make the United States less competitive, lose 

jobs, harm our public health, and hobble our international R&D 

partnerships. The Administration rationalized these cuts by suggesting the private sector would simply start funding these key research areas once the Federal Government cuts removed them from 

its budgets. 

But it is not based on anything resembling a rigorous review 

process, let alone reality. In fact, Administration officials confirm 

that they did not engage with the private sector at all. They didn’t 

engage with them at all to determine what industry would be able 

or willing to pick up. Mr. Dabbar, Mr. Menezes, I recognize that 
9 

you are really not responsible for this proposal, given that you were 

only confirmed in November, but I hope that under your leadership 

that we can get back to reality and continue our strong support for 

these high-value research programs. They are vital for American 

competitiveness, our quality of life, and our scientific leadership. 

I would also like to get a much better understanding of rationale 

behind the new organizational structure for the Department that 

was announced in December. In my view, the reorganization led by 

Secretary Moniz made a lot of sense. Having a single Secretary for 

science and energy enabled improved coordination and collaboration across DOE’s nonmilitary research enterprise. Specifically, it 

helped break the historical unproductive stovepipes between the 

DOE’s Office of Science and the Applied Energy Offices. So it is not 

clear to me why breaking them up into separate pieces under different Secretaries again is a step in the right direction. And putting the Department’s daunting environmental management mission, which previously had its own Under Secretary under the 

science portfolio adds its own challenges. 

I understand that Mr. Dabbar has a unique background in overseeing those issues, but then perhaps it would have made more 

sense to stick with the previous structure and make him Under 

Secretary for management after all. But whatever DOE organizational charts says, I hope we can all find common ground on ensuring that the Department’s science and energy innovation pipeline 

is as strong as possible. 

I look forward to working with the both of you on these issues 

in the coming months and years ahead. And once again, thank you 

for being here to testify, and I hope that we will get the Secretary 

soon. And again, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Veasey follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Marc V casey (D-TX) 

of the Subcommittee on Energy 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Full Committee Hearing 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

January 30,2018 

Thank you Chairman Smith for holding this hearing, and thank you Under Secretary Dabbar and 

Under Secretary Menezes for being here today. I am very pleased that we are finally beginning 

to hold hearings with Senate-confinned representatives of the Administration testifying in front 

of our committee. I hope that this means we will finally have Secretary Perry in this room 

shortly after the President's 2019 budget request is released- which was common practice for 

this Committee before last year. 

There are a wide range of issues regarding the direction and management of DOE's incredibly 

important portfolio of facilities and programs that I hope we will be able to discuss in-depth this 

morning. I would like to begin the conversation by touching on just a few of them. 

At this point it shouldn't surprise anyone here that I am still deeply concerned about the 

Department's budget proposal for 2018. I'm sure I speak for many of my colleagues on this side 

of the aisle when I say I'm even more concerned about what it implies about the 

Administration's priorities going forward. The 2018 budget proposal would have cut sustainable 

transportation and renewable energy by 70% and energy efficiency by 80%. It would have cut 

critical research on the electric grid and fossil fuels in half. It would have cut the Office of 

Science by 17% and nuclear energy by 30%. And it would have eliminated ARP A-E, the Loan 

Programs Office, and our entire portfolio of Energy Innovation Hubs. All of these programs 

have strong records of success to justify not only their existence, but increased investments. 

These proposed cuts are baffling. As many of my colleagues have pointed out before, we won't 

balance the budget by slashing our research funding. For an insignificant short-term deficit 

reduction, we will make the United States less competitive, lose jobs, harm our public health, 

and hobble our international R&D partnerships. 

The Administration rationalized these cuts by suggesting the private sector would simply start 

funding these key research areas once the federal government cuts them from its budget. But 

this is not based on anything resembling a rigorous review process, let alone reality. In fact, 

Administration officials confirmed that they did not engage with the private sector at all to 

detennine what industry would be able or willing to pick up. Mr. Dabbar and Mr. Menezes, I 

recognize that you're not really responsible for this proposal given that you were only confirmed 

in November. With that said, I hope that under your leadership we can get back to reality and 

continue our strong support for these high-value research programs. They are vital for American 

competitiveness, our quality of life, and our scientific leadership. 

I would also like to get a much better understanding of rationale behind the new organizational 

structure for the Department that was announced in December. In my view, the reorganization 
11 

led by Secretary Moniz made a lot of sense. Having a single Under Secretary for Science and 

Energy enabled improved coordination and collaboration across DOE's nonmilitary research 

enterprise. Specifically, it helped break the historical, unproductive stovepipes between the DOE 

Office of Science and the applied energy offices. So it's not clear to me why breaking them up 

into separate Under Secretariats again is a step in the right direction. And putting the 

Department's daunting environmental management mission, which previously had its own Under 

Secretary, under the Science portfolio adds its own challenges. l understand that Mr. Dabbar has 

a unique background in overseeing those issues, but then perhaps it would've made more sense 

to stick with the previous structure and make him the Under Secretary for Management after all. 

But whatever the DOE organizational chart says, I hope we can all find common ground on 

ensuring that the Department's science and energy innovation pipeline is as strong as possible. 

look forward to working with you both on these and other issues in the months and years ahead. 

Thank you again for testifying, and thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
12 

[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson:] 
13 

Unfortunately, as we have seen with many sound policy initiatives by the Obama 

Administration, the Ttump Administration chose to largely erase Secretary Moniz's carefully 

considered work to improve management of the Department for no apparent reason other than to 

boast that they reversed another Obama Administration policy. I am puzzled by this move and 

hope we can get some clarification and justification today. 

Before I conclude, I would like to again express my desire to see Secretary Perry in this hearing 

room to testify soon on the President's FY 2019 budget. As we all remember, the 2018 budget 

proposal was unhelpful and completely out of touch with the realities of the competition we face 

around the world in science and energy. It would send our science agencies backward and would 

harm harmed the excellent work stewarded by the Department of Energy. Yet this Committee 

held no hearings on that budget request. I hope this next budget will take a well-grounded, 

realistic approach to funding DOE's work- one that supports American innovation and secures 

our leadership in science and technology for years to come. If not then it will be dead on arrival 

as was last year's budget request. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
14 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. I’ll introduce our witnesses, and the first is the Honorable Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Dabbar 

serves as the principal advisor on fundamental energy research, energy technologies, and science. Prior to confirmation as Under Secretary for Science, Mr. Dabbar worked in operations, finance, and 

strategy roles in the energy sector. He received a bachelor of 

science from the U.S. Naval Academy and an MBA from Columbia 

University. 

Our second witness is the Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Menezes 

served as the Department’s principal advisor on energy policy and 

on a wide array of existing and emerging energy technologies. Prior 

to being confirmed as Under Secretary of Energy, Mr. Menezes was 

an executive with Berkshire Hathaway Energy in the Washington, 

D.C., office. He received both his undergraduate and juris doctor 

degree from Louisiana State University. 

We welcome you both, and, Secretary Dabbar, if you’ll begin. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL DABBAR, 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you, Acting Ranking Member Veasey and Members of the Committee. It’s 

an honor to highlight the mission of the Under Secretary of 

Science, which includes the Offices of Science, Technology Transitions, Environmental Management, and Legacy Management. 

America’s global leadership in science remains dominant, and I 

look forward to recounting to you how DOE is fueling the country’s 

scientific future. In the areas covered by the Office of Science, these 

are very exciting times for our national lab complex and our programs. Our programs cover the world’s cutting-edge research and 

high-energy nuclear and plasma physics, materials in chemistry, 

biological and environmental systems, next generation high-performance computing, and basic research for advancement in new 

energy technologies. They are on the cusp of significant progress 

for the Nation and the world. 

Let me just tell you about a fraction of the major innovation your 

national labs are executing on. In the Office of Science jointly with 

the Applied Energy Offices we have more than ten different battery 

and storage technologies with capacity to outperform lithium ion 

batteries used in the current market. The lab at Argonne has even 

branded their program Beyond Lithium-Ion. Who says scientists 

can’t market? 

In the area of bioscience, we have built on our historical leadership in the Human Genome Project and gene editing to move whole 

segments of DNA from one organism to another. This is a breakthrough which has continued our leadership in microbial biotechnology that will allow for manufacturing of therapeutic drugs 

in a way never imagined a few years ago. This will also advance 

significant possibilities in food applications, environmental remediation, and biosecurity. We even have the ability to store data for 

computers in DNA. 
15 

Here are some other very exciting examples for our upcoming 

projects: In advanced computing, we’re on the cusp of completing 

the first of three exascale computers that will conduct 10 to the 

18th calculations per second. With this capability we will be able 

to model and evaluate data in complex science areas such as elementary particles for research for quarks, gluons, and neutrinos. 

We will also have significant jumps in practical applications such 

as using the world’s leading deep neural networks and artificial intelligence capabilities far beyond what is commercially available for 

cancer research. 

In the areas of particle physics, we are nearing the completion 

of the world’s largest neutrino experiment, which will generate and 

shoot neutrinos from Fermilab outside Chicago up through the 

earth to our detector facility deep underground in South Dakota, 

moving forward humanity’s knowledge of this evasive particle. 

In the area of astrophysics, we’re in the process of finishing construction of several new detectors to collect data on the amount of 

dark energy in the universe and hopefully detect dark matter particles directly. 

And finally, we’re at the world’s cutting-edge for quantum computing development, potentially developing computers to use electrons or even photons of light for calculation medium rather than 

transistors using 1’s and 0’s. These are very exciting times. The national labs have rightfully earned the title from Secretary Perry as 

the crown jewels of the Department. As you know, the Department grants over $3 billion a year also 

to universities all over the country in all of your States. We seed 

the country’s next generation of research and students all over the 

country every year. 

I encourage each of you to visit even more of the labs. There are 

far more truly amazing innovations than I have time to list 

through here today, and I would be glad to facilitate any additional 

visits anywhere in the country for any of you. 

In the area of advancing technology transitions, this is an area 

of particular passion for me and a core area for the Department. 

I look forward to leading the Energy Investor Center, as well as the 

other DOE programs and our national labs to coordinate all our department efforts in this area and look forward to facilitating engagement with investors and industry. 

And in the area of environmental management, we continue to 

execute on many long-lived cleanup projects, and we are tackling 

projects long-delayed such as vitrification in Hanford and looking 

at options for more closeouts. 

In conclusion, human development has hinged on our innate ability to explore. Our organization has some of the top explorers in 

the history of the world: Einstein, Oppenheimer, Lawrence, Rickover, and Fermi. This organization and more specifically the special 

people in the Department and its labs are now the legacy of that 

foundation, we are posed to use our creativity and resources to explore a little more about that unlimited universe, and we will 

maintain the standard advocated by Einstein to be passionately curious. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:] 
16 

Testimony of Under Secretary for Science Paul Dab bar 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 

January 30, 2018 

INTRODUCTION 

Thank you Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee. It's an 

honor to discuss with you the vital scientific and technological mission that the Department of 

Energy (DOE) performs on behalf of the American people. 

I have been asked to speak about the Department's recent reorganization and also to provide an 

overview of our research portfolio. 

Last month, the Secretary announced his reorganization of the Department, in order to deploy its 

resources more effectively and efficiently to address present and future challenges, and return the 

Department to its statutory framework. 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, management of the environmental legacy, and advancing science and 

innovation. 

The Department has now separated the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy 

(established in 2013) into two Under Secretary positions, restoring the three Under Secretaries 

outlined in the statute1

: the Under Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary for Science; and the 

Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA). 

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

environmental cleanup. Accordingly, included under the Under Secretary for Science are the 

Department's Office of Science, the Office of Technology Transfer, the Office of Environmental 

Management, the Office of Legacy Management, and the National Laboratory Operations Board. 

I'd like to provide you some additional context on those missions. 

DOE OFFICE OF SCIENCE 

The Office of Science (SC) mission is to deliver scientific discoveries and tools to transform our 

understanding of nature, advancing the energy, economic and national security of the United 

States. SC is and has long been the Nation's largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the 

1 42 USC 7132 Principal Officers 

1 
17 

physical sciences and the lead Federal agency supporting fundamental scientific research for our 

Nation's energy future. 

SC investments and accomplishments in basic research and enabling research capabilities have 

provided the foundations for new technologies, businesses, and industries, significantly 

contributing to our nation's economy, national security, and quality oflife. 

SC supports a balanced research portfolio of basic scientific research in high energy, nuclear, and 

plasma physics; materials and chemistry; biological and environmental systems; applied 

mathematics; next generation high-performance computing and simulation capabilities; and basic 

research for advancement in new energy technologies. SC currently supports over 23,000 

investigators at over 300 U.S. institutions and all17 of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

laboratories. 

SC also provides the Nation's researchers with 27 state-of-the-art national scientific user 

facilities, including supercomputers, x-ray light sources, particle accelerators, reactors, specialized 

facilities for nanoscience and genomics, and other facilities. These facilities offer capabilities 

unmatched anywhere in the world for over 31,000 researchers from universities, national 

laboratories, industry, and international partners. 

SC oversees 10 of the 17 DOE national laboratories: Ames Laboratory, Argonne National 

Laboratory(ANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory(BNL), Fe1mi National Accelerator 

Laboratory(FNAL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory(LBNL), Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory(ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory(SLAC), and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

Facility. 

The Office of Science carries out its activities through six research program offices: Advanced 

Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), Basic Energy Science (BES), Biological and 

Environmental Research (BER), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), High Energy Physics (HEP), 

and Nuclear Physics (NP). I'd like to spend a little time highlighting some of their recent 

progress. 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research 

The ASCR program is advancing applied mathematics and computer science; delivering the most 

advanced computational scientific applications in partnership with disciplinary science; advancing 

computing and networking capabilities; and developing future generations of computing hardware 

and software tools for science and engineering, in partnership with the research community, and 

U.S. industry. The ASCR program gives the science and technology community access to worldclass supercomputers and the science and engineering tools, by developing and maintaining worldclass computing and network facilities for science; and advancing research in applied 

mathematics, computer science, and advanced networking. 

For more than half a century, the U.S. maintained world-leading computing capabilities through 

sustained investments in research and the development and deployment of new computing 

systems. The benefits of U.S. computational leadership have been enormous- huge gains in 

workforce productivity, an acceleration of progress in both science and engineering, advanced 

2 
18 

manufacturing techniques and rapid prototyping, nuclear stockpile stewardship without testing, 

and the ability to explore, understand and harness natural and engineered systems that are too 

large, too complex, too dangerous, too small or too fleeting to explore experimentally. 

Today' s computing capabilities are becoming increasingly costly and risky, with competition for U.S. 

dominance in computing arising from significant new investments and advancements in Asia and 

Europe. Computing impacts every sector of our economy and every field of science and 

engineering. 

DOE and its predecessor organizations have advanced U.S. computing capabilities bypartnering 

with U.S. computing vendors and researchers. Public-private partnerships remain vital as we 

push our state-of-the-art fabrication techniques to their limit to develop an exascale-capable (a 

billion billion operations per second) system while simultaneously preparing for the end of the 

current technology (current hardware and software). 

Maximizing the benefits of U.S. leadership in computing in the coming decades requires an 

effective national response to increasing demands for computing capabilities and performance, 

emerging technological challenges and opportunities, and competition with other nations. 

Currently, the Exascale Computing Project (ECP), sponsored jointly by ASCR and NNSA 

Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC), is ASCR's highest priority, fostering an 

unprecedented level of collaboration among experts in hardware, software, and applications, with 

lab and academic experts and industry, with the intent to deploy an exascale-capablc system by 

2021. 

Progress toward exascale is also visible on the hardware front. Deployment is underway at Oak 

Ridge for DOE's first "pre-exascale" machine, the 200-petaflop Summit, incorporating IBM and 

NVIDIA technology. Deployment is on track, and Summit is expected to be up and running this 

fiscal year. 

ASCR is also looking beyond exascale by supporting research in Quantum Information Systems, 

the next horizon in the information economy. ASCR supports four scientific user facilities: the 

National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center and the Energy Sciences Network 

(ESnet); the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility at ORNL; and the Argonne Leadership 

Computing Facility at ANL. 

Basic Energy Science 

BES supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and ultimately control matter and 

energy at the electronic, atomic, and molecular levels in order to provide the foundations for new 

energy technologies and to support the Department's missions in energy, environment, and 

national security. This research provides a knowledge base to help understand, predict, and 

ultimately control the natural world, helping build the foundation for achieving a secure and 

sustainable energy future. 

3 
19 

Materials can now be built with atom-by-atom precision; chemical processes at the molecular 

scale can be controlled with increasing accuracy; and computational models can predict the 

behavior of materials and chemical processes before they exist. 

BES also provides for the operations of five x-ray light source facilities, five nanoscale research 

centers, and two neutron scattering facilities. Upgrades are underway to two of the x-ray light 

sources facilities, the Linac Coherent Light Source-II at SLAC, and the Advanced Photon 

Source at ANL, to maintain U.S. competitiveness in this area. 

Biological and Environmental Research 

BER supports transformative science and scientific user facilities to achieve a predictive 

understanding of complex biological, earth, and environmental systems for energy and 

infrastructure security and resilience. 

BER research seeks to discover the principles that guide the translation of the genetic code into 

the functional proteins and the metabolic and regulatory networks underlying the systems 

biology of plants and microbes as they respond to and modify their environments. This 

predictive understanding will enable design and reengineering of microbes and plants for 

improved energy resilience and sustainability, including improved biofuels and bioproducts, 

improved carbon storage capabilities, and controlled biological transformation of materials such 

as nutrients and contaminants in the environment. 

BER research also advances the fundamental understanding of dynamic, physical, and 

biogeochemical processes required to systematically develop Earth System models that integrate 

across the atmosphere, land masses, oceans, sea ice, and subsurface required for predictive tools 

and approaches needed to inform policies and plans for future energy and resource needs. 

BER's scientific impact has been transformative. Mapping the human genome through the U.S.-

supported international Human Genome Project that DOE initiated in 1990 ushered in a new era 

of modern biotechnology and genomics-based systems biology. 

BER also supports the operations of three scientific user facilities: the DOE Joint Genome 

Institute, the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, and the Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement Climate Research Facility. 

Fusion Energy Sciences 

The FES program supports basic research and facilities to expand the fundamental 

understanding of plasma at very high temperatures and densities, and to build the scientific 

foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source. 

To achieve these research goals, FES invests in flexible U.S. experimental facilities of 

various scales, international partnerships leveraging U.S. expertise, large-scale numerical 

simulations based on experimentally validated theoretical models, development of advanced 

fusion-relevant materials, and invention of new measurement techniques. 

4 
20 

FES also supports discovery plasma science, including research in laboratory plasma 

astrophysics, low-temperature plasmas, small-scale magnetized plasma experimental platforms, 

and high-energy-density laboratory plasmas. Some of this work is jointly supported with the 

National Science Foundation (NSF). 

High Energy Physics 

The HEP program seeks to understand how the universe works at its most fundamental level by 

discovering the elementary constituents of matter and energy, probing the interactions between 

them, and exploring the basic nature of space and time. 

The HEP program is guided by the May 2014 report of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel 

Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, Building.for Discovery: Strategic Plan for U.S. 

Particle Physics in the Global Context: 

Energy Frontier. Researchers accelerate particles to the highest energies ever made by 

humanity and collide them to produce and study the fundamental constituents of matter. 

This requires some of the largest machines ever built including the Large Hadron Collider at 

the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN. This facility is 17 miles 

in circumference, and accelerates and collides high-energy protons while sophisticated 

detectors, some the size of apartment buildings, observe newly produced particles, with 

insight into fundamental forces of nature and the conditions of the early universe. 

• Intensity Frontier. Researchers use a combination of intense particle beams and highly 

sensitive detectors to make extremely precise measurements of particle properties, study 

some of the rarest particle interactions predicted by the Standard Model of particle 

physics, and search for new physics. Measurements of the mass and other properties of 

neutrinos may have profound consequences for understanding the evolution and ultimate 

fate of the universe. 

Cosmic Frontier. Researchers use naturally occurring cosmic particles and phenomena to 

reveal the nature of dark matter, understand the cosmic acceleration caused by dark energy 

and inflation, infer certain neutrino properties, and explore the unknown. The highestenergy particles ever observed have come from cosmic sources, and the ancient light from 

the early universe and distant galaxies allows the distribution of dark matter to be mapped 

and perhaps the nature of dark energy and inflation to be unraveled. Ultra-sensitive 

detectors deep underground may glimpse the dark matter passing through Earth. 

Observations of the cosmic frontier may reveal a universe far stranger than ever thought 

possible. 

The Dark Energy Survey experiment produced its first precision measurements of dark 

energy. The results, within the 5% measurement unce1iainty, are consistent with dark 

energy being an inherent property of the universe as opposed to a new kind of force. Work 

continues apace on the joint DOE-NSF Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). LSST 

will scan half of the sky repeatedly with optical and near-infrared imaging sensors, building 

up a "cosmic cinematography" of the changing universe, to fu1iher advance insight into dark 

energy. 

5 
21 

Nuclear Physics 

The mission of the NP program is to discover, explore, and understand all forms of nuclear 

matter. Although the fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter--quarks and gluonsare themselves relatively well understood, exactly how they interact and combine to form the 

different types of matter observed in the universe today and during its evolution remains largely 

unknown. Nuclear physicists seek to understand not just the familiar forms of matter we see 

around us, but also exotic forms such as those which existed in the first moments after the Big 

Bang and that exist today inside neutron stars, and to understand why matter takes on the 

specific forms now observed in nature. 

NP provides for core research at universities and DOE national laboratories to support high 

priority research of the nuclear physics community, as well as the development of cutting-edge 

approaches for producing isotopes critical to the nation. NP supports operations of three 

scientific user facilities: the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven Lab for explorations 

of spin physics and intriguing new phenomena observed in quark gluon plasma formation; the 

Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System utilizing newly completed instrumentation; and the 

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at Jefferson Lab, which recently completed its 12 

GeV Upgrade. NP is also supporting the construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at 

Michigan State University, which will provide world-leading capabilities for nuclear structure 

and astrophysics research. 

DOE BASIC AND APPLIED R&D COORDINATION 

The Department has a long history of coordinating its basic and applied research programs in 

order to accelerate DOE mission goals. For example, the Office of Science's basic research 

offices and the DOE applied technology offices engage in ongoing efforts to coordinate their 

R&D activities through scientific and technical workshops, joint program planning and program 

reviews, shared Principal Investigator/contractor meetings, jointly coordinated solicitations, and 

program manager level working groups. 

Successful coordination on high performance computing, advanced materials research, electrical 

energy storage, advanced nuclear energy systems, and catalysis are just a few crosscutting areas 

that have been productive and ongoing for many years, facilitating better integration of the basic 

and applied research conducted by the science, engineering, and technology communities to 

advance American innovation. The DOE national laboratories are great examples of where this 

real R&D integration takes place. 

As Under Secretary for Science, I have a statutory responsibility to coordinate the Department's 

basic research and applied technology programs and I intend to work closely with Under 

Secretary Menezes, as well as with the NNSA and EM, to develop formal collaboration 

mechanisms across our offices to accelerate innovation and advance energy technologies in 

6 
22 

targeted areas of priorities to the Secretary, including areas that will address our legacy waste 

dean-up needs. 

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. 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. One example is the OTT Energy Investor 

Center, which directly facilitates national laboratories' engagement with investors and industry. 

The PNNL and National Grid recently announced a new major partnership, resulting from an 

OTT-facilitated roundtable held early in 2017. 

ENviRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

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

to our nation's defense, but this legacy includes an obligation for the Office of Environmental 

Management (EM) to address liquid radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel and special nuclear 

material, transuranic and mixed and low-level waste, contaminated soil and water, and thousands 

of excess facilities. 

The new aligrunent of the offices ofSC and EM reporting to the Under Secretary for Science 

will create added momentum in environmental cleanup. By further leveraging the expertise of 

the national lab complex, and exploring various project management and contract approaches 

used by SC and EM, we hope 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. 

We look forward to continued progress at key projects, including Low Activity Waste 

vitrification at Hanford and salt waste treatment at the Savannah River Site to significantly 

demonstrate risk reduction and progress in addressing our cleanup obligations. 

CONCLUSION 

While the modernization of DOE results in some changes, the core focus of energy dominance, 

protecting our energy and national security, management of the environmental legacy, and 

advancing science and innovation remains. The Administration strongly supports this 

reorganization around DOE's mission, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

7 
23 

Bio of Paul M. Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science 

The Honorable Paul M. Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, serves as the Department's 

principal advisor on fundamental energy research, energy technologies, and science, driving this 

mission through programs including nuclear and high energy particle physics, basic energy, 

advanced computing, fusion, and biological and environmental research, and direct management 

over a majority of the Department's national labs and their world-leading user facilities. In 

addition, Mr. Dab bar manages the environmental and legacy management missions of the 

Department, addressing the U.S. legacy of the nuclear weapons production and governmentsponsored nuclear energy research. 

Prior to confirmation as Under Secretary for Science, Mr. Dabbar worked in operations, finance, 

and strategy roles in the energy sector. As a Managing Director at J.P. Morgan, leading various 

enegy business areas, he has over $400 billion in investment experience across all energy sectors 

including solar, wind, geothermal, distributed-generation, utility, LNG, pipeline, oil & gas, 

trading, and energy technologies, and has also led the majority of all nuclear transactions. In 

addition, he had a senior leadership role for the company's commodity trading business, 

including power, oil and gas. 

Before joining J.P. Morgan, Mr. Dabbar served as a nuclear submarine officer in Mare Island, 

California, and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, including deploying to the North Pole where he conducted 

environmental research. He also served on the Department of Energy Environmental 

Management Advisory Board. He has been a lecturer at the U.S. Naval Academy Economics 

Department, and conducted research at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. 

Mr. Dabbar received a B.S. degree from the U.S. Naval Academy, and an M.B.A. degree from 

Columbia University. Mr. Dab bar and his wife, Andrea, are the parents of two children. 
24 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Dabbar. 

And, Secretary Menezes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK MENEZES, 

UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. MENEZES. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Veasey, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today along with my colleague, Under Secretary for 

Science Paul Dabbar, on behalf of the Administration on the Department of Energy’s management and priorities. And we understand we are the first confirmed appointees to appear before this 

committee. 

In mid-December, Secretary Perry announced a realignment, the 

goal of which was to set forth a reporting framework that allows 

the Department’s organizational statutes—that follows the Department’s organizational statutes, advance the Administration’s priorities, best address the Nation’s present and future energy challenges, and refocus on its core missions of promoting America’s energy security, spurring innovation, reducing regulatory burden, enhancing national security through nuclear science, and addressing 

the obligation of legacy management and nuclear waste. 

This realignment returns the Department to its original statutory framework with an Under Secretary and, as proposed by this 

Committee and established by Congress in 2005, and Under Secretary for Science. The Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and 

Administrator of the NNSA, as established by Congress in 1999, 

was not changed by this realignment. 

Through careful prioritization and ensuring funding goes to the 

most promising research, DOE, through its national laboratories, 

will continue to support the world’s best enterprise of scientists and 

engineers whose innovations drive American prosperity, security, 

and competitiveness for the next generation. 

We look forward to moving ahead with an aggressive focus on an 

all-of-the-above energy strategy that will improve the development 

of energy infrastructure, including pipelines, smart grids, small 

modular nuclear reactors, and energy storage. Along with the public-private partnerships with our national labs, we will bring research technology to market, helping us address our nation’s energy challenges. 

This realignment allows the Department to focus on its priority 

of energy security through energy dominance and economic competitiveness, placing the energy offices—the Office of Energy Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office of Indian 

Energy, and the Office of Nuclear Energy under the direction of an 

Under Secretary of Energy. This structure allows the Department 

to apply personnel and resources to pursue the President’s ‘‘America First’’ energy plan. By utilizing all forms of our nation’s energy 

resources, we can achieve energy security and economic strength at 

home and energy dominance through exports to markets abroad. 

As the Under Secretary of Energy, I manage a comprehensive energy portfolio that includes the applied laboratories. Overseeing the 

network of applied labs, as well as energy programs, requires a 
25 

focus on cooperation and collaboration. We are proud of the hard 

work and dedication our federal workforce has shown to the mission, collaboration and coordination with the program offices, and 

the focus on the priorities of DOE and the Administration. 

Along with the energy program offices, the realignment includes 

having the Office of Policy and the Loan Programs Office report 

through the Under of Energy and maintains two DOE-wide management and performance functions: the Office of Environment, 

Health, Safety, and Security; and the Office of the Project Management Oversight Assessments. 

Now, having just returned from a visit to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Idaho National Lab, I can speak 

firsthand to the progress being made with early-stage R&D at 

these labs. At NREL, lignocellulosic biomass is being deconstructed 

to sugars to unlock the potential for renewable carbon fibers. Working with INL, both labs are creating new biofuels and discovering 

new properties of hydrogen. 

While at INL, I participated in a roundtable discussion with the 

national lab’s Chief Research Officers from all 17 labs. All were 

world-class scientists enthusiastic on their visions and projects and 

genuinely excited at the opportunities and support this Administration has provided, allowing them to free up human capital and 

focus on their mission in removing overly burdensome reporting requirements. 

The Department appreciates the Committee’s interest in its 

work, and we look forward to working with you on opportunities to 

foster and promote responsible energy development and promote 

energy dominance through—and security through science. 

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

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Menezes follows:] 
26 

Testimony of Under Secretary of Energy Mark Menezes 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

January 30, 2018 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today along with my colleague Under Secretary for Science, 

Paul Dabbar, on behalf of the Administration on the Department of Energy's (the "Department" 

or "DOE") management and priorities. In mid-December, the Secretary of Energy announced his 

intention to modernize and realign the Department. The goal of the realignment effort was to 

align the program offices more efficiently under a reporting framework that would advance the 

Administration's policy priorities, address the nation's present and future energy challenges, and 

refocus the Department on its core missions, which are as follows: 

• 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 oflegacy management and nuclear waste. 

The modernization effort returned the Department to its original statutory framework with three 

separate Under Secretaries. The Under Secretary for Science and Energy, established under the 

prior secretary, has been separated into two distinct offices: the Under Secretary for Science and 

the Under Secretary of Energy. The focus of the Office of the Under Secretary of Energy is 

promoting America's energy security, grid security and modernization, applied energy 

technologies, and certain DOE-wide management functions. The realignment effort did not 

change the elements under the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the 

National Nuclear Secmity Administration (NNSA). 

This realignment allows the Department to focus on its priority of energy security through 

energy dominance and economic competitiveness, placing all of the energy offices Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Fossil 

Energy (FE), Indian Energy (IE), and Nuclear Energy (NE) under the direction of the Under 

Secretary of Energy. The Department is now able to apply the personnel and resources to pursue 

the President's America First Energy Plan. By utilizing all forms of our nation's energy 

resources, we can achieve energy security and economic strength at home and energy dominance 

through exports to markets abroad. 

Since I manage a comprehensive energy portfolio at DOE that includes tl1e applied laboratories, 

collaboration and communication are critical to the success of my mission as Under Secretary of 
27 

Energy. Two of the five energy program offices, FE and OE, have Senate-confinned Assistant 

Secretaries. The Department and our energy team are working alongside the dedicated career 

personnel in the program offices awaiting a confirmed Assistant Secretary to make sure that 

Department priorities and goals are being met. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary have 

identified exceptional managers within the SES corps and tasked them with the responsibilities 

in the interim. We are proud of the hard work and dedication shown to the mission, collaboration 

and coordination within the program offices, and the focus on the priorities of DOE and the 

Administration. 

Along with the energy program offices, the realignment includes renaming the Office of Energy 

Policy and Systems Analysis the Office of Policy, making the Loan Programs Office report 

through the Office of the Under Secretary of Energy, and maintaining two DOE-wide 

management functions within the Office of the Under Secretary of Energy-- the Office of 

Environment, Health, Safety and Security and the Office of Project Management. 

National Laboratories 

With the exception of the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Govenunent owns all 

DOE laboratories and federal oversight is critical to ensuring efficient, effective, and safe 

operations. DOE laboratories, including NNSA laboratories, have instituted an Annual Lab 

Planning Process developed on the Office of Science (Science) model and tailored to the unique 

missions of each program. To continue strong engagement with the national laboratories, the 

annual lab planning process has been enhanced and made more consistent throughout the DOE 

laboratory complex -- a key component for strategic planning. This annual process began in 

Science in 2006 and is now vital to how the Department engages with its laboratories throughout 

all program offices. 

DOE annually engages in a laboratory planning process that ensures the Department and its 

national laboratories remain in alignment on research priorities, infrastructure investments, and 

stewardship of core capabilities. This hands-on process is critical to fulfilling the responsibilities 

of the national laboratories, which include: 

I. encouraging a strong scientific, energy and national security portfolio; 

2. building and refreshing world class capabilities; and 

3. maintaining laboratory infrastructure. 

Each laboratory has a unique mix of core capabilities meant to be a resource for the 

Department's science, energy and national security needs. Participation in the Department-wide 

planning process ensures the laboratories maintain capabilities needed for current and future 

Departmental work. Feedback is solicited from other DOE stakeholders in addition to the 

laboratories' sponsoring offices. 
28 

Every year, laboratory stafTwork with DOE to develop a Performance Evaluation and 

Measurement Plan that establishes the foundation for an annual evaluation of the contractor's 

scientific, technological, managerial, and operational performance. This is an essential 

component of maintaining accountability and transparency across the laboratory system. The 

final product is an annual "report card" for each of the 16 government owned/contractor operated 

laboratories, and is posted on the DOE website. DOE uses the results of the process to determine 

the performance fee that is paid to the Management and Operating (M&O) contractor. At some 

laboratories, strong performance can result in DOE exercising options to extend a contract. 

Performance evaluations also provide DOE with input to its decisions on whether to compete 

M&O contracts when they expire. 

These coordinated efforts illustrate the level of transparency that exists between the science and 

applied labs, as well as NNSA labs. Furthermore, DOE maintains oversight and involvement in 

the operations of the labs, and benefits from this transparent partnership. 

Office of Fossil Energy-- Fossil Fuels and Rare Earth Minerals 

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 export. Access to a variety of energy resources is critical to the reliability of our electricity 

grid. Prioritizing and supporting expeditious approval of natural gas exports 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 

research and development (R&D) on new uses of coal and 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. One 

example of new use of coal is NETL's 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. The Office of Fossil 

Energy's focus on the development of a domestic supply ofREEs that is economically 

competitive will help fuel our nation's economic growth, secure our energy independence by 

reducing our reliance on foreign REE sources, and increase our national security. 
29 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) --Spurring Innovation and Early-Stage R&D 

In support of the Administration's goals of energy dominance and economic competitiveness, 

resources within DOE's energy and science programs are focused on early-stage R&D across a 

variety of technologies that support American energy independence and domestic job-growth, 

and ensure the reliability and resilience of our electrical grid. In order to be resilient, the grid 

requires a diverse mix of fuels and energy sources, from nuclear and conventional fossil sources 

to renewables such as solar, wind and hydro. 

An applied example of the progress being made with early-stage R&D at the labs is the 

significant advances made at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 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 six 

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 aims to validate novel approaches 

and technologies that enable the effective integration of renewables and energy management 

systems that can enhance grid operation efficiency as well as identify areas that warrant future 

research. 

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%. 1 

Through careful prioritization and ensuring funding goes to the most promising research, DOE, 

through its national laboratories, will continue to support the world's best enterprise of scientists 

and engineers whose innovations drive American prosperity, security, and competitiveness for 

the next generation. 

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

ARPA-E coordinates with DOE's applied offices and includes them as reviewers of ARPA-E's 

proposed projects. Moreover, ARP A-E hosted a coordination meeting with participants fi:om all 

applied offices in advance of the 2018 open program funding opportunity to minimize 

duplication and maximize projects in white spaces- those that are not currently explored by 

other offices. 

1 DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Revolution Now 2016. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/Revolution%20Now-%200ne%20Pager Lpdf 
30 

Nuclear Energy 

This Administration recognizes nuclear energy as a key source of electricity generationproviding 60% of our nation's emissions-free baseload energy around the clock. As the most 

reliable and resilient source of clean electricity, nuclear energy contributes uniquely to our 

energy portfolio. Supporting the private sector to maintain the 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, our Nuclear Energy Office is supporting early-stage R&D that will help enable industry 

to deploy digital, wireless monitoring and control systems and accident tolerant fuels that will 

improve the economics and extend the life oftoday's nuclear 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 early-stage R&D of advanced 

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

projects to support early-stage development of 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 early-stage research and 

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

technologies to market. By leveraging these partnerships and our national laboratory system, we 

are enabling industry to develop the advanced nuclear technologies and encouraging a resilient 

supply chain, overall helping to promote a strong domestic industry now and for the future. 

The Department is also conducting research and development activities related to versatile 

advanced fast spectrum test reactor concepts that could be used to test and validate advanced 

materials and components for advanced non-light water reactors. 

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 
31 

is becoming a critical system asset that provides a butTer 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 OE 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 expe1tise to the Department of Homeland 

Security's 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. 

Cybersecurity ···Increasing Efforts Enterprise-wide 

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

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

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 unique in this 

respect 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. 

Our national and economic security depend on the reliable function of the Nation's energy 

infrastructure in the face of the threat posed by a malicious cyberattack. Cybersecurity is one of 

DOE's top priorities and we arc addressing it in a number of ways. By creating an enterprisewide threat management capability through our cyber operations center, the Department is 

prepared to respond to the risks to our science, technology, nuclear security and energy 

infrastructure and to that end, we are focused on improving enterprise cybersecurity risk 

management by bolstering organizational structures and supporting a culture of cybersecurity. 

In coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal agency partners, 

we are working with the private sector to prepare for disasters, reduce vulnerabilities of cyber 

infrastructure, and mitigate the impacts from such incidents. 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. We are investing in our infrastructure 

to reduce our exposure to threats and manage cybcrsccurity risks holistically. 
32 

Indian Energy 

DOE's Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (IE) promotes Indian energy development 

to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and strengthen tribal energy and economic infrastructure and 

electrification on tribal lands. To achieve this mission, IE offers education, technical assistance, 

and competitive grants to assist consenting Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in 

overcoming regulatory and economic challenges to developing their vast energy resources. 

Loan Programs 

Congress authorized the Loan Programs Office (LPO) in the Energy Policy Act of2005, and 

subsequent amendments, 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 ofloans, loan 

guarantees, and conditional commitments covering more than 30 projects. LPO supported the 

latest generation of nuclear power facilities by 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 

The Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security is the Department's environmental, 

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 

The Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments (PM) supports the Department's 

goal to increase its focus on efficient and effective project management across the enterprise and 

improve performance in the areas of environmental cleanup, construction management, and 

cybersecurity. Project Management is a separate oversight office focusing on our largest 

programs-- namely Environmental Management, Science, and the National Nuclear Security 

Administration- and strives to improve objective Departmental project management 

governance, project execution, and evaluation to increase cost savings and reduce schedule 

delays while meeting performance standards. 
33 

Conclusion 

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 and energy 

storage, along with public-private partnerships with our national laboratories, bringing research 

and technology to market, will help us address our nation's energy challenges. 

The Department appreciates the Committee's interest in our realignment and priorities, and we 

look forward to continuing to work with you on these matters and on other opportunities to foster 

and promote responsible energy development and promote energy dominance. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions. 
34 

Mark W. Menezes 

Under Secretary of Energy, United States Department of Energy 

The Honorable Mark Wesley Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy serves as the Department's principal advisor on energy 

policy and on a wide array of existing and emerging energy technologies. The Under Secretary is responsible for driving 

transformative energy policy, and technology solutions through coordinated planning, management and performance of 

the Department's energy programs. 

Prior to being confirmed as Under Secretary of Energy, Mr. Menezes was an executive with Berkshire Hathaway Energy 

in its Washington, D.C. office. Before joining BHE, Mr. Menezes was a partner at Hunton & Williams LLP, where he 

headed the Regulated Markets and Energy Infrastructure practice group. Prior to Hunton, he served as Chief Counsel, 

Energy and Environment, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, serving as chief 

negotiator for the House Majority in the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of2005. Before his service with House 

Energy & Commerce, he was Vice President with Central and South West, and upon its merger with American Electric 

Power, served as Vice President and Associate General Counsel for federal and state legislative and regulatory affairs. 

Mr. Menezes has been named in National Journal's "Hill 1 00"-top Congressional staff for his work on both energy and 

environmental matters. He has been frequent guest speaker and lecturer before numerous associations and civic groups, 

including legal education seminars where he has been called on to address the nation's energy and environmental policies, 

utility restructuring, telecommunications, ethics, merger and acquisition practices, and regulatory and legislative 

processes. He has co-authored numerous articles, a practice manual, and been quoted in the New York Times, Law360, Oil 

and Gas Journal, Politico as well as interviewed by E&ETV. He's been listed Best Lawyers in America 2013-2016, 

Corporate Counsel's Top Lawyers 2006-2011, Washington Post's Top Lawyers 2008-2016, and DC Super Lawyers 

2012-2016. 

Mr. Menezes is a graduate of Louisiana State University receiving both his undergraduate and juris doctor degree. Until 

joining the government he was a charter member of the Advisory Council, Louisiana State University Law John P. 

Laborde Energy Law Center, and served on the Board of Directors of the Congressional Chorus & American Youth 

Chorus. 
35 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Secretary Menezes. 

Secretary Dabbar, let me address my first question to you, and 

it is this: that last year the House passed a Science Committee bill. 

I’m sure you’re familiar with it. It was called the Department of 

Energy Research and Innovation Act. And it’s my understanding 

that a lot of the provisions in that bill such as prioritizing advanced nuclear reactor infrastructure and opening up our national 

labs to be more readily acceptable and accessible to industry are 

provisions that could be implemented, for lack of another word, 

unilaterally by the Department of Energy. Would you give me a 

sense of whether you think the DOE will implement some of these 

reforms themselves or not? And if so, which ones? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Chairman Smith. No, absolutely. I reviewed that bill, have a summary of it in front of me, and we certainly support the points that were raised, and we look forward to 

working with you on those specifics if you want to reintroduce it 

here and would be glad to work with your staff on that. But in general, we support the points that you raised around management of 

the labs and the direction there. 

Chairman SMITH. And you do think you’ll be able to implement 

some provisions of the bill yourself then? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. We actually have quite a bit of flexibility I 

think on—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. DABBAR. —operational aspects that were raised and look forward to doing that, and we have done that on some—on many of 

those points. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. And, Secretary Menezes, you 

mentioned in your testimony that DOE has a policy of American 

energy dominance. Give us a little bit more in the way of detail as 

to how you hope to achieve that and maybe even what it means. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, thank you for the question. Within energy 

dominance, what we mean by that is that we are able to utilize our 

vast resources in ways to help other countries to have access to energy that they otherwise might be getting from countries that not 

necessarily share their best interests. 

So, with the work of the labs, we’re able to develop technology 

improvements in the hydraulic fracturing, for example, so now 

we’re the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. Since we 

have as much as we have, we can now develop policies to export 

those energies, and it helps our allies not to be dependent on other 

countries for sources of energy. So in that context, I mean, we have 

a new historical geopolitical reality where the United States can 

actually be the country that other countries go to for energy. 

Chairman SMITH. And when you talk about other countries coming to us for energy, what countries do you see as increasing their 

demand for U.S. supplied energy? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, we see it really across the globe, so, for example, on LNG export facilities, for example—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. —you see countries in Asia, you see countries in 

Europe, you see countries in South America potentially that would 

like to have us export LNG to them. In coal you have countries in 

central Europe that have been receiving some of our coal exports, 
36 

and then oil, Congress lifted the ban on export of oil, and as such 

now, we can export into the global markets of oil. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Good. If I have time, I’m going to come 

back to that subject, but another question for Secretary Dabbar, 

and it is this: that over the years there has been some pretty 

strong and steady support for the fusion basic research program, 

and yet in the proposed budget, that program is subjected to some 

cuts. And I just wondered if you could explain to us why a program 

that has gotten such good support in the past and I think can be 

justified has been cut? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I can’t comment to 

the specifics of the last budget proposal, but the fusion energy area 

and program office in the Department—Office of Science is very important. We have a lot of support across multiple labs. Obviously, 

we do—one of the main labs is Princeton Plasma, and we continue 

to fund that as a primary focus both of fusion but also plasma 

science. We also do quite a bit of work at Oak Ridge and also at 

Livermore on the laser side. 

Obviously, we have been doing some funding over time at ITER, 

which is a separate topic internationally, but we do continue to 

focus on that as one of the main program offices. 

Chairman SMITH. So you think our research is going to continue. 

What about our international obligations? 

Mr. DABBAR. So our main international obligation is obviously 

ITER. The last budget proposal was zero. I think, as you probably 

know, ITER has had some challenges in the past where the initial 

proposal for the whole of the program from all the countries was 

a little over $6 billion, and now it’s currently up to $65 billion, so 

it’s moved quite a bit in terms of project costs. 

We—the Administration is reviewing that as part of an overall 

nuclear review policy—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. DABBAR. —and we have yet to reach a conclusion on a crossdepartment basis on exactly our intent around funding and recommendations around funding—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. DABBAR. —so that is ongoing and is an active part of—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. DABBAR. —what I’m engaged with. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Dabbar. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk with you about some of these unjustified budget 

cuts. The President’s budget request declared some research as 

early stage and therefore worthy of federal support and other activities as later-stage research that should be immediately eliminated, given that the private sector is supposedly better equipped 

to carry them out. However, during a briefing to Congressional 

staff, Administration officials confirmed that they did not engage 

with the private sector at all while compiling the fiscal year 2018 

budget request to determine what industry would or would not be 

able to pick up. 
37 

Given that there was a complete absence of engagement with industry, even as the Administration made these proposed massive 

sweeping cuts to these programs, how in the world did you determine what DOE should or should not support across these program 

offices? And I would like to hear from either one of you on this. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I can’t speak to the budget process, not having been involved in it. I can tell you that, as just a matter of 

course, our program officers and our labs regularly engage in conversations, collaboration efforts with the private sector. Indeed, 

most of our funding opportunities come out of those discussions and 

collaborations and conferences, and it’s an ongoing and constant 

thing. And that’s the first—if you’re not aware of it, it’s one of the 

first things you learn when you get over at the Department how 

deeply involved they are with the latest technologies, whether it’s 

in the labs, whether it’s in the program offices, whether it’s in private industry and whether it’s in the universities in peer research. 

And it’s a great process to see. 

So while I can’t speak to the budget as a practical matter, we 

want to assure you that it is an ongoing enterprise. It also helps 

to inform our priorities going forward in the next round of budget 

discussions. Now that we’re on board, we can help now more fully 

inform decisions during the budget process. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. So, I mean, let me ask you. Are the proposed 

cuts research areas that private sector is willing to simply start 

funding after the federal government cuts them, or are we going to 

risk losing our innovative companies and researchers to our foreign 

competitors? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I think the way that we look at it is that 

the private sector can manage risk. They are aware of technological 

advancements in certain areas, particularly in their areas of expertise. They manage risk. They make investments to bring to market 

those technologies that they know will help the industry as they 

assess it. 

Mr. VEASEY. Well, do you expect them to pick up the shortfall? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, in those areas where, through the work of 

this department brought things to commercialization and deployment, we would expect the private sector to pick that up. However, 

where the research is too risky and private sector is not willing to 

invest the substantial monies that it takes to see if you can either 

make a basic discovery or take it to the next step, that’s where the 

Department will step in. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. And also I wanted to ask you, Mr. Dabbar. 

You just said in a response to a good question from the Chairman 

that the Administration request for ITER was zero but the President’s fiscal year 2018 request for ITER was actually $63 million, 

an increase over the appropriated level in fiscal year 2017 of $50 

million. Did you perhaps misspeak or were you indicating that the 

Department will request no funds in fiscal year 2019? 

Mr. DABBAR. I believe that the last proposal for last year, which 

was ’18, was zero. I may be not correct. But I think the debate is 

certainly about our funding going forward. 

Mr. VEASEY. Okay. And also, Mr. Chairman—and I’m running 

out of time here. I wanted to ask about the Texas Clean Energy 
38 

Project, but we’ll get back to that a little bit later. Thank you. I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WEBER. [Presiding] All right. The gentleman yields back. I’m 

going to go ahead and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank both of you for coming to brief us today. 

Mr. Dabbar, you mentioned in your opening statement the 

progress that’s been made on battery technology. Let’s just note 

that with the development and the actual deploying of more efficient batteries, then the—all of this solar energy and the—all this 

technology we’ve developed with wind, et cetera, actually becomes 

doable. Some of our hesitation on this side of the aisle has not been 

just based on that we don’t think global warming is important but 

that the technology really wasn’t there. 

When do we expect to see these batteries on the market, and do 

you know of Dr. Goodenough and his—who was the inventor of the 

lithium battery and his breakthroughs down at University of Austin Texas on a sodium-based battery? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman. So I completely agree 

with you. 

Mr. WEBER. Your mic is either not on or not close enough. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for that 

question. No, clearly, I think of all the technologies that certainly 

crosscut not only between the program offices that both report to 

the two of us but across multiple labs is clearly a focus of what 

we’re working on. And the intermittent nature of wind and solar 

and some other technologies, really the gap to be filled for all those 

is in the battery and storage area. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do we have any of those new battery technologies actually on the market now? 

Mr. DABBAR. So we are working—and this goes back to a previous question. We have over 85 companies that we’re working 

with in the battery sector across our various different labs, and 

whether it’s flow batteries, multivalent batteries, we are actively 

moving those forward into market. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They are commercialized? So someone 

could—if someone wanted to develop it for solar power could actually now go to one of those batteries? 

Mr. DABBAR. So they are commercializing so—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Commercializing. 

Mr. DABBAR. —so obviously in many of our areas, I think as 

Under Secretary Menezes mentioned—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And—well, let me just note that one of the 

things that have been frustrating for me on this committee over 

the years is the fact that things do get studied and studied and 

studied to death, and it’s almost like somebody wants to continue 

their research project in order to get a government grant in order 

to have another years paying on—off their bills. That’s—I think 

that’s a problem that we’ve got to look at that commercialization 

is just as important as discovery. 

Now, ten years ago in April of 2008 this committee had a hearing 

on opportunities and challenges of nuclear power. And at that time 

we were told that the next generation of nuclear power was a 
39 

promising option for the future, just as we just heard about batteries as well, but not yet ready for commercial development. Well, 

that was ten years ago, and we haven’t seen any design certified 

by the NRC since then when they need to have at least their fuel 

performance and fuel characterizations of standards, materials, et 

cetera, et cetera, if anybody’s going to move forward with it. 

And in fact—but we go—when you go to the companies and they 

say, ‘‘Well, we can’t really build a prototype until the NRC has approved these various elements. And then you go to the NRC and 

they say, ‘‘Well, we’re looking at designs that have been built in 

tested through prototypes. You know, it’s like the chicken versus— 

what comes first, the chicken or the egg? 

I would hope that this Administration with its can-do approach, 

with its ‘‘America First,’’ ba, ba, which we’re all rooting for, I hope 

that we get a prototype and start focusing on actually building an 

energy prototype for this new next generation of nuclear power, 

which we know can be safe and can actually—without waste left 

over, without materials for bombs left over. We can build that. We 

could have built it in the last ten years, but we haven’t done anything because—and this is where it’s in your lap now. Let’s make 

sure we structure the whole program aimed at building the prototypes and getting them commercialized rather than just reporting 

to us how great the research is coming along. And please comment 

on that. 

Mr. MENEZES. Do you want me to answer—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Well, I’ll go ahead and comment on batteries and 

then defer to you—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Okay. I’ll comment—— 

Mr. DABBAR. —on the new commercial nuclear. But as an example of companies that are working with our battery team right now, 

United Technologies, Johnson Controls, Dow, General Motors, and 

A.D. Moore that are actively working with our batteries, so I think 

what we’re working on in terms of commercializing, these are real 

companies who want to make real money who are taking our technologies and are moving them forward. So I feel very positive about 

that. And going out and seeing the labs and actually sitting down 

with them at the companies—and that’s what we do, obviously, 

when we go to our labs. We see that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And about the nuclear—— 

Mr. MENEZES. So on the small modular reactor, for example, at 

INL—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. MENEZES. —on my last trip, they are exploring opportunities 

to actually site and build a small modular reactor there near the 

lab. The combined operating license needs to get through the NRC, 

so that will take a process of—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This has been going on—this has been going 

on for at least ten years, probably 20 years, but ten years we 

could’ve done this ten years ago. So I would hope, as I say, that 

you take this to heart and structure your operation at the Department of Energy in a way that we’re going to be getting a prototype 

built so that it can then move forward from there because it’s been 

stuck here for ten years, and it’s a real crime. 
40 

The fact is that San Onofre is near my district. It’s shut down. 

The light water reactors are old and they’re dangerous. And San 

Onofre’s shut down, and guess what, we have to spend $70 million 

a year just watching that leftover uranium or whatever it is, fuel 

from the plant there. We could use that, I understand, in these 

new modular reactors as fuel for the new ones and actually eat it 

up, the waste that now it’s costing us just to look at. 

So I would hope that next time we meet and next time we have 

this hearing, you can report to me some real progress towards the 

prototype there and maybe how some companies have actually commercialized those batteries. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank you for yielding back. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

I’d like to talk some about the structural issues that are going 

on at the Department of Energy. We’ve heard some concerns today 

about how the restructuring of the Department’s leadership could 

be detrimental to the coordination and management of the civilian 

science and technology programs. Mr. Menezes’ testimony states, 

quote, ‘‘The modernization effort returned the Department to its 

original statutory framework with three separate Under Secretaries,’’ end quote. 

And I don’t believe that’s true for multiple reasons. First, the 

original statutory framework in the Department of Energy Organization Act in 1977 established only one Secretary not three, or perhaps more importantly, you imply with your testimony that the 

structure under Dr. Moniz was violating statute by not conforming 

to the required number of Under Secretaries, which I also believe 

is not the case. 

Let me read some excerpts from the Department of Energy Organization Act, as amended, by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which 

particularly relates to the establishment of the Under Secretary positions that you hold. Quote, ‘‘There shall be in the Department an 

Under Secretary for Science. The Under Secretary over Science 

shall, among other things,’’ and again, I’m quoting, ‘‘monitor research and development programs at the Department, advise the 

Secretary with respect to grants and other forms of financial assistance required for effective short- and long-term basic and applied 

research activities of the Department, supervision or support of research activities carried out by any of the Assistant Secretaries 

designated by section 203 of this act.’’ 

So I’d like to note that the Assistant Secretary, as outlined in 

section 203, include all the energy technology programs now under 

the authority of Mr. Menezes rather than the Under Secretary for 

Science, Mr. Dabbar. So in the Department’s rationalization of this 

unwarranted organizational change, you claim, quote, that it is, 

quote, ‘‘consistent with Dewey’s statutory mandate.’’ Instead, it actually appears to move the Department further away from the statutory mandate. I’m inclined to think that Secretary Moniz was 

much closer to the intent of the law than what the Department is 

doing now. 

So, Mr. Dabbar, a specific question: Can you explain why duties 

that are assigned specifically in statute to the Under Secretary 

over Science are now under the authority of the Under Secretary 
41 

of Energy? And how do you both claim that this is consistent with 

Dewey’s statutory mandate when it moves us farther from what 

the statute says? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman Beyer. On some of the 

statutory very specific language I might defer that to the gentleman to my left who actually helped write some of that language 

when he was on committee for that. But in terms of the specific 

responsibilities, the specific responsibilities around being the Chief 

Technology Officer and science officer across the whole other complex is mine as part of the statutory obligations. And there’s many 

different ways that that is actually practically being done. I’d like 

to talk about the practical aspects of what we’re actually doing. 

First of all, in terms of coordination across the technology platforms in terms of commercialization, which is a much longer topic, 

the Office of Technology Transitions reports to me, and that particular function in which it is coordinating across the whole of the 

complex—by the way, not just Secretary Menezes area but also in 

dealing with what’s also outside of his area, which includes NNSA 

labs and it also includes ARPA–E. And so—— 

Mr. BEYER. If you—forgive me for interrupting you. I appreciate 

all that, and I appreciate the overall perspective that you have—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. —but is there any way to justify or rationalize how 

Assistant Secretary specifically assigned by law to you now report 

to a different Under Secretary, Mr.—Dr. Menezes. Mr. Menezes, 

perhaps you could deal with that? In fact, let me expand on that. 

Your position, which simply named Under Secretary in the U.S. 

Code, not Under Secretary for anything, does not have well-defined 

statutory responsibilities but rather it’s the broad discretion of the 

Secretary. Did the Secretary consider the explicit direction in the 

statute defining the Under Secretary for Science’s role when establishing your duties? And also if you can fill us in on what I asked 

Dr. Dabbar—Mr. Dabbar? 

Mr. MENEZES. Sure. Thank you for the question. Regarding the 

statutes, so what we did was as we reviewed all of our statutory 

authorities, our organizational act, and our various authorities, and 

we reverted to what we think was the intent of Congress. And that 

is—and let me just say that before Secretary Moniz, there was always an Under Secretary for the Department which over time became called the Under Secretary of Energy. And in 19—and the 

reason for that change was because in 2005 this committee during 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, has suggested that the Office of 

Science should have its own Under Secretary. And this was a bipartisan effort. And so the Office of Science for the first time was 

going to have its own Under Secretary. So that joined the traditional Under for the Department, which Congress did not change. 

And they did not change that there was an Under Secretary for 

NNSA. So by 2005 you had three Unders essentially. 

And in the Office of Science it was important, and it was bipartisan support, to make sure that the Office of Science had its own 

leader essentially. In the energy—I mean, the Energy Committee, 

everybody went along with that. We really did think that. But Congress at that time I don’t think I ever even envisioned that the energy components of the Department would be under an Under for 
42 

Science because we wanted to make sure that Science had its own 

structure. 

The labs that you mentioned, these are applied labs that traditionally have been located, if you will, within the program offices 

within the energy program offices, so it’s not that they report to me 

as much as they are in the program—our works with the program 

that reports. So we collaborate with the applied labs, collaborate 

with the science labs, and we are consistent with the statute. 

That’s what we’ve done, no more, no less, but we wanted to separate out actually the energy program offices from the Under of 

Science because we wanted to make sure the Under of Science 

could focus on science, which was the intent of this Committee 

when the provision was put in 2005. 

So we actually thought it was a good thing. I mean, we’re just 

following the statute as it’s written. I know you may have a different view, but based on my experience with the other committees 

and the intent of Congress at the time—— 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Menezes—— 

Mr. MENEZES. —we wanted to elevate Secretary of Science—or 

the Office of Science. 

Mr. BEYER. Let me yield back to the Chairman before—— 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, I think the gentleman’s time is expired. He’s 

probably gotten an answer. I’m not sure it’s the one he wanted, but 

he got an answer. We appreciate that. 

I’m going to recognize myself now for five minutes. So let me 

start back with you, Mr. Menezes. That’s how you pronounce that, 

is that correct? 

Mr. MENEZES. That’s correct. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. MENEZES. Good enough. 

Mr. WEBER. Sir? 

Mr. MENEZES. Menezes, that’s correct. 

Mr. WEBER. Menezes? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Good. I can do this. The President’s fiscal year 2018 budget includes $10 million to begin planning for a fast neutron research reactor that would operate as a user facility within the Office of Nuclear Energy. Now, the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Rohrabacher, was here and he talked some about the small modular reactor that’s taking so much time. This committee has authorized—advanced several bipartisan bills to authorize this user 

facility—a.k.a., the Versatile Neutron Source—and prioritize earlystage research in advanced nuclear energy technology. And we 

would love to see the DOE married up with the NRC and that 

chicken-or-the-egg question might go away where they would be 

able to—the NRC would be able to actually weigh in on the design 

as it’s coming along and then we wouldn’t be worried about getting 

a prototype. 

Nonetheless, last Congress, my bill, with the Chairman’s help, 

the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, passed the House 

three times and has already passed the House as a part of Chairman Smith’s comprehensive legislation, which is H.R. 589. 

Most recently, the Committee advanced my bill, H.R. 4378, the 

Nuclear Energy Research Infrastructure Act, to authorize funding to 
43 

complete this project that I’m talking about. The House-passed energy and water appropriations bill also devotes $35 million to 

kickstart this project. Based on my extensive conversation with 

stakeholders, I think it’s critical that we start construction on this 

user facility as soon as possible or American companies you referred to that were able to manage risk and able to be in the best 

position to be the global leader of energy, those American companies will be forced to conduct research for advanced reactor technologies overseas. We don’t want that. 

So will you commit to work with me to ensure that this project 

is a top priority for the Trump Administration? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. That’s easy enough. So in—so we may have to borrow the money from you, but I’m glad you’re so amiable. In my bill, 

it sets a target to complete construction on the Versatile Neutron 

Source by 2025. In your opinion, for us to be able to hit that target, 

what resources are required to start and complete the construction 

of this project so that we don’t wind up with the problem we had 

with the small modular reactor? What do we need? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, having just returned from INL where I saw 

the advanced test reactor that has celebrated its 50th year, it continues to be the leading reactor that businesses in other countries 

come to test new fuels and materials. It is a thing to behold. They 

are very excited about the prospects of Congress taking action on 

your bill, and should Congress find the resources, I think that the 

scientists there would look forward to implementing the provisions 

of it. 

As we’ve heard from other Members, part of the process involves 

a regulatory review of many nuclear facilities for health and safety 

at the NRC, so we would have to work with our sister agencies to 

ensure that there would be sufficient processes and resources available for both to work toward accomplishing the goals in your bill. 

Mr. WEBER. Has the Secretary—has Secretary Perry been briefed 

on the bill? Is he aware of it? 

Mr. MENEZES. I’m not aware if he has been briefed specifically 

on the bill. I know he has been briefed certainly on the nuclear 

issues and the priorities of the Administration. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. In this committee—well, let me—I’ve got less 

than a minute left. So in your opinion, how does this Administration—this is a question for both of you—define early-stage research? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of early-stage 

research, it’s clearly focusing on the areas in which the commercial 

sector is not spending—is not focused on the R&D side in which it 

is not near the commercialized area in terms of any particular 

technology. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me break in here because, Mr. Menezes, you 

made the common earlier that you wanted to ensure funding went 

to the most promising research. Well, how do you know which is 

the most promising research unless you get in that early-stage? 

Continue, please. 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes—no, I’m glad to continue. So if you—basically, 

it’s going program office by program office and identifying where in 

particular the commercial sector is and where do we fit. I’ll give an 
44 

example. On high-performance computing it’s quite easy. We know 

exactly where Intel is and AMD and Micron and IBM are at in 

terms of computing on the commercial side. We know exactly where 

we are at, which is at the cutting edge. We have dialogue with our 

potential suppliers—once again, Intel, IBM, Nvidia—about what 

we think is capable in terms of pushing the technology since we’re 

at the front end way beyond the commercial sector in those particular areas. And then we decide where we want to recommend for 

appropriations and for us as a program office. 

So I could go through one by one, but that’s—I can think a very 

clear example of where we interacted know where the commercial 

sector is versus what we recommend what to do. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. And I’ll jump over to you, Mr. Menezes. 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. So in the solar world, for example, I actually brought this neat chart from NREL. So this shows existing 

technologies and efficiency levels and how long they’ve been in play 

and commercially available. Here, you see breakthrough technology 

that is taking place at our labs that show an exponentially—if I 

can use that word correctly—increase on efficiency. It’s not commercially available yet. 

Now, what’s the relevance of this? I mean, the relevance is that 

all—these are solar panels that have been in the market, and they 

have been used. This potentially is breakthrough technology. There 

won’t even be solar panels anymore to give you an idea. So you 

have both breakthrough and you have approaching commercialization. So if you wanted to focus in the world of solar, I think that 

this, and the work that INL is—NREL, excuse me, is doing is a 

good example. 

Mr. WEBER. That’s a great chart, and I’m looking at it from a distance here. The span left to right—and how many years does that 

cover? 

Mr. MENEZES. This goes from 1975 to 2020. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I’m going to 

yield back and recognize Mr. Tonko at this time. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. 

I completely agree that the national labs are the crown jewels of 

America’s research community. They are indeed responsible for 

major breakthroughs in science and energy innovation and national 

security. As I mentioned, when you had testified at the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, I saw this firsthand when I visited 

Brookhaven last year. Brookhaven is leading us into the future 

using fundamental science that would change our understanding of 

the world around us and of our universe. 

From the Center for Functional nanomaterials to the National 

Synchrotron Light Source to the big ring collider the only large 

particle collider in North America, one of two in the world, I am 

in awe of the scientists and work being done there, drawing on 

their passion and expertise, coupled with adequate funding we can 

ensure our nation continues to be a world leader in scientific research and development. 

The Administration has proposed eliminating Brookhaven’s Center for Functional Nanomaterials, a profoundly misguided effort. 

CFN is the newest of the five centers in the country, which means 
45 

it has the newest and some of the best in the world equipment. It 

is located right next to Brookhaven’s light source, so housing it at 

Brookhaven is intuitive. 

There are more than 500 users who depend on the center. During 

my latest visit, I was impressed with the scale of the machines. I’m 

curious if there have been further conversation on its—CFN’s future. Have you been part of discussions or are you aware if the 

funding will be provided for this critical effort at CFN of advancing 

the science of nanomaterials that address the nation’s energy challenges? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you, Congressman Tonko. 

So the budget is obviously still being finalized, but let me actually echo what you just said in terms of specifics in terms of the 

Nanomaterials Center at Brookhaven. I completely agree with you 

that if you look at what they produce, it’s truly cutting-edge. Let 

me give you two examples. One of the things that they’ve done is 

to have a prototype of black glass for increased absorption of photons potentially for use in advanced solar panels. They’ve actually 

produced a material, a glass, that could increase the absorption 

rate by 100 percent—— 

Mr. TONKO. Which I might cut in is absolutely essential. 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. I mean, I did witness that whole project with the 

black glass—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. TONKO. —and it should be important to our country in regard to effectiveness of our renewables. And if this Administration 

isn’t behind renewables, can we be certain that you will, with passion, push for investments in this technology? 

Mr. DABBAR. I can commit to you that I am passionate about 

what is being accomplished in the area of nanoscience and materials at Brookhaven, and I will continue to be so. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. And it’s my understanding that the Administration has proposed eliminating Brookhaven’s Center for Functional Nanomaterials. CFN is the newest of the five centers in the 

country, which means it has the newest and some of the best 

equipment in the world. It is next to Brookhaven’s light source, so 

housing it at Brookhaven is important. There are well over 500 

users who depend on the center. When I visited, I was extremely 

impressed with the scale of the machines, and I’m curious if there 

have been further conversations on that future. Have you been part 

of discussions or are you aware if the funding will be provided for 

this critical research? 

Because it—when we look at the vast majority of Brookhaven’s 

funding coming from the DOE Office of Science, which the President’s last budget request proposed cutting by 17 percent, 

Brookhaven also receives funding from EERE and other critical 

sources that the Administration has proposed slashing. Without 

adequate funding, we will slow down and in some cases completely 

halt the progress that Brookhaven and our national labs could accomplish. How important is adequate funding and the commitment 

of continued investment for our national labs to fulfill their potential? And what would be the consequences of that type of cut? 
46 

Mr. DABBAR. Congressman Tonko, thank you very much. I have 

not—back to your question that you posed, I have not been involved in any debates about particularly the center and funding for 

the nano center. But once again, there is tremendous data so to 

speak in terms of products and technologies that that particular 

center is producing, and I am an advocate and I will continue to 

be an advocate of what we’ve been able to accomplish there. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, in addition to their almost 3,000 full-time employees, Brookhaven supports scientists across the country who are 

visiting scientists or facility users. On top of that, hundreds of students are learning and conducting research there. I believe it’s 

clear that the U.S. research community depends on our labs. If 

funding is reduced, it would be a big blow, and these opportunities 

decrease. Might this hurt the development of our next generation 

of scientists and engineers? Either of you, does it diminish the opportunities or the growth for the next generation of scientists and 

engineers? 

Mr. DABBAR. You know, what I would say is that obviously the 

Department of Energy is the primary funder across the board in 

terms of research both at the university level and across the spectrum, I think as you know. About $3.1 billion a year is part of the 

DOE budget for FOAs and for grants, including universities all 

across the country, and that’s going to be a continued focus obviously for the Department. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I’ve exhausted my time, and I yield back, but 

I can only say we need you to push really hard for the appropriate 

level of funding if we’re going to continue forward with a bit of 

progress. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Illinois is recognized. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you both for being here. I appreciate your 

work. I appreciate your expertise that you bring to the jobs that 

you—the important roles that you fill. And these are really important subjects that we’re talking about today, so thank you so much 

again for being here. Mr. Dabbar, it was great to be with you in 

November at Fermilab, grateful for one—for the visits I think you 

made after your confirmation was there to Fermilab, and it was 

great to be with you. I really enjoyed it, but I also know everybody 

in Fermilab was really pleased and impressed with your visit, so 

I just want to say thank you so much for taking that time to be 

there and to see some of the amazing things that they’re doing. 

I also want to thank the Administration for continued commitment to the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility and the accompanying 

Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment that you mentioned in 

your opening remarks, your statement. It was reassuring for the 

international community as well and the people working in my district to hear from the Secretary and OSTP at the groundbreaking 

of the Farr site in South Dakota last year as well. 

One question I have as the process continues is regarding the 

PIP–II upgrades for the beamline. While a separate project from 

LBNF DUNE, this upgrade is necessary for the success of LBNF 

DUNE and has already garnered international support, again, as 

you mentioned, for about 20 percent of the project with India alone 

investing $200 million. Giving America the world’s strongest neu-
47 

trino beam is essential for the United States to become the single 

place in the world where scientists will come—must come—to do 

this work. 

I wondered, Mr. Dabbar, if I could ask for your commitment to 

assess the status of PIP–II and, if possible, to help move this 

project forward through DOE’s review process and provide the necessary funds to keep this project on track? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, Congressman Hultgren. I’m very much in support of continuing to review that. Obviously, as you pointed out, 

there’s been great international cooperation. I think if you kind of 

compare that to our version of CERN—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. 

Mr. DABBAR. —in terms of being able to draw on support and 

draw on science. It’s actually big focus of mine is take what the 

Fermi team has done in terms of how to build an international consortium to pull investment into the United States based upon our 

knowledge, based upon the knowledge that’s at Fermi laboratory 

and actually what I want to try to do is not only execute on what 

we’re doing, pull in some additional funds, which both myself and 

the Secretary and the Deputy are actively engaged in diplomatic 

aspects of other countries to do that. But we actually want to take 

the skill sets that the team—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Right. 

Mr. DABBAR. —that pulled together at Fermi to try to look at 

other potential user facilities in the future to use that as a model. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s fantastic. And I think the best story out 

of that certainly is great work done to pull it together, but even as 

you and I talked about there, the challenge that we have to do to 

keep that going and growing is to make sure we’re doing our part 

as well, and so that’s our commitment and—is Congress working 

with the Administration to make sure that funding is there, that 

we’re able to follow through on these important projects that are 

garnering this amazing world attention, but more than just attention, investment that is really exciting. 

If I could address to both of you in just the remaining minuteand-a-half that I have, the House has passed legislation that I’ve 

sponsored the last two Congresses unanimously to modernize and 

streamline the technology transfer process from the labs, again, 

something that you mentioned. One of the Administration’s key 

priorities has been removing regulations that are impeding the private sector from bringing new ideas and businesses to the market. 

A provision of my legislation, which the prior Administration opposed, allowed for laboratory directors to have signature authority 

on tech transfer agreements below $1 million. While I respect the 

site offices and their need for DOE oversight of our labs, unfortunately, the time it takes to do many of these small agreements 

means that small businesses and other partners were unable to 

work with our labs. I wondered if this is a proposal you’d be willing 

to take a look at, and we feel like this is in line with commonsense 

deregulatory approach that the President has tasked agencies to 

implement. 

So, again, I wondered if you might be willing to take a look at 

this, again, empowering for some of these still significant but 
48 

lower-cost projects to allow site directors to be able to move forward? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, I—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Or lab directors. 

Mr. DABBAR. I’ve reviewed H.R. 1158 and certainly looked at a 

lot of those particular provisions. I certainly understand the point 

about the signatory authority. I’m certainly open to discussing that. 

I’ve not gone through that particular point in detail, but we have 

focused a significant amount on reducing the amount of legal effort 

and Administration effort around CRADAS, around work for others, and as you probably know, we actually took the act program 

which is another version which allows greater flexibility on legal 

points around contractors to enter into new agreements. We made 

that permanent. 

So we generally agree with everything that you’ve laid out in 

H.R. 1158, and I’m certainly open to talking with that particular 

line item point further. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. Well, again, thank you all—thank you 

both so much. 

Mr. MENEZES. Did you want me to add anything on that? I was 

just—except for my—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Quickly. Maybe just—I’m sorry, my time—— 

Mr. MENEZES. —private sector experience—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. —is expired but—— 

Mr. MENEZES. —the act model seems to reflect a lot about what 

goes out there in the private industry on risk assessment—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Right. 

Mr. MENEZES. —management—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. 

Mr. MENEZES. —funding. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s right. Thank you. Thanks, Chairman. I 

yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. At least he didn’t say anything negative about your 

bill, so that was good. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

Say, the terms early-stage research and late-stage research seem 

to be used in a cavalier fashion in the budget as a rationale to cut 

some programs and fund others. Can either one of you define what 

early-stage research is and what late-stage research is? 

Mr. DABBAR. I’ll certainly start. In terms of early-stage research, 

once again, it depends on the program office, but it is specifically 

identifying where the commercial industry is not at and where we 

think that something in terms of an area of science or an area in 

technology that, if capital was employed, that we can move forward 

to balance, and whether that’s high-performance computing, which 

is one topic, or in particle physics or in imaging, that’s in general 

how we would define what’s early-stage. 

What’s late-stage is something that is very close to the point in 

which the commercial sector sees financial viability to make a profit in a particular product. And just to summarize, we’re very much 

engaged with industry product by product to know exactly where, 

you know, the point is to debate and move as technology moves. 
49 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, how about just defining late-stage as when 

the private sector is willing to fully fund the research? 

Mr. DABBAR. That’s certainly one definition. You know, you can 

actually debate whether it’s 100 percent or if there’s other funding 

mechanisms that help push it over the edge, but yes, approximately, I do agree with that. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, if I might add on that, for example, when 

Congress passed the Loan Guarantee Program, it—back in 2005, 

they focused on emerging technologies and of course the technology 

to reduce emissions. That was a loan guarantee, so it was technologies that were sufficient to attempt to commercialize, but the 

private sector couldn’t quite, you know, fund it. These were high 

capital expense projects. And so that was—back then, Congress 

sort of sought to identify opportunities there to bring the government loan guarantee program to bear— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. MENEZES. —back in 05. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Dabbar, over the past few years, several 

promising alternative approaches to achieving a viable fusion reactor have emerged from small and medium-sized startups, as well 

as academia and our national labs. What is the Department doing 

to ensure that the full range of viable options to achieve commercial fusion is sufficiently vetted and, where appropriate, well-funded? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you very much. Before I was lucky enough 

to be in this position, I actually have had experience in trying to 

commercialize fusion and worked with a number of the different 

entities, so I certainly have familiarity and/or working with Tri 

Alpha, with Lockheed, with General Atomics, as well as understanding the efforts that were made by the Department. 

There’s obviously a number of different geometries that could be 

potentially used, and I could say that the fusion area is about as 

opinionated as any in terms of the differences of the types of technologies. Certainly, with the funds over to recent times we’ve been 

focusing on Tokamak, but at some of the other technologies, we’ve 

actually given access to high-performance computing from modeling 

for magnetic fields, so even though we don’t directly fund, we actually, through high-performance computing and advance computing, 

give access to modeling capabilities for some of those commercial 

areas which we’re very happy to support. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Mr. Dabbar, last year, the Committee held a hearing on geoengineering research, and the prevailing recommendations from the witnesses at the hearing that 

the National Academies—and the National Academies is that there 

needs to be more fundamental research. Will this Administration 

support geoengineering research that does modeling and laboratory 

testing? 

Mr. DABBAR. I’m not familiar with that particular hearing or the 

witnesses, but I’m certainly open to that particular topic. I’m learning more about what was said there and the recommendations. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

How—Mr. Menezes, how do you intend to work with the NRC to 

ensure that the DOE is a helpful partner in licensing nuclear reactors? 
50 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, we do intend to meet with staff, to meet 

with the current commissioners. In fact, we have met with some to 

ensure that our goals are the same. We have several projects that 

we’re interested in. Clearly, we’re hopeful that the small modular 

reactor application will be both timely submitted and considered. 

So we are having conversations with them. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you think there’s a constructive role that 

ARPA–E could play in advancing environmental management mission, Mr. Dabbar? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. I think that there’s obviously a number of different technologies that could be—that could help the mission, and 

certainly, we are taking a look at whether a particular FOA topic 

coming out of ARPA–E could be utilized for that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Babin, is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Sir, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the witnesses for being here. 

Mr. Menezes, the Department of Energy has a long history of 

public-private partnerships in the fossil energy research and development program with some notable successes like the Petra Nova 

project in Texas, which was designed to capture over 4,000 tons of 

carbon emissions from a coal plant and use those emissions to 

produce 15,000 barrels of Texas oil each day, which was a 50-fold 

increase over the field status quo. But it is also had some notable 

failures as well like the FutureGen project where, after 12 years 

and over $200 million in taxpayer dollars spent, DOE was forced 

to withdraw from the CCS project after endless delays. 

It’s clear that fossil energy is part of our energy future with over 

200 years of coal and at least 100 years of natural gas reserves in 

the United States, but it is less clear what role the DOE programs 

should play in developing new fossil energy technology. How do you 

propose to use the Department’s limited resources to expand the 

impact of fossil fuel research? As Under Secretary, how will you ensure the Department better leverages federal resources to advance 

energy innovation and make our vast fossil energy resources cleaner, more reliable, more affordable, while creating U.S. jobs? 

Mr. MENEZES. Thank you for the question, Congressman. You 

know, regarding fossil energy, the focus has been primarily on postcombustion technologies, carbon capture sequestration, carbon capture utilization sequestration. We have begun a reassessment of 

uses of fossil energy both pre-combustion, during combustion, and 

then post-combustion, so we have expanded the potential opportunities for fossil energy in the world of research and development. 

So take coal for example. There may be pre-combustion techniques to help minimize emissions. There may be new uses of coal 

never before considered, so we’re taking a look at that. 

On natural gas we have seen the successes of the improved 

buffering techniques for hydraulic fracturing. Congress did a big 

part in unleashing natural gas. We see in some of our applied labs 

we’re actually looking at refined products to make them more efficient in production. So we think we have a full array of opportunity 

to use our resources a little more broadly than in the past. 
51 

Mr. BABIN. Well, it’s amazing because just a few short years ago 

I remember hearing a program—it may have been at the Lions 

Club in—I represent the 36th District in Texas, and we had a couple of experts. One of them was from Schlumberger I remember 

talking about peak oil. This was just a few years back, and we were 

done with fossil fuels. And so I think it’s just ever so important and 

significant that we use every resource that we can to try to make 

it more efficient. 

And, Mr. Dabbar, do you have anything that you would like to 

add to that at all? 

Mr. DABBAR. You know, I do think that energy technology—— 

Mr. WEBER. Get your mic on, Mr.—there you go. Thank you. 

Mr. DABBAR. Obviously, the Department, through a number of 

different labs, had impact on that. I think it’s—obviously, people 

like George Mitchell and so on were—— 

Mr. BABIN. That’s right. 

Mr. DABBAR. —move things forward, but I think as you probably 

know, Sandia and one of the applied labs at NETL actually had impact on the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies and computer modeling. And one of the major things that 

helped move along Marcellus Shale development was actual funding that came out of one of the labs that reports to Under Secretary 

Menezes. And the actual modeling that took place—a lot of the 

early models that took place came out of an NNSA lab at Sandia. 

So the Department has actually been a big supporter of a lot of 

these developments, and we’re obviously glad to see that we’re not 

only the number-one oil producer in the world, we’re the numberone gas producer in the world, severally. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely, and that’s good news. Thank you very 

much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 

witnesses today. 

I’m Congressman Bill Foster. I sometimes introduce myself as 

saying I represent 100 percent of the strategic reserve of physicists 

in the United States Congress, and I serve alongside Mr. McNerney, who represents 100 percent of the Ph.D. mathematicians in 

this august body. 

And—but I was recently privileged to spend the day with Secretary Perry as he toured the two large DOE laboratories, and I 

was really struck with his genuine enthusiasm, you know, for the 

science they do and his willingness to advocate for the science program. So I am encouraged to hear you echo that enthusiasm. 

Mr. Dabbar, I was impressed actually by the bipartisan support 

for advanced battery development, so thank you for recognizing in 

your testimony the battery work at Argonne National Lab, which 

I represent, which anchors the nationwide JCESR initiative, a 

multi-laboratory, a multi-university collaboration for advanced batteries, which is in fact producing prototypes of these—you know, of 

the technology it’s developing. 

Thank you also for acknowledging the critical role of Argonne’s 

Advanced Photon Source, which is—and presumably its upgrade, 
52 

which I trust you will also support. This is crucial to, you know, 

the continuing development there. 

And finally, Argonne’s petascale supercomputing initiative, you 

know, which will be the world leader and should reclaim, you 

know, something in an area where frankly it’s under threat from 

China in surpassing it. 

And thanks also for your commitment to complete the construction of the LBNF DUNE neutrino initiative at Fermilab where— 

I worked at Fermilab for 23 years before coming to the U.S. Congress, and so I got a chance to introduce a lot of my old friends to 

Secretary Perry when we had our tour together. 

And I’ve also been impressed by the international scientific enthusiasm for the neutrino program there and second my colleague 

from Illinois’ enthusiasm and his emphasis on getting the PIP Proton Intensity Program upgrade through the CD–1 progress—program and, you know, milestone and beyond. That’s crucial. 

Now, the question that I have here is probably the toughest one 

you’re going to be facing, which is the question of ITER, which is— 

this is something that was punted to you from the last Administration. It has been, you know, back and forth in Congress whether 

or not we should continue with ITER because of its well-known cost 

issues. And in the last fiscal year there was a recommendation 

from the previous Administration that the U.S. involvement in 

ITER be reassessed prior to the fiscal year 2019 budget, which is, 

as you mentioned, ongoing. And this budget is now due in only a 

few weeks. And I was wondering, you know, is this decision 

timescale one that you expect to be—you know, to be actually held, 

that you’ll have a—you know, a recommendation on whether to 

proceed with ITER—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —by the time of—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. Yes. So thank you, sir. So I think as you know, 

in ’18 back to the previous comment—so we’d ask the proposal— 

I was not here but in terms of the handover—and it is a challenge. 

I admit I think it’s a challenge for everyone here that the last cash 

proposal was zero, and we were asking for in kind of 63. And the 

Senate mark was zero, and the House mark was 125. And so 

there’s a big spread on this particular topic. 

On top of this, as someone who’s highly focused on project management, both in environmental management and science, I think 

as you know the Office of Science has done in general a wonderful 

job on project management, and the ITER project has had some 

challenges. They have improved. And all these are data points that 

are out there. 

Another thing that we’re obviously considering I think as you 

know that when you do a CD–0 and you look at what the science 

is supposed to move forward on, this is a project which is also taking a very long time and you start thinking about the science and 

whether what are we going to learn from the practical applied side 

versus the science side and the lithium blanket and tritium production versus what we’re going to learn on confinement and plasma 

sides. 

We are actively engaged, and I think it’s going to take a little 

bit more time than the budget rollout in terms of all the debates. 
53 

This is a very serious discussion. It is being held at the highest levels. There is obviously—— 

Mr. FOSTER. You had mentioned that it was under review in the 

Administration. 

Mr. DABBAR. That’s right. 

Mr. FOSTER. Can you—who were the scientists involved in that 

review in the Administration? 

Mr. DABBAR. The full Office of Science—— 

Mr. FOSTER. In the Administration, you said. 

Mr. DABBAR. Well, at the Administration side—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, political appointees and above—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, so—— 

Mr. FOSTER. —who are the scientists involved in that debate over 

ITER? 

Mr. DABBAR. Well, the scientists are coming from my office. At 

the White House, as you probably know, the office—the OSTP is 

not filled at this moment, and the input and the science is coming 

from DOE just to be—just to—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. So—— 

Mr. DABBAR. —narrowly answer that question, but there was involvement from State, the National Security Council, OMB, and 

DOE. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, there are two, you know, scientific committees. 

The National Academy—— 

Mr. DABBAR. That’s right. 

Mr. FOSTER. —has an ongoing thing—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —and FESAC, the Fusion Advisory Committee, is I 

think—— 

Mr. DABBAR. That’s right. 

Mr. FOSTER. —meeting this week if I’m not mistaken. 

Mr. DABBAR. They are. 

Mr. FOSTER. And so you are actually going to listen to those or 

will this be a political decision on the Administration? 

Mr. DABBAR. This is a decision in which science is going to be 

a big part. Obviously, there’s also interest on the part of the European Union and others who advocate for this not only from a 

science perspective but from a broader perspective. And so all 

those. And, as you probably know, there’s two National Academy 

reviews going on, one in which there was a draft out, and one 

which is still coming out that’s a bit broader. All those are going 

to be inputs, which is why I think this decision is going to take 

longer than the budget rollout because we want to have all the 

data points. But it’s being taken very seriously at a very high level. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. And it’s your intentional to make it during this 

calendar year, this current calendar year? 

Mr. DABBAR. I believe so because it is very active. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

And, Dr. Abraham from Louisiana, you are recognized. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Secretary Menezes, it’s an honor to have you representing, 

as a native son of Louisiana, in such a position of responsibility, 

so thank you for saying yes. 
54 

The—I agree with you that it’s a good thing that the hierarchical 

accountability has been somewhat changed in the DOE, and I applaud Secretary Perry for recognizing how evolutionary science is 

now and how quickly things can change. 

Secretary Dabbar, you mentioned on your litany of good things 

that are happening at the DOE in your opening statement of the 

gene editing that is taking place, so as you and I both know it 

started with the CRISPR–Cas9 science or breakthrough, and I’m 

told that also being on the Agricultural Committee that in a very 

short period of time, food supply will need to be three times what 

it is now just to supply the world with some food. And it is through 

this gene editing that I think we can meet that goal and move forward and actually feed the world. And without it, I think we have 

starving people globally, and that would be an unfortunate thing. 

Secretary Menezes, in your opinion in the applied energy offices, 

could you provide an example of the advancement in technology 

that could only be accomplished by the government? And on the 

flip side of the coin, what about investments and studies that are 

better suited for the private industry? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, certainly in the world of nuclear the INL lab 

is performing research that really can only be done funded by the 

government. That is—it’s high capital expense. It’s very technical. 

It’s science-driven, and it is in support of what the industry is 

doing. So in the world of nuclear I think that we brought the very 

first nuclear reactor to generate electricity, so that continues to be 

an example. 

And your second question was? 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, what about on the private side? What— 

where can they be best suited as far as investments in technology 

innovation? Where are they better than the government? 

Mr. MENEZES. So in fossil energy—our program office has done 

preliminary research on rare earth elements, and—identifying and 

capturing rare earth elements from coal waste byproducts, for example. They did the core samples, they did the analysis, and they 

are now approaching creating ways to actually capture, produce, 

process, and make it eventually commercially available. The significance of that is that we would no longer be dependent on China 

for the majority of our rare earth elements. And so that’s an example where I think with the program office, with a bit more work, 

we’ll eventually I think hopefully commercialize that. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And it’s my understanding that we’re way behind 

China in rare earth elements mining and development and accumulation. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. MENEZES. We know that a large majority of the rare earth 

elements globally is produced by China. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And my follow-up question, the DOE national labs 

have consistently accomplished research and technology goals established by the DOE. Would you support DOE’s research programs to develop specific goals or mission-oriented technological development in critical areas such as advanced nuclear reactors, advanced fossil fuel energy systems, and those types of deals? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, sir. Our program officers regularly project 

timelines, technological achievements both in a linear fashion and 

goal-oriented to gain the advantages throughout the program of-
55 

fices. So it’s in our DNA so to speak, and yes, you will have our 

commitment to do that. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

And, gentlemen, thank you for your service and thanks for your 

testimony today. 

And you’ve heard from particularly the guys from Illinois, who 

I think both of them want to be president of their Chamber of Commerce because they’re very proud of their laboratories. Obviously, 

I’m very proud of the National Renewable Energy Lab in my district. 

And I’ve been encouraged by your testimony today. I’d like to ask 

both of you in 20 words or less, if you can do it, what you think, 

Mr. Dabbar, your mission is as the Under Secretary for Science. 

Mr. DABBAR. To move forward the bounds of knowledge that we 

know through execution of our research programs. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. And, Mr. Menezes? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, to apply the science and the technologies 

that we develop to continue to ensure that our energy will continue 

to unlock economic prosperity for all. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. And again, I’m encouraged by those mission statements and really by your testimony today. I mean, you 

know, my fear—and between—from one Administration to the 

next, there’s going to be ebbs and flows between renewable energy 

and fossil fuels, between basic science research and maybe applied 

science research, and that’s okay. My concern, and it—and I want 

to echo what Mr. Tonko had to say—is, you know, recently we— 

and I did a math problem for a panel a few weeks ago. There were 

two lawyers, so I picked on by brothers from the bar in doing the 

math problem, two scientists. 

My fear is after these big tax cuts that we just passed of $1 trillion, $500 billion at best and maybe $2 trillion, that your Department is going to be under siege to just cut like crazy. And currently, the EERE budget goes from about $2.07 billion to $636 million, so it’s a 70 percent cut. Now, that’s a little more than the ebb 

and flow that ordinarily occurs from Administration to Administration, but you gentlemen are going to be under a lot of pressure, 

given what we just passed here in Congress and that the President 

signed. 

So just to fiddle around a little bit, the math problem—so it’s one 

and a half trillion. You know how many times $2.07 billion goes 

into that tax cut we just did? And I’m not going to mess with you. 

It’s 750 times. So we have 750 years’ worth of renewable energy 

and energy efficiency research that both of you just listening to 

your testimony—and you might move a little more to hydraulic 

fracking or how exactly, you know, combustion occurs, and that’s 

okay. I just want to make sure that the missions that you both just 

stated you feel you’ve undertaken can be fulfilled. And I’ll just open 

it up—you know, I’m going to put a question mark on that and ask 

you, Mr. Menezes, first, how you think you’re going to be able to 

do that? 
56 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I have come to learn, after having been 

counsel to an authorizing committee, that it is a very complicated 

process out there when it comes to actually implementing what an 

authorizing committee has authorized. Of course, the budget is a 

key part of that. OMB plays a big role in that. Your appropriators 

also play a big role in that. And so we’re put in the position of getting over there—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And you play a big role in that—— 

Mr. MENEZES. We do. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —in how you want to affect your mission. 

Mr. MENEZES. We do, and we find that we have to work with the 

appropriators and OMB. Within the Departments and within the 

labs—and you all have had oversight over this and you know how 

well the Department collaborates, has crosscutting projects and 

programs, and they’re able to make the best with the resources 

that they have ultimately after the appropriators appropriate the 

money. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Let me ask Mr. Dabbar how he 

thinks he’s going to be able to continue this mission of, you know, 

really expanding the bounds of knowledge. 

Mr. DABBAR. You know, I had my first captain when I was in a 

submarine said, you know, ‘‘The real mark of leadership is not having unlimited things to work with but is doing the best that you 

can with the resources that you’re given.’’ And that’s how I’ve always looked at my life. The reality is the Office of Science has an 

almost unlimited set of things that it could go after. And every single day, no matter how much you all as appropriators give us, 

there is more to do and it is vast. And even within a bound, we 

as capital allocators working with you all in terms of advocacy trying to figure out where quantum computing fits versus light 

sources versus regular high-performance computing versus materials, fusion, it keeps going on. And so this is a topic that comes 

up no matter how much gets appropriated and have to balance all 

the different issues that we’ve just been talking about here today. 

And we’re going to move things forward as much as the resources 

are given to us, and the reality is we will be flexible as appropriate 

at whatever is authorized, and we will be grateful and be good 

stewards of the taxpayers’ funds. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. All right. Thank you for your testimony and 

thanks for your service. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Dunn, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We’ve been enjoying the look in the future. I want to step back into the here and 

now just for a minute. 

I’m a physician. We use nuclear isotopes every day we go to 

work, and I’ve noticed in the last few years that America is struggling to generate the medical isotopes that we’ve already developed, 

but we have to go on and generate them day after day. And we’ve 

become dependent on Canadian reactors that are obsolescent, have 

been kept open well past their lifespan and on accelerators in Moscow that are decaying and so I would like it if you could give me— 

show me a little sunshine here on this. Tell me what we have got 

in the future to generate nuclear isotopes for medicine if you 
57 

would. I’m thinking about things like, you know, rubidium and on 

the therapeutic side radium 223 and things like that. 

Mr. DABBAR. Clearly, there’s more to do and frankly there’s always more to do in the isotope side on the medical point. The isotope program for the Department—and I’m glad to have a separate 

meeting with you to go through all the details—— 

Mr. DUNN. I’d love to do that. 

Mr. DABBAR. But in reality it’s partially run like a business. And 

we’ve actually been able to generate funds with an isotope program 

to expand facilities. And we have significant engagements with the 

market looking at isotope by isotope, seeing where the opportunities are and where to actually invest funds that, as we go and sell 

isotopes, where we reinvest funds associated with the sales to expand production. We have meetings—public meetings with public 

entities, and we actually had meetings with industrial partners at 

a vast amount of the healthcare industry to identify what they’re 

looking at from a market perspective and what we could go and 

produce. So there’s a very dynamic engagement between the two. 

Mr. DUNN. Yes, and I’ve been involved with that actually personally in my practice. I could tell you that it’s—that we’ve had a 

great deal of rewarding time spent with some of your predecessors. 

I will tell you that the process is a little slower than we—and there 

are simply times we don’t have the isotopes we need—— 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. DUNN. —to diagnose and treat patients, so it gets down to 

the—you know, to the bedside. We really just—we run short. 

I’m going to—if I could go back to the future—maybe this is back 

to the past—talk about the next generation fission reactors, again, 

the generation four. We’ve had the two’s, the three’s, the light 

water reactors. I’m sort of fascinated—I’m wondering what we need 

to do to get the very high temperature fast reactors that—you 

know, that will reprocess some of the fuel that’s now wasted, you 

know, expended fuel, we can reprocess that and also generate 

more. Can we not have a prototype of these? 

Mr. DABBAR. Right, and we have been discussing that this morning. 

Mr. DUNN. Yes. 

Mr. DABBAR. You know, if we had the adequate resources. We 

certainly have prioritized small modular reactors. We have also 

prioritized microreactors. We’ve prioritized trying to use the thermal heat from nuclear to create other products, so it’s a top priority 

in our nuclear program. It is working with Congress and it is working with the Administration to get the right level of resources, but 

the labs are ready to go on it, as well as the program office. 

Mr. DUNN. I think there’s a sense of excitement on both sides of 

the aisle here to see some progress in that area. 

Mr. DABBAR. There is, and we had mentioned also the NRC process, so we’re excited to—if we can to get that process underway and 

through it. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you. So in the minute remaining I’m wondering if you gentlemen would speculate a little bit about applied 

research on grid integration and grid reliability. What are we doing 

to address the—hardening our grid and also diversifying it so it actually meets tomorrow’s electrical needs? 
58 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, we are doing quite a lot. And indeed at the— 

at NREL we have the computer modeling, as well as prototypes to 

a much more flexible and open system, so we get inputs from behind the meter to help bring new generation online to help shave 

load, et cetera. One thing is that the more we make our system 

open and flexible, we need to make it resilient, and we need to 

make it—— 

Mr. DUNN. Yes. 

Mr. DABBAR. —secure. So a top priority of us is to ensure that 

we develop the science on cybersecurity technology to—so as we 

make our system more flexible, more open, that we’re also making 

a more secure, and that is a top priority. And the labs are doing 

quite a bit of work in both areas. 

Mr. DUNN. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future 

about that. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlelady from Oregon is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

Chair and Ranking Member for holding this hearing and to our 

witnesses for being here. 

Last week, I visited the Portland office of the Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory. The office focuses on greater energy efficiency 

in buildings; improved technologies for renewables, including wind, 

water, solar, and biomass; and also new vehicle technologies. Their 

innovative efforts should be a model for the industry nationwide. 

We’ve also in my State been a leader in marine energy and 

exascale computing, so I’m interested in hearing from our witnesses about how to advance these efforts. 

And I’ll start with Under Secretary Dabbar. One of our nation’s 

energy priorities should be making sure that America keeps pace 

with the rest of the world in developing exascale computing. That 

has implications, of course, for our national security and our competitiveness, so could you talk about what you are doing to further 

the developments in this area and how Congress can work with you 

to accelerate this priority? 

Mr. DABBAR. Thank you very much. Exascale is—of all the items 

when we go through our priorities in the Office of Science area underneath me—is number one. And we’d like to thank the Congress 

for appropriations and supporting that here over the last few years 

and focusing on that. It’s—I think out of all the areas of the Office 

of Science and what we work on it’s the area that is most competitive globally. And I think as you know, in the area of high-performance computing, China is really neck-and-neck with us on—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Mr. DABBAR. —individual systems that are coming online. So it 

is a high degree of focus. We would like to thank Congress for its 

support of that. Obviously, we’re trying to roll out three exascale 

computers. The first one will be in Illinois at Argonne, the second 

one would be at Oak Ridge, and the third one will be at that NNSA 

facility. I think this is a great example of cross-department and 

cross-lab support because lots of examples on that, but NNSA and 

science have an official formal MOU on exactly how to go attack 

this and how to roll it out and how to work together. 
59 

A second thing that’s highly important is diversity in architectures. I think as you probably know, at Argonne we had a certain 

set of suppliers around Intel and IBM, and when we roll out the 

second one, we want to make certain that we provide diversity and 

support the industry on moving technology forward on exascale by 

actually going and asking for different suppliers to make sure we 

have a different architecture to really have competition and really 

to have diversity. So this is a high degree of focus. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And, I’m sorry, I want to try to get 

a couple more questions in. I appreciate that that’s a priority. 

Under Secretary Menezes, marine energy systems include wave, 

tidal, and offshore hydrokinetic systems. The Northwest National 

Marine Renewable Energy Center in Oregon is building the first 

full-scale wave energy test facility in the United States with financial support from the Department of Energy. Recent economic analysis from Ocean Energy Europe and Marine Renewables Canada 

estimate that the global marine energy market will be worth about 

$62 billion by 2050 and support hundreds of thousands of jobs in 

the supply chain. We know European governments and Canada are 

spending millions of dollars per year supporting marine energy 

technology. China is spending billions of dollars annually. The U.S. 

Department of Energy and the Navy’s spending combined has 

peaked at a fraction of what is spent in other areas to support this 

nascent domestic industry. 

So will you commit to developing marine energy and support increased funding for research and development in this sector so we 

can compete in the global market? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, you have our commitment to do so. We believe in all-of-the-above and the exciting potential advancements in 

this area. We will continue to support. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. I appreciate that because there’s a tremendous amount of potential there.I want to go back to Under Secretary Dabbar and ask about environmental management. In recent years the—I’m from Oregon but just to the north is Hanford 

of course. The environmental management portfolio has dominated 

the time and attention of whichever Under Secretary has had it in 

his or her portfolio, and this was part of the rationale behind Secretary Moniz’s restructuring to place the responsibility under a single Under Secretary to deal with those environmental management 

issues. So the new organization now has you overseeing this largest 

nuclear waste cleanup effort in the world, and the DOE Office of 

Science, the single largest supporter of research in the physical 

sciences in the United States. So how will you balance this portfolio 

to ensure that each of these extremely important missions receives 

the appropriate amount of attention? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, I mean, first of all we have a lot of great people and we have a lot of depth in the Office of Science and Environmental Management. The second thing is, you know, in terms of 

the focus on environmental management, the big overlap between 

the two is technology and project management. If you look at what 

actually the Office of Science does and what Environmental Management does, to a large degree it’s contractor management, it’s 

contracting, and it’s project management. And they both do that 

very well. 
60 

As I think you know, the Office of Science has an excellent set 

of experience on project management and costing. They have a lot 

of technologies that can be applied to environmental management, 

and we intend to merge those together. 

One other particular area—I sat on the Environmental Management Advisory Board for 12 years. I’ve been to Hanford many, 

many times. I started my career in nuclear engineering as a 

Radcon worker, and so I have personal experience also at managing those topics, know very much when topics come up exactly 

what the technical issues are and how to attack them. So I think 

we feel very comfortable around those together and the sort of skill 

sets that have overlap and the sort of people who are running 

them. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I thank you. My time is expired. I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank you, ma’am. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There has been a great deal of discussion on this committee 

today regarding budget and adequate resources. Mr. Chairman, we 

must decrease federal spending. It’s our duty as a body to protect 

the people’s treasure, and I remind my colleagues that we do serve 

a nation that’s $20 trillion in debt. 

I certainly believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy, and I’m 

encouraged by the restructuring of DOE with an eye towards efficient service, doing more with less, and getting things done 

through private and public partnership. It strikes me that the 

iPhone that we use was a private endeavor. SpaceX is building towards a launch weekly. It’s a private endeavor. Carbon recapture 

technology to produce energy onsite in the petrochemical industry 

and oil and gas industry was a private endeavor. So I believe that 

this focus on public-private partnership is the right direction for us 

to move to have a more efficient federal government that serves the 

American people. 

The pathway to the future certainly begins in our laboratories. 

As an example, in 2016, China developed a tabletop-sized laser 

that would—that managed a burst of laser light that developed 5.3 

petawatts—that’s 5.3 million billion watts roughly 500 times the 

power of all the world’s electrical grids combined. That was a burst 

of less than a trillionth of a second. So the truth is that none of 

us here know where energy is going, but we do know that that 

pathway leads through our laboratories. And I’m encouraged with 

the focus on public-private relationships. 

How does the Department—for—Mr. Dabbar, this is a question 

for you, sir. How does your Department plan to assist with the implementation and recommendations to improve flexibilities and 

streamline the national laboratory system based on the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of National Energy Laboratories 

or the CRENEL report? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, thank you. So the CRENEL report, which I 

certainly have reviewed several times, I think is a very important 

guideline for us and management of the national labs. One of the 

things that it recommended that we’re currently executing on is 

contract—M&O contract restructuring. I think, as you probably 
61 

know, over the course of time I think administrative burdens on 

our laboratories had increased and the CRENEL report certainly 

recognized that. 

And the Department worked with one lab to start off with in 

terms of restructuring contracts to try to reduce the administrative 

costs, and we did this first at Stanford. And so at the SLAC facility 

we took their contract, worked with them for quite a bit. There was 

some help with the Berkeley lab next door up the Bay area on 

redoing that contract, and we’ve done that and it’s working. And 

we intend to roll that out to other contractors to try to reduce the 

administrative burden, to have people focus on the mission rather 

than Administration while still having appropriate oversight. And 

so we certainly intend to do that. 

Second, I want to point out is that when the Secretary came in, 

he pointed out that obviously with—give or take 100,000 people between federal employees and contractors that report through the 

DOE complex, that there’s probably various administrative points 

that are also impeding it beyond the M&O contractors. 

So we are now in phase II. We’ve already gone through phase I 

of identifying, having a cross group of contractors, lab directors, 

people inside the Department to identify things of that in terms of 

structural layouts, in terms of administrative points that either impede the mission, and we take—we’re taking really a bottoms-up 

input from everyone on how to reduce the administrative costs and 

things that the stand in the way of the mission, and we very much 

are moving forward on finding very specific things to attack and 

how to improve and streamline the Department with groundswell 

support of that data. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you for that very thorough answer and encouraging. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the conservation of 

time, I’d like to submit my question to Mr. Menezes in writing. And 

I look forward to your response, sir. The question will be relative 

to the security of our grid and the use of existing proven energies, 

fossil fuel energies, and nuclear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WEBER. Without objection, the gentleman yields. 

The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Department of Energy is currently four Energy Innovation 

Hubs, and the establishment of a fifth hub focused on the critical 

cross-cutting issue of energy—of the energy-water nexus, and that 

was supported by Congress and signed into law by the President 

as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2017. These 

unique consortia bring together academia, industry, and the government to solve unique challenges. Yet without any clear justification provided, the Trump Administration has proposed to eliminate 

all of the hubs in its fiscal year 2018 budget proposal. Can either 

one of you provide me with an explanation for why this Administration—why it is the Administration’s position to end the hubs 

model that has experienced so much success? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, as previously mentioned, we weren’t involved in the budget process for fiscal year 2018. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, if you don’t have an answer, I’d like to move 

on to another question, and then you can come back to me with a— 
62 

you know, an answer after you’ve had a chance to review it. All 

right. Thank you. 

I want to ask another question here about energy storage. We’ve 

seen great strides and we have interest on both sides of the aisle 

here. Dr. Dunn is very interested in this issue as well. We have 

seen great strides in battery storage energy in the last 5—last few 

years, but many of the largest improvements that have brought 

costs down have come from improvements in the manufacturing 

process. Conversations that I’ve had with the experts in this field 

agree that we need a few major breakthroughs in the actual research of the chemical composition and batteries themselves for us 

to realize the great potential of battery energy storage. 

Do you see energy storage research as early-stage research or 

will the Department continue to commit—and will the Department 

continue to commit to supporting energy storage research? 

Mr. DABBAR. I can say that it is a high priority of the Department. It’s a high priority across all our program offices, and I 

would say back to your second-to-last question it is a mix of early 

stage and what I will call mid-stage. There’s multiple different 

types of technologies that we have, and we’re moving forward on 

some that are at the basic level and we think have a high degree 

of possibility. And we have some that are farther down the road. 

And as I mentioned earlier, we have a lot of engagement with the 

likes of United Technologies, Dow, General Motors on some of 

those, and we—— 

Mr. TAKANO. That’s—— 

Mr. DABBAR. —we’re fully supportive of that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, that’s wonderful. Does that mean that you see 

it as a mix of some early—the part I mentioned about the chemical 

composition? That sounds like a good candidate for early stage— 

would fit in the category of being funded? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Last week, Moody’s Investors Service 

released a report stating, quote, ‘‘U.S. coal production will continue 

a steady secular decline without policy support for and continued 

investment in carbon capture and storage technology,’’ end quote. 

The fiscal year 2018 budget proposal included major cuts to FE’s 

research activities, including cuts of over 80 percent to carbon capture R&D and carbon storage research with advance energy systems receiving a nearly 60 percent cut. But mostly these cuts were 

rationalized with a simple line about how industry can better commercialize these technologies and methods. 

I think the American people, especially those in coal States, are 

quickly realizing that the rhetoric this Administration uses to bring 

coal back might just be all talk and no action, especially as expressed in the Department of Energy’s budget. Can you expect a 

declining industry with limited long-term risk tolerance to just immediately invest hundreds of millions of dollars into high-risk R&D 

to commercialize carbon capture technologies? Is that a rational expectation of us? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, it has been public-private partnership. All of 

the carbon capture and sequestration projects have always had 

some part of the project—— 
63 

Mr. TAKANO. So are you saying Moody’s is wrong that it’s not 

going to require a steady—that the secular decline is not going to 

be stanched unless we make a major investment? 

Mr. MENEZES. No—— 

Mr. TAKANO. You’re telling me that major investment is going to 

happen from an industry that has a low-risk tolerance here? 

Mr. MENEZES. No, I’m not saying that, but what I’m saying 

is—— 

Mr. TAKANO. So you’re not saying Moody is wrong? You agree 

with Moody’s statement? 

Mr. MENEZES. I don’t have an opinion on Moody. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, it’s their statement. ‘‘U.S. coal production will 

continue a steady secular decline without policy support for and 

continuing investment in carbon capture and storage technology.’’ 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. 

Mr. TAKANO. That’s a simple statement. 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. The question is—if I can, it’s—we fully support the carbon capture and sequestration efforts as past Administrations, and we continue to do that now. We have projects that are 

out there right now. We have Petra Nova. We have other facilities 

out there. It’s going to be a question of resources. But it’s not a 

question of whether or not we support carbon capture and utilization, carbon capture and sequestration. We—— 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Menezes, I would suggest to you that this budget reflects an all-talk-and-no-action response to the people in coal 

States that were promised things. That’s my suggestion to you. 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, the Administration has done some things. 

They’ve lifted the coal lease moratorium, for example, so that alone 

is helpful. At least now the Department—— 

Mr. TAKANO. Moody’s goes to—I mean, that’s a pretty big statement there about a steady secular decline—— 

Mr. MENEZES. Right. 

Mr. TAKANO. —without major investments. 

Mr. MENEZES. It’s true the industry has been on the decline—— 

Mr. TAKANO. And your Administration is recommending a huge 

60 percent, 80 percent cuts in these programs. 

Mr. WEBER. Would the gentleman like to continue to seek financial advice after the hearing? 

Mr. TAKANO. I’m not seeking financial advice, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m—this is a market newsletter that is saying that this is what’s 

going to happen. 

Mr. WEBER. Let’s—the gentleman is—— 

Mr. TAKANO. I’m not trying to seek advice here. I’m just trying 

to get—suss out here—— 

Mr. WEBER. Your—the gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, I see. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Menezes, is sustainable nuclear power a key component of 

electricity production in America? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, it is. It’s almost 20 percent of our electricity. 
64 

Mr. BROOKS. And how many nuclear power plants are currently 

under construction under this Department of Energy? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, we have the Vogtle plant—— 

Mr. BROOKS. In Georgia? Are you aware—— 

Mr. MENEZES. —in Georgia. 

Mr. BROOKS. —of any others? 

Mr. MENEZES. Not that I’m aware of. 

Mr. BROOKS. What does the Department of Energy do to encourage construction of nuclear power plant new construction efforts? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, on the energy we have been talking about 

this morning about what INL has done with respect to trying to 

move along the technologies involved in the small modular reactors 

and the micro modular reactors, so we are doing research there. 

We’re also working with the NRC to ensure that we can get licensing out of it timely so that we can bring some of these projects to 

market, so those are a couple of examples where we’re trying to 

foster that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Is the Department of Energy also involved in any 

way with funding, either tax credits or loan guarantees or anything 

of that nature, with respect to nuclear power plants? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, I know Congress is considering tax credits 

with respect to nuclear. I know in the past it has been there. I’m 

also aware of the Loan Program Office and the loan guarantees 

that have been there to assist nuclear projects. So the government 

has stepped up where to can to help facilitate the construction of 

nuclear facilities. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, with respect to what the Department of Energy is doing of which you are aware, how many new power plant— 

nuclear power plant constructions do you anticipate going online in 

the next year, two, or three? 

Mr. MENEZES. Well, Vogtle is the one that I think we’re all looking at. 

Mr. BROOKS. But I’m talking about new ones. 

Mr. MENEZES. No. 

Mr. BROOKS. Oh, you’re not aware of any successful efforts by the 

Department of Energy to start new nuclear power plants? 

Mr. MENEZES. I’m not aware of any construction underway. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, I’m talking about not underway right now 

other than Vogtle because you’ve mentioned that one. I acknowledge that one in Georgia, but I’m talking about startups, new 

startups after Vogtle, are you familiar with any? 

Mr. MENEZES. Specific projects? Other than the small modular 

reactor that I had referred to earlier in Idaho. 

Mr. BROOKS. Are you familiar with the Bellefonte nuclear facility 

in Jackson County, Alabama, in my Congressional district? 

Mr. MENEZES. I’m not aware of that. 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me give you a little bit of information about it. 

American taxpayers, particularly TVA ratepayers, have already 

spent over $5 billion on the construction of that nuclear power 

plant. For whatever reason, the TVA last year decided to sell it for 

$111 million, probably resulting in Bellefonte being one of the 

worst if not the worst federal boondoggles in the history of our 

country with a $5 billion loss on their books to show for it. 
65 

The Bellefonte facility was sold to Nuclear Development, LLC, as I mentioned, for $111 million with the principal owners behind Nuclear Development being Franklin Haney and the Haney family. It 

is projected if he’s able to complete it and turn it into an operational nuclear power plant to create 2,000 permanent jobs and 

roughly 4,000 construction jobs. 

There seem to be two barriers that we need to overcome—at 

least two that I’m aware of—to get this $5 billion facility put into 

operational form. One is a ruling that the TVA, if it wants to—can 

if it wants to—purchase power from Bellefonte at whatever rates 

TVA and the owner of Bellefonte can agree to. Do you have any 

reason for the Department of Energy not to support that kind of 

arrangement where the Tennessee Valley Authority can, if it wants 

to, have the right to purchase power produced at the Bellefonte nuclear facility if nuclear development should complete it? 

Mr. MENEZES. From the Department’s point of view I’m not 

aware of any objection that we would have with it. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, would you personally be willing to support 

TVA having the right to purchase nuclear power electricity generated at Bellefonte should it be completed if TVA wants to, not 

compelling them to but it would be a market decision if they want 

to? 

Mr. MENEZES. I am certainly willing to get with you and your office and other interested parties to understand this fully and to see 

if the Department needs to in any way be involved in it. 

Mr. BROOKS. And does the Department of Energy have any position on whether Nuclear Development, LLC, should have any access to any Department of Energy tax credits and/or loan guarantees with respect to the financing for this nuclear power plant, 

keeping in mind that federal taxpayers, TVA ratepayers, have already spent over $5 billion over three decades trying to get this facility operational? 

Mr. MENEZES. Yes, I’m not aware of any applications in our Loan 

Program Office at this time so—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, would you please look into that and get back 

to me? 

Mr. MENEZES. I will. 

Mr. BROOKS. Apparently, that is one of the issues with respect 

to the completion of the Bellefonte nuclear plant is that we can get 

that thing online and so we can produce about 2,000 jobs in the 

Jackson County area of Alabama. If you could look into these 

issues that I’ve raised and respond, I’d very much appreciate it. 

Mr. MENEZES. I will. Thank you. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBER. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized, 

Mr. Norman. 

Mr. NORMAN. This is for Mr. Dabbar. And I would just echo what 

Congressman Brooks said. Our district is similar to yours, the V.C. 

Summer Project, where it’s been abandoned, $10 billion public-private money, mainly private money, $1.9 billion loss with no return 

on it. It’s a huge problem in our State. 

But my question concerns the Savannah River Site. You know, 

it’s not in my district but it covers 198,344 acres, 310 square miles. 

It’s being held up on the Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative 
66 

project in Aiken. Can you shed some light on what the holdup is 

and what we can do to get this unlocked? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes, Congressman. We are in full support of that— 

of AMC. We know it’s—it would have a tremendous impact on the 

community. We think it has—it would have a very strong impact 

on technology and the future mission of SRS. 

In 2016, it was a leased structure. A financing structure was proposed. There was some feedback around the accounting associated 

with it. This is a very technical accounting topic. Just this week, 

we finalized the changes that we thought would accommodate 

OMB on the particular financing structure, and we resubmitted it. 

We’re waiting hopefully for relatively prompt feedback from them 

on what we think they have a good chance for approving. 

Mr. NORMAN. How do you define relatively prompt? 

Mr. DABBAR. We asked for it in the next month. 

Mr. NORMAN. Okay. Do you think we’ll have something within, 

let’s say, 45 days that we can rely on and take to them? 

Mr. DABBAR. I certainly hope so. It’s a high priority of ours. 

Mr. NORMAN. Perfect. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Kansas is recognized. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, thank you so much, Chairman. I want to 

talk about energy success stories, though, to kind of change the 

mood of the room. I represent one of the most energy-rich, energydiverse States in the union, Kansas, and we contribute to this concept of energy independence, which is a national security issue. 

And we’re blessed with some rich oilfields, natural gas. Those people are becoming more precise, more efficient in their efforts, and 

cleaner every day. 

We have more sunny days in Kansas than Florida does, and we 

think we have great potential for solar energy, but I want to lock 

in on wind energy for a second. Wind energy now represents about 

35 percent of the energy production in Kansas, and we’re now able 

to export energy. We’re happy to send that energy down to my 

friends in Texas and up to Chicago as well. 

I remember sitting in a Rotary meeting 25 years ago when the 

person that ran that—ran the local co-op for energy production 

said, ‘‘My gosh, wind energy will never work. It just—it doesn’t 

blow all the time, and we’ll never be able to solve the problems.’’ 

So now we have those windfarms pretty much across the State of 

Kansas, and as we know, the wind blows somewhere in Kansas 

most every day. And now, we’re building those interstate highways 

of being able to generate—being able to transport that energy down 

and out, which has been a big challenge for us. 

My people tell me that right now, we’re probably 30 percent more 

efficient with wind energy by just the divine of the turbine and the 

shears and stuff. I guess my first question for Secretary Menezes 

is what type of future do you see for wind energy and support of 

technology and development research in the wind energy sector? 

Mr. MENEZES. The future is bright for wind. You know, at NREL 

they are doing modeling right now to actually apply science to the 

turbulence in the placing and actually operation of these units to 

actually increase the efficiency capacity, for example, of those exist-
67 

ing units that are currently operational and in the future siting, so 

we’ll be able to have even more efficient siting of them. 

Also on the—wind has been such a big success story just for our 

manufacturing base. I mean, in the mid-’90s we really had no manufacturing whatsoever and now over 90 percent of the components 

are manufactured in the United States and they’re spread out all 

over the United States. 

You know, one of the components is the nacelle, and so we hope 

that while we import a lot of the component parts of the nacelle 

in the wind turbines that we’re hoping that with our labs we can 

actually be able to do more efficient manufacturing so that we can 

really just manufacture them here and not have to import them. 

So it’s very bright. And as you know, the labs did some initial 

breakthrough technology on the airfoils, which is why we’re able to 

achieve the increased efficiencies we have today. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, thanks for your continued support of the 

research there. 

My next question for Secretary Dabbar. We introduced a lowdose radiation bill not too long ago, and that research had been 

abruptly stopped by the Obama Administration. As a physician, I 

see more and more of my patients exposed to radiation, whether 

it’s a CT scan in the ER and just wonder if you can commit to support that reinvestment that we’re hoping to authorize some time 

for this low-dose radiation research? 

Mr. DABBAR. Yes. And—yes. As someone who’s gotten a lot of 

low-dose exposure in the nuclear power sector over the course of 

my life, I certainly support the need associated for low dose, and 

I certainly reviewed the bill that was proposed last time and know 

a little bit about the history of this at the Department before we 

were there. And should the appropriators here and authorizing 

committee move that forward, it is an important area, and we have 

resources to be able to restart that program if it is appropriated. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think I’ll finish up with just a question about 

battery technology if I could say what’s holding back solar energy 

and making wind energy even better is some research in the battery. And you kind of alluded to it. And I just can’t help but pontificate for a second and say that without a growing economy, none 

of this research happens, and I’m so proud that this economy— 

three quarters in a row with three percent GDP growth, maybe 

four percent this quarter, whether you want to build roads, bridges, 

you think education is important, if you think energy research is 

important, we need a strong economy, and I’m so proud that this 

country is moving back in that direction. 

Can any of you speak to what you see for battery storage power 

for the wind energy and solar energy of the future? 

Mr. MENEZES. No, again, the only upside, right our battery technology we have a variety of different options. We have those that 

are nearing market that will increase efficiency, and we have basic 

research that’s going on in our program offices and our labs that 

may come up with all new types of chemicals and types of batteries 

in the future. We have the Beyond Lithium program, for example. 

So we see a bright future, but we do see there’s a bit of urgency 

in here because really it’s the battery technology that will be the 

breakthrough technology that will certainly—with respect to elec-
68 

tricity distribution it will solve a lot of deciding problems that we 

have today, so we’re all looking forward to breakthroughs and commercialization of battery technology. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the 

Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional written comments and written questions from 

the Members. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Paul Dabbar 
71 

All funds have been released for obligation. As a result, GAO did not issue a formal report to 

Congress under the Impoundment Control Act. All funds have been made available, and will 

continue to be made available, consistent with the requirements of the Act. 

My understanding is that since his appointment as Director General of the ITER 

international fusion project about 3 years ago, Dr. Bigot and his team have made 

remarkable progress in improving the management of what may well be the most complex 

scientific project in the world. As you know, the U.S. played a leading role in pushing for 

the major personnel and management changes that have gotten this project back on track. 

Yet the last two budget requests from both the Obama and Trump Administrations for 

ITER have been a fraction of the DOE-approved estimates for what it will take to minimize 

the project's total cost to U.S. taxpayers and to maintain its current schedule. So I have a 

few questions I'd like to ask to help us all better understand the need for and the current 

status of this project. 

3. Could you provide us with a brief summary of the unique insights that the ITER 

international fusion project will provide for the development of a viable fusion reactor? 

Answer: In southern France, seven Members (China, European Union, India, Japan, South 

Korea, Russian Federation, and the U.S.) comprising 35 nations are collaborating to build the 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world's largest tokamak. 

ITER will be a magnetic fusion device designed to prove the scientific and technological 

feasibility of fusion as a large-scale energy source based on the same principles that power our 

Sun and the stars. The goal of ITER is to be the first fusion device to produce net energy (i.e., 

more than the energy injected into the plasma) and also to be the first fusion device to maintain 

fusion for long periods of time (300 to 3,000 seconds), all while controlling a plasma at !50 

million degrees Celsius, ten times hotter than the core of the Sun. If successful, ITER will be the 

first fusion device to test the integrated technologies, materials, and physics regimes necessary to 

demonstrate experimental viability for the potential commercial production of fusion-based 

electricity. 

a. Is there a reasonable path to a commercial fusion power plant that does not 

include building and operating a burning plasma experiment? 

Answer: Significant progress has been made with large magnetic fusion confinement 

experiments around the world. However, a larger and more powerful magnetic confinement 

device is needed to create the conditions expected in a fusion power plant (namely, a selfsustained "burning plasma" comprised of hot ionized deuterium and tritium gas) and to 

demonstrate its scientific and technical feasibility. 
72 

4. Do you agree that ITER's current leadership has done a very good job in addressing 

the project's past management challenges, and are you confident in their ability with 

adequate funding to maintain this progress? 

Answer: Director General Bernard Bigot has done an outstanding job addressing the ITER 

project's past missteps that had significantly increased the cost to the Members and extended the 

schedule beyond original expectations. As originally planned, ITER was expected to have a ten 

year construction phase, with "First Plasma" in eight years after the date; the ITER Joint 

Implementing Agreement was entered into force (October 2007), and then start the DeuteriumTritium (D-T) or "Burning Plasma" operations ten years later. With the recently Revised 

Baseline Schedule, First Plasma is now projected to be achieved in 2025, and the start ofD-T 

operations in 2035. These timeframes are long and have added significantly to the overall cost of 

the project for the Members. The Administration is reviewing the ITER project to determine 

whether this is a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 

An interim report released by the National Academies in December highlighted the myriad 

benefits of the ITER project o the U.S. fusion research community's scientific expertise and 

our industrial capacity, and it warns of frankly dire consequences to the ability of the U.S. 

to ever establish a domestically-based commercial fusion industry if we pulled out of the 

ITER project at this point. 

5. Is the Administration currently considering withdrawing from ITER, and if so, why 

would that make sense now given everything U.S. has successfully done to address the 

project's prior management issues and get it back on track? 

Answer: The Administration is conducting a complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy and 

continues to deliberate on future participation in ITER. 

6. Do you agree that DOE's most recent budget requests for ITER have been a fraction of 

what it will take to minimize the project's total cost to U.S. taxpayers and to maintain 

its current schedule? If so, how will you address this problem going forward? 

Answer: The U.S. Contributions to ITER project recently achieved 50% completion for what is 

termed "First Plasma." However, ITER is a complex scientific endeavor. Many of the needed 

facilities have yet to be built or completed; many of the components have yet to be built and 

shipped to the site; and, most importantly, this myriad of components and systems have yet to be 

installed, integrated with one another, and tested to determine if they will work as designed. As 

mentioned above in AS, the Administration is conducting a complete review of U.S. nuclear 

energy policy and continues to deliberate on future participation in ITER. 
73 

My understanding is that the international agreement which established ITER in 2006 

allows for any partner to withdraw, but that partner would still be responsible for its entire 

share of the construction costs. So if we withdrew, we would just be sending our 9 percent 

share of the costs to our former partners instead of spending most of it building 

components here, and have no guaranteed access to the facility or the intellectual property 

generated. 

7. Have I characterized this correctly? 

Answer: The JIA contains provisions on withdrawal conditions, along with the opportunity for 

consultation and engagement among the ITER Members. We will continue to work with the 

Members ofiTER as we await the results of the Administration's civilian nuclear energy review 

and what is proposed as the path forward for U.S. continued participation in ITER. 

8. Would you be able to comment on the possible implications of our withdrawal beyond 

financial obligations, such as how the U.S. would be viewed as a potential partner in 

future international scientific projects like the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility that 

will be built in Illinois and South Dakota? 

Answer: I am confident that the Administration decision on ITER will not significantly affect our 

on-going or future collaborations with our international colleagues. The U.S. builds some of the 

most sought-after scientific research facilities in the world, and has world-class scientists who 

also contribute significantly to international research facilities. However, the possible 

international repercussions will be fully assessed as part of the Administration's review and 

decision on continued U.S. participation in ITER. 
74 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Paul Dab bar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy 

Questions submitted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

In 2013, the National Academies released a report which found that several inertial fusion 

concepts, including the approaches taken by the National Ignition Facility and the Z Pulsed 

Power Facility, have enough technical promise to justify dedicated federal support for 

inertial fusion R&D relevant to energy, not just weapons reliability. However, while 

ARPA-E is currently supporting a 3-year program that is focused on developing a unique, 

specific concept called "magnetized target fusion", there is currently no program in the 

federal government which directly, officially supports inertial fusion research and 

technology development activities for energy production purposes on an ongoing basis. 

Further, since the release of this report, both the previous and now the current 

Administration have proposed to eliminate practically all of the activities in the Office of 

Science's Fusion Energy Sciences program that could make important contributions to 

inertial fusion research. 

That said, after going back and forth with the Obama Administration on this over a 

number of years, in 2016 I worked with Secretary Moniz directly to address this issue, and 

under his leadership the career professionals at the Department put together an assessment 

of the current status of federal support for inertial fusion energy and a set of potential 

action items. These included putting together an interagency working group and ultimately 

a strategic plan for the development of inertial fusion energy. Since then, of course, we've 

had a few personnel changes at DOE, but those career professionals are still there, and my 

understanding is that this is a quite nonpartisan issue that we have bipartisan interest in 

finally solving. 

1. Mr. Dabbar, do you agree that the recommendations of the National Academies report 

that I referenced for the development of inertial fusion for energy applications are still 

worth addressing? More broadly do you agree that we should find a way for strong, 

merit-reviewed proposals for inertial fusion energy research to be eligible for federal 

support? 

a. Will you commit to work with me to finally make this right? 

Answer: The struggles to achieve ignition at the National Ignition Facility demonstrate that the 

science underlying inertial fusion is not yet sufficiently understood. Hence the Administration 

does not at this time support large-scale investment by the Department of Energy's Office of 

Science in inertial fusion energy (IFE) development, and the investments by the Fusion Energy 
75 

Science program (FES) in IFE are appropriately limited. FES is supporting ongoing high-energydensity laboratory plasma research on various facilities, which continues to provide vital 

understanding of the scientific basis for IFE and an assessment of its requirements 
76 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

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

Questions submitted by Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

1. It is clear that batteries are an enabling technology and that we need fundamental 

breakthroughs in batteries to ensure a resilient grid and ubiquitous deployment of 

Electric Vehicles (EVs). Can you comment on the efforts at the Office of Science to 

support long-term battery research, the role of the National Labs like Argonne in 

my district, and the importance of continuing this type of research? 

Answer: The Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) in the Department of Energy's (DOE) 

Office of Science (SC) supports a range of fundamental, long-term scientific research that 

provides the foundation to solve the challenges for today's battery technologies and for nextgeneration energy storage. The topical efforts include materials and chemistry research on the 

mechanisms required for advances in lithium-ion batteries, capacitors, flow batteries for the grid, 

and a wide variety of new chemistries and architectures for next-generation energy storage. The 

funding modalities range from single-investigator university grants and multi-investigator 

laboratory projects to larger, multi-institutional team efforts such as Energy Frontier Research 

Centers (EFRC) and the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR). DOE's National 

laboratories play an important role in this research, bringing their concentrated expertise, cuttingedge equipment, and high-end computational resources to bear on these fundamental issues. 

Argonne National Laboratory is one of the key laboratories for fundamental research related to 

batteries; it leads JCESR and an EFRC, and is the home to facilities with unmatched capabilities 

for battery research such as the Advanced Photon Source. Other National Laboratories are also 

funded to support fundamental science of energy storage, including Lawrence Berkeley, 

Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, Sandia, and SLAC, and other BES-supported user 

facilities are essential in achieving these basic scientific insights. Additionally, the National 

Laboratories and their facilities have been integral in translating basic research on energy storage 

to commercialization of new battery technologies to help maintain a leadership position for the 

Nation. 
77 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

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

Question submitted by Rep. Elizabeth Esty, House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Teclmology 

Since its inception nearly forty years ago, the Department of Energy has served as one of 

the nation's first-ever innovation hubs. 

DOE-supported projects have also led to new discoveries that allow us to use coal, oil, and 

natural gas in cleaner and more efficient ways. 

Private industries in my district in Connecticut, such as United Technologies Corporation 

and FueiCell Energy, rely on Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) 

grants to invest in game-changing energy technologies that create jobs and grow 

businesses, not only in Connecticut, but across the nation. 

Connecticut's hydrogen and fuel cell supply chain employs 3,406 workers and contributes 

over $726 million in revenue and investment to the regional economy. 

Understanding the importance of ARPA-E funding, I was troubled that President Trump's 

budget proposal for 2018 sought to zero out funding to ARPA-E. Additionally, FuelCell 

Energy had to wait until May to receive official approval for a $3.1 million ARPA-E grant 

that was approved under the Obama Administration. 

1. Do you believe the private sector should have some input or role in determining 

DOE's budget? If so, what would that role look like? 

Answer: A few of the ways in which the Department of Energy (DOE) effectively engages with 

the private sector include: roundtables, workshops, and other meetings, peer reviews, publicprivate consortia, and funding opportunity announcements (FOAs). In both the Fiscal Year (FY) 

2018 and 2019 budget request, the Administration focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where 

the Federal role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. The Administration's budget 

reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies by fostering collaboration between National 

Laboratories, universities and companies. Through careful prioritization and ensuring that 

funding goes to the most promising research, DOE will continue to be a world-leading science 

and technology enterprise that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the 

Nation's security and prosperity. 
78 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

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

Questions submitted by Rep. Jacky Rosen, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Solar energy is an important and growing portion of our nation's energy consumption, not 

only because it is a clean and renewable energy source, but also because it has become costcompetitive with other types of energy. That's why I'm extremely troubled by President 

Trump's recent announcement to impose a 30 percent tariff on imported solar panels. This 

misguided decision threatens to hurt American workers, could force developers to walk 

away from projects they've invested in, and potentially undermines our long-term 

transition to sustainable energy sources. These tariffs are in addition to the dramatic cuts 

proposed by this Administration to DOE's solar technology program budget. I am very 

concerned that this consistent attack on solar energy will have a profound and negative 

impact on our nation's clean energy economy. 

J. What is the Department's justification for cutting solar energy research and 

development, and cutting 70 percent of the funding for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy? 

Answer: The Administration is committed to developing a wide range of energy resources 

through research and development, and believes that federal funding should prioritize basic and 

early-stage applied research. 

Solar energy technologies are an important source of electricity for our nation. The dramatic cost 

reductions for solar over the past ten years provide an opportunity tor Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)'s Solar Energy Technologies 

Office (SETO) to focus its efforts on the critical energy challenges of grid reliability, resilience, 

and integration, while continuing to drive cost reductions. SETO will continue to conduct earlystage research and development to advance solar technologies, while forging strong partnerships 

with the private sector to maximize the impact of federal funding. 

2. What effect do you think imposing tarijfs and cutting DOE programs will have on 

emerging solar companies' abilities to expand into new communities? What effect 

will this have on existing and future jobs? 

Answer: Local market conditions are a primary driver of the viability and cost-competitiveness 

of solar projects. While the Solar Foundation reported a slight decrease (3.8%) in solar jobs 

nationwide from 2016 to 2017, solar jobs increased in 29 states over the same period and 

included many states with emerging solar markets. 
79 

Yucca Mountain threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and the millions of 

Americans who live in the 44 states along the proposed transportation routes. In 2015, 

based on recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 

Future, Secretary of Energy Moniz announced that DOE would pursue a consent-based 

approach to site nuclear waste facilities. Unfortunately, this Administration has completely 

ignored this precedent and is trying to revive Yucca Mountain, even though the majority of 

Nevadans oppose the site. 

3. Has the Department of Energy, under this current Administration, considered a 

consent-based approach to storing nuclear waste? 

Answer: The Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 requests funding to continue the NRC licensing 

proceeding for a repository at Yucca Mountain and a robust interim storage program. The 

Department will evaluate both federal and non-federal interim storage system concepts and the 

FY 2018 Budget supports preliminary, non-site specific activities that may be relevant to either 

private or federal interim storage sites. The Department will seek input from stakeholders' 

when/if relevant to inform future decision-making. 

4. Will the Department consider how developing Yucca Mountain could hurt our local 

economy? 

Answer: The Repository Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), issued by DOE 

in 2008, evaluated the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed repository and the 

associated transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 

For the Repository, the SEIS evaluated potential changes to employment, population, housing, 

public services, and three economic measures (real personal disposable income, spending by 

state and local governments, and gross regional products). According to the SEIS, the project 

would result in increases to: employment, Gross Regional Product, real disposable personal 

income, and state and local government spending. The complete evaluation of the potential 

socioeconomic impacts including the potential for perceived risks are described in greater detail 

in the SEIS. 

DOE's Solar Ready Vets was launched in 2014 as a pilot program in partnership with the 

Department of Defense's SkiliBridge initiative. This program trained over 500 

transitioning military service personnel to enter the solar workforce. Currently, the Solar 

Ready Vets program is administered by the Solar Foundation, and it appears that DOE 

funding for the program ended last year. 

5. Has the Department ended its funding and support of the Solar Ready Vets 

program? If so, what was the rationale? Are there current military service 

personnel still participating? 

Answer: The Solar Ready Vets (SRV) program was a pilot that tested out a variety of concepts: 

the potential popularity of solar training among transitioning military personnel; how a program 

like this could work with the Department of Defense's SkillBridge program; and how best to 
80 

train military personnel in solar energy skills. The goal of a successful program is to be selfsustaining without further DOE support. In August 2017, The Solar Foundation (TSF) finished 

its role as the National Administrator of the SRV pilot program. The bases that participated in 

the pilot can choose to maintain their SRV training programs, and new bases may join as well. 

However, the programs at these bases now operate independently of DOE. DOE has not 

continued collecting data on participation since the end of the pilot program. 

DOE has reviewed the SRV pilot program and believes that there may be more effective 

strategies for connecting interested veterans to jobs in the solar industry. In the language 

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of2017, Congress directed DOE to provide 

$1 million in program funding to support solar training for veterans. 

Additionally, recently DOE announced up to $8.5 million in funding to improve and expand new 

projects in the solar industry that will pursue innovative workforce initiatives that prepare the 

industry for a digital future while also increasing the number of veterans and participants in the 

solar industry. DOE is currently working on an updated program that will be competed in 

accordance with relevant federal regulations. 
81 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

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

Questions submitted by Rep. Jerry McNerney, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

1. Is the Department of Energy prioritizing research into quantum computing? 

Answer: Yes, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request 

includes $105 million to support basic research in quantum information science (QIS), which 

includes quantum computing and quantum sensor technology, to address the emerging urgency 

of building the Nation's competency and competiveness in this area. DOE's QIS strategy builds 

on DOE's and its Office of Science's (SC) unique strengths, such as the capabilities, expertise 

and community resources that are resident in the DOE National Laboratory complex and adopts 

an approach that focuses on cross-cutting themes among SC's core programs. Furthermore, DOE 

is leveraging its framework for public-private partnerships to drive market opportunities in the 

quantum computing space, partnering with U.S. industry to deliver quantum computing cycles to 

DOE researchers. 

2. How do our current quantum computing capabilities compare to other nations, 

particularly China? What investments do we need to make in this field to ensure that 

our international competitiveness as well as our national security are not 

significantly at risk given the various potentially disruptive applications of these 

technologies? 

Answer: The Nation is faced with significant international competition in QIS. China, EU, UK, 

Canada, Australia and the Netherlands are main players in this field. Both China and the EU 

have announced plans to invest billions of dollars in QIS, and the UK already has a National 

Quantum Technologies Programme in place, both focusing more on technology development 

rather than basic research. Other countries with noteworthy capabilities and plans include 

Sweden, Russia, Japan, and possibly Iran although not much is known about them, its main 

strength appears to be a well-trained workforce. Our current programs lead the world in the areas 

of quantum sensing and quantum computation, but key weaknesses exist in areas such as 

quantum networking and communications and quantum algorithms. Furthennore, as U.S. 

industry begins to invest significantly in the space, our overall workforce and technological base 

for supporting quantum infonnation science and technology will require significant additional 

investment to maintain American competitiveness and ensure our long-term security needs can 

be met. These investments include workforce development, fundamental research, and support 

technologies to enable a healthy industry on the I 0 year horizon. 
82 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Paul Dab bar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy 

Questions submitted by Rep. Bill Foster, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

1. One of the biggest decisions the Department of Energy will face is assessing US 

participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, or 

ITER. As this decision is debated, is your working assumption that if the US 

withdraws from ITER, the funds budgeted for that program will be reapportioned, 

or rescinded? 

Answer: The Department of Energy (DOE) has made no such funding assumptions pending the 

Administration's review and decision on continued U.S. participation in ITER. Generally, the 

Department expects to continue to execute any currently available appropriated funds for the 

purpose intended, unless or until directed otherwise. 
83 

Responses by The Hon. Mark Menezes, 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Question submitted by Reo. Eddie Bernice Johnson Ranking Member House Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology 

I understand that in accordance with the statute that established ARPA-E, the agency's 

Director reports directly to the Secretary rather than either of you. However, ARPA-E's 

progress in advancing high-risk, high-reward technologies that range from energy storage, 

to heating and cooling, to advanced fission and fusion energy concepts could have 

significant impacts on the direction of the ongoing programs that you both oversee. 

1. What are you doing to ensure that the advance.~ made by ARPA-E's various projects 

and programs are sufficiently considered and coordinated with the Department's other 

relevant Office of Science and applied energy programs? 

Answer: The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) coordinates with The 

Department of Energy (DOE)'s applied offices and the Office of Science (SC) on the 

development of its programs and workshops. Technical staff from the applied offices and SC 

also routinely act as reviewers of ARPA-E's proposed projects and, conversely, ARPA-E 

technical staff act as reviewers of projects proposed to the applied offices. Moreover, ARPA-E 

hosted a coordination meeting with participants from all applied offices and SC in advance of the 

2018 open program funding opportunity to minimize duplication and maximize projects in white 

spaces those that are not currently explored by federal research programs or the private sector. 

As you likely know, in December the Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced 

that DOE had committed an illegal impoundment of$91 million in funding for ARPA-E, 

which violated the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Prior to 

this, GAO had not found an Impoundment Control Act violation in more than a decade. 

2. What are you doing to ensure that this type of political interference and gross 

mismanagement of taxpayer funds does not occur under your watch for any of the 

programs that you steward? 

Answer: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget request included a proposal to cancel $91 million in 

prior-year funds. As we waited for final enactment of the FY18 bill, the program did not obligate 

this funding, to avoid limiting Congressional prerogatives if it decided to rescind this funding. 

This action had no impact on funding for ongoing activities; final decisions on awards for new 

funding opportunities were temporarily delayed until a final bill was passed. 
84 

All funds have been released for obligation. As a result, GAO did not issue a formal report to 

Congress under the Impoundment Control Act. All funds have been made available, and will 

continue to be made available, consistent with the requirements of the Act. 

My understanding is that since his appointment as Director General of the ITER 

international fusion project about 3 years ago, Dr. Bigot and his team have made 

remarkable progress in improving the management of what may well be the most complex 

scientific project in the world. As you know, the U.S. played a leading role in pushing for 

the major personnel and management changes that have gotten this project back on track. 

Yet the last two budget requests from both the Obama and Trump Administrations for 

ITER have been a fraction of the DOE-approved estimates for what it will take to minimize 

the project's total cost to U.S. taxpayers and to maintain its current schedule. So I have a 

few questions I'd like to ask to help us all better understand the need for and the current 

status of this project. 

3. Could you provide us with a brief summary of the unique insights that the ITER 

international fusion project will provide for the development of a viable fusion reactor? 

Answer: In southern France, seven Members (China, European Union, India, Japan, South 

Korea, Russian Federation, and the U.S.) comprising 35 nations are collaborating to build the 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the world's largest tokamak. 

ITER will be a magnetic fusion device designed to prove the scientific and technological 

feasibility of fusion as a large-scale energy source based on the same principles that power our 

Sun and the stars. The goal of ITER is to be the first fusion device to produce net energy (i.e., 

more than the energy injected into the plasma) and also to be the first fusion device to maintain 

fusion for long periods of time (300 to 3,000 seconds), all while controlling a plasma at 150 

million degrees Celsius, ten times hotter than the core of the Sun. If successful, ITER will be the 

first fusion device to test the integrated teclmologies, materials, and physics regimes necessary to 

demonstrate experimental viability for the potential commercial production of fusion-based 

electricity. 

a. Is there a reasonable path to a commercial fusion power plant that does not 

include building and operating a burning plasma experiment? 

Answer: Significant progress has been made with large magnetic fusion confinement 

experiments around the world. However, a larger and more powerful magnetic confinement 

device is needed to create the conditions expected in a fusion power plant (namely, a selfsustained "burning plasma" comprised of hot ionized deuterium and tritium gas) and to 

demonstrate its scientific and technical feasibility. 
85 

4. Do you agree that ITER's current leadership has done a very good job in addressing 

the project's past management challenges, and are you confident in their ability with 

adequate funding to maintain this progress? 

Answer: Director General Bernard Bigot has done an outstanding job addressing the ITER 

project's past missteps that had significantly increased the cost to the Members and extended the 

schedule beyond original expectations. As originally planned, ITER was expected to have a ten 

year construction phase, with "First Plasma" in eight years after the date; the ITER Joint 

Implementing Agreement was entered into force (October 2007), and then start the DeuteriumTritium (D-T) or "Burning Plasma" operations ten years later. With the recently Revised 

Baseline Schedule, First Plasma is now projected to be achieved in 2025, and the start ofD-T 

operations in 2035. These timeframes are long and have added significantly to the overall cost of 

the project for the Members. The Administration is reviewing the ITER project to determine 

whether this is a good use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. 

An interim report released by the National Academies in December highlighted the myriad 

benefits of the ITER project o the U.S. fusion research community's scientific expertise and 

our industrial capacity, and it warns of frankly dire consequences to the ability of the U.S. 

to ever establish a domestically-based commercial fusion industry if we pulled out of the 

ITER project at this point. 

5. Is the Administration currently considering withdrawing from ITER, and if so, why 

would that make sense now given everything U.S. has successfully done to address the 

project's prior management issues and get it back on track? 

Answer: The Administration is conducting a complete review ofU.S. nuclear energy policy and 

continues to deliberate on future participation in ITER. 

6. Do you agree that DOE's most recent budget requestsfor ITER have been a fraction of 

what it will take to minimize the project's total cost to U.S. taxpayers and to maintain 

its current schedule? If so, how will you address this problem going forward? 

Answer: The U.S. Contributions to ITER project recently achieved 50% completion for what is 

termed "First Plasma." However, ITER is a complex scientific endeavor. Many of the needed 

facilities have yet to be built or completed; many of the components have yet to be built and 

shipped to the site; and, most importantly, this myriad of components and systems have yet to be 

installed, integrated with one another, and tested to determine if they will work as designed. As 

mentioned above in A5, the Administration is conducting a complete review of U.S. nuclear 

energy policy and continues to deliberate on future participation in ITER. 
86 

My understanding is that the international agreement which established ITER in 2006 

allows for any partner to withdraw, but that partner would still be responsible for its entire 

share of the construction costs. So if we withdrew, we would just be sending our 9 percent 

share of the costs to our former partners instead of spending most of it building 

components here, and have no guaranteed access to the facility or the intellectual property 

generated. 

7. Have I characterized this correctly? 

Answer: The JIA contains provisions on withdrawal conditions, along with the opportunity for 

consultation and engagement among the ITER Members. We will continue to work with the 

Members of!TER as we await the results of the Administration's civilian nuclear energy review 

and what is proposed as the path forward for U.S. continued participation in ITER. 

8. Would you be able to comment on the possible implications of our withdrawal beyond 

financial obligations, such as how the US. would be viewed as a potential partner in 

future international scientific projects like the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility that 

will be built in Illinois and South Dakota? 

Answer: I am confident that the Administration decision on ITER will not significantly affect our 

on-going or future collaborations with our international colleagues. The U.S. builds some of the 

most sought-after scientific research facilities in the world, and has world-class scientists who 

also contribute significantly to international research facilities. However, the possible 

international repercussions will be fully assessed as part of the Administration's review and 

decision on continued U.S. participation in ITER. 
87 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Question submitted by Rep. Mo Brooks, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

I. What is the average amount of time that it takes for a Loan Guarantee application 

to go from submission to final approval stages? 

a. What are some things that could be done to speed up the process? 

Answer: The authorizing legislation ( 42 USC Sec. 16511, et. seq. and 42 USC 170 13) makes 

available loan guarantees to a wide variety of new innovative energy infrastructure and 

manufacturing projects. Infrastructure technologies range from nuclear, coal, gas, transmission 

and renewable energy facilities and manufacturing facilities for advanced technology vehicles 

and vehicle components. 

Each loan application is a unique financing effort, especially because the authorizing legislation 

requires all qualifying projects to involve innovative technology. To provide an average time 

masks the complexities and may infer or establish unrealistic expectations. For example, small 

modular reactors for which our domestic designs have considerable advantages over those 

offered by other nations are first-of-a-kind engineering efforts. These technologies require much 

more developmental time, sometimes years, through the application phases, not only to await 

regulatory approvals, but to aligu financial agreements of all parties involved with the loan 

guarantee. Typically, timelines are determined by the applicants providing the statutorily 

required necessary information in a timely manner. 

We are constantly striving to improve all the Department of Energy (DOE) programs. DOE will 

continue to seek efficiencies and build upon lessons learned, and we will look to best-in-class 

industry practices to further improve processes. 

2. What steps is the Trump Administration taking to foster energy independence in 

the next generation? 

a. How much reliance on Nuclear Power production does this Administration 

determine is necessary to become energy independence in the next 

generation? 

Answer: In June 2017 the President called for and the Administration is executing "A complete 

review of U.S. nuclear energy policy [that] will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial 

energy resource." This Administration, from the President to Secretary Perry, to the Department 

of Energy staff, is committed to building a brighter future for nuclear energy. As we develop 

innovative advanced reactors, as well as support advancements in our existing fleet, we can 

ensure a clean, safe, secure, and reliable power source for our nation. By utilizing all forms of 

our nation's energy resources, we can achieve energy security and economic strength at home 

and energy dominance through exports to markets abroad. 
88 

3. Has anyone from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) contacted you or 

anyone else in the Department of Energy regarding Nuclear Development, LLC and 

the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in Hollywood, Alabama? 

a. As a follow up, has any official from OMB contacted any official within the 

Department of Energy in regards to certifying that a DOE loan guarantee for 

Nuclear Development, LLC would comply with Title III of Division C of the 

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 as amended by Section 408 of the 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009? 

Answer: The Department does not publicly comment on any specific aspects of a loan guarantee 

application, including whether an application has been received or the current status of the 

application, to protect business confidential information, trade secret information, and 

commercial interests of potential equity investors and other lending institutions. 
89 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy; Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Question submitted by Rep. Elizabeth Esty, House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

Since its inception nearly forty years ago, the Department of Energy has served as one of 

the nation's first-ever innovation hubs. 

DOE-supported projects have also led to new discoveries that allow us to use coal, oil, and 

natural gas in cleaner and more efficient ways. 

Private industries in my district in Connecticut, such as United Technologies Corporation 

and FuelCell Energy, rely on Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) 

grants to invest in game-changing energy technologies that create jobs and grow 

businesses, not only in Connecticut, but across the nation. 

Connecticut's hydrogen and fuel cell supply chain employs 3,406 workers and contributes 

over $726 million in revenue and investment to the regional economy. 

Understanding the importance of ARPA-E funding, I was troubled that President Trump's 

budget proposal for 2018 sought to zero out funding to ARPA-E. Additionally, FueiCell 

Energy had to wait until May to receive official approval for a $3.1 million ARPA-E grant 

that was approved under the Obama Administration. 

1. Do you believe the private sector should have some input or role in determining 

DOE's budget? If so, what would that role look like? 

Answer: A few of the ways in which the Department of Energy (DOE) effectively engages with 

the private sector include: roundtables, workshops, and other meetings, peer reviews, publicprivate consortia, and funding opportunity announcements (FOAs). In both the Fiscal Year (FY) 

2018 and 2019 budget request, the Administration focuses resources on early-stage R&D, where 

the Federal role is strongest, for energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy 

independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term. The Administration's budget 

reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fi.md later-stage research, development, and 

commercialization of energy technologies by fostering collaboration between National 

Laboratories, universities and companies. Through careful prioritization and ensuring that 

funding goes to the most promising research, DOE will continue to be a world-leading science 

and technology enterprise that generates the innovations that fulfill our missions ensuring the 

Nation's security and prosperity. 
90 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Question submitted by Rep. Clay Higgins, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

It will come as no surprise to you that that many on this committee, including myself 

believe that Washington governs best when Washington allows for more local control in the 

runniug of federal projects. This allows for a boot on the ground approach to 

accomplishing tasks and often more responsible spending of federal tax dollars. 

In regard to the DOE, this Committee has been supportive of moving more authority out of 

the D.C. beltway, and giving increased flexibility to the national labs to more efficiently 

accomplish DOE's research mission. 

1. How does the Department plan to assist with the implementation of recommendations 

to improve flexibility and streamline the national laboratory system based on the 

Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories 

(CRENEL) report? 

Answer: The Department of Energy (DOE) has continued the efforts of the National Laboratory 

Directors Council (NLDC) and the Laboratory Operations Board (LOB) as well as several joint 

subject matter level working groups, e.g., the National Laboratory Chief Operating Officers, the 

National Laboratory Chief Financial Officers, etc. to engage directly with DOE's National 

Laboratories. 

DOE has engaged the National Laboratory complex to further improve our management 

practices. The NLDC has submitted over two dozen recommendations over the past year to 

improve DOE operations at the National Laboratory sites. Most of these recommendations have 

been or are being addressed by the DOE LOB. Some examples of topics under consideration 

include: 1) changes to Contractor Human Resources requirements; 2) granting increased 

flexibility to M&O contractors in technology transfer arrangements; and 3) expansion of the 

SLAC Revolutionary Working Group Contract modification (described below) to additional 

DOE sites. 

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 is 

designed to increase trust between Federal and laboratory personnel, remove redundant 

requirements, and move decision making to the lowest possible level, including delegation from 

Federal to laboratory personnel where appropriate. These items were all key tenets of the 

CRENEL report. 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. 
91 

In April2017, DOE initiated expansion of the RWG model contract to other DOE National 

Laboratories, 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 of FY 2018. 

Additionally, all ofthc DOE's Program Offices have been directed to analyze whether these 

contract modifications would be appropriate to implement at their sites. 

One thing I have focused on during my time in Congress is grid security, aud one element 

that plays and important role in grid security is having diversity amongst our power 

sources. After decades of leading the world in nuclear reactor technology, it will come as 

no surprise to most of the people in this room when I say that the domestic nuclear 

industry is currently at an impasse. 

Various factors have gotten the industry where it is at today, with one notable one being 

the Obama administration's focus on supporting incumbent industries, not technologies of 

the future, including advanced nuclear electricity production. However today is a new day 

and the Trump Administration is committed to revitalizing the existing fleet while paving 

the way for widespread expansion of advanced technologies. 

Companies across the U.S. backed by over $1 billion in private capital are working on 

advanced reactor designs that promise a renewed focus on upgrading the American 

nuclear reactor fleet. These designs are cheaper, more flexible, and smaller than current 

designs, with additional safety and waste benefits. The key to unlocking this immense 

potential is advancing a focused public-private initiative that drives down costs and tackles 

the key performance and engineering challenges needed to bring breakthrough reactors 

technologies to the commercial marketplace. 

2. How will the Department support and partner with companies pursuing advanced 

nuclear design development going forward, given their importance to the diversity of 

our nation's energy production methods and thus our national security? 

Answer: The Department recognizes the need to reinvigorate and revitalize the U.S. nuclear 

industry to ensure that affordable and resilient nuclear power can remain a part of the domestic 

energy mix for decades to come. The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is currently supporting a 

number of programs specifically aimed at enabling industry to keep the existing fleet of nuclear 

power plants viable, conducting research and development on fuels, capabilities, and 

technologies that will improve nuclear plant operations in the future, and supporting the 

development of a number of advanced reactor technologies. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, the Department released an industry-focused funding opportunity 

announcement (FOA) for cost-shared, private-public technical partnerships supporting the earlystage development of advanced nuclear energy technologies. Through this FOA, NE is soliciting 

a broad scope of proposals for early-stage R&D supporting nuclear technology development that 

would assist the existing fleet of nuclear power plants in the U.S. and the development of 

advanced reactors by U.S. companies to improve costs. NE is reviewing the initial round of 
92 

proposals under this industry solicitation and plans to issue the first awards this spring. Investing 

in early-stage R&D will help enable the U.S. industry to develop and implement long-term 

solutions and ensure our country continues to benefit from this resilient and reliable energy 

source. 

Further, NE is supporting U.S. industry in the accelerated development of nuclear technologies 

by offering competitively-awarded vouchers through the Gateway for 

Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) Initiative to provide access to the 

Department's unique national laboratory expertise and through the Nuclear Science User 

Facilities (NSUF) to provide access to Idaho National Laboratory and NSUF partner 

experimental and computational capabilities. These GAIN and NSUF efforts will focus on 

supporting U.S. industry in accelerating their deployment of cross-cut technology areas such as 

advanced manufacturing, modeling and simulation, advanced sensors and instrumentation. 

3. Would you support orienting DOE's research programs to develop specific long-term 

goals for important energy technologies, such as advanced nuclear reactors? 

Answer: The Department is working closely with U.S. nuclear innovators to understand the 

remaining R&D challenges to bringing the next generation of advanced nuclear power into the 

marketplace. The Department is already working to strategically align its investments to support 

R&D in advanced reactor technologies and unique R&D capabilities at our national laboratories. 

We are focusing this R&D on early-stage, cross-cutting work that benefits this sector broadly, in 

order to catalyze the immense innovation already underway so that it can proceed to industry-led 

commercialization. All of these R&D efforts will reflect the proper role of the federal 

government in R&D and will be most effective when driven and guided by specific, industryinformed long-term objectives to ensure that U.S. innovators retain their leadership role in the 

global nuclear industry. 

4. Given the Department's focus on "doing more with less," would setting these types of 

long term goals for the technology ensure federal dollars are being efficiently utilized 

to meet goals important for U.S. innovation leadership? 

Answer: A renewed focus on aggressive, goal-driven early-stage R&D will help ensure that the 

Department applies its resources in areas with the greatest potential for benefits returned on those 

investments. Early-stage R&D will serve as a pipeline to maturation and eventual 

commercialization, with its benefits broadly available to industry innovators. Rapid development 

and commercialization of U.S. innovations will help the Nation to regain its technological and 

commercial leadership position in the global energy market. 
93 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Questions submitted by Rep. Jacky Rosen, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Solar energy is an important and growing portion of our nation's energy consumption, not 

only because it is a clean and renewable energy source, but also because it has become costcompetitive with other types of energy. That's why I'm extremely troubled by President 

Trump's recent announcement to impose a 30 percent tariff on imported solar panels. This 

misguided decision threatens to hurt American workers, could force developers to walk 

away from projects they've invested in, and potentially undermines our long-term 

transition to sustainable energy sources. These tariffs are in addition to the dramatic cuts 

proposed by this Administration to DOE's solar technology program budget. I am very 

concerned that this consistent attack on solar energy will have a profound and negative 

impact on our nation's clean energy economy. 

1. What is the Department's justification for cutting solar energy research and 

development, and cutting 70 percent of the funding for the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy? 

Answer: The Administration is committed to developing a wide range of energy resources 

through research and development, and believes that federal funding should prioritize basic and 

early-stage applied research. 

Solar energy technologies are an important source of electricity for our nation. The dramatic cost 

reductions for solar over the past ten years provide an opportunity for Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)'s Solar Energy Technologies 

Office (SETO) to focus its efforts on the critical energy challenges of grid reliability, resilience, 

and integration, while continuing to drive cost reductions. SETO will continue to conduct earlystage research and development to advance solar technologies, while forging strong partnerships 

with the private sector to maximize the impact of federal funding. 

2. What effect do you think imposing tariffs and cutting DOE programs will have on 

emerging solar companies' abilities to expand into new communities? What effect 

will this have on existing and future jobs? 

Answer: Local market conditions are a primary driver of the viability and cost-competitiveness 

of solar projects. While the Solar Foundation reported a slight decrease (3.8%) in solar jobs 

nationwide from 2016 to 2017, solar jobs increased in 29 states over the same period and 

included many states with emerging solar markets. 
94 

Yucca Mountain threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and the millions of 

Americans who live in the 44 states along the proposed transportation routes. In 2015, 

based on recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 

Future, Secretary of Energy Moniz announced that DOE would pursue a consent-based 

approach to site nuclear waste facilities. Unfortunately, this Administration has completely 

ignored this precedent and is trying to revive Yucca Mountain, even though the majority of 

Nevadans oppose the site. 

3. Has the Department of Energy, under this current Administration, considered a 

consent-based approach to storing nuclear waste? 

Answer: The Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 requests funding to continue the NRC licensing 

proceeding for a repository at Yucca Mountain and a robust interim storage program. The 

Department will evaluate both federal and non-federal interim storage system concepts and the 

FY 2018 Budget supports preliminary, non-site specific activities that may be relevant to either 

private or federal interim storage sites. The Department will seek input from stakeholders' 

when/if relevant to inform future decision-making. 

4. Will the Department consider how developing Yucca Mountain could hurt our local 

economy? 

Answer: The Repository Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), issued by DOE 

in 2008, evaluated the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed repository and the 

associated transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. 

For the Repository, the SEIS evaluated potential changes to employment, population, housing, 

public services, and three economic measures (real personal disposable income, spending by 

state and local governments, and gross regional products). According to the SEIS, the project 

would result in increases to: employment, Gross Regional Product, real disposable personal 

income, and state and local government spending. The complete evaluation of the potential 

socioeconomic impacts including the potential for perceived risks are described in greater detail 

in the SEIS. 

DOE's Solar Ready Vets was launched in 2014 as a pilot program in partnership with the 

Department of Defense's Skii!Bridge initiative. This program trained over 500 

transitioning military service personnel to enter the solar workforce. Currently, the Solar 

Ready Vets program is administered by the Solar Foundation, and it appears that DOE 

funding for the program ended last year. 

5. Has the Department ended its funding and support of the Solar Ready Vets 

program? If so, what was the rationale? Are there current military service 

personnel still participating? 

Answer: The Solar Ready Vets (SRV) program was a pilot that tested out a variety of concepts: 

the potential popularity of solar training among transitioning military personnel; how a program 

like this could work with the Department of Defense's SkillBridge program; and how best to 
95 

train military personnel in solar energy skills. The goal of a successful program is to be selfsustaining without further DOE support. In August 2017, The Solar Foundation (TSF) finished 

its role as the National Administrator of the SRV pilot program. The bases that participated in 

the pilot can choose to maintain their SRV training programs, and new bases may join as well. 

However, the programs at these bases now operate independently of DOE. DOE has not 

continued collecting data on participation since the end of the pilot program. 

DOE has reviewed the SRV pilot program and believes that there may be more effective 

strategies for connecting interested veterans to jobs in the solar industry. In the language 

accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Congress directed DOE to provide 

$1 million in program funding to support solar training for veterans. 

Additionally, recently DOE announced up to $8.5 million in funding to improve and expand new 

projects in the solar industry that will pursue innovative workforce initiatives that prepare the 

industry for a digital future while also increasing the number of veterans and participants in the 

solar industry. DOE is currently working on an updated program that will be competed in 

accordance with relevant federal regulations. 
96 

Æ 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Department of Energy: Management and Priorities" 

The Honorable Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy 

Questions submitted by Rep. Jerry McNerney. Committee on Science. Space. and Technology 

1. Is the Department of Energy prioritizing research into quantum computing? 

Answer: Yes, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request 

includes $105 million to support basic research in quantum information science (QIS), which 

includes quantum computing and quantum sensor technology, to address the emerging urgency 

of building the Nation's competency and competiveness in this area. DOE's QIS strategy builds 

on DOE's and its Office of Science's (SC) unique strengths, such as the capabilities, expertise 

and community resources that are resident in the DOE National Laboratory complex and adopts 

an approach that focuses on cross-cutting themes among SC's core programs. Furthermore, DOE 

is leveraging its framework for public-private partnerships to drive market opportunities in the 

quantum computing space, partnering with U.S. industry to deliver quantum computing cycles to 

DOE researchers. 

2. How do our current quantum computing capabilities compare to other nations, 

particularly China? What investments do we need to make in this field to ensure that 

our international competitiveness as well as our national security are not 

significantly at risk given the various potentially disruptive applications of these 

technologies? 

Answer: The Nation is faced with significant international competition in QIS. China, EU, UK, 

Canada, Australia and the Netherlands arc main players in this field. Both China and the EU 

have announced plans to invest billions of dollars in QIS, and the UK already has a National 

Quantum Technologies Programme in place, both focusing more on technology development 

rather than basic research. Other countries with noteworthy capabilities and plans include 

Sweden, Russia, Japan, and possibly Iran although not much is known about them, its main 

strength appears to be a well-trained workforce. Our current programs lead the world in the areas 

of quantum sensing and quantum computation, but key weaknesses exist in areas such as 

quantum networking and communications and quantum algorithms. Furthennore, as U.S. 

industry begins to invest significantly in the space, our overall workforce and technological base 

for supporting quantum information science and technology will require significant additional 

investment to maintain American competitiveness and ensure our long-term security needs can 

be met. These investments include workforce development, fundamental research, and support 

technologies to enable a healthy industry on the 10 year horizon.